Wikipedia Guide to Notability

Home , 2006 Winter Paralympics, DeaDBeeF, Dressage World Cup, Girl From Mars, Grammis, Hopman Cup

WIKIPEDIA NOTABILITY Notability can be a confusing topic when it comes to writing a Wikipedia article. This guide is intended to help those understand what it takes to have a Wikipedia page. Mike Wood Owner, Legalmorning.com

GUIDE TO NOTABILITY ON WIKIPEDIA

Understanding What It Takes To Have A Wikipedia Page

Contents Introduction: ...... 2 Notability In General ...... 3 Significant Coverage ...... 4 Reliable Sources...... 6 Independent of the Topic ...... 7 Additional Notability Guidelines ...... 8 Wikipedia Notability Guidelines in Detail: ...... 9

Understanding What It Takes To Have A Wikipedia Page

Introduction:

Hopefully you are reading this prior to creating your first Wikipedia article. After all, a Wikipedia article takes preparation and cannot simply be posted with making sure it meets guidelines. Too often people do not take the time to plan out their path to Wikipedia article creation and wind up getting their article deleted. All their hard work becomes wasted and they now face an uphill battle getting the article posted a second time.

The first guideline that is critical for ALL Wikipedia articles is “notability.” Notability is what makes something (or someone) “good” enough to have their own Wikipedia article. You will read many discussions on talk pages and deletion discussions about a topic simply not being “notable” or “doesn’t meet notability guidelines.” This is a Wikipedia editor’s way of saying that the topic simply isn’t “good” enough to be included in the world’s largest encyclopedia.

If you are taking the time to read this guide, you are going to understand notability better than most Wikipedia editors do. As such, your likelihood of being successful with creating a Wikipedia article will increase.

As a disclaimer, I must tell you that I do not work for, nor am I affiliated with, the Wikimedia Foundation. This is the non-profit group that runs Wikipedia and its sister sites.

I operate a Wikipedia editing service from my website Legalmorning.com where I also give tips and advice to those who want to create Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia has become so convoluted with rules over the last decade that it has become nearly impossible for people to enjoy editing, and difficult for newcomers to feel welcome enough to stick around. As such, the number of volunteer editors continues to decline.

The decline of volunteer editors and the bureaucracy of established Wikipedia editors has created a niche market for my service. However, I try to spend most of my time helping others learn how to create articles so they can do it themselves. After all, learning how to edit Wikipedia is more beneficial than paying me to create your article. Of course……….and here comes the sales pitch……….I will gladly accept your project if your topic is notable enough.

Finally, you must keep in mind that I am not the ultimate authority on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia community of editors as a whole (which includes you) have that say. Wikipedia is governed by consensus so guidelines change based on consensus, as do the interpretation of those guidelines. This guide here will help you through the process of understanding notability, but it is ultimately up to you to decide if you feel a topic is notable.

Understanding What It Takes To Have A Wikipedia Page

Notability In General

So, what makes something notable?

Well, notability generally comes from references. As a rule of thumb, notability is established when the topic has “significant coverage” in “reliable sources” that are “independent” of the topic. This is sometimes referred to as Wikipedia’s “Golden Rule.”

The statement above is all you need to remember. Once you understand what each term means in regards to Wikipedia, you will easily be able to tell if a topic is notable enough.

I put this guide together as notability is commonly misunderstood, both by newbie and experienced editors. Wikipedia’s guidelines on notability are long and difficult to understand. This guide breaks things down into easily understood terms that anyone can understand. After all, you just want to create a Wikipedia article, not create a flux capacitor (yes, I aged myself with the Back to the Future reference).

However, if you are a bookworm and like to read volumes of rules and guidelines, I have included all Wikipedia guidelines on notability at the end of this guide. Feel free to read them, study them, burn them, or whatever.

Can you believe I actually found a free use image of the flux capacitor? How about that? Thanks to Shane K for taking the time to upload it to his Flickr account.

Understanding What It Takes To Have A Wikipedia Page

Significant Coverage

Significant coverage means that the topic is covered by numerous sources and those sources cover the topic “in-depth.”

Here’s an example:

Let’s assume we are checking for in-depth coverage of the company “The Honest Kitchen,” an organic dog food supplier. There are plenty of references out there which means it has received significant coverage, but which ones can actually be used for notability (as they cover the company “in-depth”)?

There are two articles that I looked at to demonstrate Wikipedia’s definition of in-depth.

The first is a June 15, 2015 article in the Daily Herald. The article name is “Culver’s, Pet Supplies Plus host 4th ‘Pets-a-Palooza’ fundraiser, adoption event.” If you look at the image from the article below, you will see that The Honest Kitchen is talked about; however, it is only a mention of their participation. This is referred to as a “brief mention.” While it can be used as a reference to show they participated in the event, it cannot be taken into account for notability.

If all the sources you find on The Honest Kitchen are brief mentions such as the above, this will not meet the definition of “significant coverage” as there is nothing that talks about the company in-depth.

Understanding What It Takes To Have A Wikipedia Page

However, let’s take a look at the second example:

This article is from Forbes. The article title is “Does Your Dog Eat Organic? Meet The ‘Human Grade’ Pet Food Startup.” This article talks in depth about organic dogfood (which coincidentally is what The Honest Kitchen does. Good chance this one will talk about them).

In fact, you can see below that not only does it mention them, the majority of the article is a feature about the company itself. It details who they are, what they do, and lays out some of the company’s history.

This is the type of article that shows notability. Now, there is no set number of articles needed to show notability. As such, I would advise finding as many as you can. Obviously, the more articles you have that talk about the topic in-depth, the more you can show that the topic is notable.

Understanding What It Takes To Have A Wikipedia Page

Reliable Sources

Reliable Sources are something that are debated on a daily basis by Wikipedians. Basically, a source is considered reliable if it is from a published source that is trusted. This means that the publication must have editorial control over its content (e.g., fact checkers) and it must be known as being reliable.

As a general rule, simply familiarize yourself with sources used in other articles. Examples of reliable sources include:

The New York Times The Wall Street Journal Time Magazine The USA Today

Topics can also dictate what is considered reliable. For instance, medical articles generally do not allow for references from anything other than peer reviewed medical journals. This means that although The New York Times may talk about a new breakthrough medical treatment, the Wikipedia article about the treatment will generally only use published studies on the treatment, not The New York Times Article.

If you have a question about a source and whether it is reliable, there is a noticeboard where you can go and pose the questions. Simply follow this link, create a new topic, and ask if a specific link is reliable. You will receive numerous responses from editors who patrol that page on a regular basis.

There is a general checklist that Wikipedia has put together to help you determine if a source is reliable.

So, familiarize yourself with the sources generally used in Wikipedia, use the checklist here, and consult the noticeboard with any questions about a specific source that you located.

Understanding What It Takes To Have A Wikipedia Page

Independent of the Topic

Being “independent” is difficult to understand, especially for those new to Wikipedia. However, it is at the core of Wikipedia and must be followed in order to maintain its integrity. Simply put, a self-published source is not to be used for notability. There are many times when a self-published source can be used (such as using a company website to source where the headquarters are located), but never for purpose of notability.

Self-published sources can include the following:

 Official websites  Social media  Official blog  Press releases

If you want to establish notability with a press release, you are barking up the wrong tree. The article you create will be quickly deleted as the press release is not considered independent of the topic.

As with many other Wikipedia guidelines, “independence” can vary depending on the topic. Wikipedia provides the following examples:

Here is why it is difficult for newbies to understand. They see self-published sources used all the time in Wikipedia which gives a false perception that they are acceptable. In fact, self-published sources ARE acceptable in Wikipedia, but not for establishing notability. So, you will find social media profiles, press releases, and company websites cited everywhere on Wikipedia, but if they are being used for notability purposes, chances are the topic isn’t notable enough for Wikipedia and is likely to be deleted.

Understanding What It Takes To Have A Wikipedia Page

Additional Notability Guidelines

Now that you understand the “general notability guidelines,” we need to go through the various notability guidelines specific to each topic. Thought we were done didn’t you?

These additional guidelines are set up to help editors choose which topics are notable for specific fields. For instance, a different set of notability guidelines apply to “schools” than do “musicians.” In fact, most schools that are equivalent to high school or above are considered defacto notable as long as you can find a reference to prove it exists. This is a large contrast to guidelines for biographies, which are the most stringent notability guidelines on Wikipedia.

I would advise you to consult with the specific guideline on the topic you are writing about before you attempt to publish your article. Here are links for quick reference:

 Academics  Astronomical objects  Books  Events  Films  Geographic features  Music  Numbers  Organizations and companies  People  Sports and athletics  Web content

Understanding What It Takes To Have A Wikipedia Page

Wikipedia Notability Guidelines in Detail:

The following is a detailed description of all guidelines as taken from Wikipedia. These guidelines are subject to change from time to time, but they have generally held the same over the last couple of years. As stated previously, I would advise that you consult with the notability guideline for the specific topic you are writing about prior to publishing your article.

Contents

1 Wikipedia:Notability 1 1.1 General notability guideline ...... 1 1.2 Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article ...... 2 1.3 Article content does not determine notability ...... 2 1.4 Notability requires veriﬁable evidence ...... 2 1.4.1 Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article 2 1.5 Notability is not temporary ...... 3 1.6 Whether to create standalone pages ...... 3 1.7 Why we have these requirements ...... 4 1.8 Common circumstances ...... 5 1.8.1 Self-promotion and publicity ...... 5 1.8.2 Events ...... 5 1.8.3 Stand-alone lists ...... 5 1.8.4 Fringe topics ...... 5 1.9 Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines ...... 6 1.10 See also ...... 6 1.11 Notes ...... 7

2 Wikipedia:Notability (academics) 8 2.1 Criteria ...... 8 2.2 General notes ...... 9 2.3 Speciﬁc criteria notes ...... 9 2.4 Citation metrics ...... 12

3 Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects) 14 3.1 Basic notability ...... 14 3.1.1 No inherent notability ...... 14 3.1.2 No inherited notability ...... 15 3.2 Criteria ...... 15 3.3 Failing all criteria ...... 16

i ii CONTENTS

3.4 Special cases ...... 16 3.4.1 Failing basic criteria but possibly helpful in another article or list ...... 16 3.4.2 Failure to explain the subject’s notability ...... 16 3.4.3 Insuﬃcient sources ...... 17 3.5 Examples ...... 17 3.5.1 Dealing with minor planets ...... 17 3.5.2 Objects named after famous individuals or characters ...... 18 3.6 See also ...... 18 3.7 Notes ...... 18

4 Wikipedia:Notability (books) 19 4.1 Coverage notes ...... 19 4.2 Criteria ...... 20 4.2.1 Other considerations ...... 20 4.3 Derivative articles ...... 21 4.4 Resources ...... 22 4.5 See also ...... 22 4.6 Notes ...... 23

5 Wikipedia:Notability (events) 24 5.1 Background ...... 24 5.2 Inclusion criteria ...... 24 5.2.1 The event ...... 25 5.2.2 The coverage ...... 25 5.3 Other circumstances ...... 26 5.3.1 Routine coverage ...... 26 5.3.2 Sensationalism ...... 27 5.3.3 Criminal acts ...... 27 5.3.4 People notable for only one event ...... 27 5.4 Breaking news ...... 27 5.4.1 Don't rush to create articles ...... 27 5.4.2 Don't rush to delete articles ...... 28 5.4.3 Wikinews ...... 28 5.5 Alternatives to deletion ...... 28 5.6 See also ...... 28 5.7 Notes ...... 29

6 Wikipedia:Notability (ﬁlms) 30 6.1 General principles ...... 30 CONTENTS iii

6.2 Reliable sources ...... 30 6.3 Other evidence of notability ...... 31 6.4 Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films ...... 32 6.5 Resources ...... 32 6.6 See also ...... 32 6.7 Notes ...... 32 6.8 Relevant debates ...... 33

7 Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) 34 7.1 Scope ...... 34 7.2 Sources ...... 34 7.3 Geographic regions, areas and places ...... 34 7.4 Buildings and objects ...... 35 7.5 Roadways ...... 35 7.6 No inherited notability ...... 35 7.7 See also ...... 35

8 Wikipedia:Notability (music) 37 8.1 Criteria for musicians and ensembles ...... 37 8.2 Criteria for composers and lyricists ...... 38 8.3 Others ...... 39 8.4 Recordings ...... 39 8.4.1 Albums ...... 40 8.4.2 Singles ...... 40 8.4.3 Unreleased material ...... 40 8.5 Songs ...... 40 8.6 Concert tours ...... 41 8.7 Resources ...... 41 8.8 If the subject is not notable ...... 41 8.9 Notes ...... 42

9 Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) 43 9.1 Notability of kinds of numbers ...... 43 9.2 Notability of sequences of numbers ...... 44 9.3 Notability of speciﬁc individual numbers ...... 44 9.3.1 Integers ...... 44 9.3.2 Irrational numbers ...... 45 9.4 Notability of lists of numbers and categories ...... 45 9.5 Rationale ...... 46 iv CONTENTS

9.6 See also ...... 46

10 Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) 47 10.1 Decisions based on veriﬁable evidence ...... 47 10.1.1 No inherent notability ...... 47 10.1.2 No inherited notability ...... 48 10.2 Primary criteria ...... 48 10.2.1 Depth of coverage ...... 48 10.2.2 Audience ...... 49 10.2.3 Independence of sources ...... 49 10.2.4 Illegal conduct ...... 49 10.3 Special note: advertising and promotion ...... 50 10.4 Alternate criteria for speciﬁc types of organizations ...... 50 10.4.1 Non-commercial organizations ...... 50 10.4.2 Schools ...... 51 10.4.3 Commercial organizations ...... 51 10.4.4 Products and services ...... 52 10.5 If it’s not notable ...... 52 10.6 See also ...... 52 10.7 Notes ...... 53

11 Wikipedia:Notability (people) 54 11.1 Basic criteria ...... 54 11.2 Additional criteria ...... 55 11.2.1 Any biography ...... 55 11.2.2 Academics ...... 55 11.2.3 Creative professionals ...... 55 11.2.4 Crime victims and perpetrators ...... 55 11.2.5 Entertainers ...... 56 11.2.6 Military personnel ...... 56 11.2.7 Politicians ...... 57 11.2.8 Sports personalities ...... 57 11.3 Invalid criteria ...... 57 11.4 Failing all criteria ...... 57 11.5 Special cases ...... 58 11.5.1 Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria ...... 58 11.5.2 Failure to explain the subject’s notability ...... 58 11.5.3 Insuﬃcient sources ...... 58 11.6 People notable for only one event ...... 58 CONTENTS v

11.7 Lists of people ...... 59 11.8 Family ...... 59 11.9 Articles on Wikipedians ...... 59 11.10See also ...... 60 11.11Notes ...... 60

12 Wikipedia:Notability (sports) 62 12.1 Applicable policies and guidelines ...... 62 12.2 Basic criteria ...... 62 12.3 Professional sports persons ...... 63 12.3.1 American football/Canadian football ...... 63 12.3.2 Association football ...... 63 12.3.3 Athletics/track & ﬁeld and long-distance running ...... 63 12.3.4 Australian rules football ...... 65 12.3.5 Badminton ...... 65 12.3.6 Baseball ...... 65 12.3.7 Basketball ...... 66 12.3.8 Boxing ...... 66 12.3.9 Cricket ...... 66 12.3.10 Curling ...... 67 12.3.11 Cycling ...... 67 12.3.12 Equestrian sport ...... 68 12.3.13 Figure skating ...... 68 12.3.14 Golf ...... 69 12.3.15 Gymnastics ...... 70 12.3.16 Horse racing ...... 70 12.3.17 Ice hockey ...... 71 12.3.18 Kickboxing ...... 72 12.3.19 Mixed martial arts ...... 72 12.3.20 Motorsports ...... 72 12.3.21 Rodeo ...... 73 12.3.22 Rugby league ...... 73 12.3.23 Rugby union ...... 73 12.3.24 Sumo ...... 74 12.3.25 Tennis ...... 74 12.3.26 Triathlon ...... 74 12.4 Amateur sports persons ...... 75 12.4.1 College athletes ...... 75 12.4.2 Gaelic games ...... 75 vi CONTENTS

12.4.3 High school and pre-high school athletes ...... 75 12.5 Organizations and games notability ...... 75 12.5.1 Teams ...... 75 12.5.2 Olympic and Paralympic Games ...... 76 12.5.3 Individual seasons ...... 76 12.5.4 Individual games or series ...... 76 12.5.5 Rivalries ...... 77 12.6 Research links ...... 77 12.7 Notes ...... 77

13 Wikipedia:Notability (web) 79 13.1 Decisions based on veriﬁable evidence ...... 79 13.1.1 No inherent notability ...... 80 13.1.2 No inherited notability ...... 80 13.2 Criteria ...... 80 13.3 If the content is not notable ...... 80 13.4 See also ...... 81 13.5 Notes ...... 81 13.6 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses ...... 82 13.6.1 Text ...... 82 13.6.2 Images ...... 86 13.6.3 Content license ...... 86 Chapter 1

Wikipedia:Notability

This page is an article notability guideline. For the neutrality policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For Notiﬁca- tions, see WP:NOTIFS. For article footnotes, see WP:NOTES. For other uses, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Too soon. "WP:IMPORTANCE" redirects here. You may be looking for WP:IMPORTANT, which was replaced by this guideline.

On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be veriﬁable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia’s concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or “worthy of notice”. Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below. A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-speciﬁc guideline listed in the box on the right; and 2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia’s policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Veriﬁability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.

1.1 General notability guideline

If a topic has received signiﬁcant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

• “Significant coverage” addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1] • “Reliable” means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

1 2 CHAPTER 1. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY

• “Sources”[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. • “Independent of the subject” excludes works produced by the article’s subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject’s website are not considered independent.[4] • “Presumed” means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a standalone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5]

If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some veriﬁable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.

1.2 Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article

The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. For additional information about list articles, see Notability and lists and Lead and selection criteria.

1.3 Article content does not determine notability

Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject’s notability.

1.4 Notability requires veriﬁable evidence

The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.

1.4.1 Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article

The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article or deletion, or casting a !vote based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to 1.5. NOTABILITY IS NOT TEMPORARY 3 attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article’s subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. However, once an article’s notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.

1.5 Notability is not temporary

Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of “significant coverage” in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time, a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, articles may be proposed for deletion or recreated months or even years after being earlier considered. In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Just as a lagging economic indicator indicates what the economy was doing in the past, a topic is “notable” in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already “taken notice of it”. As such, brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability, while sustained coverage would be, as described by notability of events.

1.6 Whether to create standalone pages

Further information: Wikipedia:Summary style, Wikipedia:Content forking, Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia: Merging

When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Some- times, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic. Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon speciﬁc considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes. Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia, and so the amount of content and details should not be limited by concerns about space availability.

• Does other information provide needed context? Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page (Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012#Other initiatives and Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#International trip, for example). Other times, standalone pages are well justiﬁed (as with President of the United States as well as standalone biographies of every individual President). One should particularly consider due and undue weight. Fringe theories, for example, may merit standalone pages but have undue weight on a page about the mainstream concept. • Do related topics provide needed context? Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page (as at Music of the Final Fantasy VII series). Other times, when many similar notable topics exist, it is impractical to collect them into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. In that case, a viable option is creating a new list or category for the broader topic and linking to the individual articles from it (as with Category:Restaurants in New York City). 4 CHAPTER 1. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY

• What sourcing is available now? Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub. On the other hand, an article may be a stub even though many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet. Such a short page is better expanded than merged into a larger page (see also the essays Wikipedia:Every snowﬂake is unique and Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill). Sometimes, when information about a future event is scarce, coverage may instead be better suited to a larger encompassing article (see also Wikipedia:CRYSTAL). Other times, a future event may clearly be suitable for a standalone page before it happens (such as the 2020 Summer Olympics).

Subject-speciﬁc notability guidelines and WikiProject advice pages may provide information on how to make these editorial decisions in particular subject areas. When a standalone page is created, it can be spun oﬀ from a broader page. Conversely, when notable topics are not given standalone pages, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to di- rect readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them (see also Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap).

1.7 Why we have these requirements

Editors apply notability standards to all subjects to determine whether the English language Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article on that subject. The primary purpose of these standards is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies.

• We require “signiﬁcant coverage” in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a deﬁnition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. (See the advice below.)

• We require the existence of “reliable sources” so that we can be conﬁdent that we're not passing along random gossip, perpetuating hoaxes, or posting indiscriminate collections of information.

• We require that all articles rely primarily on “third-party” or “independent sources” so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization.

• We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources.

• We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author’s point of view. This is also why multiple publications by the same person or organization are considered to be a single source for the purpose of complying with the “multiple” requirement.

• We require editors to use their judgment about how to organize subjects so that we have neither long, bloated articles nor articles so narrow that they cannot be properly developed. Editors may decide that it is better for readers to present a narrow subject as part of a broader one. For example, editors normally prefer to merge information about translations of books into the larger subject of the original book, because in their editorial judgment, the merged article is more informative and more balanced for readers and reduces redundant information in the encyclopedia. (For ideas on how to deal with material that may be best handled by placing it in another article, see WP:FAILN.)

Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justiﬁed under the general notability criteria. They do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (i.e., all disambiguation pages and some lists). 1.8. COMMON CIRCUMSTANCES 5

1.8 Common circumstances

1.8.1 Self-promotion and publicity

Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability: Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other inﬂuence by people connected to the topic matter. Independent sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written; see Wikipedia:Autobiography for discussion of neutrality concerns of self-published sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they are not a measure of the attention a subject has received.

1.8.2 Events

Main page: Wikipedia:Notability (events)

Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage. In some cases, notability of a controversial entity (such as a book) could arise either because the entity itself was notable, or because the controversy was notable as an event—both need considering.

1.8.3 Stand-alone lists

Further information: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists) § Selection criteria See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists § Adding individual items to a list

Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as “List of Xs” or “Xs”) is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles. There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as “Lists of X of Y”) or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross- categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulﬁll recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.

1.8.4 Fringe topics

For guidance on Fringe topics, see WP:FRINGE. 6 CHAPTER 1. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY

1.9 Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines

Topics that do not meet this criterion are not retained as separate articles. Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages, while non-notable topics without such merge targets are generally deleted. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. If an article fails to cite suﬃcient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:

• Ask the article’s creator or an expert on the subject[6] for advice on where to look for sources.

• Place a {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors.

• If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article’s veriﬁable content into a broader article providing context.[7] Otherwise, if deleting:[8]

• If the article meets our criteria for speedy deletion, one can use a criterion-speciﬁc deletion tag listed on that page.

• Use the {{prod}} tag for articles which do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but are uncontroversial deletion candidates. This allows the article to be deleted after seven days if nobody objects. For more information, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion.

• For cases where you are unsure about deletion, believe others might object, or another editor has already objected to a previous proposed deletion, nominate the article for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for seven days.

For articles on subjects that are clearly not notable, then deletion is usually the most appropriate response, although other options may help the community to preserve any useful material.

1.10 See also

• An extensive set of subject-specific guideline pages (SSGs) for different aspects of notability can be found at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines, with subject specific essays and proposed guidelines at Category:Wikipedia notability.

• Wikipedia’s article on Notability in Wikipedia.

• For commentary and discussion of this guideline, see Wikipedia:Essays in a nutshell/Notability and Category: Wikipedia essays on notability.

• Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent, an essay on the difference between first-person, first-party, and primary sources.

• Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources

• Wikipedia:Viability of lists

• Wikipedia:Search engine test [cf. Google (verb) ?]

• Wikipedia:Relevance of content

• Wikipedia:Categorization#Defining 1.11. NOTES 7

1.11 Notes

[1] Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). “Tough love child of Kennedy”. The Guardian. In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.) is plainly trivial.

[2] Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reﬂects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides suﬃcient detail for a comprehensive article.

[3] Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or diﬀerent headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing diﬀerent articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.

[4] Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources for handling of such situations.

[5] Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

[6] Sometimes contacting the subject of a biography or the representative of a subject organization will yield independent source material. Of course we have to be careful to observe and evaluate independence. You might also see if there is a Wikipedia project related to the topic, and ask for help there.

[7] For instance, articles on minor characters in a work of ﬁction may be merged into a “list of minor characters in ..."; articles on schools may be merged into articles on the towns or regions where schools are located; relatives of a famous person may be merged into the article on the person; articles on persons only notable for being associated with a certain group or event may be merged into the main article on that group or event.

[8] Wikipedia editors have been known to reject nominations for deletion that have been inadequately researched. Research should include attempts to ﬁnd sources which might demonstrate notability, and/or information which would demonstrate notability in another manner. Chapter 2

Wikipedia:Notability (academics)

"WP:ACADEMIC" redirects here. For a list of academic studies of Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Academic studies of Wikipedia. The Deletion Sorting Project has a list of deletion of articles related to academics and educators at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators.

This guideline, sometimes referred to as the professor test, is meant to reﬂect consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements. For the purposes of this guideline, an academic is someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education, and academic notability refers to being known for such engagement.

• Most academics are or have been faculty members (professors) at colleges or universities. Also, many academics hold or have held academic or research positions in various academic research institutes (such as NIH, CNRS, etc.). However, academics, in the sense of the above deﬁnition, may also work outside academia (e.g., in industry, ﬁnancial sector, government, as a clinical physician, as a practicing lawyer, etc.) and their primary job does not have to be academic in nature if they are known for their academic achievements; conversely, if they are notable for their primary job, they do not have to be notable academics to warrant an article.

• School teachers at the secondary education level, sometimes also called professors, are not presumed to be academics and may only be considered academics for the purposes of this guideline if they are engaged in substantial scholarly research and are known for such research. They are rather evaluated by the usual rules for notability in their profession.

• See professor for more information about academic ranks and their meanings. Note that academic ranks are different in diﬀerent countries.

This guideline is independent from the other subject specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP: AUTH etc.: it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines. Conversely, if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her possible failure to meet other subject specific notability guidelines is irrelevant.

2.1 Criteria

Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is veriﬁable. Before applying these criteria, see the General notes and Speciﬁc criteria notes sections, which follow.

8 2.2. GENERAL NOTES 9

1. The person’s research has made signiﬁcant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).

4. The person’s academic work has made a signiﬁcant impact in the area of higher education, aﬀecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or “Distinguished Professor” appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.

9. The person is in a ﬁeld of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the ﬁne arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

2.2 General notes

• It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. However, once notability has been established through independent sources, non-independent sources, such as oﬃcial institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details.

• The criteria above are sometimes summed up in an “Average Professor Test”. Put simply: when judged against the average impact of a researcher in his or her ﬁeld, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the ﬁeld?

• Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule, exceptions may well exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable.

2.3 Speciﬁc criteria notes

1. The person’s research has made signiﬁcant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. 10 CHAPTER 2. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (ACADEMICS)

• See also notes to Criterion 2, some of which apply to Criterion 1 as well.

• The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person’s work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account.

• To count towards satisfying Criterion 1, citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books. • In some disciplines there are review publications that review virtually all refereed publications in that discipline. For example, in mathematics, Mathematical Reviews, also known as MathSciNet, and Zentralblatt MATH fall into that category. The mere fact that an article or a book is reviewed in such a publication does not serve towards satisfying Criterion 1. However, the content of the review and any evaluative comments made there may be used for that purpose. • Generally, more experimental and applied subjects tend to have higher publication and citation rates than more theoretical ones. Publication and citation rates in humanities are generally lower than in sciences. Also, in sciences most new original research is published in journals and conference proceedings whereas in humanities book publications tend to play a larger role (and are harder to count without access to oﬄine libraries). The meaning of “substantial number of publications” and “high citation rates” is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations used by major research institutions in the awarding of tenure.

• Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question.

• There are other considerations that may be used as contributing factors (usually not suﬃcient individually) towards satisfying Criterion 1: signiﬁcant academic awards and honors (see below); service on editorial boards of scholarly publications; publications in especially prestigious and selective academic journals; publication of collected works; publication of an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person; special conferences dedicated to honor academic achievements of a particular person; naming of academic awards or lecture series after a particular person; and others.

• For the purposes of partially satisfying Criterion 1, signiﬁcant academic awards and honors may include, for example: major academic awards (they would also automatically satisfy Criterion 2), highly selective fellowships (other than postdoctoral fellowships); invited lectures at meetings of national or international scholarly societies, where giving such an invited lecture is considered considerably more prestigious than giving an invited lecture at typical national and international conferences in that discipline; named lectures or named lecture series; awards by notable academic and scholarly societies; honorary degrees; and others. Ordinary colloquia and seminar talks and invited lectures at scholarly conferences, standard research grants, named post-doctoral fellowships, visiting appointments, or internal university awards are insuﬃcient for this purpose.

• For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed. Major disciplines, such as physics, mathematics, history, political science, or their significant subdisciplines (e.g., particle physics, algebraic geometry, medieval history, “fluid mechanics”, "Drosophila genetics” are valid examples). Overly narrow and highly specialized categories should be avoided. Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1, except for the actual leaders in those subjects.

• Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered suﬃcient to satisfy Criterion 1.

• Having an object (asteroid, process, manuscript, etc.) named after the subject is not in itself indicative of satisfying Criterion 1. 2.3. SPECIFIC CRITERIA NOTES 11

• Having a small collaboration distance from a famous or notable academic (e.g., having a small Erdos number) is not, in and of itself, indicative of satisfying Criterion 1.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

• For the purposes of Criterion 2, major academic awards, such as the Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, etc., always qualify under Criterion 2. Some lesser signiﬁcant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige also can be used to satisfy Criterion 2. Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts (e.g., the Guggenheim Fellowship, Linguapax Prize), etc. Signiﬁcant academic awards and honors can also be used to partially satisfy Criterion 1 (see item 4 above in this section). • Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1. • Biographical listings in and awards from vanity press publishers, such as the American Biographical Institute, or from publications incorporating a substantial vanity press element in their business model, such as Marquis Who’s Who, do not qualify for satisfying Criterion 2 or for partially satisfying Criterion 1.

• For the purposes of Criterion 3, elected memberships in minor and non-notable societies are insuﬃcient (most newly formed societies fall into that category).

4. The person’s academic work has made a signiﬁcant impact in the area of higher education, aﬀecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

• Criterion 4 may be satisﬁed, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education.

• Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments. • Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity. Named chairs at other institutions are not necessarily suﬃcient to establish notability.

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

• Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of President or Chancellor (or Vice- Chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university), president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc. Lesser administrative posts (Provost, Dean, Department Chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g., being a Provost of a major university may sometimes qualify). Heads of institutes and centers devoted to promoting pseudo-science and marginal or fringe theories are generally not covered by Criterion 6; their heads may still be notable under other criteria of this guideline or under the general WP:BIO or WP:N guidelines. 12 CHAPTER 2. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (ACADEMICS)

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

• Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. • Criterion 7 may also be satisfied if the person has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert and provided the books deal with that expert’s field of study. Books on pseudo-science and marginal or fringe scientific theories are generally not covered by this criterion; their authors may still be notable under other criteria of this guideline or under the general WP:BIO or WP:N guidelines. • Patents, commercial and financial applications are generally not indicative of satisfying Criterion 7.

8. The person is or has been head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.

• Journals dedicated to promoting pseudo-science and marginal or fringe theories are generally not covered by Cri- terion 8. However, their head editor may still be notable under other criteria of this guideline or under the general WP:BIO or WP:N guidelines.

2.4 Citation metrics

The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Knowledge and Scopus. They are, unfortunately, very expensive: Scopus will be found mostly in university and large college libraries, and Web of Knowledge in major universities. Scopus covers the sciences and the social sciences, but is very incomplete before 1996; Web of Knowledge may cover the sciences back to 1900, the social sciences back to 1956, and the humanities (very incompletely) back to 1975, but only the largest universities can afford the entire set. (Fortunately, additional citation indexes with public access are being developed.) These databases are furthermore incomplete especially for the less developed countries. Additionally, they list citations only from journal articles – citations from articles published in books or other publications are not included. For that reason, these databases should be used with caution for disciplines such as computer science in which conference or other non-journal publication is essential, or humanistic disciplines where book publication is most important. Web of Knowledge provides a free index of highly cited researchers, which may be of some value. In individual scientific fields, MathSciNet, SciFinder Scholar (Chemical Abstracts), and similar disciplinary indexes are also valuable resources, often specifically listing citation counts, but access to them is also not free and usually requires a university computer account.

• A caution about Google Scholar: Google Scholar works well for fields where all (or nearly all) respected venues have an online presence. Most papers written by a computer scientist will show up, but for less technologically up-to-date fields, it is dicey. For non-scientific subjects, it is especially dicey. Even the journal Science puts articles online only back to 1996. Many journals, additionally, do not permit Google Scholar to list their articles. For books, the coverage in Google Scholar is partly through Google Book Search, and is very strongly influenced by publisher’s permissions and policies. Thus, the absence of references in Google Scholar should not be used as proof of non-notability. In the other direction, GS includes sources that are not peer-reviewed, such as academic web sites and other self-published sources. Thus, the number of citations found there can sometimes be significantly more than the number of actual citations from truly reliable scholarly material. In essence, it is a rough guide only. • A caution about PubMed: Medline, now usually accessed as part of PubMed, is a well-established broadly based search engine, covering much of biology and all of medicine, published since 1967 and sometimes even earlier. It includes a few journals in medically related clinical subjects, but is not complete in those. Further, not all articles 2.4. CITATION METRICS 13

in PubMed are from peer-reviewed journals, as it includes medical news sources of various degrees of quality, including such items in peer-reviewed journals it does cover. It also exhaustively covers letters to the editor and similar material, not all of which is of any signiﬁcance.

• A caution about “related articles": In PubMed, and most other databases, “related articles” are not articles that necessarily cite the original; they are articles on the same general topic, usually selected by having title words or citations in common. Some may cite the original (and some clearly do not, for they will have been published before the articles in question). They are useful for ﬁnding additional papers on a subject, which is the purpose for which they were designed. The only way to count citations using such a listing in, for example, PubMed, is the tedious method of looking at every one of the related articles published after the article in question, ﬁnding its “cited article” display, and check if it is there. (Some PubMed records do not list cited articles, for a variety of reasons.) Nor will such a listing necessarily include all the citations. – Help for “Related articles” feature

• Measures of citability such as the h-index, g-index, etc., may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Crite- rion 1 is satisﬁed, but they should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. Also, they are discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citations than others. • For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases one can also look at how widely the person’s books are held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat) when evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisﬁed.

• A report from the association of European computer science departments lists ten bullet points for evaluation of computer science research, two of which emphasize the importance of non-journal publication and one of which speciﬁcally cautions against the use of Web of Science: Meyer, Bertrand; Choppy, Christine; Staunstrup, Jørgen; van Leeuwen, Jan (2009), “Research Evaluation for Computer Science”, Communications of the ACM 52 (4): 31– 34, doi:10.1145/1498765.1498780. Instead, it recommends Google scholar or Citeseer for this ﬁeld. Chapter 3

Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects)

This guideline is meant to reflect consensus about the notability of astronomical objects. The guideline covers all significant physical entities, associations or structures that current science has confirmed to exist in outer space. The guideline does not cover topics relating to artificial structures in space, such as artificial satellites, spacecraft, space probes, space stations or space telescopes. It also does not cover terrestrial locations, airspace, or material that has been transported to the Earth’s atmosphere or surface, including moon rocks, meteor showers and meteorites. Simply stated, an astronomical object is a body of matter (or collection of such bodies) that is bound together by a fundamental force, has boundaries defined by large-scale structure (e.g. voids), or is a combined grouping through viewing perspective (e.g. optical double stars). This includes galaxies, nebulae, star clusters, star systems, individual stars, planets, minor planets, asteroids, comets, and moons. It can also include bodies of matter that are held together by masses other than their own, such as a circumstellar disk, accretion disc, or zodiacal dust.

3.1 Basic notability

3.1.1 No inherent notability

Notable means “worthy of being noted” or “attracting notice”. It is not synonymous with “fame” or “importance”. Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Major astronomical objects are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller objects can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring prominent astronomical objects. Even if editors personally believe an astronomical object is “important” or “inherently notable”, astronomical objects are only accepted as notable if they have attracted notice in reliable sources. The fact that an astronomical object exists in space is by itself not enough to support notability. There exists a perennial debate on Wikipedia about the notability of geographic features, with no clear consensus; it has been practice that all named geographic features (mountains, rivers, hills) are notable enough for an article. Some editors have included astronomical objects in the blanket category of geographic features, with the result being that it is acceptable for individual astronomical objects to be part of a list of similar objects. This notability guideline does not alter that practice with respect to lists. However, unlike Earth-based geographic features, arbitrary astronomical objects are unlikely to be visited or run across by a general reader of Wikipedia. Therefore, unless an astronomical object has significant coverage in the media or published sources, the likelihood that a general reader would choose to search Wikipedia for an arbitrary astronomical object is quite low. This is not a matter of dubious predictions; it is just common sense. Therefore, unlike Earth-based geographic features, the existence of an astronomical object, or even the fact that it has been named (see below) does not guarantee notability.

14 3.2. CRITERIA 15

3.1.2 No inherited notability

In the sense that an object has been discovered or observed, it may have been noted by a scientist or scientists. For the purposes of this guideline, notable means having attracted significant notice in the spirit of WP:GNG. No astronomical object is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of object it is. If the individual object has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable even though astronomical objects of its type are commonly notable. Also, just because the object is listed by name in a paper does not ensure notability. An object may be on the observation list of a large-scale survey, or a study of many objects of a specific type. Unless the astronomical object is the primary, or one of the primary, targets of a study, then such a study should not be used to support the object’s notability. Just because an object is listed in a database does not mean it is notable. Some databases and surveys, such as the JPL Small-Body Database or the Sloan Digital Sky Survey contain many thousands of objects, whereas others concern themselves with specific classes of objects and have fewer entries. Several, if not most, of the listed objects have little information beyond their physical parameters and discovery circumstances. It is not the job of Wikipedia to needlessly duplicate content in these databases. Likewise, just because a minor planet has been named by the Committee for Small- Body Nomenclature, this does not necessarily mean an object is notable. Unless the object has been the subject of significant study beyond discovery and initial parameter constraints, it probably does not warrant an article. This guideline does not prohibit the creation or maintenance of list articles that contain tables of properties and information related to astronomical objects. However, such lists are still subject to Wikipedia’s content policies, such as verifiability and no original research.

3.2 Criteria

If an astronomical object meets any of the following criteria, supported through independent reliable sources, it probably qualiﬁes for a stand-alone article. If an astronomical object meets none of these criteria, it may still be notable, provided it meets the conditions of WP:Notability, though the merits of an article about an astronomical object will rest primarily on material that is veriﬁable through independent sources.

1. The object is, or has been, visible to the naked eye. For ordinary stars, this includes any object with an HR catalogue identiﬁer.

2. The object is listed in catalogues of interest to amateur astronomers (e.g. Messier catalogue, Caldwell catalogue), or a catalogue of high historical importance (e.g. New General Catalogue). This is the equivalent of being listed in a “selective” database for academic journals. Being listed in comprehensive databases and surveys such as 2MASS or 2dFGRS isn't enough for notability.

3. The object has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries and articles in peer-reviewed scientiﬁc journals. A single paper is not enough to establish notability for most objects. Being mentioned alongside other similar objects, such as in a table of properties of 200 newly discovered supernovae, does not constitute non-trivial coverage; the paper needs to have signiﬁcant commentary on the object.

4. The object was discovered before 1850, prior to the advent of stellar astrophotography or automated technology. (The ﬁrst asteroid discovered photographically was 323 Brucia in 1891.)

For the purposes of this guideline, “independent” means independent of the scientist or scientists who discovered the object, or others who may have a conﬂict of interest in promoting the object. The guideline does not prohibit the use of sources generated by the primary researchers, but they are not suﬃcient to establish notability. Although some objects might qualify for a standalone article based on this guideline alone, it may still be best to create redirects to a more general article. For example, it might be best to consolidate the information about the individual planets of a planetary system on the article about its parent star. Whether it is best to consolidate or to have individual articles should be determined on a case-by-case basis, on the relevant article’s talk page. 16 CHAPTER 3. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (ASTRONOMICAL OBJECTS)

Important note: These criteria do not supersede WP:N, they merely supplement and clarify it within the context of astronomical objects. If an astronomical object does not meet the general notability guideline, especially if it lacks evidence of signiﬁcant coverage in independent, reliable sources, then it risks being merged or redirected to an existing article, or deleted altogether.

3.3 Failing all criteria

If no criteria can be met for either a standalone article or inclusion in a more general article, and improvements have not worked or cannot be reasonably tried, then there are two deletion procedures to be considered:[lower-alpha 1]

• For articles that do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but are uncontroversial deletion candidates, use the {{subst:prod}} tag. This allows the article to be deleted after seven days if nobody objects (see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion).

• For cases where you are unsure about deletion or believe others might object, nominate the article for the Articles for deletion process, where its merits will be discussed for 7 days.

When nominating an article for deletion, please place {{WikiProject Astronomy}} at the top of its talk page. This will notify WikiProject Astronomy of the deletion discussion.

3.4 Special cases

3.4.1 Failing basic criteria but possibly helpful in another article or list

If neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article, but a few sentences about the object may help another article or list:

• If an appropriate list already exists (e.g. a sub-list of List of minor planets), then create a redirect for the object to the list. (For minor planets, see dealing with minor planets below.)

• Be sure to Merge any appropriate information from the article into a broader article or list providing context.

• If a basic redirect is not possible, but an article exists that the information could be merged, place a {{merge to}} tag on the page, indicating the page where the article may be merged. Be sure to start a section in the target article’s talk page to discuss the merge.

• If no article or list currently exists into which the astronomical object can be merged, consider writing the article yourself or request the article be written.

Astronomical objects that are part of a hierarchy of objects, such as a natural satellite system, planetary system or a star system, may be beneﬁcially merged into the article about the system or hosting object. The criteria applied to merged article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. Content coverage within such system articles is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. Only use AfD as a last resort for individual articles. If an editor is dealing with a large mass of articles, then redirect or PROD is more appropriate, because it is not ideal to ﬂood AfD logs with these requests. When in doubt, bring the issue to WikiProject Astronomical objects for discussion.

3.4.2 Failure to explain the subject’s notability

If an article does not explain the notability of its subject,[lower-alpha 2] try to improve it by: 3.5. EXAMPLES 17

• Rewriting it yourself • Asking for advice on the article’s talk page • Starting a discussion at WikiProject Astronomical objects (especially consider this if it concerns more than one or two articles)

3.4.3 Insuﬃcient sources

If an article fails to cite suﬃcient sources:

• Look for sources yourself. • A good place to look for astronomical papers is the Astrophysics Data System (ADS) abstract service. Put the name of the object(s) in quotes and place it in the subject/keyword box. Try possible variations of the object’s name if your first searches don't find any papers. • Many astronomical objects outside of the Solar System have an entry in the SIMBAD database. Try a lookup of the object by identifier, then use the “display -> reference summary” in the “reference” section. These will often have a link back to ADS, which may include free copies of the articles. • The NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) contains data for over a million objects, including entries in the New General Catalogue (NGC). For each object, the data entries typically list the reference source as a bibliographic code that links back to an ADS abstract. • When using a search engine to look for information on an object, also try passing standard abbreviations or alternate catalogue identifiers as search terms. (See astronomical naming conventions.) • Ask for advice on where to look for sources on the article’s talk page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. • Put the {{notability}} tag on the article to notify other editors.

3.5 Examples

3.5.1 Dealing with minor planets

Asteroid 182016 (1999 XF255), listed on List of minor planets: 182001–183000 can be found on the JPL Small-Body Database (JPL SBDB). However, it does not show up in searches for additional references. The asteroid exists, but up to now is not an object that has warranted further study. Placing information about this object onto the List of minor planets page is more appropriate in this circumstance than creating a stand-alone article. 532 Herculina is another asteroid. This object has had many follow-up studies, including an observation by the Hubble Space Telescope. It is appropriate for an object like this to have a stand-alone article. Before 2012, when this notability guideline did not yet exist, approximately 20,000 asteroid stubs were mass-created by bots and human editors. This created a considerable backlog of articles to be cleaned up, redirected, merged, or deleted. By consensus, asteroids numbered below 2000 should be discussed before re-directing. To not overly burden the community, editors should not nominate more than 10 asteroids a day to AfD for discussion. For asteroids numbered above 2000, if an article of questionable notability is found, and a good-faith search has failed to locate references establishing notability, then it is appropriate to redirect the stub to the appropriate List of... article, keeping the original categories and {{DEFAULTSORT}} information. For best results, the redirect can be linked to the section containing the speciﬁc entry on the list article. For example, suppose you want to create a redirect to the section with the minor planet 10529 Giessenburg entry on the List of minor planets: 10001–11000 article. This minor planet is found in the section #501 of the list, which covers the sub-range 501–600. Hence, a redirect to that range can be created (see diﬀ) with the following content: #REDIRECT [[List of minor planets: 10001–11000#501]] {{R to list entry}} {{DEFAULTSORT:Giessenburg}} [[Category:Main Belt asteroids]] [[Category:Astronomical objects discovered in 1990]] 18 CHAPTER 3. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (ASTRONOMICAL OBJECTS)

3.5.2 Objects named after famous individuals or characters

If an otherwise non-notable object has been named for a famous individual or mythological character, then it may be appropriate to include this information in the article for the individual or character (i.e. the notability of the asteroid is not inherited from its notable namesake). If the object is notable for other reasons, then of course the information may also be included in its article.

3.6 See also

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects) • Wikipedia:Citing sources

• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources • Wikipedia:Search engine test

• Wikipedia:Verifiability

3.7 Notes

[1] Wikipedia editors have been known to reject nominations for deletion that have been inadequately researched. Research should include attempts to ﬁnd sources that might demonstrate notability, and/or information that would demonstrate notability in another manner.

[2] The text of an article should include enough information to explain why the object is notable. External arguments via a talk page or AFD debate page are not part of the article itself, and promises on those pages to provide information are not as valid as the existence of the information on the article page itself. Chapter 4

Wikipedia:Notability (books)

“WP:NB” redirects here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject New Brunswick or Wikipedia:Noticeboards. “WP:BK” redirects here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Beyoncé Knowles.

This guideline provides some additional criteria for use in deciding whether a book should or should not have an article on Wikipedia. Satisfying this notability guideline generally indicates a book warrants an article. A book that meets either the general notability guideline or the criteria outlined in this or any other subject-specific notability guideline, and which is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy, is presumed to merit an article. This is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. Failure to satisfy the criteria outlined in this guideline (or any other notability guideline) is not a criterion for speedy deletion. The criteria provided by this guideline are rough criteria. They are not exhaustive. Accordingly, a book may be notable, and merit an article, for reasons not particularized in this or any other notability guideline. Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability. It is not enough to simply assert that a book meets a criterion. Verifiable reliable sources that substantiate that claim must actually exist. “Notability” as used herein is not a reflection of a book’s merit. A book may be brilliantly written, fascinating and topical, while still not being notable enough to ensure sufficient verifiable source material exists to create an encyclopedia article about that book.

4.1 Coverage notes

Though the concept of a "book" is widely defined, this guideline does not yet provide specific notability criteria for the following types of publications: comic books; graphic novels (although it does apply to manga); magazines; reference works such as dictionaries, thesauruses, encyclopedias, atlases and almanacs; music-specific publications such as instruction and notation books and librettos; instruction manuals; and exam prep books. Specific guidelines may be developed. Until then, this guideline may be instructive by analogy. The criteria set forth below apply to books in electronic form (or e-books). An e-book that does not meet the criteria of this guideline is nevertheless notable if it meets the criteria of the notability guideline for web-specific content. An e-book that meets the criteria of this guideline does not need to meet the criteria of that guideline in order to be notable. A book included in Project Gutenberg or an analogous project does not need to meet the threshold standards.

19 20 CHAPTER 4. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (BOOKS)

4.2 Criteria

A book is notable if it veriﬁably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

1. The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[4] 2. The book has won a major literary award. 3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. 4. The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[5] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.[6] 5. The book’s author is so historically significant that any of the author’s written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book’s author is notable by Wikipedia’s standards; rather, the book’s author is of exceptional significance and the author’s life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.

The ﬁve preceding criteria do not necessarily apply to books excluded by the threshold standards, and do not apply to books not yet published.

4.2.1 Other considerations

Threshold standards

A book should have, at a minimum, an ISBN (for books published after 1975 in a country where ISBNs are normally used), and should be catalogued by its country of origin’s oﬃcial or de facto national library (if that country has an oﬃcial or de facto national library). For example, in the United States books are catalogued by the Library of Congress; in the United Kingdom at the British Library; in Australia at the National Library of Australia; in Canada at the Library and Archives Canada; in France at the Bibliothèque nationale de France; in Singapore at the National Library Board; in Brazil by the Fundação Biblioteca Nacional; in Argentina at Biblioteca Nacional de la República Argentina; and in India at the National Library of India. For a complete list, see List of national libraries. However, these criteria are exclusionary rather than inclusionary; meeting these threshold standards does not imply that a book is notable, whereas a book which does not meet them, most likely is not. There will be exceptions—books that are notable despite not meeting these threshold standards—but good reasons for the notability of such books should be clear.

Articles that are plot summaries

Wikipedia should not have a standalone article about a book if it is not possible, without including original research or unveriﬁable content, to write an article on that book that complies with the policy that Wikipedia articles should not be summary-only descriptions of works, contained in criteria 1 of WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

Self-publication

Self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press do not correlate with notability.[7] Exceptions do exist, such as Robert Gunther's Early Science in Oxford and Edgar Allan Poe's Tamerlane, but both of these books would be considered notable by virtue (for instance) of criterion 1. Many vanity press books are assigned ISBN numbers, may be listed in a national library, and may be found through a Google Books search, none of which makes them notable. 4.3. DERIVATIVE ARTICLES 21

Books by Wikipedians

If the Wikipedia article on a book has been created by an author of that book, or by any other interested party such as an editor or member of the editorial staﬀ of that book, this has no eﬀect, one way or the other, on whether that book is notable. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography for more information.

Online bookstores

A book’s listing at either or both of the online bookstores Barnes & Noble.com and Amazon.com is not by itself an indication of notability because both websites include large numbers of vanity press publications. A book’s listing at any other online bookstore that includes large numbers of vanity press publications shall be treated in the same way. There is no consensus as to whether a book’s ranking at Amazon (found in the “product details” section) constitutes evidence of notability.

Not yet published books

Articles about books that are not yet published are accepted only if they are not excluded by the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy, and only under criteria other than those provided by this guideline, typically because the anticipation of the book is notable in its own right. In such cases there should be independent sources which provide strong evidence that the book will be published, and which include the title of the book and an approximate date of publication.

Non-contemporary books

The vast majority of books whose Wikipedia articles are nominated for deletion, and whose notability could reasonably be called into question, are contemporary. Nevertheless, the notability of books written or published earlier may occasionally be disputed and the criteria speciﬁed above, intended primarily for contemporary books, may be unsuitable because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice. Common sense should prevail. In such cases, possible bases for a ﬁnding of notability include, in particular, how widely the book has been cited or written about, the number of editions of the book, whether it has been reprinted, the fame that the book enjoys or enjoyed in the past, its place in the history of literature, its value as a historical source and its age.

Academic and technical books

Academic and technical books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice. Again, common sense should prevail. In such cases, possible bases for a finding of notability include, in particular, whether the book is published by an academic press,[8] how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media,[9] the number of editions of the book, whether one or more translations of the book have been published, how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions.

4.3 Derivative articles

Articles on books should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability. While a book may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book, and it is often the case that despite the book being manifestly notable, a derivative article from it is not. Exceptions do exist, especially in the case of very famous books. For example, Charles Dickens' 22 CHAPTER 4. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (BOOKS)

A Christmas Carol clearly warrants a 'subarticle' on its protagonist, Ebenezer Scrooge. When a book has been split too ﬁnely to support the notability of individual subtopics, merging content back into the book’s article is appropriate. In some situations— for example, if a given book itself does not appear to be notable, but the author is notable— it may be more appropriate to feature material about the book in the author’s article rather than creating a separate article for that book. It may sometimes be appropriate to merge an article on a book into an article that is a bibliography or list of books. This might, for example, facilitate the inclusion of material on anonymous works that, because those works are anonymous, cannot be merged into their authors’ articles. If, in such a case, the book cannot be merged only because the notable author’s article, or the bibliography or list of books, does not currently exist, consider writing the author’s article, or the bibliography or list, yourself or request that it be written.

4.4 Resources

• Clicking on any linked ISBN number on Wikipedia takes you to Special:Booksources where preformatted links for the speciﬁc book are provided, allowing access to multiple library catalogues, bookseller databases and other book resources.

This might be an issue as diﬀerent formats of a book (i.e. ebook, audiobook, printed book) will have diﬀerent ISBNs, and they will often not be sequential, especially for older books that were originally published before ebooks or audiobooks existed.

• The British Library’s online catalogue[10]

• The Library of Congress Online Catalog:[11] a searchable database useful in identifying publisher, edition, etc.

• The Literary Encyclopedia:[12] 3,300 proﬁles of authors, works and literary and historical topics and references of 18,000 works.

• Norton anthology of world literature:[13] useful in the exploration of world literature.

• Questia Online Library, allows full-text search, and paid subscription reading access to 64,000+ books and 1,000,000+ journal, magazine, and newspaper articles in their collection. Their strength is full text of recent academic books by major publishers such as Oxford University Press, University of North Carolina Press, and Greenwood Press, along with thousands of older academic books that are available only in larger university libraries.

• Worldcat:[14] search for a book in library catalogues. Contains 1.8 billion items in 18,000 libraries worldwide.

4.5 See also

• Wikipedia:Citing sources

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)

• Wikipedia:No original research

• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

• Wikipedia:Verifiability

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Books

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels 4.6. NOTES 23

4.6 Notes

[1] The “subject” of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment.

[2] “Non-trivial” excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is reliable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site’s imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source.

[3] Independent does not mean independent of the publishing industry, but only refers to those actually involved with the particular book.

[4] Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the book. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the veriﬁability and neutrality problems that aﬀect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material). The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its author, publisher, vendor or agent) have actually considered the book notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.

[5] This includes both primary and secondary schools.

[6] This criterion does not include textbooks or reference books written specifically for study in educational programs, but only independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves, such as major works in philosophy, literature, or science.

[7] Certain print-on-demand book publishers, such as PublishAmerica, claim to be “traditional” advance- and royalty-paying publishers rather than vanity presses. Regardless of the exact deﬁnitions, PublishAmerica and similar presses are to be considered vanity presses for purposes of assessing notability based on the manner works are published through them.

[8] Publication by a prominent academic press should be accorded far more weight than the analogous benchmark deﬁned for publication of mainstream book by well known commercial publishers, by virtue of the non-commercial nature of such presses, and the peer review process that some academic books must pass before publication is allowed to go forward. See university presses for a partial list of such presses. Note that because a large portion of (en.)Wikipedia articles are written by English speaking people from English speaking nations, this list currently has an English speaking bias.

[9] A book’s subject may be so specialized, such as in the esoteric math or physics spheres, that only a few hundred (or fewer) people in the world are situated to understand and comment on the material.

[10] “catalogue.bl.uk”. catalogue.bl.uk. 1994-11-06. Retrieved 2014-01-04.

[11] “catalog.loc.gov”. catalog.loc.gov. 2013-05-14. Retrieved 2014-01-04.

[12] “litencyc.com”. litencyc.com. Retrieved 2014-01-04.

[13] “Norton Anthology of World Literature: W. W. Norton StudySpace”. Wwnorton.com. Retrieved 2014-01-04.

[14] Time:1:47. “worldcat.org”. worldcat.org. Retrieved 2014-01-04. Chapter 5

Wikipedia:Notability (events)

"WP:Event" redirects here. For Wikipedia events, see Wikipedia:Meetup. “WP:N(E)" redirects here. For the Northern Emirates WikiProject, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Emirates.

Within Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. The topic of an article should be notable, or “worthy of notice"; that is, “signiﬁcant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded”.[1] Notable in the sense of being “famous”, or “popular”—although not irrelevant—is secondary. This notability guideline for events reﬂects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article about past, current, and breaking news events should be written, merged, deleted or further developed.

5.1 Background

Article deletion discussions have featured a number of contentious debates about events, particularly breaking news events, that have received intense media coverage. This guideline was formed with the intention of guiding editors in interpreting the various pre-existing policies and guidelines that apply to articles about events, including WP:GNG (i.e. “a topic is presumed to have met the criteria for notability if it has received signiﬁcant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject”) and its relationship to WP:NOT#NEWS (i.e. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of news material). By attempting to clarify the application of these rules to articles about events, this guideline reﬂects the community consensus regarding the handling of similarly situated articles.

5.2 Inclusion criteria

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover or the total amount of content. However, it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service. Wikinews offers a place where editors can document current news events, but not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred). Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias generally. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article.

• Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical signiﬁcance and meet the general nota-

24 5.2. INCLUSION CRITERIA 25

bility guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. • Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below). • Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event. • Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, “shock” news, stories lacking lasting value such as “water cooler stories,” and viral phenomena)– whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

In evaluating an event, editors should evaluate various aspects of the event and the coverage: the impact, depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage, as well whether the coverage is routine. These factors are described below.

5.2.1 The event

Lasting eﬀects

An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting signiﬁcance is likely to be notable.

Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation. For example, the murder of Adam Walsh ultimately led to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, among other notable subjects. Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable. This includes, for example, natural disasters that result in widespread destruction, since they lead to rebuilding, population shifts, and possible impact on elections. For example, Hurricane Katrina or the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake are notable by these standards. A minor earthquake or storm with little or no impact on human populations is probably not notable. It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.

Geographical scope

Notable events usually have signiﬁcant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group.

An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article.

5.2.2 The coverage

Depth of coverage

An event must receive signiﬁcant or in-depth coverage to be notable.

The general guideline is that coverage must be signiﬁcant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents in the US, or Newsnight in the UK). 26 CHAPTER 5. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (EVENTS)

Reporting with little thematic connection or contextual information is often considered to be routine reporting.[2] Some editors consider narrative news reports to be primary sources rather than secondary sources. Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to aﬀord notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally.

Duration of coverage

Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle.

The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance. Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable. If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance.

Diversity of sources

Signiﬁcant national or international coverage is usually expected foran event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show signiﬁcance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted.

Wikipedia’s general notability guideline recommends that multiple sources be provided to establish the notability of a topic, not just multiple references from a single source.[3] A series of news reports by a single newspaper or news channel would not be sufficient basis for an article. Media channels under common control or influence are usually counted as one local or national outlet and a single instance of coverage when they report a matter, even if they have several regional or national outlets. Similarly, where a single story or press release is simply re-reported (often word-for-word) by news publications, or when reporters base their information on repeating news coverage from elsewhere (for example, "AP reported that ...”), this should only be counted as a single source for the purpose of determining notability (see Wikipedia:Bombardment). Derivative reports and reports under common control cannot be used to verify each other, nor does mere repetition necessarily show the kind of effort that is good evidence of a significant matter.

5.3 Other circumstances

5.3.1 Routine coverage

Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine.[4] Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. Run- of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable. This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts (“And finally” stories). 5.4. BREAKING NEWS 27

Low-impact local events with light media coverage, even if that coverage is from multiple sources, perspectives, and over a period to time, may still be deleted per WP:ROUTINE. The deletion of a A Wikipedia article about a local crime conﬁrmed this view.

5.3.2 Sensationalism

See also: § Songs

A single requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That a single is an oﬃcially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article.

8.4.3 Unreleased material

Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources. In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it—for example, Guns 'n Roses' 2008 album Chinese Democracy had an article as early as 2004. However, this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects — generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label. Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources. Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release. For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album” and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should be discussed only in the artist’s article, and even then only if there is some verifiable information about it.

8.5 Songs

Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work.[3] Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. The following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria.

1. Has been ranked on national or signiﬁcant music or sales charts.

2. Has won one or more signiﬁcant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.

3. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups. 8.6. CONCERT TOURS 41

Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions. Articles about traditional songs should avoid original research and synthesis of published material that advances a position.

• Note: Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song.

• Note 2: Sources should always be added for any lore, history or passed-on secondary content. Wikiversity and Wikibooks have diﬀerent policies and may be more appropriate venues for this type of content.

8.6 Concert tours

Concert tours are notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources which merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Tours that cannot be sufficiently referenced in secondary sources should be covered in a section on the artist’s page rather than creating a dedicated article. A tour that meets notability standards does not make all tours associated with that artist notable. Michael Jackson's 1988 Bad World Tour is an example of a notable concert tour.

8.7 Resources

Good online sources for recordings are the Freedb search engine or the Allmusic search engine. To ﬁnd ownership information on song texts copyrighted in the US, the ASCAP ACE Title Search and BMI Repertoire Search utilities are invaluable. When looking in depth, a Google book search may turn something up. For material that has captured the attention of academics, a search on Google scholar may work. An experienced editor also provides a guide on ensuring that articles meet criteria.

8.8 If the subject is not notable

Further information: Wikipedia:Notability § Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines

Wikipedia should not have a separate article on a person, band, or musical work that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or any subject that, despite the person meeting the rules of thumb described above, for which editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the subject. Wikipedia’s goal is neither tiny articles that can never be expanded nor articles based primarily on what the subjects say about themselves. However, information about such subjects may be included in other ways in Wikipedia, provided that certain conditions are met. Material about a musician, group, or work that does not qualify for a separate, stand-alone can be preserved by adding it into relevant articles if it:

• has the appropriate level of detail and signiﬁcance for that article;

• avoids self-promotion; and

• includes information that can be veriﬁed through independent sources.

For example, material about individual members of a musical group are normally merged into larger articles about the group. Songs may be described in a discography or one of the many lists of songs. Appropriate redirects from the subject’s name and entries in disambiguation pages should be created to help readers ﬁnd such information. 42 CHAPTER 8. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (MUSIC)

8.9 Notes

[1] Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist, or their works. (See Wikipedia:Self published sources for details about the reliability of self-published sources, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for treatment of promotional, vanity material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. The rationale for this is easy to see – someone simply talking about themselves in their own personal blog, website, book publisher, social networking site or music networking site, etc., does not automatically mean they have suﬃcient attention in the world at large to be called notable. If that was so then everyone could have an article. Wikipedia is not a directory.

[2] What constitutes a “published work” is deliberately broad.

[3] For example, endorsement deal publicity (including sell sheets, promo posters, ﬂiers, print advertising and links to an oﬃcial company website) that lists the artist as an endorser or contains an “endorsement interview” with the artist.

[4] This criterion has been disputed in the past and has been reworded numerous times as a result. Past signiﬁcant discussions: 1, 2.

[5] Generally speaking, in a small ensemble, all people are reasonably-prominent, but, for example, being members of the chorus (not prominent) in two Broadway musicals (dozens of people involved) usually wouldn't be enough.

NSONG notes

[1] The “subject” of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other non-substantive detail treatment.

[2] “Non-trivial” excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. Be careful to check that the musician, record label, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular song/single are in no way aﬃliated with any third party source.

[3] Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the song/single. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its artist, record label, vendor or agent) have actually considered the song/single notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Chapter 9

Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)

"WP:NUMBER" redirects here. For the Number Wikiproject, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers. For the style guide on formatting numbers, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).

These guidelines on the notability of numbers address notability of individual numbers, kinds of numbers and lists of numbers. In the case of mathematical classifications of numbers, the relevant criteria are whether professional mathematicians study the classification and whether amateur mathematicians are interested by it. Therefore, the first question to ask is:

• Have professional mathematicians published papers on this topic, or chapters in a book?

This is the question that will apply, only slightly reworded, to each of the kinds of articles about numbers we will consider. More speciﬁc questions will be added for speciﬁc article types, though there will of course be some overlap. Also note that looking something up in a book or a database written by someone else is not original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia.

9.1 Notability of kinds of numbers

Examples Complex numbers. Transcendental numbers containing only 3s and 7s in their hexadecimal representations.

The questions to ask are:

1. Have professional mathematicians published papers on this kind of number, or chapters in a book, or an entire book about this kind of number?

2. Do MathWorld or PlanetMath have articles on this kind of number?

3. Is there at least one commonly accepted name for this kind of number?

An aﬃrmative answer to these three questions indicates that this kind of number is notable enough for Wikipedia to have an article about it. In some cases, notability guidelines for sequences of numbers might be more applicable, especially when it is straightfor- ward to put the numbers in some kind order, such as ascending order.

43 44 CHAPTER 9. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (NUMBERS)

Disposition of examples There exists at least one book titled Complex Numbers, one by Walter Ledermann, and several others with titles of the form Complex Numbers and somethingelse, such as Estermann’s Complex Numbers and Functions. Both PlanetMath and MathWorld have articles on complex numbers. The name “complex number” has been almost universally accepted since mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss coined it. Hence, complex numbers are notable enough for Wikipedia. On the other hand, transcendental numbers containing only 3s and 7s in their hexadecimal representations lack a commonly accepted name, in part because the description is so long, but mainly because hardly anyone, professional or amateur, has cared to study these numbers, much less publish anything about them.

9.2 Notability of sequences of numbers

Examples The Mian–Chowla sequence. The sequence of numbers n such that 5n5 + 1 is prime.

1. Have professional mathematicians published papers about this sequence, or chapters in a book, or an entire book about this sequence?

2. Do MathWorld and PlanetMath have articles about this sequence?

3. Is this sequence listed in the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS)?

4. Is there at least one commonly accepted name for this sequence?

An aﬃrmative answer to these four questions indicates that this sequence is notable for Wikipedia to have an article about it. Although the OEIS is restricted to integers in the values its table may hold, there are some ways around this restriction. For sequences of rational numbers, the OEIS might split oﬀ the one sequence of rational numbers into two sequences, one of numerators and another one of denominators. If the third question gets a negative response, someone arguing the notability of the sequence needs to show that there is no way the OEIS would include this sequence as a result of its rules, and not as a comment on the non-notability of the sequence.

Disposition of examples The mathematicians Mian and Chowla published a paper in Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. India A14 about the sequence 1, 2, 4, 8, 13, 21, 31, 45, ... Both Mathworld and PlanetMath have articles about this sequence. The sequence is listed in the OEIS as A005282. The modesty of the mathematicians aside, this sequence is universally known as the “Mian–Chowla sequence”. Thus, the Mian–Chowla sequence is notable enough for Wikipedia. The sequence of numbers n such that 5n5 + 1 is prime is in the OEIS ( A117132), but it has the keyword “less”. Neither PlanetMath nor MathWorld have articles about this sequence.

9.3 Notability of speciﬁc individual numbers

9.3.1 Integers

Examples 42 and 9870123.

1. Are there at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties of this integer?

2. Does this number have obvious cultural signiﬁcance (e.g., as a lucky or unlucky number)?

3. Is it listed in a book such as David Wells’s Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, or on Erich Friedman’s “What’s Special About This Number” webpage? 9.4. NOTABILITY OF LISTS OF NUMBERS AND CATEGORIES 45

In assessing how interesting the mathematical property of a particular integer might be, the essay WP:1729 could be a useful tool. A property that is shared by a large proportion of numbers, such as being a composite number, is not interesting. For the sake of completeness, however, it is accepted that every integer between −1 and 101 has its own article even if it is not as interesting as the other. This avoids having, say, a gap for 38.

Disposition of examples 42 is the product of the first three terms of Sylvester’s sequence, it is the sum of the first eleven totients and it is a Catalan number, to name just three. As the ultimate answer in Douglas Adams’s classic Hitchhiker’s trilogy, the number 42 is invested with great cultural significance. 42 appears in both Wells’s book and Friedman’s page. Thus, 42 is notable enough for Wikipedia. 9870123, on the other hand, is listed neither in Wells’s book nor on Friedman’s page.

Range sections

Several articles for round numbers contain a “range section”. For example, 40000 (number) has a section Selected numbers, in this case for numbers in the range 40001–49999. Such sections also list integers in the given range that are not suﬃciently notable to warrant their own, separate article, but nevertheless have a property that is interesting enough to mention it there. In such cases, it makes sense to make the page for the non-notable number a redirect to the article with range section in which it is treated. For example, 40585 is a factorion, and is mentioned as such in the article 40000 (number); accordingly, the page 40585 (number) redirects to the article 40000 (number).

9.3.2 Irrational numbers

Examples The square root of 2, (sin 1)2.

1. Is there a book about this irrational number, or at least a great number of papers using this number? 2. Are both the decimal expansion and the continued fraction of this number listed in the OEIS? 3. Is this number listed in a book such as Finch’s Mathematical Constants? 4. Is there at least one commonly accepted name for this irrational number?

Disposition of examples The square root of 2 has an entire book by David Flannery devoted to it. Its continued fraction is A040000 in the OEIS and its decimal expansion is A002193. This number is listed in Finch’s book, and it is sometimes called “Pythagoras’ constant,” though “square root of two” is considered manageable enough. Thus, the square root of 2 is notable enough for Wikipedia. (sin 1)2 is listed in the OEIS but not in Finch’s book, nor is there a simpler name for it than its algebraic expression.

Decimal expansion redirects

Only the most famous irrational numbers merit redirects from partial decimal expansions. For example, 3.14 and 2.71828. Any others, the search engine ought to catch the number written in the appropriate page and return that as a result. To facilitate this searching, then, it is recommended that the number’s decimal expansion be written out in text and not as a graphic in the page.

9.4 Notability of lists of numbers and categories

Besides the list of numbers and the list of prime numbers, any other lists are not considered to be narrowly enough construed to be useful. The creation of categories must not be taken lightly: one must be able to demonstrate that the category would be populated by a signiﬁcant amount of articles on notable topics. 46 CHAPTER 9. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (NUMBERS)

9.5 Rationale

The subset of numbers anyone could look up in Wikipedia is very small. And if we strike out those numbers that will only be looked up only out of curiosity on whether or not Wikipedia has an article about that number, we're left with an even smaller subset. That subset, give or take a few members, is exactly the same subset WP:NUM calls for. For example, many people will look up forty-two to genuinely learn more about it, while someone would look up the “square root of 40887” only to see if Wikipedia has an article about it and nothing else. No one would be able to speciﬁcally look up an integer at some inconvenient distance between 15 googolplexes and 16 googolplexes.

9.6 See also

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers

• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not • Interesting number paradox

• Wikipedia:Evaluating how interesting an integer’s mathematical property is

Some precedents:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/31999998 • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/99999999

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1111111111 • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117068

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3.14 • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leviathan number Chapter 10

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

"WP:ORG" and "WP:COMPANY" redirect here. You may have been looking for WikiProject Organizations or WikiProject Companies.

This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization or product. The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose, although people gathered for more speciﬁc purposes may be governed by more speciﬁc guidelines. For example, people gathered together for the purpose of making music are covered by WP:MUSIC. Simply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose. This includes commercial and non-commercial activities, such as charitable organizations, educational institutions, hospitals, institutions, interest groups, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, religious denominations, sects, etc. This guideline does not cover small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people).

10.1 Decisions based on veriﬁable evidence

Main page: Wikipedia:Notability § Notability requires veriﬁable evidence

Notable means “worthy of being noted” or “attracting notice.” Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the veriﬁable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published—even if these sources are not actually listed in the article yet (though in most cases it probably would improve the article to add them).

10.1.1 No inherent notability

No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists (see “If it’s not notable”, below). “Notability” is not synonymous with “fame” or “importance.” No matter how “important” editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it.

47 48 CHAPTER 10. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (ORGANIZATIONS AND COMPANIES)

When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products.

10.1.2 No inherited notability

Further information: WP:PRODUCT

An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries. The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable. Examples: If a notable person buys a restaurant, the restaurant does not “inherit” notability from its owner. If a notable person joins an organization, the organization does not “inherit” notability from its member. This works the other way as well. An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not “inherit” notability due to their membership. A corporation may be notable, but its subsidiaries do not “inherit” notability from being owned by the corporation.

10.2 Primary criteria

See also: WP:PSTS and Wikipedia:Notability § General notability guideline

A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of signiﬁcant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never suﬃcient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.

10.2.1 Depth of coverage

The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not suﬃcient to establish notability. Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization. Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as:

• sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules,

• the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories,

• inclusion in lists of similar organizations,[2]

• the season schedule or ﬁnal score from sporting events,

• routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel,

• brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business,

• simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued,

• routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season), 10.2. PRIMARY CRITERIA 49

• routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops,

• routine restaurant reviews,

• quotations from an organization’s personnel as story sources, or

• passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.

10.2.2 Audience

The source’s audience must also be considered. Evidence of signiﬁcant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary.

10.2.3 Independence of sources

A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it. Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[3] except for the following:

• press releases, press kits, or similar works;

• self-published materials;

• any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it;

• advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization;

• corporate websites or other websites written, published, or controlled by the organization;

• patents, whether pending or granted;[4]

• any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly;

• other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.

Self-promotion and product placement are not routes to qualifying for an encyclopaedia article. Qualifying published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, club, organization, product, or service. Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article’s content. See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the veriﬁability and neutrality problems that aﬀect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.

10.2.4 Illegal conduct

There is a possibility that an organization that is generally not notable will have a number of references if they have engaged in illegal acts, or it is alleged that they have engaged in illegal acts. Sources which primarily discuss allegations of unlawfulness shall not be considered when assessing an organization’s notability per this guideline. However, keep in mind that the organization may still be notable under separate guidelines (e.g., WP:CRIME). 50 CHAPTER 10. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (ORGANIZATIONS AND COMPANIES)

10.3 Special note: advertising and promotion

Advertising is prohibited as an oﬃcial Wikipedia policy. Advertising should be removed by following these steps, in order:

1. Clean up per Wikipedia:NPOV 2. Erase remaining advertising content from the article 3. Delete the article by listing it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if no notable content remains. However, if an article contains only blatant advertising, with no other useful content, it may be tagged per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion instead.

10.4 Alternate criteria for speciﬁc types of organizations

The following sections discuss alternate methods for establishing notability in speciﬁc situations. No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization. These criteria constitute an optional, alternative method for demonstrating notability. Organizations are considered notable if they meet one of the following sourcing requirements

1. these alternate criteria, 2. the primary criteria for organizations, or 3. the general notability guideline and they comply with the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, especially with regards to avoiding indiscriminate inclusion of information.

10.4.1 Non-commercial organizations

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. 2. The organization has received signiﬁcant coverage in multiple[1] reliable sources that are independent of the organization.

Additional considerations are:

• Nationally well-known local organizations: Some organizations are local in scope, but have achieved national or even international notice. Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial veriﬁable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization’s local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to an article on the organization’s local area instead. • Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors speciﬁc to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive. • Caveat - Be cautious of claims that small organizations are national or international in scale. The fact that an organization has branches in multiple countries does not necessarily mean that its activities are truly international. Example: a tiny fraternal organization with a total membership of sixty members, world wide, is not “international in scale” simply because the members live in separate countries and have formed sub-chapters where they live. 10.4. ALTERNATE CRITERIA FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONS 51

Local units of larger organizations

• As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter’s local area.

• In some cases, a specific local chapter or sub-organization that is not considered notable enough for its own article may be significant enough to mention within the context of an article about the parent organization. If the parent article grows to the point where information needs to be split off to a new article, remember that when you split off an article about a local chapter, the local chapter itself must comply with Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, without reference to the notability of the parent organization. Take care not to split off a section that would be considered non-notable on its own. Splitting should occur as a top-down process. See {{splitsection}}.

• Aim for one good article, not multiple permanent stubs: Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub- units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and aﬃliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization. See Wikipedia:Merging.

• Information on sub-chapters of notable organizations might be included in either prose or a brief list in the main article on the organization. If an embedded list becomes too large for the parent article, consideration may be given to splitting out as a stand-alone list only if there are reliable sources dealing with the list as a topic, as with Baird’s Manual of American College Fraternities supporting List of Phi Kappa Psi chapters and colonies. If an embedded list is too large, but is not notable enough for a stand-alone list, then consider trimming.

10.4.2 Schools

All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both.

10.4.3 Commercial organizations

Some commercial organizations meet Wikipedia notability guidelines but care must be taken in determining whether they are truly notable and whether the article is an attempt to use Wikipedia for free advertising. Wikipedia editors should not create articles on commercial organizations for the purpose of overtly or covertly advertising a company. Please see WP:ADVERT.

Publicly traded corporations

There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, suﬃcient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability. Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion.

Chains and franchises

Many companies have chains of local stores or franchises that are individually pretty much interchangeable—for instance, a local McDonald’s. Since there is generally very little to say about individual stores or franchises that is not true for the 52 CHAPTER 10. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (ORGANIZATIONS AND COMPANIES)

chain in general, Wikipedia should not have articles on such individual stores. In rare cases, an individual location will have architectural peculiarities that makes it notable, such as the Shell Service Station (Winston-Salem, North Carolina); however, a series of articles on every single Wal-Mart in China would not be informative. An exception can be made if a major event occurred at a local store; however, this would most likely be created under an article name that describes the event, not the location (see San Ysidro McDonald’s massacre for an example).

10.4.4 Products and services

See also: Wikipedia:Notability § Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines

If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy. When discussion of products and services would make the article unwieldy, some editorial judgment is called for. If the products and services are considered notable enough on their own, one option is to break out the discussion of them into a separate article following WP:Summary style. If the products and services are not notable enough for their own article, the discussion of them should be trimmed and summarized into a shorter format, or even cut entirely. Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product (PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator, Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator, R-36 Explosive Space Modulator, etc.) especially if there is no realistic hope of expansion. If a non-notable product or service has its own article, be bold and merge the article into an article with a broader scope such as the company’s article or propose it for deletion. Note that a speciﬁc product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result.

10.5 If it’s not notable

Further information: WP:FAILN

Although an organization that fails to meet the criteria of this guideline should not have a separate article, information about the organization may nevertheless be included in other ways in Wikipedia provided that certain conditions are met. Content about the organization can be added into relevant articles if it:

• has the appropriate level of detail and signiﬁcance for that article; • avoids self-promotion; and • only includes information that can be veriﬁed through independent sources.

For organizations local to a city, town, or county, content conforming to the above criteria may be added to articles for that locale. For example, a business that is signiﬁcant to the history or economy of a small town might be described in the History or Economy section of the small town.

10.6 See also

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) • Wikipedia:Autobiography (for companies that are creating articles about themselves) • Wikipedia:FAQ/Business 10.7. NOTES 53

• WP:LISTCOMPANY, style guideline for lists of companies

Essays:

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not LinkedIn • Wikipedia:Places of local interest

• Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill, on the non-notability of run-of-the-mill organizations and routine media coverage • Wikipedia:Businesses with a single location, and what to be aware of when creating an article on one

• Wikipedia:Every snowﬂake is unique, on the notability provided by professional and reliable critical reviews • WP:MILUNIT, WikiProject Military History essay on notability of units and formations

• WP:B2B, on notability for Internet related, computing, and services businesses

10.7 Notes

[1] “Source” on Wikipedia can refer to the work itself, the author of the work, and/or the publisher of the work. For notability purposes, sources must be unrelated to each other to be “multiple”. A story from a single news organization (such as AP) reprinted in multiple newspapers (say, in the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Orlando Sentinel) is still one source (one newspaper article). If multiple journalists at multiple newspapers separately and independently write about the same subject, then each of these unrelated articles should be considered separate sources, even if they are writing about the same event or “story”. A series of articles by the same journalist is still treated as one source (one person). The appearance of diﬀerent articles in the same newspaper is still one source (one publisher).

[2] Inclusion in “best of”, “top 100”, and similar lists does not count towards notability at all, unless the list itself is notable, such as the Fortune 500 and the Michelin Guide. Inclusion in a notable list counts like any other reliable source, but it does not exempt the article from the normal value of providing evidence that independent sources discuss the subject.

[3] Examples:

• Microsoft Word satisﬁes this criterion because people who are wholly independent of Microsoft have written books about it. • The Oxford Union satisﬁes this criterion for having two books (by Graham and by Walter) written and published about it.

[4] Patents are written and published solely at the direction of the inventor or organization that the inventor assigned the patent to. Their contents are not veriﬁed to be accurate by the patent oﬃces or any other independent agency. See Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are patents reliable sources?. Chapter 11

Wikipedia:Notability (people)

WP:BIO redirects here. You may have been looking for Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies.

On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be “worthy of notice”[1] or “note”[2] – that is, “remarkable”[2] or “significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded”[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person’s life. “Notable” in the sense of being “famous” or “popular” – although not irrelevant – is secondary. This notability guideline for biographies[3] reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article about a person should be written, merged, deleted or further developed. For advice about how to write biographical articles, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) and Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons. The article title should define what the article is about. If there is enough valid content to fill an article about the person, then “John Doe” would be an appropriate title. If, however, there is only enough information about one notable event related to the person, then the article should be titled specifically about that event, such as Steve Bartman incident. Sometimes when a famous person dies, there is enough information for an article about their death, such as Death of Michael Jackson or Death of Diana, Princess of Wales. If a notable person’s main article is too long to contain all of their works, then a separate page can be created for that information, such as George Orwell bibliography. If the person was the subject of a notable murder, then a title such as Murder of Kitty Genovese is appropriate.

11.1 Basic criteria

See also: Wikipedia:General notability guideline

People are presumed notable if they have received signiﬁcant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]

• If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be suﬃcient to establish notability.[7] • Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not.

54 11.2. ADDITIONAL CRITERIA 55

11.2 Additional criteria

People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. Editors may ﬁnd these criteria helpful when deciding whether to tag an article as requiring additional citations (using {{BLP sources}} for example), or to instead initiate a deletion discussion.

11.2.1 Any biography

1. The person has received a well-known and signiﬁcant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.

2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her speciﬁc ﬁeld.[8]

11.2.2 Academics

Main page: Wikipedia:Notability (academics)

Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably inﬂuential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.

11.2.3 Creative professionals

"WP:AUTHOR" redirects here. For information about the authorship of Wikipedia articles, see WP:OWN.

Authors, editors, journalists, ﬁlmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

1. The person is regarded as an important ﬁgure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

2. The person is known for originating a signiﬁcant new concept, theory or technique.

3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a signiﬁcant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length ﬁlm, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

4. The person’s work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

11.2.4 Crime victims and perpetrators

See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Criminal acts "WP:CRIME" redirects here. For the Crime WikiProject, see WP:WikiProject Crime.

A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. 56 CHAPTER 11. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (PEOPLE)

Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size. Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: For victims, and those wrongly convicted of crime

1. The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic signiﬁcance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote signiﬁcant attention to the individual’s role.[9]

For perpetrators

1. The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities.[10] 2. The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy— such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual’s role.[11] • Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.

11.2.5 Entertainers

Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:

1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. 2. Has a large fan base or a significant “cult” following. 3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. • See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc.

Pornographic actors and models

The following criteria should be brought up in a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion only in relation to subjects who are or have been involved in the pornography industry.

1. Has won a well-known and signiﬁcant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration. 2. Has made unique contributions to a speciﬁc pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent. 3. Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.

11.2.6 Military personnel

For WikiProject Military History guidance, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide. 11.3. INVALID CRITERIA 57

11.2.7 Politicians

Further information: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes § Politicians

1. Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) oﬃce, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[12] This also applies to persons who have been elected to such oﬃces but have not yet assumed them.

2. Major local political ﬁgures who have received signiﬁcant press coverage.[8]

3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article”.

11.2.8 Sports personalities

Main page: Wikipedia:Notability (sports)

11.3 Invalid criteria

• That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless signiﬁcant coverage can be found on A); see Relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander are included in the articles on David Beckham and Britney Spears, respectively, and the links, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander, are merely redirects to those articles.

• Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking), or measuring the number of photos published online. The adult film industry, for example, uses Googlebombing to influence rankings,[13] and for most topics search engines cannot easily differentiate between useful references and mere text matches. For example, while the Alexa Toolbar is useful, its utility is limited by its userbase (numbers and willingness) and by data scarcity (less data tends to raise error margins). When using a search engine to help establish the notability of a topic, evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of the links.

11.4 Failing all criteria

If no criterion can be met for either a standalone article or inclusion in a more general article, and improvements have not worked or cannot be reasonably tried, then three deletion procedures can be considered:[14]

• If speedy deletion criterion A7 applies, use the {{db-person}} tag to request speedy deletion.

• For cases where you are unsure about deletion or believe others might object, nominate the article for the Articles for deletion process, where its merits will be discussed for 7 days. 58 CHAPTER 11. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (PEOPLE)

11.5 Special cases

11.5.1 Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria

If neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article, but the person meets one or more of the additional criteria:

• Merge the article into a broader article providing context.

• Place a {{Mergeto}} tag on the page, indicating the page where the article may be merged.

• If no article currently exists into which the person can be merged, consider writing the article yourself or request the article be written.

11.5.2 Failure to explain the subject’s notability

If an article does not explain the notability of its subject,[15] try to improve it by:

• Adding the {{cleanup-biography}} template, which requests birthdate, historical signiﬁcance, etc.

• Rewriting it yourself

• Asking the article’s editor(s) for advice.

11.5.3 Insuﬃcient sources

If an article fails to cite suﬃcient sources:

• Look for sources yourself

• Ask the article’s editor(s) for advice on where to look for sources.

• Put the {{notability|biographies}} tag on the article to notify other editors.

11.6 People notable for only one event

See also: WP:NOT § NEWS, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLP2E, WP:WI1E and WP:EVENT

When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual’s role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual’s role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.[16] If the event is highly significant, and the individual’s role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual’s role. When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney 11.7. LISTS OF PEOPLE 59

King. On the other hand, if an event is of suﬃcient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination. Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage. For example, Steve Bartman redirects to Steve Bartman incident. In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved. Editors are advised to be cognizant of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people. It is important to remember that “notable” is not a synonym for “famous”. Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event. Similarly, a person may be generally famous, but notable for only a single event.

11.7 Lists of people

See also: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Lists of people, Wikipedia:ALMAMATER and Wikipedia:Namechecking

Many articles contain (or stand alone as) lists of people. Inclusion within stand-alone lists should be determined by the notability criteria above. Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:Source list, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:Trivia sections). Furthermore, every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group. For instance, articles about schools often include (or link to) a list of notable alumni/alumnae, but such lists are not intended to contain everyone who attended the school — only those with veriﬁable notability. Editors who would like to be identiﬁed as an alumnus/alumna should instead use the categories intended for this purpose, e.g. Category:Wikipedians by alma mater. On the other hand, a list within an article of past school presidents, headmasters or headmistresses can contain the names of all the people who held this post, not just those who are independently notable. Note that the guidance in this section is particularly applicable to people but applies to lists in general, not only lists of people.

11.8 Family

Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable. See also Invalid criteria.

11.9 Articles on Wikipedians

Some Wikipedia editors have articles about themselves (see Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles); however, their status as Wikipedian editors by itself has no eﬀect on their notability, regardless of whether they edited Wikipedia before or after their articles were created. (The conﬂict of interest guideline still has bearing on their editing of articles about themselves.) All articles should be judged solely by applicable content and inclusion guidelines and policies, such as this guideline, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. 60 CHAPTER 11. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (PEOPLE)

11.10 See also

• Wikipedia:Namechecking (essay)

• Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced

• Dealing with articles about the dead

• Wikipedia:Diplomatic notability (essay giving examples of the type of diplomats likely to meet notability guidelines)

• Wikipedia:What is one event (essay)

• Wikipedia:Who is a low proﬁle individual (essay)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Notability guide#People (essay giving examples of the types of persons related to the Catholic Church likely to meet notability guidelines)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide#People (essay giving examples of the types of persons related to military servicemember likely to meet notability guidelines)

• Wikipedia:Don't build the Frankenstein (essay)

• Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state (essay)

• Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (a WikiProject focused on “Wikipedia articles that are perceived as actually being notable that are going through Articles for deletion (AfD)")

11.11 Notes

[1] “Notable”. Encarta. Archived from the original by Internet Archive.

[2] American Heritage Dictionary deﬁnition Retrieved 17 January 2015

[3] While this guideline also pertains to small groups of closely related people such as families, co-authors, and co-inventors, it does not cover groups of unrelated people, which are covered by the notability guideline for organizations and companies.

[4] What constitutes a “published work” is deliberately broad.

[5] Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. “Intellectual independence” requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by diﬀerent news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.

[6] Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who’s Who) do not prove notability.

[7] Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing (“John Smith at Big Company said...” or “Mary Jones was hired by My University”) that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person’s life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certiﬁcate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. Database sources such as Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database and Internet Adult Film Database are not considered credible since they are, like many wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion. In addition, in cases like the Internet Movie Database, inclusion is routine for people in the associated domain and can therefore especially not be taken as evidence of notability. 11.11. NOTES 61

[8] Generally, a person who is “part of the enduring historical record” will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that ﬁeld, by historians. A politician who has received “signiﬁcant press coverage” has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has “an independent biography” has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.

[9] Example: Matthew Shepard.

[10] Example: John Hinckley Jr..

[11] Example: Seung-Hui Cho.

[12] This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion. Biographers and historians will usually have already written about the past and present holders of major political offices. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless.

[13] Adrian Degus (2014-02-19). “SEO: Linking Up in 2014”. XBIZ. Retrieved 26 February 2014. Since the early days of our industry we have relied on a standard set of methods to rank our sites for popular keywords, speciﬁcally buying and trading links. These two methods have always gone against Google’s guidelines, they just didn’t have a reliable way to detect it until now.

[14] Wikipedia editors have been known to reject nominations for deletion that have been inadequately researched. Research should include attempts to ﬁnd sources which might demonstrate notability, and/or information which would demonstrate notability in another manner.

[15] The text of an article should include enough information to explain why the person is notable. External arguments via a talk page or AFD debate page are not part of the article itself, and promises on those pages to provide information are not as valid as the existence of the information on the article page itself.

[16] It is important for editors to understand two clear diﬀerentiations of WP:BIO1E when compared to WP:BLP1E. Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people. Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low proﬁle individuals. Chapter 12

Wikipedia:Notability (sports)

"WP:ATHLETE" redirects here. It is not to be confused with Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Sports and games.

This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines). Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion, along with relevant guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

12.1 Applicable policies and guidelines

All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. Information about living persons must meet the more stringent requirements for those types of articles. It is not intended that this guideline should apply to sports clubs and teams; for these the specific notability guideline is WP:ORG. Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline. Any athletic entertainment event where the results are at least partially predetermined or scripted is not covered by this page. For participants in such events (e.g. Professional wrestling), see WP:ENTERTAINER. At this time there is no consensus that Electronic sports participants are covered by the criteria of this guideline.[1]

12.2 Basic criteria

Main page: Wikipedia:Notability See also: Wikipedia’s basic criteria for the notability of people

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary

62 12.3. PROFESSIONAL SPORTS PERSONS 63 sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] The guidelines on this page are intended to reﬂect the fact that sports ﬁgures are likely to meet Wikipedia’s basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics).

• Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not suﬃcient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as the College Football Data Warehouse. • Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. • Some sources must be used with particular care when establishing notability, and should be evaluated on a case-by- case basis. Local sources must be clearly independent of the subject, and must provide a level of coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE. Listings of statistics must clearly satisfy the requirement for signiﬁcant coverage.

12.3 Professional sports persons

12.3.1 American football/Canadian football

American football/Canadian football players and coaches are presumed notable if they

1. Have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game in any one of the following professional leagues: the Arena Football League, the Canadian Football League, the National Football League, the third American Football League, the All-America Football Conference or the United States Football League, or any other top-level professional league. 2. Note: Players who play in minor or semi-professional leagues (such as af2) are not presumed notable unless they meet another criterion, such as notability arising from their college football days.

12.3.2 Association football

Association football (soccer) ﬁgures are presumed notable if they meet the following:

1. Players who have played in, and managers who have managed in any Tier 1 International Match, as deﬁned by FIFA,[6] (including the Olympics) are notable. The notability of these is accepted as they would have received signiﬁcant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria. 2. Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable. See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football.

Note: For the purposes of this guideline, a player has appeared in a match if he or she was in the starting line-up or came on as a substitute. Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.

12.3.3 Athletics/track & ﬁeld and long-distance running

Athletes who compete in the ﬁeld of Athletics are presumed notable if they meet any of the criteria below

1. Has competed in the Olympics or senior IAAF World Championships 64 CHAPTER 12. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (SPORTS)

2. Finished top 8 in a competition at the highest level outside of the Olympic games and world championships. Indi- vidual events in these championships must contain either several heats or extended fields (e.g. European Athletics Championships, Commonwealth Games, or any of the 6 World Major Marathons). 3. Finished top 3 in any other major senior level international competition (this includes prestigious small field meets, e.g. IAAF Diamond League/IAAF Golden League meets, less prestigious large scale meets, e.g. Asian Games, and any IAAF Gold Label Road Race that is not explicitly mentioned above) 4. Has won an individual gold medal at the IAAF World Junior Championships, Youth World Championships or World Masters Athletics Championships. 5. Has won their country’s senior national championship, with the exception of those that have never been ranked in the top 60 on the IAAF world leading list at the end of a given calendar year 6. Has won the elite division of multiple notable* road races (including the same race multiple times) or has established a history of highly competitive, non-winning performances in many notable races (at least 10 top threes) 7. Has at any time held a world or continental record (including world junior records, world youth bests and masters age-group world records) ratified or noted by the appropriate official body 8. Owns a mark that placed the athlete in the top 12 in the world for that calendar year in a non-relay event contested or admitted to the senior IAAF World Championships or Olympics, or an equivalent performance over a closely matching imperial distance 9. Has a non-relay mark listed on the IAAF senior all-time list or equivalent list 10. Has been inducted into the National Track and Field Hall of Fame or the Road Runners Club of America Hall of Fame.

To non-athletes associated with the sport (or athletes whose main claim to notability is non-athletic activity) the following criteria of notability apply:

1. Coaches that have coached many notable athletes, including at least one (non-relay) Olympic medalist, World champion or senior World Record holder during the time of the athletes’ notable accomplishments. 2. Coaches that have been the oﬃcial head coach of an Olympic track and ﬁeld team for a country with multiple medalists. 3. Coaches that introduced a notable technique or training method, and is widely credited as the originator. 4. Clubs that have received major international coverage for its successes and has a résumé composed of many successful Olympians over a long period of time (e.g. Irish American Athletic Club). If a club’s success is mainly due to one coach, then only the coach is notable.

*The notability of a road race is determined by meeting any one of the following criteria

1. It has an international elite (as defined by the IAAF standards for that year) field of at least 5 different nationalities. 2. It receives broadcast or cable television coverage beyond the local market (if coverage is through the internet, the site must be independent of the sport, for example Universal Sports). 3. It is a directly competitive meeting between several notable performers (at least 5).

The following criteria may also be used to satisfy road race notability, but does not count towards the notability of athletes who compete in these races

1. It has been the site of exceptional performances or records (bests). 2. It regularly has more than 5,000 competitors. 3. It has been held over a unique course or distance consistently over a period of 25 years. 12.3. PROFESSIONAL SPORTS PERSONS 65

12.3.4 Australian rules football

Athletes who compete in Australian rules football are presumed notable if they meet any of the criteria below

1. Has appeared in a match of the Australian Football League.

2. Before 1990, appeared in a match of the Victorian Football League.

3. Is known, and has received signiﬁcant coverage in reliable sources, for major individual achievements in a state football league.

Coaches are presumed notable if they have been the head coach of an Australian Football League team or, before 1990, a Victorian Football League team.

12.3.5 Badminton

Athletes in Badminton are presumed notable if they meet any of the criteria below

1. Participation at the Olympic Games, or World Championships,

2. Competed in the quarter ﬁnals at a tournament of the highest level outside of the Olympics or World Championships (e.g. Continental Championships, BWF Super Series or Commonwealth Games) in teams or singles or doubles competitions.

3. Medalist at the highest international teams or singles/doubles championships of a country (e.g. Canadian Open, German Open, Slovak International).

4. Medalist at tournaments of the BWF Grand Prix Gold and Grand Prix.

5. Gold medalist at a national teams or singles/doubles championship, for countries that regularly send athletes to the Olympics.

12.3.6 Baseball

Baseball ﬁgures are presumed notable if they

1. Are a member of a major Hall of Fame, such as the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum or the Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame.

2. Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, Korea Baseball Organization or have participated in a major international competition (such as the World Baseball Classic, Baseball World Cup or Olympics) as a member of a national team.

3. Have appeared in at least one game in any of the following defunct leagues: All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, American Association, Cuban League, Federal League, Japanese Baseball League, National As- sociation of Professional Base Ball Players, Negro Major Leagues, Players’ League, Union Association.

4. Have served as a commissioner, president, general manager, owner, coach, or manager in one of the above- mentioned leagues.

5. Have served as a Major League Baseball umpire on a regular league staﬀ. 66 CHAPTER 12. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (SPORTS)

Players and other ﬁgures who do not meet the criteria above are not presumed to meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, and team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not suﬃcient by themselves to establish notability.[7] Some minor league players receive some coverage from reliable sources, but not enough to satisfy the notability criteria for an independent article. In these cases, it may be appropriate to write a short, stub-length bio as a section within the article on the franchise’s minor league players (for example, Minnesota Twins minor league players). Please note that such mini-bios should cite reliable sources and conform with Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP.

12.3.7 Basketball

Basketball ﬁgures are presumed notable if they

1. Have appeared in one game as either a player or head coach in the original American Basketball Association, Asociación de Clubs de Baloncesto, Euroleague, National Basketball Association, National Basketball League (Australia), National Basketball League (United States), Serie A, Women’s National Basketball Association, or a similar major professional sports league. 2. Were selected in the ﬁrst two rounds of the NBA Draft. 3. Have won an award, or led the league in a major statistical category of the Continental Basketball Association or NBA Development League.

12.3.8 Boxing

A boxer is presumed notable if he or she:

1. Has fought for a world title (e.g., super, regular/full, interim) for one of the following current or historical major sanctioning bodies: • Men: International Boxing Federation (IBF), World Boxing Association (WBA) (and its predecessor the NBA), World Boxing Council (WBC), World Boxing Organization (WBO), or NYSAC • Women: International Female Boxers Association, International Women’s Boxing Federation, Women’s International Boxing Association, or Women’s International Boxing Federation 2. Has fought for a regular/full national or higher non-world title for an affiliated organization of one of the above listed major sanctioning bodies (e.g., IBF-affiliated (USBA), WBA-affiliated (BUI or PABA), WBC-affiliated (ABCO, BBBofC (and its predecessor the NSC), EBU (and its predecessor the IBU), NABF, or OPBF), or WBO-affiliated (NABO)) 3. Has been ranked in the world top ten of any weight class by the IBF, WBA, WBC, WBO, or Ring magazine. 4. Has fought, as an amateur, in the final of a national amateur championship for an International Boxing Associ- ation/Association Internationale de Boxe Amateur (AIBA) affiliated and World Amateur Boxing Championship medal winning country (for Men see Medal table (1974 - present), for Women see Medal table (2001 - present)), or have represented their AIBA affiliated country in a continental (or higher) tournament.

12.3.9 Cricket

Further information: WP:CRIN

A cricket ﬁgure is presumed notable if he or she 12.3. PROFESSIONAL SPORTS PERSONS 67

1. has appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire 2. has appeared in at least one ICC World Cup Qualiﬁer match since 2005, or in an ICC Trophy ﬁnal prior to 2005, as a player or umpire 3. has appeared in at least one World Cricket League match of Division Six status or above since 2007 as a player or umpire

12.3.10 Curling

A curler is presumed notable if he or she

1. Has participated in a World Curling Tour sanctioned event. 2. Has participated in a World Curling Federation sanctioned event. 3. Has participated in the Brier, the Tournament of Hearts or received a podium finish for another country’s national championship, provided that the country has qualified a team into either the preceding or succeeding Olympics. 4. Has participated in an Olympic qualifying event for any country. 5. Has participated in the Canadian Mixed, Junior or Senior championship. 6. Has participated in a provincial or territorial playdown leading to the Brier or Tournament of Hearts. 7. Has participated in a TSN Skins Game or Canada Cup of Curling game. 8. Has received a podium finish at a Canadian Wheelchair Curling Championship or the Canadian Masters Curling Championships. 9. Has participated at the Paralympics. 10. Is a member of the Canadian Curling Hall of Fame or the WCF Hall of Fame.

12.3.11 Cycling

Cyclists are presumed notable if they Elite Men (at least 1): Professional (UCI World Tour); Rode in a Grand Tour or Monument; Competed at the Olympics or UCI World Championships or UCI World Cup; Won Gold at an international multi-sport event (games) (also includes races like the World University Cycling Champi- onship); Won a UCI category race (minimum classiﬁcation 1.1 / 2.1, including Continental and National Championships). Elite Woman (at least 1): Professional (UCI Women’s team); Competed at the Olympics or UCI World Championships or UCI World Cup; Won a UCI category race (including Continental and National Championships); Won Gold at an international multi-sport event (games) (also includes races like the World University Cycling Champi- onship). Teams are presumed notable if they are Men’s road: 1st (UCI WorldTeam), 2nd (UCI ProContinental), or 3rd tier (UCI Continental); UCI team (UCI women’s team, UCI track team, UCI mountain bike team, UCI cyclo-cross team, etc.). Races are presumed notable if they Ranked with the UCI (WT, 1HC, 1.1, 1.2, 2HC, 2.1, 2.2, CDM, JO, CM, GT, CC, CN); Races at international multi-sport event (games) (also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship); Holds signiﬁcant recognition (e.g, Parel van de Veluwe and the People’s Choice Classic). 68 CHAPTER 12. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (SPORTS)

12.3.12 Equestrian sport

This section does not encompass notability issues for individuals in rodeo, which is addressed at WP:NRODEO, or horse racing, which can be satisﬁed through WP:NHORSERACING. Equestrians competing at the highest level of international competition are not always “professionals”, some earn money and some do not, but most have sponsors or receive money to support their activities. Both professionals and non-professionals have been put in the professional sports category for convenience.

Individual people who are involved in equestrian sport are presumed notable if they

1. Have participated at the Olympic Equestrian Events as a rider or oﬃcial team coach

2. Have participated at the Paralympics as a rider, driver or oﬃcial team coach

3. Have participated at the Pan American Games as a rider, driver or oﬃcial team coach

4. Have participated at the FEI World Equestrian Games (WEG) as a rider, driver or oﬃcial team coach

5. If prior to a competition becoming part of the combined WEG, placed individually or been on a team that won gold, silver, or bronze at the Eventing World Championship, Show Jumping World Championships, or Dressage World Championship, Combined Driving World Championships, Endurance World Championships or World Vaulting Championships

6. Have won a FEI World Cup competition.

Notability for persons associated with equestrian competition who were not notable as competitors or team coaches as outlined above:

1. A coach who worked with many competitors considered notable by the criteria above, including at least one individual Olympic medalist or World Equestrian Games champion

2. Individual members inducted into a major equestrian-oriented national hall of fame dedicated to sports with international-level competition, such as the United States Show Jumping Hall of Fame.

3. A horse trainer who worked with many horses that (with their riders or drivers) competed in competition considered notable by the criteria above, including winners of at least one Olympic medal or World Equestrian Games championship

4. Heads of national and international federations, e.g. United States Equestrian Federation,Fédération_Equestre_Internationale.

5. A horse breeder who was the breeder of record for many notable horses including the mounts of at least one Olympic medal or World Equestrian Games championship competitor.

12.3.13 Figure skating

Figure skaters competing at the highest level of international competition are not “professional” skaters, but they are also not amateurs since they do receive money. They are called eligible skaters but have been put in the professional sports category for convenience. For notability guideline for all ﬁgure skating-related subjects, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability.

Figure skating ﬁgures are presumed notable if they 12.3. PROFESSIONAL SPORTS PERSONS 69

1. Competed at an Olympics or at an ISU senior World Figure Skating Championships (Competing in a world championship qualifying round does not guarantee notability.)

2. Competed in the free skate at the following ISU Championships: World Junior Figure Skating Championships, European Figure Skating Championships, Four Continents Figure Skating Championships

3. Won their country’s senior national championships, with the exception of those countries that do not regularly send multiple skaters to the Olympic Games (consult this Olympic athlete tally to check whether the country qualiﬁes).

4. Competed at a Grand Prix of Figure Skating event (Skate America, Skate Canada International, Trophee Eric Bompard, Cup of China, Cup of Russia, NHK Trophy, Bofrost Cup on Ice)

5. Medaled at a non-Grand Prix international senior-level event (commonly referred to as “senior B” competitions, as opposed to “A” competitions, which are the Grand Prixs and ISU championships. See ﬁgure skating competitions for more information and List of ﬁgure skating competitions for a list of events. Notable examples of senior Bs are the Nebelhorn Trophy, the Karl Schäfer Memorial and the Golden Spin of Zagreb.)

Notability for persons associated with skating who were not notable as eligible skaters:

1. A coach or choreographer who has worked with many notable skaters, including at least one Olympic medalist or senior World Champion (e.g. Pam Gregory, and David Wilson)

2. Heads of national and international federations.

3. Individual members of the World Figure Skating Hall of Fame, or a major national ﬁgure skating hall of fame, such as the U.S. Figure Skating Hall of Fame.

12.3.14 Golf

Golf ﬁgures are presumed notable if:

1. They have competed in the Ryder Cup, Presidents Cup, Solheim Cup or similar international competition

2. They are enshrined in one of golf’s recognized Halls of Fame (ex: World Golf Hall of Fame)

3. They have won at least one professional golf tournament (ex: PGA Tour, LPGA Tour, European Tour, Champions Tour)

4. They have won at least one recognized amateur golf tournament at the national or international level (ex: U.S. Amateur, British Amateur)

5. They have made the cut in one of the major tournaments:

• Men: Masters Tournament, U.S. Open, The Open Championship, PGA Championship • Women: Current majors — U.S. Women’s Open, Women’s British Open, ANA Inspiration, Women’s PGA Championship, The Evian Championship; or past majors — du Maurier Classic, Women’s Western Open, Titleholders Championship • Senior men: Senior PGA Championship, U.S. Senior Open, Senior Players Championship, Senior British Open, The Tradition

6. They have competed as a professional on the PGA, LPGA, European, or Champions Tour for at least one full year

7. They hold a golf record (ex: lowest score) recognized by the USGA, PGA, LPGA or The R&A 70 CHAPTER 12. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (SPORTS)

12.3.15 Gymnastics

Artistic gymnasts are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below

1. competed at the Summer Olympics or senior World Championships 2. won a senior individual medal at an elite international competition* 3. won their country’s senior all-around or individual event ﬁnals national championship while competing for a country who qualiﬁed a full team into the most recent Olympics or senior World Championships 4. won an individual medal at the senior national championships for any country that medaled in the team competition at the most recent Olympics or World Championships 5. inducted into the International Gymnastics Hall of Fame

Junior gymnasts are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below (females only)

1. won an individual gold medal at the junior national championships for any of the following countries: USA, Russia, China, Romania 2. won an individual gold medal, in the junior division, at an elite international competition* 3. won an individual medal at the Youth Olympic Games

Coaches are assumed notable if

1. they have coached many notable athletes, including at least one individual Olympic medalist or World champion 2. they have been the oﬃcial head coach of an Olympic or World Championship team

*An elite international competition is any competition with considerable international WP:GNG coverage between at least eight notable athletes (examples of such competitions include: Pan American Games, Asian Games, Commonwealth Games, European Championships, and Paciﬁc Rim Championships).

12.3.16 Horse racing

Notability for people involved in sport horse disciplines other than horse racing are covered at WP:NEQUESTRIAN or WP:NRODEO For expanded notability guidelines to assist in applying GNG for all horse racing-related subjects, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing/Notability.

Not all participants in horse racing are athletic “professionals”, particularly owners and breeders, but due to purse money and proﬁt motive throughout the sport they are put in the professional sports category for convenience. Horse racing ﬁgures, including horses and/or their human “connections” (horse trainers, jockeys or horse owners and horse breeders) are presumed to most likely meet WP:GNG for notability if they have accomplished any of the following:

1. Individuals who win a Grade I/Group I stakes race or the equivalent level in their respective nations. (Horses, due to their relatively short careers, at least once; humans best to have done so more than once) 2. Individuals who have won multiple signiﬁcant Grade/Group 2 or 3 graded stakes races or the equivalent level in their respective nations. 12.3. PROFESSIONAL SPORTS PERSONS 71

3. Individuals who have won year-end championship titles, such as an Eclipse Award.

4. Members of a national Racing Hall of Fame.

Notability for horses or persons associated with horse racing who were not competitors or do not meet the criteria above may be presumed notable if they meet GNG for any of the following:

1. Individual humans who were signiﬁcant for new advancements or trailblazing achievements. (examples: Andrew Beyer, Florence Nagle, Diane Crump)

2. Horses that may not have raced to any signiﬁcant degree (usually due to injury), but had multiple signiﬁcant progeny, such as Tapit.

3. Horses who are ranked the leading sire or broodmare for a given year in their respective nations (again, see Tapit)

4. Breeding farms or farm owners that do not race many horses themselves, but have produced or currently stand horses who became notable winners. (i.e. Adena Springs)

5. Agents, race track announcers (i.e. Larry Collmus), racing journalists (i.e. Steve Haskin), venue owners (i.e. Frank Stronach) and other business professionals with a signiﬁcant connection to horse racing.

6. Horses and individuals involved in highly publicized thefts or other crimes, e.g. Shergar, scandals or other nefarious activities, such as substitution scams, e.g. Fine Cotton.

7. An individual person with a connection to a notable horse is not inherently notable for that reason only, see WP: BIO1E, though if the individual’s role is a large one, a signiﬁcant connection to a single notable horse might justify a spinoﬀ article. (i.e. Eddie Sweat, groom of Secretariat). Conversely, a horse is not presumed notable just because the owner is famous: Jim Rome owns racehorses, Shared Belief is notable, Gallatin’s Run is probably not.

12.3.17 Ice hockey

Ice hockey players are presumed notable if they

1. Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league;

2. Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant;

3. Played at least 200 games (90 games for a goaltender) or achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star) in top-level minor leagues or second tier national leagues;

4. Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American) in a lower minor league, in a major junior league, or in a major collegiate hockey league (Note: merely playing in a major junior league or major collegiate hockey is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements);

5. Were a ﬁrst-round draft pick in the NHL Entry Draft;

6. Played on a senior national team (such as at the Olympic Games or World Championship); or

7. Are an honored member of a national or multinational hockey Hall of Fame.

For coaches or managers of ice hockey teams, substitute “coached” or “managed” for “played” in the player guidelines. Please see WP:NHOCKEY/LA for a list of leagues at each level maintained by the Ice Hockey WikiProject. 72 CHAPTER 12. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (SPORTS)

12.3.18 Kickboxing

A kickboxing athlete is presumed notable if they've:

• fought for a world title of a major organization or promotion (K-1, WMC, ISKA, WAKO-Pro, Glory, It’s Showtime, WKN, WBC Muaythai, PKA (through 1986), WKA (through 2000)),

• been ranked in the world top 10 by a major, preferably two, independent publication that meets the deﬁnition of a reliable source, or

• been a Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion.

Kickboxers that have an amateur background exclusively are not considered notable unless the person has been the subject examined in detail (more than a single paragraph) in several reliable third-party sources (at least four), excluding local publications.

12.3.19 Mixed martial arts

Mixed martial artists are presumed notable if they

1. Have fought at least three (3) professional ﬁghts for a top-tier MMA organization, such as the UFC (see WP: MMATIER); or

2. Have fought for the highest title of a top-tier MMA organization

See also: an essay, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability

12.3.20 Motorsports

Motorsport ﬁgures are presumed notable if they

1. Have driven in a race in a fully professional series. A fully professional series is one where prize money is not trivial compared to the cost of the series. For example, the SCCA Trans-Am Series is considered professional while the SCCA Spec Miata National Championship isn't.

2. Predate the sharp distinction between professional and amateur (prior to World War II).

3. Competed in a series or race of worldwide or national interest (for example, the American Championship or 24 Hours of Le Mans).

4. Have owned or been team principal for a team in a major racing series (NASCAR Sprint Cup, Formula One, IndyCar, A1GP, CART, IMSA) for a full season or more. This includes Sprint Cup crew chiefs.

5. Have been enshrined in any notable motorsports hall of fame.

6. Founded, owned, or managed any notable professional racing series.

7. Designers or engineers who have been covered extensively by the media or motorsports historians.

8. Hold or have held a signiﬁcant motorsports record, such as a land speed record. 12.3. PROFESSIONAL SPORTS PERSONS 73

12.3.21 Rodeo

Individuals who participate in the sport of Rodeo are presumed notable if they

1. Have participated as athletes at the highest level of professional competition such as the Calgary Stampede, Canadian Finals Rodeo, National Finals Rodeo, or National Finals Rodeo (Australia);

2. Have been inducted into a national or international rodeo hall of fame such as the ProRodeo Hall of Fame, Canadian Pro Rodeo Hall of Fame, National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum Rodeo Hall of Fame, or National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame.

3. College rodeo athletes in NIRA competition will follow NCOLLATH and younger rodeo competitors will follow NHSPHSATH.

12.3.22 Rugby league

A player, or coach of rugby league football is presumed notable if they:

1. Have appeared in at least one match at a Rugby League World Cup tournament, Rugby League Four Nations tournament, Paciﬁc Cup or Rugby League European Cup, or

2. Have appeared in at least one match between Great Britain, England, Wales, France, New Zealand or Australia prior to 1995, or

3. Have appeared in at least one match of a fully professional club Rugby league competition:

• National Rugby League (see Note 1), or • Super League (see Note 1) including Challenge Cup appearances.

Other players and personalities surrounding the game are notable if they meet WP:GNG.

Note 1: or their earlier iterations in the UK, Australia or New Zealand.

12.3.23 Rugby union

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability

A rugby union person is presumed notable if he or she has played for, coached or administered:

1. a “High Performance Union” at any time(see Note 1) or another test nation during an appearance at the men’s Rugby World Cup(see Note 2) or,

2. a team in a fully professional rugby union competition since 1995 or,

3. a team in the Rugby World Cup Sevens, IRB Sevens World Series, Commonwealth Games, Olympics, or

4. a women’s national team in at least the semi-ﬁnals of the Women’s Rugby World Cup.(see Note 3)

Note 1: “High Performance Unions” for men are: Argentina, Australia, Canada, England, Fiji, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Romania, Samoa, Scotland, South Africa, Tonga, United States, and Wales.[8] Women do not have this criterion. 74 CHAPTER 12. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (SPORTS)

Note 2: Non-High Performance Unions nations that have appeared at the World cup are: Georgia (2003, 2007, 2011), Ivory Coast (1995), Namibia (1999, 2003, 2007, 2011), Portugal (2007), Spain (1999), Russia (2011), Uruguay (1999 and 2003), and Zimbabwe (1987 and 1991) Note 3: Nations that have played at the Women’s World cup at the semi-ﬁnal level are: Australia (2010), Canada (1998, 2002, 2006), England (1991, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010), France (1991, 1994, 2002, 2006, 2010), New Zealand (1991, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010), United States (1991, 1994, 1998), and Wales (1994).

The above parameters apply to all rugby union persons regardless of professional or amateur status. A player who signs for a team in a fully professional rugby competition but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable. Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.

12.3.24 Sumo

Sumo wrestlers are presumed notable if they have been ranked in either the top makuuchi division or second highest juryo division. Wrestlers who have only appeared in lower divisions are generally not notable as they have not reached fully professional status.

12.3.25 Tennis

Tennis ﬁgures are presumed to be notable if they

1. Are a member of the International Tennis Hall of Fame, either in the contributor or player category 2. Have competed in one of the international team competitions: Fed Cup, Davis Cup, Hopman Cup or World Team Cup 3. Have competed in the main draw in one of the highest level professional tournaments: • Grand slam tournaments (the Australian Open, the French Open, Wimbledon, or the US Open) • Men: ATP World Tour tournaments (the ATP World Tour Finals, ATP World Tour Masters 1000, ATP World Tour 500, or ATP World Tour 250) • Women: WTA Tour tournaments (the WTA Premier, the WTA International, or the WTA Tour Championships) 4. Have won at least one title in any of the ATP Challenger tournaments 5. Have won at least one title in any of the ITF Women’s $50,000–$100,000+ tournaments. Until 2007, the notability threshold shall be winning a $25,000 tournament based on the lowest payout for a men’s challenger tournament in the same year. 6. Hold a tennis record recognized by the International Tennis Federation, ATP or WTA

This guideline applies equally to singles and doubles players. Junior players are presumed to be notable if they have won at least a junior Grand slam title, have been in the top 3 of the junior ITF world rankings or can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG. More detailed tennis notability information can be found at WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines.

12.3.26 Triathlon

Triathletes are presumed notable if they

1. Have competed in Triathlon at the Summer Olympics or have had a podium ﬁnish at the Commonwealth Games. 12.4. AMATEUR SPORTS PERSONS 75

2. Have had a top ten finish in the final ITU World Triathlon Series standings (or in the final ITU Triathlon World Cup standings, prior to 2009). 3. Have had a top ten finish in an International Triathlon Union sanctioned championship event. 4. Have an elite level podium finish at an ITU Continental Championship. 5. Have had a professional division top ten finish at the Ironman World Championship or at the Ironman 70.3 World Championship. 6. Have had a podium finish at the XTERRA Triathlon championships. 7. Have won an event that has a starting pro/elite field of at least 15 male or 10 female competitors. 8. Have set a record for a standard distance event or leg.

12.4 Amateur sports persons

12.4.1 College athletes

College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who:

1. Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record. 2. Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame). 3. Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team.

12.4.2 Gaelic games

Players of Gaelic games are presumed notable if they fulﬁll any of the following criteria:

1. Gaelic footballers who have played at senior inter-county level in the League or Championship 2. Gaelic handballers who have won at senior inter-county level 3. Hurlers who have played at senior inter-county level in the League or Championship

12.4.3 High school and pre-high school athletes

High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Note that the ﬁrst clause would exclude all school papers and school websites that cover their sports teams and other teams they compete against. The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports speciﬁc publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability.

12.5 Organizations and games notability

12.5.1 Teams

This guideline does not cover sports teams. For guidance, please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). 76 CHAPTER 12. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (SPORTS)

12.5.2 Olympic and Paralympic Games

• Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924), or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games; e.g. Ian Thorpe or Laurentia Tan • Nations participating at an individual Summer or Winter, Olympic or Paralympic Games are considered notable, e.g. United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics or Great Britain at the 2002 Winter Paralympics • Sports at individual Summer or Winter Olympic or Paralympic Games are considered notable, e.g. Archery at the 2004 Summer Olympics or Wheelchair curling at the 2006 Winter Paralympics • Events at individual Summer or Winter Olympic or Paralympic Games are considered notable, e.g. Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men’s road race or Skeleton at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Women’s

For details on suggested content for the above article types see Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Manual of Style.

12.5.3 Individual seasons

Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements. Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created. For college sports teams, weigh both the season itself and the sport (for example, if a US collegiate American football team and a US collegiate fencing team enjoy the same level of success, the football team is likely to receive a signiﬁcantly greater amount of coverage):

• A national championship season at the top collegiate level is generally notable. • A national championship season at a lower collegiate level might be notable • A season including a post-season appearance (or, if there is no post-season competition, a high final ranking) in the top collegiate level is often notable. • For programs considered elite in a sport (e.g., Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, in men’s basketball; Tennessee and UConn in women’s basketball; Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, USC in football, etc.) many or all seasons might be notable regardless of the outcome (the amount written by reliable sources on a weekly basis for some of these programs is enough that almost anything or anyone having any relation to them is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline). • In cases where the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article.

12.5.4 Individual games or series

Further information: Wikipedia:Notability (events)

Some games or series are inherently notable, including but not limited to the following:

• The ﬁnal series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league, e.g. 2009 Stanley Cup Finals, or 2009 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final, or Super Bowl XLIII, or 2006 UEFA Champions League Final 12.6. RESEARCH LINKS 77

• College bowl games (not limited to BCS bowl games, see e.g. 2009–10 NCAA football bowl games).

• All-star or similar exhibition games, e.g. 2009 Major League Baseball All-Star Game

• A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)

Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats. Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable.

12.5.5 Rivalries

Sports rivalries are not inherently notable. Articles on sports rivalries, such as Yankees–Red Sox rivalry, should satisfy the general notability guideline.

12.6 Research links

See also: Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives

The following are some potential places to look for sources to establish sports notability:

• Chronicling America Library of Congress, historic newspapers from 1836–1922 (free)

• Google news search (mostly free)

• LA84 Foundation Digital archive of the LA84 Foundation research library; digitized books, periodicals, and magazines on sports (free)

• Newspaper archive Digitized newspapers, broad coverage (free search, paid access)

12.7 Notes

[1] "Statement to exclude Esports from this guideline" discussion, October–November 2011

[2] What constitutes a “published work” is deliberately broad.

[3] Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person’s life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certiﬁcate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. Database sources such as Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database and Internet Adult Film Database are not considered credible since they are, like wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion.

[4] Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. “Intellectual independence” requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by diﬀerent news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not. 78 CHAPTER 12. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (SPORTS)

[5] Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who’s Who) do not prove notability.

[6] “Regulations Governing International Matches” (PDF). FIFA. p. 7.

[7] Articles that are not sourced to published material providing signiﬁcant coverage of the subject (beyond just statistics sites) may be nominated for deletion.

[8] International Rugby Board (2011). “Regulation 16”. Regulations relating to the game (PDF). International Rugby Board. p. 151. Chapter 13

Wikipedia:Notability (web)

WP:WEB and WP:INTERNET redirects here. You might be looking for Wikipedia:Build the web, Wikipedia:WikiProject Websites, Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet culture.

From WP:NOT#INTERNET:

Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website’s achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.

This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if a form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself, should have an article on Wikipedia. Web content includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines, other media, podcasts, webcomics, and web portals. Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered web content for the purposes of this guideline.[1] Wikipedians are averse to the use of Wikipedia for advertising, and the idea that Wikipedia articles are not advertisements is an official policy of long standing. Advertising is either cleaned up to adhere to the neutral point of view or deleted.[2] Wikipedia is not a web directory, in that it is not a site that specializes in linking to other web sites and categorizing those links. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Articles which merely include an external link and a brief description of its contents may be deleted. Topics that do not satisfy notability criteria are dealt with in two ways: merging and deleting. Articles that may be non- notable can be marked with the {{notability}} template to make other editors aware of the problem. When such articles being listed for deletion, the articles are discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Alternatively, the proposed deletion process may be used for articles that are uncontroversially deletion candidates, while the {{db-web}} template can be used to mark an article for speedy deletion; see criterion A7 for details.

13.1 Decisions based on veriﬁable evidence

Main page: Wikipedia:Notability § Notability requires veriﬁable evidence

In the dictionary, notable means “worthy of being noted” or “attracting notice.” Wikipedia bases its decision about whether web content is notable enough to justify a separate article on the veriﬁable evidence that the web content has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the web content, its authors, or its owners. Notability requires only that these necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article.

79 80 CHAPTER 13. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (WEB)

13.1.1 No inherent notability

“Notability” is not synonymous with “fame” or “importance,” and even web content that editors personally believe is “important” or “famous” is only accepted as notable if it can be shown to have attracted notice. No web content is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of content it is. If the individual web content has received no or very little attention from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other web content of its type is commonly notable or merely because it exists (see “If it’s not notable”, below). When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. High-traffic websites are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller websites can also be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger websites.

13.1.2 No inherited notability

Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it. If the web content itself did not receive notice, then the web content is not notable. For example, if a notable person has a website, then the website does not “inherit” notability from its owner. In such cases, it is often best to describe the website in the article about the notable person. Similarly, a website may be notable, but the owners or authors do not “inherit” notability due to the web content they wrote.

13.2 Criteria

Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content[3] may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria:

• The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[4] except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5] or trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online stores.

• The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.[6]

These criteria are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying web content that Wikipedia should probably have articles about. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for content meeting one or both of these criteria. However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the content.

13.3 If the content is not notable

Further information: WP:FAILN

Wikipedia should not have a separate article on any web content that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or any web content that, despite meeting the rules of thumb described above, for whom 13.4. SEE ALSO 81 editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the web content. Wikipedia’s goal is neither tiny articles with no realistic hope of expansion nor articles based primarily on what the subject or its creators say about themselves. However, information about such web content may nevertheless be included in other ways in Wikipedia, provided that certain conditions are met. Material about web content that does not qualify for a separate, stand-alone can be preserved by adding it into relevant articles if it:

• has the appropriate level of detail and signiﬁcance for that article; • avoids self-promotion; and • includes information that can be veriﬁed through independent sources.

Web content that does not qualify for a separate, stand-alone article might be described in a relevant list of web content like the List of internet phenomena. Material about websites might be merged to articles about the organizations that own the websites. Appropriate redirects from the subject’s name should be created to help readers ﬁnd such information.

13.4 See also

• Wikipedia:Cite sources • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view • Wikipedia:No original research • Wikipedia:Reliable sources • Wikipedia:Search engine test • Wikipedia:Verifiability

13.5 Notes

[1] Content which has been packaged into material form, such as onto CD, DVD, or book form, but which is still primarily only available for sale via the Internet, still falls under these guidelines. If such packaging of the product is widely available for sale in major brick and mortar retailers, then it should be considered a product, for which see Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). [2] Articles about websites or content which fail these guidelines but are related to a topic or subject which does merit inclusion may be redirected to that topic or subject rather than be listed for deletion. [3] Discussions of websites should be incorporated (with a redirect if necessary) into an article about the parent organization, unless the domain-name of the website is the most common way of referring to the organization. For example, yahoo.com is a redirect to Yahoo!. On the other hand Drugstore.com is a standalone page. [4] Examples: • The webcomic When I Am King has been reviewed by The Guardian, Playboy, The Comics Journal, and Wired. • The blog Daily Kos has been covered by Los Angeles Times, Time, The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, and The New York Times. [5] Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be by someone else who is writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the veriﬁability and neutrality problems that arise in material where the subject of the article itself is the source of material cited in the article.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site worthy enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. [6] Being nominated for such an award in multiple years may also be considered an indicator of notability. 82 CHAPTER 13. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (WEB)

13.6 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

13.6.1 Text

• Wikipedia:Notability Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANotability?oldid=669715452 Contributors: Ed Poor, Arj, Rick- yrab, MartinHarper, Sheldon Rampton, GTBacchus, ArnoLagrange, Ronz, Stefan-S, Rossami, Jeandré du Toit, John K, Andrevan, Samsara, Jusjih, Pigsonthewing, Postdlf, Wjhonson, Centrx, Nifboy, Michey.M, Wolfkeeper, Tom harrison, Meursault2004, MSGJ, Bkonrad, Skagedal, Gracefool, Golbez, Utcursch, SoWhy, ConradPino, Antandrus, Jossi, Phil Sandifer, Cynical, Demiurge, GreenReaper, Freakofnurture, Rich Farmbrough, FT2, Vsmith, Pie4all88, Francis Schonken, Carptrash, Andrejj, Sockatume, Art LaPella, Adambro, Smalljim, Nyenyec, Reiny- day, Enric Naval, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, VBGFscJUn3, 99of9, Jjron, Patsw, JYolkowski, Visviva, Diego Moya, Rd232, Hipocrite, Lec- tonar, SlimVirgin, Curious1i, CJ, Wtmitchell, Kanodin, Wtshymanski, Dan100, Tariqabjotu, Feezo, Star Trek Man, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Reinoutr, Percy Snoodle, Uncle G, Thivierr, Jacobolus, MONGO, Bdj, Mangojuice, AnmaFinotera, Radiant!, Holek, Graham87, David Levy, Jclemens, Vanderdecken, Edison, TheronJ, Drbogdan, Lhademmor, Tizio, Nightscream, Quiddity, Seraphimblade, ElKevbo, Kalogeropoulos, Vuong Ngan Ha, Mishuletz, Hiding, John Z, Gurch, NeoFreak, Fresheneesz, Srleffler, Chris is me, Jersey Devil, Metropoli- tan90, John Dalton, Manscher, Wavelength, Peregrine Fisher, Tznkai, Erachima, RJC, Chaser, Ansell, Jaymax, Lar, RadioFan, Chaos, Akhris- tov, EngineerScotty, Friday, NawlinWiki, DragonHawk, Msikma, Chick Bowen, R’son-W, Barberio, Ragesoss, Retired username, Aaron Brenneman, Trollderella, Jmh123, Wolbo, Dragonfiend, Xiroth, Voidxor, Ormanbotanigi, Cerejota, DeadEyeArrow, Doncram, Haemo, Black Falcon, Drboisclair, Hobit, Richardcavell, WAS 4.250, Sandstein, WarpstarRider, Zzuuzz, BenBildstein, Thnidu, Ketsuekigata, Arthur Rubin, SMcCandlish, Cojoco, Sambc, Fram, Garion96, Gorgan almighty, Trickstar, Samuel Blanning, Elliskev, Luk, Elonka, Brianyoumans, Prodego, KnowledgeOfSelf, VigilancePrime, Gigs, Shoy, Od Mishehu, Lawrencekhoo, Ikip, AnOddName, JJay, S9c31r1jo, Vassyana, Unforgettableid, Chaojoker, Polaron, BenAveling, MRBboy2005, Skookum1, Trebor, Persian Poet Gal, AndrewRT, Thumperward, PrimeHunter, Bignole, Silly rabbit, SchfiftyThree, Sloane, Ned Scott, RAlafriz, George Ho, Sephiroth BCR, Morton devonshire, Kittybrewster, Mr.Z-man, Blueboar, Pep- sidrinka, Fuhghettaboutit, Шизомби, Decltype, Aelffin, Dreadstar, BullRangifer, FalconWarrior, Dragon695, RiseRobotRise, Wybot, KeithB, Jeremyb, Xiutwel, Oceanh, Mion, Bn, Spiritia, SashatoBot, Lambiam, Mukadderat, Doug Bell, JzG, Jinnai, Scientizzle, SilkTork, JoshuaZ, JorisvS, Kransky, Joshua Scott, IronGargoyle, Bilby, 041744, Slakr, Beetstra, SmokeyJoe, Masem, Stephen B Streater, TheFarix, Vanished user, OnBeyondZebrax, HisSpaceResearch, Andrew Davidson, WGee, Colonel Warden, Walton One, Cbrown1023, DavidHOzAu, Tony Fox, RekishiEJ, Happy-melon, Trialsanderrors, Kevin Murray, Croctotheface, Brian.fsm, CmdrObot, Unionhawk, ŠJů, BeenAroundAWhile, Pi- caroon, Simply south, Moreschi, Zinjixmaggir, Balloonman, Oden, Yaris678, Meno25, GRBerry, Pascal.Tesson, Daniel J. Leivick, Torc2, DumbBOT, Xtv, Gonzo fan2007, Omicronpersei8, Vanished User jdksfajlasd, Satori Son, FrancoGG, Osborne, S Marshall, 24fan24, Mojo Hand, Gerry Ashton, TheTruthiness, Second Quantization, Joaq99, Jonny-mt, NERIUM, CharlotteWebb, Dugwiki, Dawnseeker2000, Justyn, AntiVandalBot, Majorly, Luna Santin, CobraWiki, Tangerines, Jayron32, Vic226, TimVickers, RobJ1981, Spartaz, Pixelface, Qwerty Binary, JAnDbot, Skomorokh, Epeefleche, The Transhumanist, NE2, MelanieN, Sanchom, Seddon, PubliusFL, Michig, Xeno, Hut 8.5, PhilKnight, Dream Focus, Askari Mark, JamesBWatson, Kajasudhakarababu, Father Goose, CTF83!, Boozerker, Nyttend, Sasha l~enwiki, WhatamIdo- ing, Lonewolf BC, Adrian J. Hunter, 28421u2232nfenfcenc, Wrad, David Eppstein, Martynas Patasius, Anrie, DerHexer, Philg88, Pan Dan, ChazBeckett, WLU, JokerBoy, Lunakeet, DGG, G.A.S, Wassupwestcoast, FisherQueen, Zahakiel, PinkCake, MartinBot, J.delanoy, Mange01, Abecedare, Bongomatic, Hans Dunkelberg, All Is One, Karanacs, Eliz81, Jreferee, A Nobody, Minderbinder~enwiki, Sebwite, MarceloB, XIAYICI, Jeepday, Samtheboy, Jordyspiegel, Oakshade, Jmylar, Ohms law, F3developer, Gregfitzy, Dhaluza, RB972, Equazcion, Wikiman- dia, Alan012, Dorftrottel, Jnlin, Scottydude, Sgeureka, Ungoliant13, Funandtrvl, VigoDeutschendorf, VolkovBot, Chaos5023, Librarylefty, ROxBo, Majoreditor, Fences and windows, Davidwr, Dominics Fire, Mike Cline, GimmeBot, BuickCenturyDriver, Kww, Drumcorpsfan1, ElinorD, Someguy1221, TwilligToves, Melsaran, Wordsmith, UnitedStatesian, Guest9999, Anarchangel, Neatjake123, Gavin.collins, Meters, SmileToday, Seresin, Fraserness, RWBooth, Jakshep2, Sesshomaru, Dmcq, Mike4ty4, Alex3212321, Brenont, Portalian, Moonriddengirl, Hertz1888, Arf!, Gerakibot, Odd nature, This, that and the other, Smsarmad, Randolph Stetson, Aylad, LeadSongDog, Young Environmental- ist Society of the Philippines, Freakie3, The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome, Horrorshowj, Oxymoron83, Gavinskee1993, Tombomp, Deadboyjohn, Jruderman, OKBot, RabisaE, Inpuydenier, Smuschiano215, WikiLaurent, Dabomb87, Wahrmund, Stillwaterising, XDanielx, NickCT, Arti- choker, Snigbrook, The Thing That Should Not Be, Rjd0060, ImperfectlyInformed, Lawrence Cohen, Dlabtot, Metroidkid1996, Jojominga, Icantype, Johnxisxirish, John J. Bulten, Judo950, TomWetton, Henry rosa, Mkativerata, Heartagram girl07, Digorykirk, Jayantanth, Mace- donianBoy, Brews ohare, Maddiie97, Cenarium, Hans Adler, Elizium23, Dekisugi, Randomran, DavidGreenberg123, Coreyp350, Anubis Godfather, Littleteddy, Contains Mild Peril, Johnuniq, Anon126, Goodvac, Snthdiueoa, Hatenar, Facts707, Datjunk11, Dude527, Ryanman the king, Edistomosin, Addbot, Drummerkyd8, Datinamou, Fgnievinski, Tothwolf, Blethering Scot, Sadik Khalid, Ironholds, Laurinavicius, Jay27trey, KillaKlein06, CanadianLinuxUser, Barisaximan, Debresser, Donutjam, Patton123, Andrus Kallastu, Alanscottwalker, OlEnglish, Jarble, Alocerxiii, Margin1522, Blah28948, Themfromspace, Pcap, Corey-v, Maheshkrishna69, Ningauble, DrFleischman, WikiScrubber, FeydHuxtable, Renessaince, KDS4444, Tryptofish, ThaddeusB, Kingpin13, Mentranslopoilop, Puterlicious188, LovesMacs, LilHelpa, Cap- tain short, A.d.a.p a.d.a.p, Capricorn42, Drilnoth, OlYeller21, Assauei, Srich32977, Shenequab5, Armbrust, Afc caitlin13, Gordonrox24, Spellage, Samwb123, Zerosgirlygirl, Captain-n00dle, INVADER (BAND), Djmason43, WikiDonn, RoyGoldsmith, Ntoo2B, DARIN GOTTI, Shooterwalker, Emir16, Geomike9, Gdje je nestala duša svijeta, Xxglennxx, Peterjuhlke, Cubs197, Arctic Night, Abductive, OrangeSparkle, Martinvl, Smuckola, MastiBot, Peace and Passion, Mondotta, PPdd, VernoWhitney, Deathdivedog, Griswaldo, Erpert, Arskwad, Bxj, Wikfr, Neil P. Quinn, Xanchester, Uzma Gamal, Unscintillating, Bped1985, Movses-bot, Drjames1, Rezabot, Lavalamp from Mars, ChristianandJeri- cho, Be..anyone, Wbm1058, Theoldsparkle, Snaevar-bot, Northamerica1000, JohnChrysostom, Snow Rise, G1o2o3g4l5e6, Calindan, Victor Yus, Walex03, Npmay, XapApp, APerson, Spirit of Eagle, Mysterious Whisper, Kephir, Murmure Mysterieux, EllenCT, Origamite, Vycl1994, Johnsagent, Bumblebee9999, EvilLair, Esquivalience and Anonymous: 54 • Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANotability_(academics)?oldid=668021543 Contrib- utors: Rbraunwa, Psychonaut, Nurg, Alan Liefting, Lurker, Prosfilaes, Piotrus, Quarl, Bender235, Zenohockey, Aude, Art LaPella, O18, Circeus, Vesal, Alansohn, Avenue, LordViD, Bdj, Mangojuice, SDC, Radiant!, BD2412, Seraphimblade, ElKevbo, Nihiltres, John Z, Gurch, Czar, Pete.Hurd, Srleffler, Metropolitan90, FrankTobia, Monicasdude, Wavelength, Erachima, KSchutte, Pproctor, Trovatore, Ragesoss, Aldux, AdiJapan, Sandstein, Donald Albury, SMcCandlish, Paul Erik, Segv11, Amalthea, Elonka, Espresso Addict, Gigs, Lawrencekhoo, Ikip, Mscuthbert, Gilliam, BenAveling, Optikos, Ryan Paddy, RayAYang, Octahedron80, Blueboar, Fuhghettaboutit, Richard001, DMacks, Kendrick7, Lambiam, Zeraeph, SilkTork, JorisvS, SmokeyJoe, Dead3y3, Missionary, Trialsanderrors, Kevin Murray, Timrem, Anthonyh- 13.6. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES 83

cole, Xxanthippe, Pascal.Tesson, Esowteric, Itsmejudith, Rrfayette, Mdotley, Nyttend, WhatamIdoing, David Eppstein, DGG, Oakshade, Pundit, Fr33kman, VolkovBot, GimmeBot, Guillaume2303, Guest9999, Mike4ty4, Vinhtantran, Logan, Deconstructhis, StAnselm, TJRC, Breawycker, Flyer22, DanJam2007, Msrasnw, AnteaterZot, Nsk92, DragonBot, Qwfp, Mythdon, EEng, Addbot, Giftiger wunsch, I am not a dog, Fgnievinski, Myheartinchile, Margin1522, Minderbinder-de, Gunnar Hendrich, Quintinense, Tryptofish, Hippicanibus, Pontificalibus, Mononomic, Srich32977, Pmddd3, Spikeglennon666, VS6507, Steve Quinn, Hellknowz, A8UDI, Wikitanvir, DARTH SIDIOUS 2, Wikki779, Nivekin, Slawekb, Thecheesykid, Ardsdhaka, Jesanj, People bios, Tijfo098, RockMagnetist, ClaretAsh, Gilderien, Mohdmuzzammilshah, Ed- itormilan, Royalblonde, Rezabot, Logofat de Chichirez, Wbm1058, Snaevar-bot, Slavicalalosevic, Solomon7968, Annmarieleimer, Barney the barney barney, StarryGrandma, Victor Yus, Muemajosephmuinde, Selene Scott, Ducknish, NJ Wine, Junjunone, Mountaincirque, Jedidiah Pamei, Forgot to put name, Randykitty, EvergreenFir, YiFeiBot, Ymoinuddin7, Yashpaul nirmal and Anonymous: 19 • Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANotability_(astronomical_objects)?oldid= 665931862 Contributors: ChicXulub, Rich Farmbrough, RJHall, Andrew Gray, CambridgeBayWeather, Sandstein, Modest Genius, Cyberco- bra, SilkTork, JorisvS, Headbomb, Kheider, Pikolas, Chrisrus, The Bushranger, Armbrust, Tom.Reding, StringTheory11, Odysseus1479, Sailsbystars, Astrocog, Lukeno94, Northamerica1000, Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1, Padenton, Ggrmurugan87, Mogism, Praemonitus, Yash- paul nirmal and Anonymous: 1 • Wikipedia:Notability (books) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANotability_(books)?oldid=663764153 Contributors: Slruben- stein, Llywrch, Ihcoyc, WhisperToMe, DocWatson42, Jossi, Rlquall, Poccil, Rich Farmbrough, Kdammers, Francis Schonken, Bender235, Smalljim, Kappa, Brainy J, MPerel, Alansohn, Gary, Hoary, GabrielF, Bdj, AnmaFinotera, DESiegel, Radiant!, Jclemens, TheronJ, Seraphim- blade, Gurch, Metropolitan90, DVdm, C.Koltzenburg, Spacepotato, StuffOfInterest, Erachima, Black Falcon, 2over0, Nikkimaria, SMc- Candlish, Jacqui M, D Monack, Macgreco, Elonka, Nihonjoe, Brianyoumans, Herostratus, Lawrencekhoo, Ramdrake, Ikip, UrbanTerrorist, Vassyana, Kevinalewis, BenAveling, JackyR, Fishhead2100, Ned Scott, Matchups, Morton devonshire, Fuhghettaboutit, Richard001, RiseR- obotRise, Jinnai, SilkTork, Davemcarlson, Noah Salzman, Yvesnimmo, Kyoko, Masem, TheFarix, RekishiEJ, Kevin Murray, JohnCD, Simply south, Michaelas10, Pascal.Tesson, Teratornis, Smee, Rrfayette, Res2216firestar, Skomorokh, Dream Focus, Z22, Casmith 789, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Father Goose, Swpb, WhatamIdoing, Xtifr, DGG, Ineffable3000, Ash, Arms & Hearts, Deor, VolkovBot, Chaos5023, Rtrace, Perohanych, Guillaume2303, Wordsmith, UnitedStatesian, Miwanya, GlassFET, Jardinami, Accounting4Taste, Gerakibot, Quasirandom, Ad- abow, Beeblebrox, SummerWithMorons, Nathan Johnson, Pgallert, Addbot, Cst17, SamatBot, Ozob, The Bushranger, Themfromspace, Hinio, KDS4444, ImperatorExercitus, James500, Obersachsebot, Thelima, Srich32977, Lookatthesea, Aedelcid, Kiefer.Wolfowitz, Abductive, Half price, Davidevans123, Tunocca, Lutz Bantilan, Joshuabseth, Lotje, Miracle Pen, Jowa fan, RockMagnetist, Clarakilala, Vas1ka, Rezabot, Nadeemaraza, FuFoFuEd, Northamerica1000, Choor monster, Randykitty, Rhegium, Bilorv, Appable and Anonymous: 13 • Wikipedia:Notability (events) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANotability_(events)?oldid=667257741 Contributors: Jpa- tokal, Wiwaxia, Kusunose, FT2, Diego Moya, The Wordsmith, Ronnotel, Edison, Hiding, Jaymax, Cerejota, Black Falcon, Mjroots, Val- ley2city, George Ho, Blueboar, Cybercobra, Kendrick7, Lambiam, SilkTork, Masem, Location, Gatoclass, Jayen466, Bigtimepeace, Nyttend, WhatamIdoing, Rusty Cashman, Mkdw, Paulmcdonald, Sebwite, Hellno2, Fences and windows, Davidwr, UnitedStatesian, Blurpeace, , The Devil’s Advocate, VQuakr, Secret (renamed), MickMacNee, TheRedPenOfDoom, Dunncon13, Secret, Matjamoe, Angryapathy, Cunard, Addbot, The Other Saluton, The Bushranger, ThaddeusB, Ularevalo98, Bluerasberry, Bagumba, Azurfrog, MuffledThud, Paine Ellsworth, Shooterwalker, Jonesey95, Suomi Finland 2009, Alzarian16, Pleazzer123, Hans chem, Mz7, Jenks24, Hodgdon’s secret garden, SporkBot, Jesanj, L Kensington, Abel metre, Natalieacp, Unscintillating, Wdchk, M0rphzone, Northamerica1000, Dipankan001, Amiraram, Quant18, Justin Briante, Spirit of Eagle, Frosty, Epicgenius, YiFeiBot, Africamusicconference, .js and Anonymous: 3 • Wikipedia:Notability (films) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANotability_(films)?oldid=665979292 Contributors: Pig- sonthewing, PBS, Tom harrison, Alison, Rick Block, Piotrus, Girolamo Savonarola, Freakofnurture, Poccil, Bender235, RJHall, Bobo192, Tcp-ip, Vesal, LtNOWIS, Visviva, AzaToth, Erik II, The JPS, Uncle G, Thivierr, AnmaFinotera, Radiant!, Gurch, Czar, Metropolitan90, Extraordinary Machine, Kafziel, Erachima, Derex, Dragonfiend, SMcCandlish, Gnangarra, Chris the speller, Bignole, Behaafarid, Ikiroid, Huji, DHeyward, Brimba, Morton devonshire, Cybercobra, EVula, Zadignose, JzG, SilkTork, Comicist, Slakr, OnBeyondZebrax, Eluchil404, Esn, Mujinga, Kevin Murray, Steel, Pascal.Tesson, Gimmetrow, Satori Son, Robsinden, Alientraveller, Infophile, Big Bird, Majorly, Big- timepeace, Prolog, Pixelface, Supernumerary, Cinematical, Kuwabaratheman, Z22, WhatamIdoing, Woknam66, NatGertler, You Can't See Me!, Altes, Love Krittaya, PC78, Minderbinder~enwiki, Zezzzsz, Largoplazo, Bovineboy2008, Refsworldlee, GimmeBot, Guillaume2303, Seraphim, DennyColt, UnitedStatesian, Gavin.collins, Vinhtantran, Scottywong, YLSS, Goodraise, Steve, Auntof6, Jayantanth, JasonAQuest, Secret, MichaelQSchmidt, DoctorHver, Addbot, Roaring Siren, CactusWriter, Quintinense, HappyInDeath, Obersachsebot, JohnWhittle1989, Lilsouljaondeck, Flashbackfamexx, Themoonunderwater, User F203, Knight rider club, Jonkerz, DARTH SIDIOUS 2, LcawteHuggle, Boner- boy123, K6ka, Polisher of Cobwebs, Abel metre, Uzma Gamal, Auchansa, Northamerica1000, Muneeb2000, Liam987, Sblove2010, Super- heroprashast, Cyrilcn10, Ather.niazi11 and Anonymous: 9 • Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANotability_(geographic_features)?oldid= 662386934 Contributors: Scott, Kaldari, Sole Soul, Grutness, Rschen7754, Chris Capoccia, RFBailey, SMcCandlish, Imzadi1979, Cplakidas, Ritchie333, Cybercobra, SilkTork, Masem, Clarityfiend, G. C. Hood, Silver seren, Oakshade, Idioma-bot, Davidwr, Kww, A4bot, Jack Mer- ,GoingBatty, Staszek Lem, Unscintillating ,دالبا ,ridew, Mr. Stradivarius, Nathan Johnson, Rividian, Addbot, Arxiloxos, James500, Yunshui Northamerica1000, Mysterious Whisper, Jakec and Anonymous: 2 • Wikipedia:Notability (music) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANotability_(music)?oldid=668532626 Contributors: Damian Yerrick, Deb, Ericd, Karada, SebastianHelm, Jimfbleak, TUF-KAT, Rossami, Jeandré du Toit, Phr, Hyacinth, Wiwaxia, Pakaran, Uninvited- Company, Bearcat, Korath, Altenmann, Pingveno, Andrew Levine, Stirling Newberry, Gwalla, Tom harrison, Alison, Duncharris, Gracefool, BesigedB, Falcon Kirtaran, Alvestrand, Tagishsimon, Gubbubu, SoWhy, Mike R, SarekOfVulcan, Antandrus, Beland, OverlordQ, Scottperry, Quarl, MacGyverMagic, Phil Sandifer, Rdsmith4, Neutrality, Alkivar, Freakofnurture, Poccil, Jiy, Discospinster, Rich Farmbrough, Lee- Hunter, Night Gyr, Bender235, Spearhead, Art LaPella, Smalljim, Walkiped, Kappa, Giraffedata, Urthogie, Mareino, Gary, JYolkowski, Walter Görlitz, Jnothman, Kurt Shaped Box, Fergie, Spangineer, BaronLarf, Danhash, Tony Sidaway, RJFJR, Dave.Dunford, Bookandcof- fee, Uncle G, Thivierr, Trödel, Bdj, AnmaFinotera, Radiant!, SqueakBox, Noit, Magister Mathematicae, David Levy, Kbdank71, Jclemens, TheronJ, Lars T., Koavf, Seraphimblade, Nneonneo, The wub, Leithp, Soundguy99, Newdeal~enwiki, Gurch, Czar, Jrtayloriv, Tedder, Srlef- fler, OpenToppedBus, Atchius, Mhking, Melodia, Extraordinary Machine, Hairy Dude, Erachima, Jtkiefer, Chris Capoccia, Chaser, RadioFan, Stephenb, CambridgeBayWeather, Kimchi.sg, Friday, NawlinWiki, Ragesoss, Retired username, Alex43223, Syrthiss, Dissolve, Black Falcon, 84 CHAPTER 13. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (WEB)

PyroGamer, Donald Albury, SMcCandlish, Esprit15d, Jogers, Fram, Tyrenius, Ramanpotential, Paul Erik, Amberrock, Locke Cole, Amalthea, Elonka, CastAStone, C.Fred, Lawrencekhoo, Stifle, PJM, Rmosler2100, Durova, BenAveling, Kleinzach, Stevage, CyberSach, Kostmo, The Moose, Jahiegel, Jpq21, Onorem, TheKMan, Grover cleveland, Fuhghettaboutit, Savidan, Oceanh, Madangry, TenPoundHammer, Sesquial- tera II, JzG, Dbtfz, Scientizzle, J 1982, SilkTork, Disavian, Michael Bednarek, Edwy, Joshua Scott, Voceditenore, Ryulong, Dr.K., Dl2000, Vanished user, OnBeyondZebrax, Iridescent, Sam Clark, Aeternus, Twas Now, Tony Fox, Trialsanderrors, Kevin Murray, Shirahadasha, Ned Wilbury, Switchercat, JForget, Denaar, BeenAroundAWhile, JohnCD, MrFizyx, THF, Melicans, Ejph, Simply south, Alton, Doctor- matt, Gogo Dodo, Otto4711, The Little Blue Frog, Benjiboi, Trystero11, Christian75, Torc2, DumbBOT, Ssilvers, In Defense of the Artist, Robert.Allen, Richhoncho, Qwyrxian, PEJL, Kablammo, Mojo Hand, Marek69, Nadav1, Jonny-mt, Robert m. green, Dawnseeker2000, Ssr, Konman72, Yonatan, SummerPhD, Marokwitz, Prolog, Rrfayette, Jayron32, Restone, Leinad, Hoponpop69, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, Deadbeef, JAnDbot, Leuko, MER-C, Epeefleche, Rearete, Michig, PhilKnight, LittleOldMe, Acroterion, Bongwarrior, AuburnPilot, JNW, Swpb, CTF83!, I JethroBT, WhatamIdoing, Giggy, Animum, Ahecht, Miss Mondegreen, Shocking Blue, Torchiest, 28421u2232nfenfcenc, Mkdw, Philg88, Leon Sword, LedgendGamer, J.delanoy, Captain panda, Tikiwont, Nigholith, WarthogDemon, Neon white, Aaron Hazelton, Minderbinder~enwiki, P4k, Ryan Postlethwaite, Vpluciano, Chiswick Chap, WHeimbigner, Aervanath, Largoplazo, Izno, Steel1943, Car- dinalDan, Black Kite, VolkovBot, One Night In Hackney, Indubitably, Fences and windows, Thebakeryofbman, Tavix, ZERO-EN, Kww, Canuckle, Rockstar915, Alejandrozamora, Gekritzl, UnitedStatesian, Aademola72, Madhero88, Street Mob, Enviroboy, Spinningspark, Ala- niaris, NinjaRobotPirate, Mike4ty4, Nagy, Lil Jay55, Nouse4aname, Fanatix, Cosprings, Ponyo, XDK, Tresiden, Rlendog, Moonriddengirl, Gerakibot, This, that and the other, LeadSongDog, JD554, Arbor to SJ, Lagrange613, KPH2293, Steven Zhang, Tati tutigirl, OKBot, Adam Cuerden, Scottyoak2, Anchor Link Bot, Wuhwuzdat, Dust Filter, Dizzy dee, Efe, The sunder king, Fyromusic, Wysprgr2005, Pairadox, Drmies, Winger84, Qsaw, AlptaBot, Blanchardb, Hello Control, Resoru, Keishum Triplett, Murderfist, SpikeToronto, Rairaichan, Sun Cre- ator, Rockboy909, NuclearWarfare, Soundvisions1, SkillzMcnillz, Random86, Dank, Versus22, Hatenar, Jax 0677, Cagey Millipede, Deli- cious carbuncle, Universal Cereal Bus, Blast Ulna, Dude527, Duffbeerforme, Danrossi12, Ronnie816, Addbot, Lesley.winter, Private Sound, Yoenit, IbLeo, Adrian 1001, Donnieday123, OliverTwisted, 1qwerty1, PranksterTurtle, Roux, Kosm1fent, Tide rolls, OlEnglish, YOUNGF95, The Bushranger, Ben Ben, Pcap, Sheryarnizar, Sethkabs, Gongshow, Rogerb67, Lady154, Peter bruce, Vanish user s8jswe823rnfscu8sejhr4, Quintinense, The Absolute Hungary, ThaddeusB, IRP, Helena x, Sushant singh, Kingpin13, Freestylekyle, Fateeastwood, TParis, Wastedcon- cept, Materialscientist, Dendlai, Raggadrian, National war, MauritsBot, Adrian 85 85, Jayel31, IHelpWhenICan, OlYeller21, Jubileeclipman, SebbeIversen, Jeffrey Mall, Dj sultan1, Mopza, Wizard31568, Lil-unique1, Hi878, Sionk, J04n, Kinganand91, Mark smart, GB1992, Vam- pirefirexxx, The Interior, Mash 339, Sabrebd, Deluxevmix, Orance, Marialenamak, SchnitzelMannGreek, Shujuan5210, IANDNOBODY, Terrence1947, VelocityRules, Lamougue, XMesaplayerx, , Freamat, I42, Dhammond81, Jack Daniel Adams, Congo69, Freddielive, Kidx, Jbc kings, Wifione, Nellafantasia, DivineAlpha, Launchballer, Motelb2, Pinethicket, Peter Dzubay, Calmer Waters, Peace+Love+Earth, Erahmunirah, CodyMunroe, Theycallmeleo, Emanuel Anderson, Iyannadean, DeanDeanDefoe, Stephenmilofinlay, Olivia Corporate Amer- ica( O.C.A), Meganequashie, Achen23, Tbhotch, Pbxboy2004, Taniarocks, Roblees321, Hobbes Goodyear, Fiftytwo thirty, Beyond My Ken, CITI18, J36miles, Delviscon, Thebignastyband, STATicVapor, Paradox10, Exok, Djghaza, Eli03, Devin, Khidprince, TookieMonster9986, Mz7, Tatendad12, Thomas Breedlove, Liquidmetalrob, Bryce Carmony, Rwbf1235, Roxae, Vanruvan, Eugene Hogg, Tree montoya, Ma- jee Muzik, Netsplayer5, Danmuz, Yorkshiresoul, GCHoodlum, Afields3162, FurrySings, Ashleyyamoss, Dr.C.Winstanley, Kheyilla, Mus- lim lo Juheu, Lukeno94, Young Seth, Missjaelyn1990, Geofferybard, ItsRalo, Stevetraylor234, Wbm1058, Donisdube, TeamTK11, Bmusi- cian, Rishavmusic, Armadillopteryx, Mark Arsten, Wesley Mouse, We're The Brits, Ian Streeter, Brbual1, George Apostolakis, ZappaOMati, SD5bot, EuroCarGT, XxXTGSXxX, Rezonansowy, Kikisire, Iommi94, 069952497a, Jasonyoung6, VanishedUser 2313214sad1, Asma7867, BreakfastJr, Mystic Shadows, Elisabeth thun, Saffron music group, Flat Out, Carwile2, Phaedrx, YiFeiBot, SNUGGUMS, MehranJavidmusic, Icensnow42, Thebigbi, SelfishWays FanClub, Jermain Casper, Rationalobserver, Bognakici, Degrau, Danagaynor and Anonymous: 102

• Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANotability_(numbers)?oldid=610385750 Contribu- tors: Michael Hardy, Jitse Niesen, Bkell, Robinh, PrimeFan, Numerao, Anton Mravcek, Pmanderson, Jiy, Discospinster, Bender235, Brian0918, Touriste, Smalljim, Interiot, Keenan Pepper, Uncle G, Splintax, Mazca, Dodiad, Radiant!, JHMM13, Ucucha, Gurch, Fresheneesz, Metropoli- tan90, Trovatore, Arthur Rubin, SMcCandlish, Reyk, Finell, Locke Cole, Elonka, Popo le Chien, The Famous Movie Director, Droll, Stevage, Cybercobra, Lambiam, PseudoSudo, SmokeyJoe, Kevin Murray, BeenAroundAWhile, DumbBOT, Asenine, Optimist on the run, Ebyabe, Ed- Johnston, CompositeFan, Edokter, Meatman22, Wlmh65, Singularity, David Eppstein, Laurusnobilis, VolkovBot, Vinhtantran, AirdishStraus, Qwfp, ComposteFun, Jkasd, Elehack, Insider, Troogleplex, E235, Etaittunpe, Arammozuob, Auclairde, Franklsf95, Michgrig, Jay-Sebastos, Arguablybrilliant, Lanthanum-138 and Anonymous: 9

• Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANotability_(organizations_and_ companies)?oldid=668280376 Contributors: Lquilter, IZAK, Ihcoyc, Bdonlan, Ronz, Rossami, Mxn, Hyacinth, Samsara, Dpbsmith, PBS, Mushroom, Alan Liefting, JamesMLane, DocWatson42, Wolfkeeper, Cobaltbluetony, Orangemike, Subsolar, Dsmdgold, Piotrus, Jossi, Mac- GyverMagic, Ukexpat, Reflex Reaction, Poccil, Jiy, Hydrox, Night Gyr, Bender235, Cyclopia, Charm, Circeus, Smalljim, Runnerupnj, Trevj, J.reed, Brainy J, Nsaa, Patsw, Gary, Qwghlm, Interiot, Diego Moya, Rd232, Lectonar, Dhartung, Tony Sidaway, R6MaY89, Deathphoenix, Saxifrage, OwenX, Uncle G, Scjessey, Bdj, AnmaFinotera, Abd, Radiant!, Graham87, Edison, Vegaswikian, Williamborg, SchuminWeb, Aki- habara, Hiding, Gurch, Intgr, Alphachimp, Srleffler, Roboto de Ajvol, Erachima, Boréal, Ansell, RadioFan, Cryptic, Spike Wilbury, Trovatore, Trollderella, Misza13, BOT-Superzerocool, Evrik, Black Falcon, 2over0, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, SMcCandlish, Paul Erik, Selmo, NickelShoe, Locke Cole, Elonka, Slashme, Martinp, Gigs, Lawrencekhoo, Ikip, WilyD, DanielPenfield, Nscheffey, CrypticBacon, Unforget- tableid, Kmarinas86, Philosopher, EncMstr, Droll, Jahiegel, Hildanknight, Icerat, Blueboar, EVula, DMacks, Oceanh, Spiritia, SashatoBot, Lambiam, Jjjjjjjjjj, JzG, SilkTork, Tktktk, NJA, SmokeyJoe, Agent 86, Fsotrain09, AGK, Kevin Murray, Mohammed al-Khawal, Karenjc, Vectro, Michaelas10, B, Msnicki, Pchaney, Teratornis, Vanished User jdksfajlasd, Crum375, Mojo Hand, WilliamH, Smile a While, Michael- Maggs, Widefox, Just Chilling, Danger, Suriyane, Myanw, Barek, Skomorokh, Dream Focus, Hroðulf, CTF83!, Catgut, WhatamIdoing, An- imum, Thedreamdied, Mkdw, Philg88, B. Wolterding, Jerem43, MartinBot, Nehwyn, Bongomatic, Herbythyme, Kudpung, Sebwite, About- movies, Oakshade, Nick Graves, Dhaluza, Nicer1, Funandtrvl, VolkovBot, Jamcib~enwiki, DancingMan, WOSlinker, Tavix, Baileypalblue, A4bot, Assize, Hamitr, UnitedStatesian, Guest9999, Gavin.collins, Discgolfrules, Alaniaris, NinjaRobotPirate, CT Cooper, Resurgent insurgent, Neparis, Tresiden, Gerakibot, Smsarmad, Chromaticity, Dannebrog Spy, Neutralhomer, The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome, OKBot, Dodger67, Dabomb87, Dolphin51, Leranedo, Binksternet, Czarkoff, Uncle Milty, AlptaBot, QSSI-WMS, Harland1, PÆon, Niteshift36, Jayantanth, Soundvisions1, Goodvac, Tdslk, Hatenar, Bearsona, AlanM1, Vianello, EEng, HexaChord, Captain-tucker, SamatBot, Patton123, Esasus, Margin1522, Arxiloxos, KDS4444, Quintinense, Tryptofish, ThaddeusB, Ulric1313, AmirImam, Slcdirector, Truth or consequences-2, Star- 13.6. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES 85

menusa, James500, Freemanjay, Ericnappy, Obersachsebot, The Banner, Hitheremynameisn'tgreg, Capricorn42, Drilnoth, Fmph, Mnnlaxer, Jmundo, Kiwanis girl, Coretheapple, Wikignome0529, Jacobt868, SheliaSwanson, Ssinc718, Xaloss, Business Worldwide, RightCowLeft- Coast, Yourworstreview, Syam707, , Wifione, T3h 1337 b0y, Hellknowz, Suomi Finland 2009, Aoidh, Noraft, VernoWhitney, Are You The Cow Of Pain?, FunkyCanute, Mz7, Gparyani, ResidentAnthropologist, Unscintillating, Auchansa, KLBot2, Theoldsparkle, Northamer- ica1000, Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, Op47, The Whispering Wind, Amolbot, Alvin Lee, DoctorKubla, Npmay, Padenton, NJ Wine, Ikseevon, Es- quivalience and Anonymous: 37 • Wikipedia:Notability (people) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANotability_(people)?oldid=667582773 Contributors: Elo- quence, SimonP, Anthere, Imran, Camembert, Hephaestos, Tillwe, Michael Hardy, EvanProdromou, Oliver Pereira, MartinHarper, Dcljr, Axl- rosen, SebastianHelm, Baylink, Theresa knott, TUF-KAT, Angela, Cgs, Rossami, Scott, JASpencer, Kat, Harris7, RickK, Greenrd, Hyacinth, UninvitedCompany, Bearcat, Astronautics~enwiki, PBS, Altenmann, Lowellian, Postdlf, Wjhonson, Ktotam, Caknuck, UtherSRG, Michael Snow, Anthony, Alan Liefting, David Gerard, Dbenbenn, Cantara, Cobaltbluetony, Netoholic, Tom harrison, Orangemike, Curps, Michael De- vore, Jason Quinn, Gracefool, Angelo.romano, Leonard Vertighel, Andycjp, Pamri, Antandrus, BozMo, Beland, Piotrus, Quarl, Kaldari, Jossi, Necrothesp, Arcturus, JavaTenor, GreenReaper, Poccil, Jiy, Discospinster, Twinxor, Rich Farmbrough, Hydrox, FT2, ArnoldReinhold, Francis Schonken, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, Byrial, Uppland, Cyclopia, Brian0918, Szyslak, Art LaPella, Cigarette, Chriscf, Circeus, Fuzzyonion, John Vandenberg, Enric Naval, Jguk 2, Kappa, Trevj, Brainy J, Mareino, Vesal, Patsw, Gary, GRider, Interiot, Improv, Hipocrite, SlimVirgin, Hoary, Mrholybrain, Malo, Idont Havaname, Scott5114, Wtmitchell, Malber, RJFJR, BDD, Recury, Djsasso, Dismas, Squiquifox, Pcpcpc, Mwal- coff, Scarykitty, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), RHaworth, ScottDavis, Percy Snoodle, Uncle G, Thivierr, The Wordsmith, Bdj, Cbdorsett, Oldie~enwiki, Terence, Mangojuice, AnmaFinotera, Joe Beaudoin Jr., Radiant!, Youngamerican, RuM, Matilda, Graham87, Marskell, Ry- oung122, David Levy, Jclemens, TheronJ, Tabercil, Mayumashu, Nightscream, Amire80, Seraphimblade, Vegaswikian, Oxydo~enwiki, Neon- Merlin, ElKevbo, Kalogeropoulos, Williamborg, Sango123, Yamamoto Ichiro, ShadowyCaballero, CalJW, RexNL, Gurch, Sborsody, Nuge, Daev, Metropolitan90, FrankTobia, Ravenswing, Fuzzy6988, YurikBot, Wavelength, Erachima, Midgley, Pburka, Me and, Splette, Ansell, Lar, RadioFan2 (usurped), Chensiyuan, Eleassar, Kimchi.sg, Wimt, EngineerScotty, NawlinWiki, Golfcam, Wiki alf, Howcheng, SCZenz, Retired username, Aaron Brenneman, Shinmawa, Aldux, Number 57, Misza13, Cerejota, BOT-Superzerocool, BusterD, CLW, Black Falcon, Wknight94, Hobit, Sandstein, Theda, [email protected], SMcCandlish, Reyk, Esprit15d, ZabMilenko, Fram, Kevin, Tyrenius, Jaranda, Gorgan almighty, David Biddulph, JeffBurdges, Katieh5584, Kingboyk, Resolute, Locke Cole, Yakudza, AndreniW, RDBury, YellowMonkey, Herostratus, VigilancePrime, Gigs, Bigbluefish, Pgk, CyclePat, C.Fred, Lawrencekhoo, Petercorless, Davewild, Bwithh, Mscuthbert, PJM, Timotheus Canens, Cool3, Unforgettableid, JFHJr, PeterSymonds, Polaron, Marc Kupper, BenAveling, UnkleFester, Philosopher, Catchpole, Thumperward, PrimeHunter, SchfiftyThree, Droll, Stevage, RayAYang, TheFeds, Verrai, Royboycrashfan, George Ho, Quaque, Jahiegel, Onorem, ChrisTheDude, Benjamin Mako Hill, Tommyjb, Kittybrewster, Fuhghettaboutit, Nakon, Savidan, Valenciano, EVula, Vedek Dukat, Wizardman, Pats1, Runcorn, Oceanh, Risker, Bejnar, Ged UK, Spiritia, Lambiam, Thesmothete, Rory096, Jbonfant, Doug Bell, Harryboyles, BrownHairedGirl, Valfontis, Srikeit, JzG, John, AnonEMouse, Heimstern, SilkTork, Wotwu, JoshuaZ, Mr. Lefty, Joshua Scott, IronGargoyle, Nagle, Ckatz, For great justice., Meco, SandyGeorgia, Andysiebe, Dr.K., SmokeyJoe, Noleander, Masem, Asatruer, Alan.ca, RudyB, GDal- limore, Happy-melon, Phoenixrod, Greg Back, Kevin Murray, Mysterious1der, Dpmoeckel, King of the North East, Wafulz, Dycedarg, Olaf Davis, BeenAroundAWhile, JohnCD, THF, Simply south, NE Ent, Location, Balloonman, NealIRC, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Reywas92, Slp1, Steel, Michaelas10, Bellerophon5685, Anthonyhcole, Otto4711, Lugnuts, Huysman, Pascal.Tesson, Odie5533, Msnicki, Xtv, Quasilogic, In Defense of the Artist, Daniel Olsen, Gimmetrow, Satori Son, Casliber, Epbr123, Biruitorul, Crockspot, Hit bull, win steak, Dalejenkins, Dasani, Ishdarian, Mojo Hand, Mereda, Simeon H, Marek69, Frank, CharlotteWebb, Calathan, Oreo Priest, Ju66l3r, AntiVandalBot, Majorly, Luna Santin, Seaphoto, Dr. Blofeld, Rrfayette, Noroton, Modernist, [email protected], Spartaz, Myanw, JAnDbot, Xhienne, NBeale, MER- C, MelanieN, Ccrrccrr, PhilKnight, Dream Focus, Rothorpe, Acroterion, Freshacconci, Cynfil, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Kuyabribri, CTF83!, Nyttend, Dtnix77, WhatamIdoing, Just H, Nat, Thibbs, DerHexer, Dkriegls, Xtifr, Ll Padre, NatGertler, B. Wolterding, DGG, G.A.S, Gjd001, Wassupwestcoast, MartinBot, Miaers, SamiKaero, EyeSerene, 80eyes, Fleetflame, Anaxial, Geercom, Ash, Lilac Soul, 2012Olympian, Tiki- wont, 5Q5, Cocoaguy, Minderbinder~enwiki, Katalaveno, Dahliarose, Oakshade, Pyrospirit, Toon05, Flatterworld, Largoplazo, BigHairRef, Dhaluza, Cometstyles, WJBscribe, Atama, Inwind, Steel1943, Funandtrvl, Owen 78910, Malik Shabazz, Juskari, One Night In Hackney, Indubitably, Fences and windows, Refsworldlee, GimmeBot, Perohanych, Kww, Dinybot, Miranda, Walor, Terence7, John Carter, Denny- Colt, Corvus cornix, CanOfWorms, UnitedStatesian, Mr. Absurd, CO, Danny sepley, Andy Dingley, Steve Smith, Softlavender, Ronjohn, Spinningspark, Truthanado, Soapstacey, Bswartz, Logan, However whatever, Resurgent insurgent, Neparis, Ko0liosss, Gerakibot, Dawn Bard, Jbmurray, Nathan, Alexdreia, Happysailor, Toddst1, Flyer22, LibStar, Mandsford, Horrorshowj, Leeroycjenkins, Correogsk, BSoD, Dodger67, Alatari, Rebhd4, Rellis0415, Dabomb87, Denisarona, Stillwaterising, Tuntable, Myrvin, The sunder king, Smashville, Gene93k, Wallak, Dev- ilvitus, Lawrence Cohen, Nsk92, Dpmuk, Ryan is kool, MATThematical, AlptaBot, Morbidthoughts, Prittynpink857, Japanesejazz, John J. Bulten, Secret (renamed), Rockfang, Alice, Ajoykt, Brewcrewer, Mkativerata, Agentareas, Diaboli, Lartoven, Jayantanth, NuclearWarfare, Singhalawap, Dangerous198, Derriqua, Mlaffs, Light show, George.isbasoiu, Secret, Thingg, Scalhotrod, Berean Hunter, Wnt, Hatenar, Deli- cious carbuncle, Wertuose, PseudoOne, Maraba~enwiki, Astyles21, Blast Ulna, Duffbeerforme, Mabalu, Addbot, Power.corrupts, JBsupreme, Gmanstation, Yoenit, EvaLamar, Damiens.rf, Debresser, PotionsMasterSnape, Esasus, Adrock666, Jon b49, Myheartinchile, OlEnglish, Jar- ble, Arbitrarily0, Ben Ben, Legobot, Minderbinder-de, C2schoen, Brandy Frisky, Pcap, Guy1890, Lady154, Bbb23, Michaeljohnx, Juzhong, Tryptofish, Countercouper, Kountkracula, ThaddeusB, Rjanag, Killiondude, Cavarrone, Cptnono, ErikTheBikeMan, Bluerasberry, James500, Algébrico, Obayd, Kcornwall, Purplebackpack89, Betty Logan, Ched, Srich32977, J04n, Off2riorob, Armbrust, Mark Schierbecker, Sand- cherry, RightCowLeftCoast, FrescoBot, User F203, Tranletuhan, Unitanode, Wifione, Hell in a Bucket, Berny68, Rapsar, Elockid, Abductive, Origoventus, FormerIP, Cullen328, SergeWoodzing, Jordgette, Judika39, Suomi Finland 2009, MrX, Jpet5786, Schwede66, MShabazz, Ver- noWhitney, Solarra, Kiran Gopi, Erpert, Mz7, Redhanker, Testales, Hodgdon’s secret garden, Staszek Lem, Demiurge1000, SBaker43, Chew- ings72, Bill william compton, Justice007, FurrySings, Sitic, Ilyaseenkhan, Uzma Gamal, MelbourneStar, Wdchk, Lukeno94, RichardOSmith, Rezabot, Wbm1058, Jeraphine Gryphon, Lowercase sigmabot, Kndimov, MusikAnimal, Mark Arsten, AngusWOOF, APerson, Koopatrev, NJ Wine, Lugia2453, Churn and change, Bcmsr1, KingQueenPrince, Rebecca1990, Rajvir Singh Randhawa, Chris troutman, Heykarthikwithu, Alok7910, SNUGGUMS, Arianitsllamniku, Liz, Bhoomathivanan, UI1990, AlDaBeast24, Amit990, Tkplusfourequalscool, Bnoutsourcin, Mathew2014, Rudradubey983, Madihahal, Drprhansmann, Clubjustin4, Succour, Symfoni1000, Sarkawt16, Isaiah.oltiano, Sumac1016, Sally Wells, Zeanfan, Mdryden14, LA Flexy, Mhendriks1810, Nazish Chaudhry, Ranbir Singh rs, Vaishak Mepram, Sjstudent2014, Emmanuel Sangalali Sengwa, MCMenominee, Abelekene, Nyongolo chani, Jsrinivas.sql, Maitysuman86, Sam hauhnar, Raghav6478, Vienne augistin, Patrickmwega, Shilpa Prince, Abhiranjan7912, Shree9595, Kukku.kanyal007, Retlametswe, Kingkongafrica, Menica1, Nmalik890, Cem Gür, SageGreenRider, Joseph2302, 123rahmoney, Insonet, Peopleislampur, YounessOfficial, Arogya neel, VhenzreignBSIT, Military Tracker, El 86 CHAPTER 13. WIKIPEDIA:NOTABILITY (WEB)

Mahdi Boutbaik, Rajal abbas, Ifepoly, JUMA MALEVE, Tauphik Ahamad, Mountain christian, Josephboyat, Library84192a, Azamrafiul, Mihran H Kalaydjian and Anonymous: 107 • Wikipedia:Notability (sports) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANotability_(sports)?oldid=667656976 Contributors: Dale Arnett, Earl Andrew, Moondyne, Dave6, Graeme Bartlett, Michael Devore, SoWhy, MisfitToys, Oknazevad, Bender235, Nabla, Gary, Lu- narLander, Djsasso, Johntex, Stuartyeates, NeoChaosX, Graham87, Jweiss11, Alaney2k, Nick mallory, Cmadler, Metropolitan90, Jared Pre- ston, Ravenswing, The Rambling Man, Alexsautographs, Lincolnite, Hack, Royalbroil, Doctorindy, Wolbo, Number 57, Zagalejo, Bob247, Spanneraol, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, SMcCandlish, Fram, Jaranda, PRehse, Resolute, Dweller, WilyD, Chris the speller, Muboshgu, Whpq, LtPowers, SilkTork, Gnevin, Isaacl, Joshua Scott, InedibleHulk, Meco, Masem, GiantSnowman, Kevin Murray, King of the North East, Kevin McE, BRMo, CBM, Location, Montanabw, Vanished user k9iuw4roilaldkj, Lugnuts, B, Mattlore, Tewapack, JonBroxton, Casliber, Hit bull, win steak, G. C. Hood, TonyTheTiger, Mojo Hand, Basement12, Obiwankenobi, Fyunck(click), Osubuckeyeguy, NSH001, J Mo 101, Severo, Z22, Kolindigo, JNW, Kinston eagle, Fabrictramp, WhatamIdoing, Sticks66, Ahecht, Eldumpo, ClubOranje, SpecialWindler, Schmloof, LedRush, Kudpung, FruitMonkey, Arms & Hearts, Pawnkingthree, Jrcla2, Jevansen, 28bytes, Rikster2, Tavix, UnitedStatesian, Gibson Flying V, Suriel1981, Grsz11, Quantpole, Scottywong, Hcagri, Barkeep, Trackinfo, Rlendog, Stananson, Phil Bridger, Hello71, The- G-Unit-Boss, Florentyna, Struway2, Wjemather, Jmfangio, RonSigPi, MATThematical, Drmies, VQuakr, Secret (renamed), Mkativerata, M4gnum0n, Niteshift36, DeltaQuad, Bald Zebra, Secret, Forbes72, Sir Sputnik, Penale52, Bazj, Cunard, Addbot, Vejvančický, Giants2008, Theworm777, Sillyfolkboy, Ashman05, Arteyu, Minderbinder-de, Themfromspace, Bbb23, , KDS4444, Tryptofish, DynamoD- egsy, Bagumba, Zad68, Tomwsulcer, Armbrust, Ute in DC, PM800, FrescoBot, Youndbuckerz, Dirtlawyer1, Kennx442, LauraHale, Eagles247, Yutsi, Codf1977, Stalwart111, WaitingForConnection, Sideways713, Ernestogon, Hobbes Goodyear, VernoWhitney, Aircorn, Canada Hky, John of Reading, Drjeanbag, Heymid, Maniacduhockey, Prayerfortheworld, Dolovis, Jenks24, Unreal7, Mentoz86, Staszek Lem, L Kensing- ton, ShawnSim, Abel metre, Mjbmrbot, Satellizer, Lukeno94, Imsosirius, Maddrokayaker, Roverbto, Mtking, Lowercase sigmabot, Viweir, Northamerica1000, Joeykai, Mark Arsten, Tazerdadog, Mdtemp, Prg.sdme, Poison Whiskey, Sander.v.Ginkel, XyZAn, Barryjjoyce, Buzzards- Watch Me Work, Victor Yus, Northiceman, APerson, Canepa, Sportygeek, Theworldgymnast1, Dru Veronica, Rocroa86, Oiyarbepsy and Anonymous: 28 • Wikipedia:Notability (web) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANotability_(web)?oldid=659405436 Contributors: Bryan Derksen, The Anome, Shii, GTBacchus, Jpatokal, Aviado, Random832, Xuanwu, Chocolateboy, Jmabel, Texture, David Gerard, Aharon, Nifboy, Alison, Gamaliel, Niteowlneils, VampWillow, SarekOfVulcan, Fangz, J3ff, Jossi, Phil Sandifer, Humblefool, Zondor, Adashiel, Freakofnurture, MattKingston, Jiy, Sirmob, Johan Elisson, Rich Farmbrough, Francis Schonken, Grutter, Android79, BACbKA, Karmafist, Just zis Guy, you know?, Perfecto, Guettarda, Nyenyec, Reinyday, Urthogie, Naturenet, Brainy J, Nsaa, Mareino, Gary, Polarscribe, Walter Görlitz, Interiot, CyberSkull, DreamGuy, TheRealFennShysa, Omphaloscope, Tony Sidaway, Bobbyray, Feezo, Simetrical, Starblind, Uncle G, Bdj, Optichan, Radiant!, Marudubshinki, RuM, Tizio, Vary, Seraphimblade, Nneonneo, SchuminWeb, CalJW, Hiding, Gurch, Freshe- neesz, Chobot, Metropolitan90, Hahnchen, Uriah923, YurikBot, Sceptre, Stan2525, Erachima, Robert A West, Splash, Lar, Sikon, Cryptic, PatCheng, Chunky Rice, Nick, Retired username, Aaron Brenneman, Trollderella, Dragonfiend, Xiroth, Misza13, Jeremy Visser, Getcrunk, SMcCandlish, Roke, Fagles, Locke Cole, A bit iffy, InverseHypercube, CyclePat, Dealerofsalvation, J•A•K, Tim Pierce, Ianmacm, Rock- pocket, Spiritia, SashatoBot, JzG, Jinnai, Aaronchall, PseudoSudo, Stratadrake, For great justice., Hu12, TheFarix, Vanished user, Aeternus, Nydas, Kevin Murray, Moreschi, MC10, Pascal.Tesson, DumbBOT, Mojo Hand, Dawnseeker2000, Justyn, Rrfayette, AaronY, JAnDbot, Leuko, Barek, Skomorokh, CTF83!, WhatamIdoing, Giggy, Philg88, Dr.Who, Orunab, Ian.thomson, Minderbinder~enwiki, It Is Me Here, Kraftlos, NicholaiDaedalus, VolkovBot, Lovablebeautyme, Seb26, UnitedStatesian, Logan, Yngvarr, Gerakibot, Oxymoron83, OKBot, As- cidian, Leranedo, Lawrence Cohen, Ruggersfanatic, DragonBot, M4gnum0n, Dank, Oore, Hatenar, Ruggerboy, Duffbeerforme, Andreas791, Addbot, Jimmydean1013, Guoguo12, Ahmednero, MrOllie, Tide rolls, OlEnglish, Apteva, Bafy mc barfbarf, Raazju, Aboalbiss, E235, Ober- sachsebot, Grim23, Parpersavemenowkettle, Julle, Doggyluva.113, Mark Schierbecker, Paramecium, PSNMand, Anacarolinavotr, Giftpflanze, Blackbirdz, Roberth69, Tonyshah, Jezzasexiles, Starblueheather, Tisane, Wikipelli, Parxliveeasy, Northamerica1000, Dylancoffmanisawsome, and Anonymous: 38

13.6.2 Images

• File:Blue_check.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Blue_check.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Blue check.png: Original artist: Gregory Maxwell • File:Blue_question_mark.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Blue_question_mark.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg License: Cc-by-sa- 3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ? • File:OEISicon_light.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/OEISicon_light.svg License: Public domain Con- tributors: Own work Original artist: Watchduck (a.k.a. Tilman Piesk) • File:Symbol_book_class2.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Symbol_book_class2.svg License: CC BY- SA 2.5 Contributors: Mad by Lokal_Proﬁl by combining: Original artist: Lokal_Proﬁl • File:Walnut.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Walnut.png License: CC0 Contributors: Previously located at en:Image:Walnut.png Original artist: en:User:Renesis

13.6.3 Content license

• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0