View source for User:FT2/n

{{nutshell|Wikipedia articles focus on those topics that have gained significant and enduring notice by the world at large, and are [[WP:NOT|not excluded for other reasons]]. We consider evidence from [[WP:RS|reliable]] [[WP:Independent sources|independent sources]] such as published journals, books, and newspapers to determine whether this requirement has been met.}}
{{notice|'''You can ask advice whether a topic is likely to be suitable as an article''' at the [[Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard|notability noticeboard]].}}

{{Notabilityguide}}

'''Criteria for article inclusion''' describes when a topic will be given '''its own article''' on Wikipedia. They do '''not''' cover or restrict content within articles, except for the few cases where article content itself depends on whether a stand-alone article would be allowed.

The governing policy for inclusion is [[WP:NOT|What Wikipedia is not]], which sets out key conditions. For example, Wikipedia articles should be able to demonstrate that they have '''already''' gained credible non-routine attention by the world at large, and even intense coverage is not usually enough if short-lived ("most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion"). A number of topics that gain widespread attention are also excluded because they are deemed "routine". For example:- most crimes (even if tragic or shocking such as murder), and most news, businessmen, local politicians, clubs, organizations, bands, websites, etc. We also exclude matters that are too unevidenced in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] to support an article.

Most topics given stand-alone articles have good evidence that they have '''already''' made a significant impact in the world - the world has "taken notice" of them beyond the norm. They have won awards, received significant editorial coverage (not just self-promotion), reached a high level of recognition, and so on, or provide [[WP:Summary style|more detailed coverage]] of such topics.

This guideline apply to all articles in the Main namespace, but '''only''' to such articles. It does not apply to any other namespace, though policies like [[WP:NOT]] still do apply to other namespaces.

== Usual requirements for articles ==
Most topics must demonstrate with good evidence, that the topic is "[[WP:N|notable]]" (has been noticed to Wikipedia's standards by the wider world) and also that it [[WP:NOT|should not be excluded for any other reason]]. Special conditions (below) apply to special kinds of pages such as lists (especially [[WP:SAL|stand-alone lists]]), [[WP:DISAMBIGUATION|disambiguation pages]], redirects and navigation pages. 

=== What a topic must show, to have an article ===

==== Notability ====
[[WP:N|Notability]] means simply, that the world at large has treated a topic as meriting significant attention of an enduring nature. These are the topics Wikipedia might cover. We consider evidence from [[WP:RS|reliable]] [[WP:Independent sources|independent sources]] such as published journals, books, and newspapers to determine if the world has shown "significant enough notice" for an encyclopedia article. Typically we argue on the basis of evidence and best practice, whether the topic has really gained "significant attention", the evidence credible and high quality, and the topic acceptable according to our [[WP:NOT|exclusion policy]].

A topic is usually ''[[rebuttable presumption|presumed]]'' to merit an article if it meets the [[WP:GNG|general notability guideline]] <u>and also</u> is not excluded for any reason. In some topic areas, "subject-specific criteria" exist which often save the need for discussion for common cases. For instance [[WP:BIO|a person would usually be notable]] if they are a [[head of state|Head of State]], [[Government minister]], or have won (or been repeatedly nominated for) a well-known award.

Notability issues include:
:* ''Indiscriminate coverage is not evidence'' (local newspaper reports whose coverage of local matters does not appear very selective, minor industry awards, minor mentions "in passing", media coverage that is relatively indiscriminate)
:* ''Evidence attributable to self-promotion or lack of independence'' (an editorial or obituary placed in a magazine that is likely to be a paid submission or otherwise not a reflection of "independent attention")
:* ''Evidence that does not show "significant attention"'' (a short piece noting a minor news event such as an album release, or a "mention in passing" in an article where the topic itself is not the main focus)

==== Significance of topic ====
The topic must usually show some kind of significance. Significant topics show they are such by the effect they have on the world - they are widely reported, they shape and change our world, they are the subject of further analysis, they win recognition via awards, and so on.

We also consider the locale within which attention is shown. For example a topic may be of great interest in a small niche but lack much traction outside it. Generally topics have widespread and not narrow significance.

Significance is not normally measured by how widely reported the topic is. Many topics are widely reported or promoted and even gain some media attention that are unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. 

==== Evidence of "significant attention" ====
We want to show that credible people with no involvement in the topic have independently judged it is worth noticing. We look at who makes the judgment and how it is shown. For example a paid-for article evidences nothing, but a full editorial in a major newspaper or academic journal shows the publisher has made a professional judgment of its merits.

Impact or attention that the proponents believe the topic ''should'' have gained or claim without evidence, is not taken into account. Only actual attention is considered. For example a major invention, belief, news story, or album, that has not actually received sufficient attention, will not be able to have an article until editors agree that it has gained sufficient significant attention. Attention that is significant but in a very limited arena (such as a fan club) or that does not prove a high quality of judgment (blogs, forums, twitter, viral emails) cannot show "significant attention". If they are truly significant then they will be subsequently covered in reliable sources and in that way meet our criteria.

==== Suitable evidence ====

=== What a topic must not show, to have an article ===
Separate from being notable, articles must also not contravene [[WP:NOT|What Wikipedia is not]]. Common exclusions:
:* ''Simple definitions of words'' better suited to a dictionary
:* ''Topics lacking sufficient credible coverage'' - Topics that have not been formally and credibly covered or gained significant attention in reliable sources (including personal theories, beliefs and ideas, speculations, neologisms, matters published in blogs and personal writings).
:* ''Advocative articles'' intended to promote or argue for a given agenda or cause (including one's own ideas, beliefs, business, organization, religion, or viewpoint). <u>If the matter is genuinely notable</u> then our guideline on [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] explains what to do.
:* ''Non-encyclopedic types of material'' - Directories, links farms, manuals, guidebooks, media storage, statistics lists are not usually considered to be content suitable for an encyclopedia.
:* ''"Crystal ball" topics'' that could in theory become notable in future ''but have not gained notability <u>yet</u>''.
:* ''Topics lacking sufficient high quality sources'' to write a neutral informative article.

One further category of exclusion is worth attention. A topic whose place in the world is "routine", or whose inclusion would constitute indiscriminate coverage, will usually be excluded. Examples:
:* ''Most news and events'' - Most crimes, scandals, events, and news items (including shocking or widely publicized crimes). From an encyclopedia perspective only a very few media events truly gain "significant enduring attention".
:* ''Indiscriminate cross-categorizations'' (French restaurants in Nebraska, vegan politicians) - an infinity of these could be constructed.
:* ''Topics considered "routine" within a wide class'' - Wikipedia does not consider most local or regional politicians, most professors, most books, most authors, most businesses, most bands and albums, most websites (etc) notable, even though most of these have gained media attention. To do so would involve such large classes that the result would be indiscriminate. The topic may still be notable, '''but for other reasons'''. For example, a local politician involved in a major event, a website that wins a major design award, an album that becomes controversial and widely discussed in the media.

=== Common circumstances ===

* '''Articles about living people''' - These need additional consideration due to an overriding conservative (risk avoidant) requirement. We do not have articles on living people if high quality sources are lacking. People who are known in connection with just one event usually are covered in an article on the event. People covered due to their role (for instance a bystander, intermediary, witness, or spokesman) that could have been "anyone") are often not individually notable. Minors are often not covered unless their notability is beyond doubt and likely to be well recognize (to protect them). If in doubt whether the subject is notable the article may be deleted whereas with other types of subject it is more usual that it is kept.

* '''Businesses, organizations, websites, software, bands, albums, etc''' - Because these are so widespread, and are common targets for unwarranted promotion, articles on these may be [[WP:CSD|summarily deleted]] unless the article shows good cause with evidence why the subject is genuinely appropriate for an article.

* '''Events''' - Many events are reported that do not meet our criteria for an article. Many events that acquire great attention are still just "routine news" for encyclopedia purposes (viral emails, brief but notorious news items).

* '''Entities whose notability may be related to an event''' - sometimes an person, organization or object does not seem notable in itself, but did get attention related to some controversy or event. In such cases one would consider both whether the entity or object was notable in itself, and <u>also</u> whether the event was notable as a controversy.

== Other types of article ==

=== Disambiguation and navigation pages (including redirects) ===

=== Stand-alone lists ===

=== Other namespaces ===

== Advice when creating articles, or discussing their existence ==

=== Creating a new article ===

=== Challenging an article's existence ===

=== Defending an article's existence ===

=== Good and bad arguments ===

== Content of articles==
This guideline only outlines how suitable a ''topic'' is for ''its own article or list''. They ''do not'' directly limit the content of an article or list. For example, non-notable music albums may be appropriately covered in an article on their band (if the band is notable).

If an article is considered viable, then its content must comply with our content policies. The major content policies are that it should be written from a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]] ("NPOV"), statements and cites should be [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]] and (where contentious) [[WP:CITE|cited to a proper source]], it should not contain [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]] or be a platofrm for editor's own views, should not contravene [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|What Wikipedia is not]], and must comply with our policy on [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|biographies of living persons]] where applicable.

Issues related to content (such as poor quality writing, bias, lack of sources etc) are not usually reasons to remove an article. If the topic can sustain a stand-alone article, then we usually try to fix any issues.