WikiQueer:Notability
 |
This page documents an English WikiQueer notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. |
 |
This page in a nutshell: WikiQueer articles cover notable topics to queer communities—those that have gained significant and enduring notice by queer communities, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable and when possible independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence. |
 |
If you want to ask advice whether an article topic is likely to be notable please visit the notability noticeboard. |
| Notability |
|---|
| See also |
| Common deletion outcomes Why was my page deleted? Help (noticeboard) |
On WikiQueer, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. Information on WikiQueer must be verifiable through citations and must have relevance to the queer communities. WikiQueer'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 like 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 it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What WikiQueer is not.
These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list. For WikiQueer's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, Original research, What WikiQueer is not, and Biographies of living persons.
Contents |
[edit] General notability guideline
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.
- "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so 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.
- "Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
- "Presumed" means that direct mention of a connection to queer communities in in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what WikiQueer is not.
A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in WikiQueer. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.
[edit] Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article
The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content. Content coverage within a given 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.
[edit] Notability requires verifiable evidence
The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability and connection to queer communities.
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 the topic is not 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.
Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable reliable sources, not their immediate citation. WikiQueer 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 coverage in sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.
[edit] 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 re-assessment 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. As a result articles may be proposed for deletion or recreated months or even years after being earlier considered.
In particular, if reliable sources cover the 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. Instead, it would be appropriate to include a section about the individual in the article covering the event.
[edit] Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines
Articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, although there are alternatives.
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[4] 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.[5] Otherwise, if deleting:[6]
- 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 WikiQueer: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 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.
[edit] Notes
- ↑ 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.) is plainly trivial.
- ↑ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and scientific 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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 WikiQueer project related to the topic, and ask for help there.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ WikiQueer 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
