CorporisPublica:Notability

On CorporisPublica, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. Information on CorporisPublica must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. CorporisPublica'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 CorporisPublica is not.
 * A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right.

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 notability 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 CorporisPublica's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What CorporisPublica is not, and Biographies of living persons.

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.
 * "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", 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. 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.
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.
 * "Presumed" means that significant coverage 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 CorporisPublica is not, perhaps the most likely violation being CorporisPublica is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

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 the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.

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 (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). 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.

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

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. The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable.

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.

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 independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. CorporisPublica 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.

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. Thus, 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.

Why we have these requirements
Editors apply notability standards to all subjects to determine whether the English language CorporisPublica 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 CorporisPublica's neutral point of view policy and 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 CorporisPublica: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 CorporisPublica: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 CP: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).

Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity
Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability:

CorporisPublica is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement 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.

Neutral sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written—self-published sources cannot be assumed neutral; see CorporisPublica:Autobiography and CorporisPublica:Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received.

Events
CorporisPublica 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.

Stand-alone lists
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. A list topic is considered notable 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 CorporisPublica 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 whether there are other means of forming stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in CorporisPublica:What CorporisPublica is not. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.

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 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 PROJECT-NAME 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. Otherwise, if deleting:
 * 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 CorporisPublica: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.

=Resources=