Wikipedia:Notability

以下係一個提議緊嘅維基百科政策、指引，或者程序。個提議 可能重響度討論緊，又或者響度取得Wikipedia:共識中。響呢一版嘅參考或者連結係唔應該用作佢哋嘅「政策」。 一個提議嘅接受或者拒絕係唔會按照數票數而去決定。

下面段文未譯好，歡迎你幫手。

一句講晒： A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

Within Wikipedia, Notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right.

These 指引 pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles.

一般 notability 指引

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

• "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.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. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability.²
• "Sources,"³ defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, 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 preferred.⁴
• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.⁵

Satisfying this presumption of notability indicates a particular topic is worthy of notice, and may be included in the encyclopedia as a stand-alone article. Verifiable content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for merger with another article.

Notability requires objective evidence

The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines.

Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself,⁶ or:

• Ask the article's creator for advice on where to look for sources.
• Put the {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors. To place a dated tag, put a {{subst:dated|notability}} tag.
• 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, if possible, merge the article into a broader article providing context. Otherwise, if deleting: ⁷

• 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 five days if nobody objects. For more information, 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 the merits will be debated and deliberated for 5 days.

Notability is not temporary

Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events⁸. In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. Conversely, if long-term coverage has been sufficiently demonstrated, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest.

Topics that did not meet the notability guidelines at one point in time may meet the notability guidelines as time passes. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future.

Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content

Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines.

See also

Essays related to notability:

• Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - An essay arguing against the use of subjective criteria such as "I like it" and "I don't like it"
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes - Summary of common outcomes from AfD discussions giving context to precedents.
• Wikipedia:Independent sources - An essay explaining further why independent sources are needed to write an encyclopedia article.
• Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments - A list of arguments for both application and non-application of notability.
  • User:Uncle G/On notability - An exemplar arguing in favor of specific notability criteria
  • Wikipedia:Non-notability/Essay - An exemplar of a dissenting view to notability arguments

Notes

• 註 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 ("Tough love child of Kennedy", 《The Guardian》, 1992-01-06.) is plainly trivial.
• 註 2: Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the attribution and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material. Also see Wikipedia:Independent sources.) 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.
• 註 3: Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. 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.
• 註 4: Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.
• 註 5: Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.
• 註 6: 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.
• 註 7: 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.
• 註 8: See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; #5 News reports.