 | This is anessay onnotability and thedeletion policy. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not beenthoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This essay in a nutshell:
|
Thegeneral notability guideline creates apresumption of notability. Thepresumption (or assumption) is that a topic that has receivedsignificant coverage inindependent,reliable sources should have a Wikipedia article written about it. An editor may show that the presumption may not apply to a topic through thedeletion process. Other editors then have the burden to show that an article topic is notable.
The presumption of notability exists because the Wikipedia community has reached aconsensus that significant coverage in independent, reliable sources usually indicates that a topic is worthy of note and because most things are notinherently notable. However, the presumption is just an assumption orrule of thumb, and so it can be rebutted. That means that any editor can show that it does not apply to a certain topic or that there should not be an article about that topic on Wikipedia. An editor usually shows that a topic is not notable through thedeletion process.
Before beginning the deletion process, an editor who thinks that an article should be deleted must first show that the presumption does not apply. During a deletiondiscussion, any editor arguing to keep an article must show that it does. A person advocating for deletion may also show that even if there is significant coverage in reliable sources, an article should not be created on a particular topic if it isinconsistent with Wikipedia'spurposes.
An editor is expected to search for sourcesbefore proposing (viaproposed deletion [PROD]) or nominating (atarticles for deletion [AfD]) an article for deletion.[a] A search showing a lack of sources will generally meet that burden. Generally, when using PROD or at AfD, an editor must explain that they conducted a search and explain why the sources that they found do not meet the presumption.[b]
Once a deletion discussion at AfD is started, an editor arguing to keep an article usually mustprove that a topic is notable or show that the argument for deletion is flawed.[c] An editor has thatburden because information on Wikipedia, including a claim of notability, must be verified in reliable sources. An editor can usually show that a topic is notable by explaining why there are enough reliable sources with significant coverage to write an article on the topic.[d]
Some topics have asubject-specific notability guideline (SNG). An SNG gives examples of certain topics that are likely to have significant coverage in reliable sources. For example, the SNG fortrack-and-field athletes says that any athlete who "[has] a non-relay mark listed on the IAAF senior all-time list or equivalent list" is likely to have significant coverage written about them in independent, reliable sources.
Some editors believe that an article must still meet the GNG even if it is covered by an SNG. Some editors believe that SNGs require a more thorough search before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, and that theburden of production is on an editor advocating for deletion to show that no sources exist, rather than on an editor who would like to keep an article to show that sources exist. Some editors are of the view that the SNGs for certainpeople,creative professionals, andentertainers likewise conclusively establish notability. Some articles arecommonly kept during deletion discussions, even if theydo not meet any of the guidelines. There is widespread consensus that SNGs forspecies,geographical features,academics, andpoliticians establish that certain of those topics are always notable so long as the topics areverifiable.