 | This is anessay onnotability. 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. |
Users involved indeletion discussions,speedy deletions and related tasks observe certain recurring characteristics of articles which fail Wikipedia'snotability guideline, particularly biographies. These can be called red flags of non-notability.
If nothird-party information can be found about a person or organization, so all information about them comes from their own perspective, that is an indication that no one independent of the subject has bothered to write anything about them, and thus an article on them would fail to meet the notability guideline. This is often the case for articles on religious, youth, and music groups. If the only source about a particular group isits official website, then it is probably not notable.
Ifsufficient sources exist to establish a subject's notability, then all other red flags, includingstyle issues (which can befixed), may not be taken as red flags anymore, especially if the subject hassustained coverage.
Articles on products should give readers information on what they do and who makes them. If readers cannot find such information, they may not even care to find out about anything else. Presumably, readers looking at an article about a product would want to learn about its functions and its manufacturer. Articles should state the facts (as given by reliable sources), but information should not be presented in aspammy way. Too often, something is described as a "solution". An article that claims its subject is a "web solution" (or a "waste solution") says nothing – is it aspider's sticky goo? That too is a "web solution", and any product or service that is claimed to be one in the figurative sense may not necessarily be as notable as aliteral web solution.
Articles that describe landmarks, man-made structures, or other geographical features, but fail to indicate where their subjects are located, are useless to most readers. If an article claims that an establishment is the first of its kind but fails to provide other meaningful information about it, that claim should be interpreted to mean that the establishment is only the first of its kindin its area, not accounting for previous establishments at its location.
Articles on unreleased products, films, comics, television shows, video games and albums which have only recently been announced often haveworking titles. Sometimes, these items may never become actual products and never be previewed or have any impact. If a fan of the content is writing such articles, they may also containfancruft and superlatives about how the subject is "legendary" and a "masterpiece".
Although the issues described below may be common in articles for non-notable topics due to editors' carelessness, unfamiliarity with markup, or poor grasp of English, the presence of such issues in an articledoesn't always mean that its subject isn't notable, as those issues can be fixed. Conversely, high-quality writing and proper formatting may be used in an attempt tocompensate for a lack of sources that cover the article's subject.
If an article contains poorgrammar orsyntax and contains errors inspelling, spacing,punctuation and/orcapitalization, it may not be considered worth reading. Articles full of such errors are typically created in vanity or haste, and their presence in article creators' revisions may give the impression that the only people who care enough about a topic to write a Wikipedia article about it are contributors with a poor grasp of theEnglish language.
On pages where spelling, grammatical, spacing, punctuation and capitalization errors are absent, themisuse of asterisks and the denotion of sections with "1. 1." may indicate that text was written by alarge language model.
Generally, biographies should follow naming conventions. Honorifics likeDr.,Mr. orMrs. should be avoided, and individuals such asMister Rogers andDr. Phil should typically be referred to by their real or preferred names in the article title and throughout the text,especially if they are alive. Exceptions includeanonymous individuals orpeople whose real names are unknown, such asSatoshi Nakamoto, theZodiac Killer, and theCount of St. Germain. In some cases, an article on a subject whose real name is known may have the subject's pseudonym as its title if they are most notable under it. (e.g.Eminem,MrBeast)
Generally, subjects' names should be written such that the first letter is capitalized (e.g.William Henry Harrison,Kim Jong Un) unless a subject prefers to have their name capitalized in an unconventional manner. (e.g.bell hooks,k. d. lang,maia arson crimew)
If an article says that someone is a renowned expert in a particular area, a source should be easily found. However, if nothing is written about them, then they fail a notability test. Adjectives such as "well-known", "best", "renowned", "award-winning", "ground-breaking", "unique", and "well-liked", as well asweasel words like "one of the top" or "among the nation's best", are hallmarks of language that is more associated with promotional press releases than encyclopedias.