This is an essay on notability. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This page in a nutshell: Notability implies two things, that a subject is worthy of note, and that we have the ability to write an encyclopedia article about it in a verifiable manner |
Solve your math problems using our free math solver with step-by-step solutions. Our math solver supports basic math, pre-algebra, algebra, trigonometry, calculus and more. Notability 2.0.2 – Note-taking and annotation made easy. January 25, 2016. Notability is a powerful note-taker to annotate documents, sketch ideas, record lectures, take notes and more. It combines, typing, handwriting, audio recording, and photos so you can create notes that fit your needs. With iCloud support, your notes are always.
Notability: a two part test
Notability, our standard regarding whether a topic merits its own article, fundamentally has two prongs. A subject must be both worthy of our notice and also must have been noticed and received significant coverage in reliablesecondary sources, in order for us to write an encyclopedia article on the topic.
Prong 1: Worthy of notice[edit]
The first prong of the notability test is whether a subject is worthy of our notice. A high school sports team will usually draw significant local coverage in independent reliable sources, but most of them are not noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia article. As well, some run-of-the-mill people, places, and things might draw significant coverage of a routine nature. Some of our subject-specific notability guidelines offer guidance for determining which things are worthy of our notice. For topics outside of the domain of subject-specific notability guidelines, the existence of coverage itself is taken as a presumption of being noteworthy. This presumption can be challenged and debated at articles for deletion, since coverage is an imperfect indicator of noteworthiness.
Prong 2: Has sources enabling encyclopedic treatment[edit]
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. Sqlpro studio 1 0 153 – powerful database manager database. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page
— from our general notability guideline
The other prong of notability ensures that we can actually write an encyclopedia article on a subject. The main thrust of the general notability guideline is that a subject has 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. This excludes things such as mere passing mentions, press releases, and self-published work. The general notability guideline is an adjunct to our policy of verifiability. If we lack sufficient secondary source coverage to build an encyclopedia article about a subject, we usually should not have an article on that subject, even if it was otherwise worthy of our notice. Our policy on self published sources states that they should not be the primary source of material for an article. Without secondary sources, it is impossible to include any critical analysis or serious discussion of a subject, since our policy on original research forbids us from drawing conclusions based on disparate primary sources.
Both required[edit]
Subjects that fail either prong of the test generally should not have stand-alone articles. Subjects that satisfy either prong individually, but not both, can sometimes be included as content in other articles.
- Failing the first prong: Articles on subjects not worthy of notice work against the concept that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
- Failing the second prong: Subjects without sources enabling encyclopedic treatment can only ever have short stubs that are verifiable, that can likely never evolve into a proper encyclopedia article. These subjects are best treated as part of a larger article that can easily pass both tests when taken as a whole.
Articles that satisfy the second prong usually, but not always, satisfy the first prong as well. Some subject-specific notability guidelines specify that certain types of routine coverage should not be considered for notability purposes, even if they would otherwise satisfy the requirements for being a reliable source for an encyclopedia article.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia[edit]
While we've focused a lot on what Wikipedia is not, in the end, we are supposed to be an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia article is supposed to be detailed and comprehensive. This is contrasted with other sorts of reference works such as a dictionary, a book of statistics, or a Who's who type book. When we allow topics that fail one prong or the other, we stray from our mission of being an encyclopedia.
Examples[edit]
Biographies[edit]
Sometimes a person has clearly made an impact in their professional field (as evidenced by numerous citations or a prestigious award, for example), but there is little or no independent, biographical, coverage of them available. We usually should not have standalone biographies on these people. Lacking independent, biographical, coverage of the person, we are unable to construct an encyclopedic biography for them. Sometimes these people have self-published biographies, resumes, or CVs on their personal or professional web site. Our policy prohibits writing an article primarily based on these self-published sources.
Such biographies based primarily on self-published information will almost never include any negative or critical information about the subject. The foundation has issued guidance identifying overly promotional biographical articles for living people as a core issue facing Wikipedia, and has declared that they 'are not neutral, and have no place in our projects.' Such biographies should be deleted if no reliable, independent sources of biographical information about the person (and not their work) can be found.
Notable work, of course, may be included in the relevant subject matter articles for that field, and may even merit its own article. A stand-alone biography should be a biography, not a directory of a person's work. A highly cited academic work, for example, might merit an article of its own, even if its author does not due to a lack of independent biographical coverage.
Places, roads, infrastructure[edit]
Wikipedia has a traditionally accepted a role as a gazetteer, which effectively exempts many public places, roads, towns, and the like from being subject to questions regarding noteworthiness. This consensus is subject to change, but is fairly well established, and not often challenged.
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Two_prongs_of_notability&oldid=783915566'
(Redirected from Notablity)
Notability is the property of being worthy of notice, having fame, or being considered to be of a high degree of interest, significance, or distinction. It also refers to the capacity to be such. Persons who are notable due to public responsibility, accomplishments, or, even, mere participation in the celebrity industry are said to have a public profile.[1]
Aesthetic theory[edit]
The concept arises in the philosophy of aesthetics regarding aesthetic appraisal.[2] There are criticisms of art galleries determining monetary valuation, or valuation so as to determine what or what not to display, being based on notability of the artist, rather than inherent quality of the art work.
Journalism and marketing[edit]
Notability arises in decisions on coverage questions in journalism.[3] Marketers and newspapers may try to create notability to create celebrity, fame, or notoriety, or to increase sales, as in the yellow press.
Notables as the privileged class[edit]
The privileged class are sometimes called notables, when compared to peasants.[4][5]
Wikipedia content[edit]
Notability of a subject determines which articles will be included or not at Wikipedia.[6] In his book, The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World's Greatest Encyclopedia, Andrew Lih writes that notability is at the center of the debate as to what the world's greatest encyclopedia should be:
One faction believes Wikipedia should contain pretty much anything, as long as it’s factual and verifiable.. On the other side of the debate are the 'deletionists', although this somewhat unfairly characterizes their view in a destructive way. Some prefer the word 'exclusionists'. This camp believes it is important to strictly determine not only whether something is factual, but whether it is notable, whether it is worthy of being included in the pantheon of human knowledge... At the center of the debate is notability, which is where inclusionists and deletionists have their skirmishes.[7]
Emily Artinian compares this passage with Borges' The Library of Babel.[8]
Persons wanting to delete an article on the grounds of non-notability are called deletionists. Those not wanting to delete the article are called inclusionists.[7]
A team of computer scientists at MIT and Rutgers University has used notability at Wikipedia to create a measure of hierarchy in a directed online social network.[9]
Lightroom cc 2 2 1. The number of hits from a search engine has been proposed as a measure of notability; Wikipedia does not recommend the use of Google's results.[10]
The number of citations has been proposed as a measure of notability of a publication or author; the field of study is called citation analysis.[11][12]
Notability may be considered to be absolutelyobjective, e.g., inherently as the Big Bang; relatively objectively determinable using a conventional definition, which is subjectively determined by consensus,[13] e.g., an online encyclopedia consensus to consider all towns as being notable, no matter how small; or subjective,[14] such as a notably emotional day for an individual.
Notability in arguments[edit]
Notability may be falsely conferred with fallacious reasoning.
Name dropping and argument by authority are examples of attempts to confer notability by associating the name of something notable with something else in an attempt to establish notability of that thing.
Conferring notability is related to transitivity and the syllogism. If all A's are notable, and x is an A, then x is notable is true by syllogism, but if A is notable, and x is an element of A, then x is not necessarily notable. If x is more notable than y, and y is more notable than z, then x is more notable than z, but if person x considers A to be notable, and A is a subset of B, then x does not necessarily consider B to be notable; an example of an intentional context in the paradox of the name relation.[15][page needed]
References[edit]
- ^'446 PART F | The Cultur e, Practices and Ethics of the Press: the Press and the Public'(PDF). The Leveson Inquiry. Government of the United Kingdom. p. 445. Retrieved 22 April 2013.
The category of people with a public profile also includes a third sub-group: individuals who are famous only for their celebrity, or put another way the mere fact of their having entered the public eye. These people are those who actively participate in the 'celebrity industry,’ actively pursuing publicity’s sake, employing publicists to provide a steady stream of stories to the press and to inform paparazzi of their whereabouts, in order to ensure that they continue to appear in the public eye liul
- ^Aesthetic Appraisal, Philosophy (1975), 50: 189–204, Evan Simpson
- ^Journalism in the age of the information society, technological convergence, and editorial segmentation, Journalism February 2009 vol. 10 no. 1 109–125, Francisco José Castilhos Karam doi:10.1177/1464884908098323
- ^Notability and Revolution: Social Origins of the Political Elite in Liberal Spain, 1800 to 1853, Jesus Cruz
- ^Urban Notables and Arab nationalism: the politics of Damascus 1860–1920, PS Khoury, 2003 ISBN978-0-521-53323-2
- ^Sharman Lichtenstein, Craig M. Parker, 'Wikipedia model for collective intelligence: a review of information quality' International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, Volume 5, Number 3-4 / 2009, pp. 254–272 doi:10.1504/IJKL.2009.031199
- ^ abAndrew Lih, Jimmy Wales The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World's Greatest Encyclopedia, 2009, p. 116 OCLC488343590
- ^Emily Artinian 'Wikipedia Definitions of the Artist's Book: a Neutral Point of View?' (Archived 3 September 2013 at the Wayback Machine), Traditional and Emerging Formats of the Book Conference, University of the West of England, 9 July 2009, p. 5
- ^Mangesh Gupte, Pravin Shankar, Jing Li, S. Muthukrishnan, Liviu Iftode, 'Finding Hierarchy in Directed Online Social Networks' ACM 978-1-4503-0632-4/11/03.
- ^T Lawrence, N Pelkey, 'Googleology': powerful tool or unreliable evidence?' Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, Volume 67, Number 3, September 2010, p. 26,
- ^Roger Clarke, 'A pilot citation analysis of Australian Information Systems Researchers', 2006 (note: this self published website article is cited in Australasian Journal of Information Systems, Volume 15, Number 2, 2009 – 'Electronic Commerce publications and the implications for research quality output in Australia')
- ^Rens Scheepers, Helana Scheepers, Julie Fisher, 'Electronic Commerce publications and research in Australia: Implications of the Research Quality FrameworkArchived 3 September 2012 at the Wayback Machine' Australasian Journal of Information Systems, Volume 15, Number 2, 2009,
- ^Paula Berinstein, 'Wikipedia and Britannica:The Kid's All Right (And So's the Old Man)', Information Today
- ^Sharman Lichtenstein A1 and Craig M. Parker, 'Wikipedia model for collective intelligence: a review of information quality', International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, Volume 5, Number 3-4, 2009, pp. 254–272
- ^Dagfinn Føllesdal, Philosophy of Quine (2000) 5 volumes. ISBN978-0-8153-3737-9
Notability 2 0 2 X 2
External links[edit]
- 'Geography of Fame' (based on 'Notabiity' in Wikipedia) (NYT; 22 March 2014).
Wikiquote has quotations related to: Notability |
Notability 2 0 2 Sezonas
Look up notability in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. |
Notability 2 0 2 Fraction
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Notability&oldid=976951210'