131:
49:
116:
299:
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
279:
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.
243:
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
177:
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
163:
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
154:
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
291:
identifying overly promotional biographical articles for living people as a core issue facing
Knowledge (XXG), 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
195:
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
280:
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
256:, 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
138:
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
200:. 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
217:
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.
204:
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
239:, 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.
287:
Such biographies based primarily on self-published information will almost never include any negative or critical information about the subject. The foundation has
318:, which effectively exempts many public places, roads, towns, and the like from being subject to questions regarding noteworthiness. This consensus is subject
334:
124:
Notability implies two things, that a subject is worthy of note, and that there are enough reliable sources on it to enable encyclopedic treatment of it.
288:
68:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge (XXG) contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
69:
143:
35:
191:
The other prong of notability ensures that we can actually write an encyclopedia article on a subject. The main thrust of the
28:
260:
type book. When we allow topics that fail one prong or the other, we stray from our mission of being an encyclopedia.
226:
140:
61:
73:
83:
281:
274:
201:
57:
235:
Subjects without sources enabling encyclopedic treatment can only ever have short stubs that are
309:
159:
people, places, and things might draw significant coverage of a routine nature. Some of our
156:
319:
253:
225:
Articles on subjects not worthy of notice work against the concept that
Knowledge (XXG) is
206:
192:
165:
160:
130:
236:
197:
184:
328:
76:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
17:
257:
315:
300:
if its author does not due to a lack of independent biographical coverage.
209:
forbids us from drawing conclusions based on disparate primary sources.
284:
writing an article primarily based on these self-published sources.
296:
information about the person (and not their work) can be found.
129:
146:, in order for us to write an encyclopedia article on the topic.
168:, since coverage is an imperfect indicator of noteworthiness.
110:
43:
322:, but is fairly well established, and not often challenged.
314:
Knowledge (XXG) has a traditionally accepted a role as a
98:
91:
244:
being a reliable source for an encyclopedia article.
172:
Prong 2: Has sources enabling encyclopedic treatment
227:not an indiscriminate collection of information
175:
8:
27:"WP:2" redirects here. For other uses, see
70:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
335:Knowledge (XXG) essays about notability
161:subject-specific notability guidelines
7:
36:Knowledge (XXG):Two prongs of merit
252:While we've focused a lot on what
248:Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia
74:thoroughly vetted by the community
25:
185:our general notability guideline
114:
47:
41:Essay on editing Knowledge (XXG)
1:
304:Places, roads, infrastructure
193:general notability guideline
134:Notability: a two part test
351:
307:
272:
81:
33:
26:
233:Failing the second prong:
150:Prong 1: Worthy of notice
223:Failing the first prong:
122:This page in a nutshell:
34:Not to be confused with
254:Knowledge (XXG) is not
202:self published sources
189:
135:
166:articles for deletion
133:
72:, as it has not been
29:WP:2 (disambiguation)
136:
207:original research
144:secondary sources
128:
127:
109:
108:
18:Knowledge (XXG):2
16:(Redirected from
342:
282:policy prohibits
187:
118:
117:
111:
101:
94:
51:
50:
44:
21:
350:
349:
345:
344:
343:
341:
340:
339:
325:
324:
312:
306:
289:issued guidance
277:
271:
266:
250:
215:
188:
182:
174:
157:run-of-the-mill
152:
115:
105:
104:
97:
90:
86:
78:
77:
48:
42:
39:
32:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
348:
346:
338:
337:
327:
326:
305:
302:
270:
267:
265:
262:
249:
246:
241:
240:
230:
214:
211:
180:
173:
170:
151:
148:
126:
125:
119:
107:
106:
103:
102:
95:
87:
82:
79:
67:
66:
54:
52:
40:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
347:
336:
333:
332:
330:
323:
321:
317:
311:
303:
301:
297:
295:
290:
285:
283:
276:
268:
263:
261:
259:
255:
247:
245:
238:
234:
231:
228:
224:
221:
220:
219:
213:Both required
212:
210:
208:
203:
199:
198:verifiability
194:
186:
179:
171:
169:
167:
162:
158:
149:
147:
145:
142:
132:
123:
120:
113:
112:
100:
96:
93:
89:
88:
85:
80:
75:
71:
65:
63:
59:
53:
46:
45:
37:
30:
19:
313:
298:
294:biographical
293:
286:
278:
251:
242:
232:
222:
216:
190:
176:
153:
137:
121:
92:WP:TWOPRONGS
55:
269:Biographies
56:This is an
308:See also:
275:WP:NPEOPLE
273:See also:
237:verifiable
62:notability
320:to change
316:gazetteer
258:Who's who
84:Shortcuts
329:Category
264:Examples
141:reliable
310:WP:NGEO
183:from
58:essay
178:page
99:WP:2
60:on
331::
181:—
229:.
64:.
38:.
31:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
