User:DreamRimmer/NPP-School/Zuck28

Notability in a nutshell

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large outlets are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller ones can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations, nor should they be used to provide blanket permissions for all articles about a certain subject.
See WP:NMEDIA - while the material is used for media notability, the message covers a much broader area for reviewers to consider, and why I made it the masthead.

Welcome New Trainee!

Instructions: Zuck28, below is a quote from the lead at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School that I want you to consider:

If you are looking to contribute to Wikipedia but do not intend to remain active on New Page Review, then this program is probably not for you.
Users who are less experienced, but who would still like to help maintain the quality of the encyclopedia, might like to consider Patrolling Vandalism instead – an essential function that requires less knowledge of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Deletion policy, although such knowledge is highly recommended. For training on Counter vandalism, see WP:CVUA.

If you still wish to proceed with training, your first exercise is to review the video @ Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help, and the NPP Tutorial. Become familiar with the flowcharts and curation tool as some of that information will come into play during the Q&A session. If you have any questions after you've read the tutorial and have a basic understanding of the page curation tool, please ping me from your session page.

Part of the training will involve your participation in a few live NPP reviews that I will assign. You are also expected to read and learn the relative WP policies and guidelines as presented in the 5 subsections below. You will provide a summary, in your own words, of what you've learned including what you consider to be the most important aspects of each. You will complete one section at a time, in the order presented, and ping me after you complete each part in order to, if deemed necessary, discuss your responses before proceeding to the next part. Please be mindful of the formatting.

Please do your best to answer all the questions in detail. I will also be observing how you react and respond throughout the exam. Remember, there is no rush, and you can work at your own pace. Good luck! – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Notability (Pt. 1)

Notability

Notability is a way to decide if a subject should have its own Wikipedia article. It means the subject should be of a public interest (worthy of notice), and needs to be covered in depth by wp:RS trustworthy sources that aren’t connected to it (independent), to verify the information in its article.

In other words, there should be enough reliable information out there, like in newspapers, magazines, & respected books.

A topic is presumed to deserve an article if it meets the Wp:GNG or a Wp:SNG, and is not excluded by the wp:NOT. However, this does not guarantee it will have a separate page, as editors may choose to merge related topics into one article.

General Notability Guideline (GNG)

GNG serves as the primary standard for determining whether a topic deserves its own article or not. Any topic is considered notable if it has received significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. However, this coverage must provide in-depth discussion, and critical assessment of the topic, going beyond mere mentions and avoiding the need for original research.

Reliable sources should have editorial oversight and can include various published works, but it's important to differentiate them from user-generated content like press releases, self-written content, advertorial content and similar things.

Generally, multiple secondary sources are needed to establish notability, although the exact number can vary based on the quality and depth of coverage. Importantly, these sources must be independent, meaning they shouldn't be produced or influenced by the subject or its affiliates.

In summary, the GNG emphasizes that while significant coverage creates an assumption of notability, it does not guarantee it. The topic must be discussed in detail, and sources should be reliable and independent to properly evaluate its significance. If a topic does not meet these criteria, it may still be relevant within the context of another article.

Specific Notability Guidelines (SNG)

Subject-specific notability guidelines Wp:SNG are designed to clarify when a standalone article can or should be created for a particular topic.

Generally, articles are based on in-depth, independent, and reliable sources, although SNGs may have specific exceptions.

SNGs provide verifiable criteria indicating that suitable sources are likely available for that topic. If a topic meets an SNG, it is presumed to merit an article. However, even if a topic passes an SNG or the general notability guideline (GNG), it may still be deleted or merged if adequate sourcing or significant coverage is lacking, or if the topic doesn't fit the encyclopedia's standards.

Additionally, SNGs serve various purposes depending on the field. For example, some SNGs outline when articles should not be created, while others specify what types of coverage are considered significant. Different SNGs may operate under principles distinct from the GNG, such as those for academics or geographic features.

In summary, SNGs help editors determine the notability of topics within specific areas, providing clear criteria and context for creating articles.

Organizational and Company Notability and any other SNGs that relate to areas of patrol interest

Based on my understanding of the notability policy for orgs and companies, an organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.

Simply put, trivial mentions are not enough; the coverage must be in-depth and verifiable.

No organization is inherently notable, meaning that even well-known types of organizations (like schools or companies) require independent coverage to establish notability. The organization must have a documented impact on culture, society, or other areas to be considered notable.

Notability does not transfer from notable individuals or events associated with the organization. Each organization must be evaluated on its own merits, based on the quality and quantity of independent sources discussing it. To qualify, sources must be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary, and multiple such sources are generally needed to establish notability.

Overall, the focus is on ensuring that articles are based on substantial, objective information rather than promotional content or mere existence.

WP:RS

Based on my understanding of the guidelines, articles should be grounded in reliable, published sources that reflect a neutral pov. If no wp:RS are available on a topic, it should not have an article.

Reliable sources are third-party publications known for fact-checking and accuracy. The more scrutiny a source undergoes, the more reliable it is.

Reliable sources must be verifiable, meaning they require inline citations for any challenged material or quotes. This is particularly important for BLPs, where unsourced, doubtful material must be removed immediately. The reliability of a source is context-dependent, considering the reputation of the source.

A single significant independent source is usually insufficient to demonstrate notability.

"Source" refers to the work, the author, or the publisher. For sources to be considered "multiple," they must be unrelated. For example, a wire service article reprinted in various newspapers counts as one source, while separate articles by different journalists in different outlets count as multiple sources.