User:Szmenderowiecki/Attempt at compilation/Content

Content rules aim to guide the development of articles so that they are informative, well-written, balanced, honest and trustworthy, while also following appropriate style guidelines.

Why we have these rules

The main purpose of these standards is to ensure that we have trustworthy articles. The better the articles, the better for the reader, the better for the editors.

• We specifically exclude certain types of content, as mentioned below, so that Wikipedia is and remains an encyclopedia that summarises knowledge about covered topics. There may be other relevant venues where you would like to produce other types of content.
• We require article topics to be notable so that we can actually write a whole article based on them, rather than just half a paragraph or a definition of that topic, and so as to avoid any type of content that would not belong in an encyclopedia.
• In particular, we require multiple sources to cover the topic so that the article is not unduly biased or unbalanced due to the viewpoint(s) of the source's author(s).
• We require sources to be reliable so that we can be confident that we're not passing along random gossip, perpetuating hoaxes, or just posting random information for no good reason.
• We require that all articles rely primarily on independent sources so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with our neutrality policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising or promoting anything or anyone.
• We require the existence of secondary and/or tertiary sources so that we are sure that outsiders note the significance of the described topic, which is an indicator that the topic is notable for a Wikipedia article.
• We require content to be verifiable so that you can trust that Wikipedia does not make up stuff.
• We require articles to comply with the neutrality policy so that you can trust that the article covers the topic fairly and in a balanced way, with appropriate emphasis on all major viewpoints.
• We require articles in certain sensitive and contentious areas (among others, living people, religions, pseudoscience and medicine) to comply with heightened standards to minimise any risk that we fail in any of the above objectives; and to resolve a good deal of often-litigated questions so that editors can bring their focus back to writing an encyclopedia instead of arguing said questions. For living people, the heightened standards are additionally important for legal reasons, so that we do not in any way defame them and respect their privacy.
• We require to abide by copyright rules and not to plagiarise for legal reasons, and also to prevent academic dishonesty.
• We require editors to use their best judgment about how to organize subjects so that we have articles with proper length. We neither want bloated articles people will get lost in, nor short articles unlikely to be expanded beyond a sentence or two. We also want to reduce redundant information repeated across articles.
• We also require editors to use their best judgment to apply the rules so that the content we produce will inform the reader to the most accurate degree posssible - which is the main goal after all.

Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, though articles whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g. all disambiguation pages and some lists) are exempt from notability requirements.

What Wikipedia is and is not

Wikipedia is

Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia that can fit a lot of things. Wikipedia hosts articles that are a summary of accepted knowledge about the subject, presented in an encyclopedic style. Wikipedia is not constrained by limitations that paper encyclopedias have, and theoretically Wikipedia could cover an extremely large amount of topics in great depth. But just because it can doesn't mean it should. And it won't.

Wikipedia is not

• A dictionary (Wiktionary is the place). Encyclopedia entries should start with a good definition, but if you cannot expand beyond it, it doesn't deserve an article. However, definitions themselves, and changes therein, may be of encyclopedic interest (e.g. definition of planet, Macedonia (terminology)), as can be a term has earned enough coverage or scholarly/cultural commentary that it can be expanded beyond the bare meaning (e.g. truthiness, 3, π).
• A textbook or a manual. (Wikibooks and Wikiversity are the places). Summarize accepted knowledge, don't tell the reader how to do stuff. Articles should not read like textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions, nor like manuals or cookbooks, where you guide the reader through necessary steps. However, if your article simply informs the reader by means of example, or describes how people actually use certain things, instead of instructing how to do that, it's fine. This applies to languages - describe them, don't try to tell the readers how to learn them. You can easily change the prescriptive wording to a descriptive one, e.g. You should take the vaccine -> The EMA advises to take the vaccine.
• A travel guide. (Wikivoyage is the place) Wikipedia can describe landmarks within a given city (e.g. the article on Paris should mention the Louvre and the Eiffel Tower), but don't cram it with travel guide stuff such as the "best" restaurants and hotels with pricelists, or attractions not located in the city. The main attractions are more than enough.
• A game guide. (Wikibooks may be the place). A brief plot summary and the main actions the player performs in the game are good; lists of gameplay concepts and items are generally bad, and walk-throughs and detailed coverage do not belong, either. However, there may be certain game concepts or details that secondary sources discuss in gaming context in detail, or which are essential to understand the game or its significance in the industry. These may have a concise mention, or even their own articles if appropriate (e.g. BFG from the Doom series). See also WP:WAF and WP:VGSCOPE.
• A FAQ/advice column. Frequently asked questions (FAQs) and Q&As are not appropriate in Wikipedia articles. Instead format the information as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s).
• A scientific journal. (a WikiJournal may be the place). We write for a general audience, so write plainly and avoid overly technical language. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible. Any literate reader without a background in your area of expertise should be able to understand what you are writing about in the lead and initial sections without having to guess the meaning of the words, and the learning curve should be as shallow as possible. Do a wikilink to advanced or more complicated concepts.
• A case study. Many articles tell the relation of factor X to factor Y (e.g. situation Z in location A, or version B of item C). The key is that there has to be something in this relation that, taken together, distinguishes the topic enough to be notable enough for a separate article (e.g. because it is a culturally significant thing). For example, slate industry can have subarticles such as "Slate industry in Wales" and "Slate industry in Spain" because these are significant in these jurisdictions and this is covered in reliable sources. "Date palm trees in Oman" or "Blue trucks", however, would likely be a point-of-view fork or have original research (both of them bad things) as there is little that distinguishes them of all "date palms" or "trucks" enough to warrant coverage.
• A place for speculations and unverified predictions. We do not have a crystal ball, and your personal opinion on the future is of no significance to Wikipedia. Moreover, some topics that describe a future event do not belong (yet) to Wikipedia. A summary is presented in the table below (examples as of July 2024).

Acceptable	Unacceptable	Reason
Scheduled/expected events which are notable and almost certain to occur or, at the very least the planned event must have well-documented speculation (e.g. 2025 Polish presidential election)	Scheduled/expected events where nothing beyond generic information or original research can be said (e.g. 2042 French presidential election)	Encyclopedias do not cover future events that have no coverage in reliable sources
Description of speculative events/properties that have had sufficiently wide coverage (ultimate fate of the universe, extended periodic table, World War III)	Description of events or things whose names are predicted on a systematic pattern but nothing beyond generic information can be said (Tropical Storm Andrea (2025))	If there is ample discussion, it is fine to describe the views even on highly speculative events or even on something not yet discovered. However, even though an Atlantic storm is almost certain to occur next year, we have nothing real to say about it except for its name.
Articles on notable artistic work, essays, or credible research that give a certain prediction that has sufficiently wide coverage (weapons in Star Trek)	All other predictions involving extrapolation, speculation, "future history" or Galileo gambits (e.g. weapons to be used in World War III, any predicted team line-up)	A portrayal of the future may be culturally or historically significant, but this is an exception rather than a rule. Most are not. We never know if a future event will happen, so we don't want to misinform/disinform readers.
Articles about products that just launched, or films that started principle photography/are in production stage, as confirmed by sources stating it has already started	Articles about products that were just announced or are rumoured to appear, or films in pre-production stages or those that did not appear	Such products can be withdrawn or fail. Even though an encyclopedia can discuss a notable failure, we try to describe the real thing instead of what the producer/manufacturer wants us to believe it will be, if it ever will be.

• A newspaper. You should update the article with new verified information once it appears, and may even create one as the event unfolds. However, we don't host first-hand coverage of breaking news and we don't write in news style. (Wikisource and Wikinews may do that). Don't rush writing up on a news story, consider the long-term notability. If the only sources in the article are contemporaneous coverage and no new coverage on the event appeared, it may be a signal the article was emphasising the news too much and may not even be notable after all. Individuals only known due to a single notable event are not necessarily notable - instead describe them in the article about the event. The inverse is true as well: just because an article describes an event involving a celebrity doesn't mean you need to add information to that person's article, particularly if this is trivia or, worse still, gossip.
• An information dump or a database (Wikidata and Wikispecies are, though). Articles about creative works or works of art can and should discuss the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. Just including a film plot or lyrics for a song is not good enough (and when you do, beware of copyright and limit your quotations to fair use size). Similarly, including statistics in an article is only fine if you put them into context, create graphs, tables and plots that facilitate understanding of them, and explain what they stand for. Another example of a database that we strongly discourage is posting exhaustive software update logs or list of all app versions and patches - a summary of the app's development is enough.
• A mirror or repository of links and media files. It is OK to mention some links and add a few images to the articles, but do not overwhelm the article with too many links (external or internal), or media without any sort of description of why they are relevant to the article. Complete copies of primary sources in the public domain should go to Wikisource; on Wikipedia, only cite the relevant fragments to show context.
• A directory. Yes, we do organize things within our lists. No, we are not yellow pages nor do we publish TV schedules. Lists should have a well-defined core topic (not too narrow, not too broad) that have encyclopedic merit. Therefore, List of heads of state of South Africa is OK but articles like List of senior Black employees of Waffle House or List of Ukrainian restaurants in Buenos Aires don't work unless you can establish notability of a particular grouping in the list (family, ethnic, racial, or otherwise) and this is somehow culturally or historically significant. Lists of creative works of notable creators are generally allowed (for instance, a bibliography of Veronica Roth, a HarperCollins author, can be included, but a list of all HarperCollins books is too broad.) However, if these creations are just aphorisms or famous quotes, an article is not appropriate (Wikiquote will accept these).
• A resource to conduct business. Articles and talk pages are not meant to conduct or promote business of the article subject on Wikipedia. Whereas a list of top functionaries of a notable company may be appropriate, other lists related to businesses will not generally be. We are not a price comparison service and do not say which products are superior, we may at most report others' opinions on that. We are not customer support on products covered on Wikipedia. An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention. It may be a detailed discussion in mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews), but a passing mention alone is not enough.
• A soapbox or a means to promotion. Advocacy, propaganda, advertisement, marketing, publicity or public relations (including self-promotion), whatever their nature, topic or purpose, are not allowed on Wikipedia. You can report objectively on how this is done, but this must be done from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not here to share and promote your opinions on current affairs, nor generally anyone else's for that matter. If you came here to prove your opinions are correct, then you are in a wrong place. If you came here to show how good you are, you should do it elsewhere, too. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources, such as your CV, is unacceptable for an article. Neither is it acceptable for an article to be an extension of the company's website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts. If your company intends to make a public service announcement or promote a cause or an event, Wikipedia is the wrong venue. If you have any conflict of interest while editing Wikipedia (e.g. you are employed by the title company, paid to edit, or related to the person you edit about), you MUST disclose it, and you'd rather not touch the areas where such conflict exists. Wikipedia endorses no corporate entity nor runs affiliate programs.
• A forum for your thoughts. Original theses, novel ideas, personal essays, opinion pieces, unpublished analyses etc. do not belong on Wikipedia, particularly on its articles. Your task is to summarise knowledge as published by other people, preferably experts, it is not to brag about your views or promote them, or show off you brand-new invention, at least until it becomes notable enough as to be discussed in reliable sources.
• A PvP area. Your task is to create an encyclopedia and not bicker with random people on the Internet. Article pages should stay factual; article talk pages can only be used to discuss improvements to the article and are not areas to argue about the article subject. We will delete discussions that do not comply with the talk page guidelines. If you want to discuss a specific question on a topic that has reasonable academic interest, you may use the Reference Desk.
• Social media. Your website, blog, wiki, CV or your cloud storage does not belong on Wikipedia - do it somewhere else. Do not upload files to Wikipedia that you will not use for its betterment - those that are not used will be deleted. Your user page is only to tell something of relevance while working on Wikipedia. You do not own your user page. Don't use user pages for non-Wikipedia stuff, including amusement and social networking. Do not seek relationships or sexual encounters. Your relative's/friend's death is not grounds enough to create an article about them, and commemorating them in this way is inappropriate use of the website.
• A place for scandalmongering. Spreading gossip or things "heard through the grapevine" is not allowed. Take particular care when writing about a living person, as you must make sure you do not defame them or infringe their right to privacy. Deliberate defamation, or creating pages solely to attack the reputation of any person, legal or natural, via Wikipedia articles, is strictly forbidden and will get you sanctioned.

Finally, Wikipedia is not censored. Regardless of the opinions of certain organisations calling for them to stay secret, Wikipedia will not remove information they object to if it is otherwise encyclopedic. Also, Wikipedia explicitly allows usage of objectionable content or obscenities if there is a good reason to use them. If the omission makes the article less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available, that content should and will stay. You should not bowdlerise profanities (replace some letters with symbols). However, offensiveness is not a reason in itself to include content, nor does it mean there is a preference for (more) offensive content. Just choose the most relevant option to illustrate the article topic. Exceptions include things that violate Wikipedia policy or United States law (where the servers are located). We do not deploy additional disclaimers to alert readers to objectionable material; please read WP:Content disclaimer.

Topics must be notable

Notability is a necessary condition for the article's existence. It is a measure of how much a topic is remarkable, significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. A topic is notable and thus generally may have an article or list if:

• It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) or any of the subject-specific notability guidelines (SNGs)
• It is not anything listed in Wikipedia is not

It is up to you to demonstrate notability when you are challenged to do so (e.g. when somebody starts a deletion discussion). If you cannot demonstrate it by naming several good published sources about the topic, the article about it will be deleted (see deletion policy). Subject-notability guidelines will make deletion harder but not impossible, as eventually any article only satisfying an SNG will have to prove it also satisfies the GNG.

General notability guideline (GNG)

A topic generally may have a stand-alone article or list when multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject address the topic directly and in detail, so that editors do not have to resort to original research.

Subject-specific notability guidelines (SNGs)

In certain topic areas, SNGs have been written to to help clarify when a standalone article can or should be written. The assumption is that the topic that passes the criteria should pass GNG because it would have been covered for reasons outlined below, and even if it wasn't, is important enough to likely warrant their own article.

SNGs may differ in their criteria from the GNG, and in some cases SNGs modify the GNG to put a more stringent set of criteria. However, the main rule remains: if for whatever reason reliable sources that are independent of the subject do not or are unlikely exist, do not create an unsourced article, as content must be verifiable. Reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject are still the ones that establish notability, and the notes about the requisite number of sources and what is non-trivial coverage apply as well, unless specifically told otherwise. Some SNGs will also specify which articles should not be created.

This code presents a summary of extant SNGs that differ from the general notability guideline above. As guidelines, they are rules of thumb that should not be interpreted rigidly - exceptions may apply. WikiProjects may have their own notability criteria and may offer valuable advice about writing articles in their areas of interest. However, remember these are mere essays and may have little force of persuasion during deletion discussions.

A digest of subject-notability guidelines

Field	Applies to	Criteria
Academics	Scientists, researchers, philosophers, and other scholars ("academics") - people involved in higher education, scientific research, or otherwise known for their academic achievements, regardless of whether they work in science-related fields. The academics guideline does not apply to those who spread pseudoscientific or fringe beliefs.	General question: "When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this academic stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?" The answer is yes if: The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics). Minor and non-notable societies do not count. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions, e.g. their textbooks or study materials are widely used. The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. The person must be tenured at the full professor level at an institution with a reputation for excellence or selectivity; all other arrangements fail this criterion. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity, e.g. they are frequently referred to as an expert in the field by wide-circulation conventional media, or have authored books within the area of study that have had wide success so long as other academics recognise them as a well-established expert. Patent filings or measures of commercial success do not qualify under this guideline. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. Though factual statements of accomplishments can be verified by the issuer of the award, the university that gave the distinguished professor status, the academic journal staff page etc., whether the impact was substantial or significant must be verifiable by independent reliable sources, third-party reviews, citation metrics etc. To properly use citation metrics, see WP:Citation metrics. Once you established notability through any of the steps, you may use non-independent sources for routine, non-controversial details.
Astronomical objects	Any naturally occurring physical bodies, associations, or structures that exist in outer space, including groups that appear solely due to Earth's viewing perspective (e.g. asterisms and optical double stars). Not covered: Artificial objects in space Space objects in fiction Objects within the airspace of Earth or on Earth, whatever their origin Extraterrestrial geology (but planets and their satellites themselves are covered)	In addition to any article that satisfies GNG (a single paper is not enough), an article generally may be created if any of the following is true: The object is, or has been, visible to the naked eye (defined as visual magnitude <6.0). This includes any star in the HR catalogue. The object is listed in a catalogue of high historical importance (e.g. Messier catalogue), or a catalogue of high interest to amateur astronomers (e.g. Caldwell catalogue). Being listed in comprehensive databases (e.g. SIMBAD or NED) or surveys (e.g. 2MASS or 2dFGRS) isn't enough for notability. The object was discovered before 1850, prior to the use of astrophotography or automated technology. Candidate astronomical objects, or those proposed by a serious scientific hypothesis, by themselves do not satisfy this SNG and must pass under GNG. You must note their hypothetical status. A special consideration for minor-planet objects: per consensus, do not nominate more than 10 asteroids per day for deletion. If numbered below 2000, the articles must be discussed before deletion/redirection; for asteroids above 2000, if the topic is unlikely to be notable, it is appropriate to redirect it to a numbered list of asteroids. Technical steps to redirect asteroid articles Redirect the article to the corresponding list of minor planets. Keeping the original categories and {{DEFAULTSORT}} information. For best results, the redirect should use {{NASTRO comment}} and target the specific entry on the list article. For example, suppose you want to create a redirect to the minor-planet entry 57658 Nilrem on the List of minor planets: 57001–58000 article. This minor planet is found at the anchor #658 on the list page. Hence, a redirect can be created with the following content: #REDIRECT [[List of minor planets: 57001–58000#658]] {{NASTRO comment}} {{DEFAULTSORT:Nilrem}} [[Category:Background asteroids|057658]] [[Category:Discoveries by Michel Ory]] [[Category:Minor planets named for people]] [[Category:Named minor planets]] [[Category:Astronomical objects discovered in 2001|20011017]] The template {{Anchor}} can be used to create a stable anchor point for a redirect.
Books	Books, whether in traditional or electronic form. Web content SNG may apply to e-books. Not covered: comic books and graphic novels (manga, however, is included) magazines reference works, i.e. dictionaries, thesauruses, encyclopedias, atlases and almanacs textbooks or reference books written specifically for study in educational programs exam prep books music-specific publications such as instruction and notation books and librettos; instruction manuals; books that are not yet published	The book is notable if, at a minimum, it is catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library (if that country has such a national library), or it appears in projects similar to Project Gutenberg and the article has enough sources to be able to write the article beyond the book's bibliographical information and plot summary and if any of the following applies: The topic passes GNG, with a minimum of two sources discussing it in detail. A bestseller list may only count as a non-trivial source if the list is notable or the list is published by a notable media outlet and the list is republished or covered by other reliable sources. User-generated, retail or e-commerce lists or ratings are not reliable and should not be used to argue notability. The book has won a major literary award. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to any of the sciences, humanities or arts, or to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools (primary or secondary), colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. The author of the book is so historically significant they are exceptionally notable and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study. Any written work by that author may be considered notable. Self-publication or publication by a vanity or a print-on-demand press do not correlate with notability. The rules mentioned here apply to contemporary books. There may be common-sense derogations for these rules if applied to old books or to academic and technical books. Splitting an article to write about a specific thing or character in the book is not generally advised as these derivatives are not normally independently notable. There are a few exceptions, particularly in very notable books, e.g. Ebenezer Scrooge in A Christmas Carol
Events	Any sort of events Application of the principle that "Wikipedia is not a newspaper"	The larger the impact of the event, and the wider and deeper the coverage about it, the more likely the topic is notable. In particular, an event will likely be notable if: It is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance (e.g. Murder of Adam Walsh ultimately led to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act) It is a reason some massive change of historical significance occurred (e.g. Hurricane Katrina caused much destruction) It has had significant impact over a wide geographic area or societal group (e.g. the Holocaust) There is significant and in-depth coverage about it The coverage of the event extends beyond a brief news cycle Many outlets, nationally or internationally, cover this event, and the news stories are independent of each other (if the story is syndicated, re-reported, retold or republished in an outlet controlled by the same company, discount the duplicates) What is non-notable: events in news coverage that is routine and where the event does not in itself stand out the event is only covered in tabloid or yellow journalism, and the coverage is sensationalist, scandal-mongering and gossippy, or is part of infotainment and churnalism pieces. people only known from one event - describe the event instead Rules for high-profile crimes, including murder or disappearance (either established or deemed likely to have happened by relevant authorities) are the same. Whether anyone has been indicted or convicted is irrelevant. Just because the crime was later found not to have happened doesn't mean the topic loses notability. There is no deadline. Do not rush to create an article or delete it shortly after it appeared - better wait for more reliable reporting when the hot news cycle cools down and get to work then. You may also rework or merge the article somewhere else. Hindsight is 20/20.
Film	Movie productions and associated articles	Film articles are likely to be notable if: The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: Publication of at least two articles that would satisfy GNG, at least five years after the film's initial release. The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release. The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema (e.g. The Adventure of Sudsakorn can fall under this criterion as "the only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand") The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive (the US National Film Registry or comparable) The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. Additionally, films that were successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producer and which were produced in its equivalent of a major film studio may also be included, even if they fail other criteria, if notability is asserted by any reliable independent source and it goes beyond the mere fact of production. Articles about future films should demonstrate that the film is clearly past the pre-production stages (e.g. for films, principal photography has started - will start is not OK), and before they come to cinemas, only films notable for their production itself should have articles. Failed films should not have articles unless failure itself was notable. Reliable and independent sources should describe the film in detail and directly (see WikiProject's resources). Newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide and Time Out Film Guide are not sufficient. The Internet Movie Database (IMDb) is not a reliable source and may not be used to prove notability. A movie character should only have its own article if this interpretation of the character independently received extensive coverage from independent reliable sources, or if it made at least three non-cameo appearances, including one in a lead or titular capacity.
Geographic features	Any reasonably permanent or historic feature of the Earth, whether natural or artificial (man-made) Not covered: Fictional geographical features Astronomical objects or their features Micronations, even if based on geography	For any geographic feature, the article must include more than just the name, statistics and coordinates. Inclusion of a feature on a map, or its naming for a famous event, person or organisation does not by itself make it notable. It is advised to include identifiable minor geographic features within articles for larger features, particularly if the sourcing is scarce. Named natural features are often, but not always, notable, but first make sure you can expand beyond the information you can read from a map and from statistical databases. Places with nationally protected status (e.g. protected areas, national heritage sites, cultural heritage sites) and named natural features, with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are generally notable. Legally recognized, populated places are generally notable. Census tracts, abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place are not generally notable. Populated places without legal recognition or ghost towns should be processed on a case-by-case basis. A territorial dispute is not also automatically notable. International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable. Major rail lines are likely notable as well. Roads and railways of local importance are not automatically notable, as are other man-made geographical objects (though they may pass GNG).
Music	Topics related to music, including people who perform or compose it and their works.	Musicians, bands and ensembles. An article about these people is generally notable if: It satisfies the general notability guideline, with three restrictions: there have to be multiple sources, they must not be self-published, and school/university newspapers or similar are mostly unacceptable. Has had a single or album on any country's official national music chart. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. Has received detailed coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. Has released two or more albums on a major record label, or in an indie label with a history of more than a few years and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable. Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; e.g., having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Note that this requires the person or band to have been the direct recipient of a nomination in their own name. Playing as a session musician on an album whose award citation was not specifically for that person's own contributions does not count. Has won a podium place in a major music competition. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, unless this is the only reason this person is known, in which case the musician's/ensemble's name should be a redirect to the article. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network. Members of notable bands may have their own articles only if they are independently notable, otherwise redirect to the band article. Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists. An article about these people is generally notable if they: Have credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. Have written musical theatre of some sort (e.g., musicals, operas) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run, as determined on a case-by-case basis. Have had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer, or lyricist who meets the above criteria. Have written a composition that has won in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers. Runner-ups, or even more distant places, may sometimes be notable, too. Have been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter, or lyricist that meets the above criteria. Appear at reasonable length in standard reference books on their genre of music. People acting in non-mainstream musical genres. An article about these people is generally notable if they: Are frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture. Have composed a number of notable melodies, tunes, or standards used in a notable music genre. Are cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory, or teaching for a particular music genre, or as having established a tradition or school in a particular music genre. Has been listed as a significant musical influence on musicians or composers who meet the above criteria. Musical works. Articles about recordings are generally notable if points 1-3, 8 or 10-12 concerning musicians (see above) apply to the recording. Albums and singles must satisfy GNG on their own, they are not notable just because they feature notable recordings, or are produced by a notable artist. Articles about unreleased material, whether past or future, must satisfy GNG on their own; however, if an artist merely began working on a new album that was cancelled, left incomplete, or transformed into a different project – before it had a confirmed release date, title, and track listing reported by reliable sources, it is not notable. Songs may be notable if points 1-3 or 8 concerning musicians (see above) apply to the song, or if the song was independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups. Coverage in album reviews does not establish notability - if they are the only sources, write up the album article. Notable covers are acceptable if reasonably detailed based on facts independent of the original. Concert tours must individually satisfy GNG. However, mere existence of a concert tour is not enough. Show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience etc.
Numbers	Individual numbers, kinds of numbers, sequences of numbers and lists of numbers	General criterion: An article is notable if professional mathematicians study this particular topic and/or if amateur mathematicians are interested by it and/or if the number or its sequence have a cultural or natural significance. These articles are generally notable: Integers: Continuous from −1 to 299. Multiples of 100 from 300 to 900, then multiples of 1000 to 9000. Afterwards, only powers of 10 (from 1 up to 1012, higher than that only if they have a standard word name and commonly used SI prefix) and numbers with some remarkable mathematical property. Fractions: Pages for fractions with small commonly used denominators, such as 1/2. If needed, redirects for equivalent fractions can be created. Reals: Important mathematical constants such as e and π. Imaginaries: i. Non-numerical entities: NaN, with a possible redirect from Not a Number. Number bases: Those that are actually used (or have been used in the past) for practical calculations, such as binary, octal, decimal, hexadecimal, vigesimal, and sexagesimal. Extant and historically important numeral systems and notations: Arabic, Roman, Mayan, Babylonian, Indian notation etc. When considering whether other number topics deserve an article, consider these questions: Have professional mathematicians published books, chapters of books, papers and articles about this topic? Is this number or sequence featured in MathWorld or PlanetMath? If an integer, is it listed in books such as David Wells's Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, or Jean-Marie De Koninck's Those Fascinating Numbers, or on Erich Friedman's "What's Special About This Number?" webpage? If we write about a mathematical constant, is this number listed in a book such as Steven Finch's Mathematical Constants? For sequences, is this sequence listed in the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS)? Is there a commonly accepted name or symbol for this number, constant, number kind or number sequence? Does a certain number have obvious cultural significance (e.g., as a lucky or unlucky number)? Does it have a lot of "interesting" mathematical properties worthy of discussion for a general or mathematical audience? The more answers to these questions are "yes", the more likely the article is notable. If the article will not be likely notable, some very basic facts about a number will be presented in a so-called "range section". For example, 40000 (number) has a section Selected numbers, in this case for numbers in the range 40001–49999, which contain chosen numbers that have a peculiar mathematic property, but which alone would not justify an article.
Organisations and companies	Companies, organisations, associations, partnerships, institutions, sports teams, schools etc. ("organisations" for short) This applies to both commercial and non-profit entities, government or private-sector. This guideline also covers products and services. The guideline does not cover: small groups of closely related people. They are covered by the general people SNG. transport infrastructure, which may be covered under geographical features SNG sports teams, which are covered under sport and athletes SNG non-profit educational institutions and religious organisations, which must satisfy GNG	If multiple reliable secondary sources completely independent of the subject treat the topic directly and in detail, the topic is notable. At least one source with significant outreach and circulation (international, national, at the very least regional/statewide/provincial) is mandated. Each source must satisfy all criteria to count towards notability. Err on the side of caution when in doubt. Generally, if a listing or mention is not accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization, it does not help towards establishing notability. These include: simple listings or compilations of things such as: contact details, opening hours, schedules, statistics, internal governance structure schemes, people connected to the company, products and services offered, publications issued, certifications or legal documents (including those asserting intellectual property rights), standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage of: financials, statistics or stock performance; corporate events; changes in personnel; product line launches, sales, changes, or discontinuances; transactions within the company or with other companies; expansions, re-profiling, shrinking or closures of the company or its parts; or participation in industry events (e.g. trade fairs, panel discussions), brief or passing mentions, including: non-notable awards; sponsorships; quotations, presentations, speeches or lectures from an organization's personnel, even if they become story sources; or sentences like "In response to the protests, various companies, such as Acme Inc, have pledged to address working conditions in their factories", inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists, inclusion in collections that have indiscriminate inclusion criteria, coverage of purely local events, incidents and controversies Other sources that do not establish notability are: those that treat about (allegations of) illegal conduct - but people SNG may cover this case; sources where the author is or is related to the company, organization, or product, or whose content is influenced by interested parties, including by paying money to the author or publisher; or content substantially based on it; self-published sources, including patents (granted or pending), as patent offices do not check them for accuracy. trade publications (usually), unless speaking of a feature story crypto-centric news organizations, for cryptocurrency and blockchain articles - they are not considered independent from the subject. Use mainstream reliable news sources. Reviews are acceptable sources to establish notability if they focus on a particular product or function with proper context, it is certain that the author personally engaged with the topic being reviewed, the opinions are independently produced of others (including other reviewers) and if they were published in a reliable outlet known for independence and objectivity that has significant outreach and circulation. Meta reviews (review aggregations) are fine if the author put enough original effort to create one. Non-independent reviews may not be used for notability but may serve to verify uncontroversial facts. These rules apply to any kind of organisation. NGOs, for-profit educational institutions or companies (even if listed on a stock exchange) are not exempt just for being such. Local organisations, or local subdivisions/units of larger organisations may be notable if they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the small organisation's/subdivision's local area. Buildings or events associated in any way with the organisations may be independently notable under the events and/or geographical features SNGs (e.g. Shell Service Station (Winston-Salem, North Carolina), San Ysidro McDonald's massacre), but otherwise they usually aren't. A product or service is appropriate for its own Wikipedia article when it has received sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources that treat the topic directly and in detail, and these sources are completely independent of the subject sources.
General guideline about people	This guideline covers individuals, whether living or deceased. It also applies to small groups of closely related people such as families, co-authors, and co-inventors. Exceptions: Academics are covered under their own SNG Musicians, composers and ensembles are covered under the Music SNG People connected to sports (athletes, sportsmen, sports commentators etc.) are covered under Sports and athletes SNG Groups of unrelated people are covered by the notability guideline for organizations and companies. This guideline does not apply here.	General. A person will generally be notable if any is true: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times; The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field; The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography for UK, or the Polish Biographical Dictionary for Poland). If there is a person only known for one event, a general rule is to have an article about the event and not the person, unless the person is better known than the event itself (e.g. Tank Man). Creative professionals. A creative professional will usually be notable if any is true: The person is regarded as an important figure within the field or is widely cited by peers or successors; The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable larger work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); The person's work(s) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Crime. If there is an article about the (suspected) crime event (see Events SNG), details about the person should be in that article unless size concerns suggest splitting. In particular, do not create an article for a person only known in connection with a criminal event or trial. If there is no such article, perpetrators may have their own article if the victim of the crime is a renowned public figure (politician, celebrity, etc. - see John Hinckley Jr.), or if the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is so unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event (e.g. Jack the Ripper). Alleged living perpetrators are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Allegations are not facts. Victims (including of miscarriage of justice) should only have their own articles if the crime/wrongful conviction had lasting historical significance (e.g. the murder of George Floyd caused widespread protests for racial justice). Entertainers. An entertainer will likely be notable if the person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, or if the person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Politicians and judges. Politicians and judges who are elected, appointed or have held international, national, or (for countries with federal, autonomous or similar entities) state/province-wide/autonomy-wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels, are likely notable. This applies to unrecognised countries as well. Officials holding office at a local level, or unelected candidates to any office, must pass GNG to be notable.
Sports and athletes	Sportspeople, whether amateur or professional. This does not include people who engage in "athletic theatre", or sports-related events which are at least partially predetermined or scripted. Sports organisations and leagues, whether amateur or professional. Sportspeople from sports not explicitly listed in this SNG must satisfy GNG. There is no consensus that esports participants are covered by this SNG.	Sports figures are likely to be notable if they have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level. Clubs and teams, venues where sportspeople play, and articles about rivalries must satisfy GNGs. Some venues may be notable under the Geographic features SNG. Due to the wide variety of sports played, the guideline is very long. Therefore, information is hidden within collapsible boxes. Unhide the content you would like to read, and you will be able to find guidelines about what and who is notable. Professional sports Athletics Athletes will likely be notable if: Finished top 8 in a competition at the highest level outside of the Olympic Games and world championships. Individual events in these championships must contain either several heats or extended fields (e.g., European Athletics Championships, Commonwealth Games, or any of the 6 World Major Marathons). Finished top 3 in any other major senior-level international competition (this includes prestigious small field meets, e.g., IAAF Diamond League/IAAF Golden League meets, less-prestigious large-scale meets, e.g., Asian Games, and generally any IAAF Gold Label Road Race) Have won an individual gold medal at the IAAF World Junior Championships, or Youth World Championships. Have won their country's senior national championship, if they at any time were in the top 60 on the IAAF world leading list at the end of a given calendar year Have won the elite division of multiple notable road races (including the same race multiple times; see explanation below), or have established a history of highly competitive, non-winning performances in many notable races (at least 10 top-threes) Have at any time held a world or continental record (including world junior records, world youth bests, and masters age-group world records) ratified or noted by the relevant official body Owns a mark that placed the athlete in the top 12 in the world for that calendar year in a non-relay event contested or admitted to the senior IAAF World Championships or Olympics, or an equivalent performance over a closely matching imperial distance Have a non-relay mark listed on the IAAF senior all-time list or equivalent list Have been inducted into the National Track and Field Hall of Fame or the Road Runners Club of America Hall of Fame. Non-athletes associated with the sport (or athletes whose main claim to notability is non-athletic activity) are likely notable if they are or were: Coaches who have coached many notable athletes, including at least one non-relay Olympic medalist, World champion, or senior World Record holder during the time of the athletes' notable accomplishments. Coaches who have been the official head coach of an Olympic track and field team for a country with multiple medalists. Coaches who introduced a notable technique or training method, and are widely credited as the originator. In clubs that have received major international coverage for successes and have a résumé composed of many successful Olympians over a long period of time (for example, Irish American Athletic Club). If a club's success is mainly due to one coach, then only the coach is notable. Badminton A person who has had a podium finish at tournaments of the BWF Grand Prix Gold and Grand Prix (until 2017) or the BWF World Tour or Super 100 level (from 2018 onwards) is likely notable. Basketball A person who was selected in the first two rounds of the NBA draft, or who has won an award, or led the league in a major statistical category, of the Continental Basketball Association or NBA G League, is likely notable Cricket A person who has played at the international level for a Test-playing nation, or who been a member of the Elite Panel of ICC Umpires, is likely notable. Cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may but need not be notable. WikiProject Cricket maintains an advisory list of eligible competitions. Cue sports (billiards, snooker, etc.) There is no guideline setting rules about notability in cue sports. WP:CUENOT may offer relevant advice, still default to the general notability guideline test. Curling A curler is likely notable if they: Have won a World Curling Tour event or participated in a Grand Slam of Curling event. Have won a medal at one of the following World Curling Federation sanctioned events: the World Junior Curling Championships, World Senior Curling Championships, European Curling Championships, World Mixed Curling Championship, or Pacific-Asia Curling Championships. Have won a medal at the Canadian Junior Curling Championships. Have won the Canadian Mixed Curling Championship, Canadian Senior Curling Championship, or Canadian Mixed Doubles Curling Trials. Are member of the Canadian Curling Hall of Fame or the WCF Hall of Fame. Cycling A male cyclist is likely notable if he: Won a UCI World Tour; Won (a stage, or an overall individual classification) a Grand Tour or finished on the podium of a Monument; Won the UCI World Championships or UCI World Cup; Won Gold at an international multi-sport event (games) (also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship); Won a UCI category race (minimum classification 1.1 / 2.1, including Continental and National Championships). A female cyclist is likely notable if she: Won the UCI World Championships or UCI World Cup; Won a UCI category race (including Continental and National Championships); Won Gold at an international multi-sport event (games) (also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship). A team is likely notable if: Is a men's road team in the 1st (UCI WorldTeam), 2nd (UCI ProContinental), or 3rd (UCI Continental) tier; Is a UCI team (including UCI women's team, UCI track team, UCI mountain bike team, UCI cyclo-cross team, etc.). A cycling race is likely notable if: Is ranked with the UCI (WT, 1.Pro, 1.1, 1.2, 2.Pro, 2.1, 2.2, CDM, JO, CM, GT, CC, CN, .HC); Is part of an international multi-sport event (games) (also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship); Holds significant recognition (for example, Parel van de Veluwe and the People's Choice Classic). Figure skating Figure skating figures are likely notable if they: Have won a medal at an international senior-level event or the World Junior Figure Skating Championships Won their country's senior national championships, with the exception of those countries that do not regularly send multiple skaters to the Olympic Games (consult this Olympic athlete tally to check whether the country qualifies). As coach or choreographer, have worked with many notable skaters, including at least one Olympic medalist or senior World Champion (for example, Pam Gregory and David Wilson) Have been the heads of national and international federations. Are members of the World Figure Skating Hall of Fame, or a major national figure skating hall of fame, such as the U.S. Figure Skating Hall of Fame. Golf A golfer is likely notable if they: Have competed in the Ryder Cup, Presidents Cup, Solheim Cup, or similar international competition Are enshrined in one of golf's recognized Halls of Fame (example: World Golf Hall of Fame) Have won at least one professional golf tournament (examples: PGA Tour, LPGA Tour, European Tour, PGA Tour Champions) Have won at least one recognized amateur golf tournament at the national or international level (examples: U.S. Amateur, British Amateur) Have made the cut in one of the four Men's major golf championships, one of the Women's major golf championships (past or present), or one of the Senior major golf championships (past or present) Have competed as a professional on the PGA, LPGA, European, or Champions Tour for at least one full year Gymnastics Artistic gymnasts are likely notable if they: Won a senior individual medal at an elite international competition (any competition with considerable international reliable source coverage between at least eight notable athletes, such as: Pan American Games, Asian Games, Commonwealth Games, European Championships, and Pacific Rim Championships) Won their country's senior all-around or individual event finals national championship while competing for a country that qualified a full team into the most recent Olympics or senior World Championships Won an individual medal at the senior national championships for any country that medaled in the team competition at the most recent Olympics or World Championships Have been inducted into the International Gymnastics Hall of Fame Won an individual gold medal at the junior national championships for any of the following countries: USA, Russia, China, Romania (females only) Won an individual gold medal, in the junior division, at an elite international competition, as defined above Won an individual medal at the Youth Olympic Games or Junior World Championships Coaches are likely notable if they have coached many notable athletes, including at least one individual Olympic medalist or world champion, or if they have been the official head coach of an Olympic or World Championship team Horse-related sports Equestrian sports (except for horse racing and rodeo) Equestrians competing at the highest level of international competition are not always "professionals", some earn money and some do not, but most have sponsors or receive money to support their activities. Both professionals and non-professionals have been put in the professional sports category for convenience. People and horses in equestrian sport are likely to be notable if they: Have medaled at the Pan American Games as a rider, driver, or official team coach Have medaled at the FEI World Equestrian Games (WEG) as a rider, driver, or official team coach Have medaled individually or were on a team that won gold, silver, or bronze at the Eventing World Championship, Show Jumping World Championships, or Dressage World Championship, Combined Driving World Championships, Endurance World Championships or World Vaulting Championships Have won an FEI World Cup competition. Are or have been a coach or horse trainer who worked with many competitors (human or animal) considered notable by the criteria above, including at least one individual Olympic medalist or World Equestrian Games champion. Are individual inductees into a major equestrian-oriented national hall of fame dedicated to sports with international-level competition, such as the United States Show Jumping Hall of Fame. Are or have been heads of national and international federations, for example, United States Equestrian Federation, Fédération Equestre Internationale. Are or have been a horse breeder who was the breeder of record for many notable horses including the mounts of at least one Olympic medal or World Equestrian Games championship competitor. Are or have been a horse notable for being a parent or ancestor of a major competitor. Are individuals who made major contributions to the equestrian industry such as veterinarians, researchers, artists, and inventors. Winners of national-level championships may be notable, particularly those considered the highest honor within a particular discipline or horse breed competition (especially where there is no significant international championship level). Horse racing Not all participants in horse racing are athletic "professionals", particularly owners and breeders, but due to purse money and profit motive throughout the sport they are put in the professional sports category for convenience. Horse racing figures, including horses and/or their human "connections" (horse trainers, jockeys, or horse owners and horse breeders) are likely notable for the following: Winning a US Grade I/Group I graded stakes race or the equivalent level in their respective nations. (Horses, due to their relatively short careers, at least once; humans best to have done so more than once) Winning multiple significant US Grade/Group 2 or 3 graded stakes races or the equivalent level in their respective nations. Winning year-end championship titles, such as an Eclipse Award. Being members of a national Racing Hall of Fame. Being a significant person for new advancements or trailblazing achievements. (examples: Andrew Beyer, Florence Nagle, Diane Crump) Being a horse parent to multiple significant progeny, such as Tapit. Being ranked the leading sire or broodmare for a given year in their respective nations (again, see Tapit) Being a Breeding farm or farm owner who has produced or currently stand horses who became notable winners. (i.e. Adena Springs) Being an agent, race track announcer (e.g., Larry Collmus), racing journalist (e.g., Steve Haskin), venue owner (e.g., Frank Stronach) or other business professional with a significant connection to horse racing. Being involved in highly publicized thefts or other crimes, e.g., Shergar, scandals, or other nefarious activities, such as substitution scams, e.g., Fine Cotton. Notability is not inherited from horse to human, or from human to horse, unless the human's connection to a horse is significant. Rodeo Participants in rodeo (humans or named animals, such as bucking horses or bucking bulls) are likely notable if they have been inducted into a national or international rodeo hall of fame such as the ProRodeo Hall of Fame, Canadian Pro Rodeo Hall of Fame, National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum Rodeo Hall of Fame, National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame, or Bull Riding Hall of Fame. College rodeo athletes in NIRA competition will follow guidelines for college athletes. Ice hockey Ice hockey players are likely notable if they: Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top-10 career scorer, first-team all-star) in the Mestis, Deutsche Eishockey Liga, Slovak Extraliga, HockeyAllsvenskan, National League, or American Hockey League; Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top-10 career scorer or first-team all-star) in the Eishockey Liga, Belarusian Extraleague, DEL2, GET-ligaen, ECHL, Elite Ice Hockey League, Ontario Hockey League, Quebec Major Junior Hockey League, Western Hockey League, Elite.A, or Beneliga; Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top-10 career scorer or first- or second-team All-American) in the men's play versions of the Atlantic Hockey, Big Ten Conference, Central Collegiate Hockey Association, ECAC Hockey, Hockey East, National Collegiate Hockey Conference, or NCAA Division I independent; or Are a first-round draft pick of the NHL entry draft. For coaches or managers of ice hockey teams, substitute "coached" or "managed" for "played" in the player guidelines. For participants in defunct leagues who satisfy any of these achievement standards, WikiProject Ice Hockey maintains ta list of ice hockey leagues considered equivalent in importance to leagues mentioned above. Martial arts A boxer who has been ranked in the world top ten of any weight class by the IBF, WBA, WBC, WBO, or The Ring magazine is likely notable. A kickboxer is likely to be notable if they have been in the world top-10 as assessed by one, preferably two, major independent reliable publications, or if they have been a Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion. Amateur kickboxers must satisfy GNG. A person practicing mixed martial arts is likely notable if they have been ranked in the world top 10 in their division by either Sherdog or Fight Matrix. Sumo wrestlers ranked in either the top (makuuchi) division or second-highest (juryo) division are likely notable. Participants in lower divisions are not professionals and must satisfy GNG. Motorsports A driver or rider is likely notable if they: Qualified to a Formula One World Championship Grand Prix or a 500cc/MotoGP World Championship motorcycle Grand Prix, or the Indianapolis 500. Competed for at least one full season in any of the following series: Any primarily-professional single-class series of significant international importance, such as the Superbike World Championship, Formula E, or the World Touring Car Championship. Any category of a multi-class series of significant international importance in which there is not a requirement to run "amateur" or "gentleman" drivers, such as the LMP1 and GTE Pro classes of the FIA World Endurance Championship, or as a manufacturer entry in the World Rally Championship. A top-level feeder series to Formula One or MotoGP, such as the GP2 Series or the Moto2 World Championship. The modern-era (1972 or later) NASCAR Cup Series. Finished on the overall podium of any of the following events: Any round of a series in the previous category, if the driver or rider in question did not complete a full season. The Le Mans 24 Hours, the Bathurst 1000 Kilometres, or a pre-World Championship Grande Épreuve. Won any of the following events overall: A round of any primarily-professional series of significant national importance, such as the British Touring Car Championship, Stock Car Brasil, or Super GT. A high-profile international rally as a driver (such as the Dakar Rally, Coupe des Alpes, or non-world championship editions of the Monte Carlo or RAC rallies), or a round of the World Rally Championship as a co-driver. A non-championship national Grand Prix (including the Macau Grand Prix and the Gordon Bennett Cup) for cars or motorcycles. Various major road races, such as one of the high-profile inter-city races of the 1890s and 1900s, an Isle of Man TT event, the Targa Florio, or the Mille Miglia. Won any of the following championship titles: The overall championship title of any series in the previous category without winning a race (a relatively common occurrence in series whose points-scoring systems favour consistent finishes over inconsistent victories). A major championship in which a large number of the competitors are amateur "gentleman" drivers or privateers, such as the European Le Mans Series, Intercontinental GT Challenge, or European Rally Championship. Received an FIA platinum driver categorisation. FIA gold driver categorisation mostly, but not always, will generate enough significant coverage to satisfy GNG. Are a current or former owner or team principal for a team in a major racing series (Formula One, the World Rally Championship, MotoGP, Formula E, Indycar, DTM, Super GT, the NASCAR Cup Series, V8 Supercars, CART, or top-level IMSA) for a full season or more. This includes Cup Series crew chiefs. Were enshrined in any notable motorsports hall of fame. Are a current or former holder of significant motorsports record, such as a land speed record. Orienteering A person who competes in orienteering is likely notable if they have finished top 3 in the World Orienteering Championships, the European Orienteering Championships, the overall Orienteering World Cup at the end of a season or the World Games. An orienteering club is likely notable if it has won a major relay, as defined below, which mean presently Tiomila (both the Tiomila relay and the women’s relay) and the Jukola relay (both Jukola, from 1972, and Venla), or has been represented by ten runners who fulfill the criteria above. An orienteering event is likely notable if: It has an international elite field. It regularly has more than 5,000 competitors. It has been held over a period of 25 years. It is a competition for developing elite athletes. Presently these major events are O-Ringen, Tiomila, and the Jukola relay. Junior championships include the Junior World Orienteering Championships, the World University Orienteering Championships and the European Youth Orienteering Championships. Tennis Tennis figures are likely notable if they: Are a member of the International Tennis Hall of Fame, either in the contributor or player category Have competed in the main draw in one of the highest-level professional tournaments: Grand Slam tournaments (the Australian Open, the French Open, Wimbledon, or the US Open). Men: ATP Tour tournaments (the ATP Finals, ATP Tour Masters 1000, ATP Tour 500, or ATP Tour 250). Women: WTA Tour tournaments (the WTA 1000, the WTA 500, the WTA 250, or the WTA Finals). Have won at least one title in any of the ATP Challenger tournaments, or in ITF Women's $40,000–$100,000+ tournaments, or any of the WTA 125 tournaments. Hold a tennis record recognized by the International Tennis Federation, ATP, or WTA. Have won at least a junior Grand Slam title or have been in the top-3 of the junior ITF world rankings. This guideline applies equally to singles and doubles players. Triathlon A person competing in triathlon competitions is likely notable if if they: Have had a podium finish at the Commonwealth Games. Have had a top-10 finish in the final World Triathlon Series standings (final World Triathlon Cup standings prior to 2009), in a World Triathlon-sanctioned championship event, or at the professional-division Ironman World Championship or Ironman 70.3 World Championship Have an elite-level podium finish at an World Triathlon Continental Championship. Have had a podium finish at the XTERRA Triathlon championships. Have won an event that has a starting pro/elite field of at least 15 male or 10 female competitors. Have set a record for a standard distance event or leg. Amateur and college-level sports College-level athletes and coaches are likely notable if they: Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College football award navbox or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major record in NCAA Division I. Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame). Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team. Have won multiple NCAA Division I national championships as an individual in an individual sport. Served as a full-time (not interim) head coach for NCAA Division I/University Division football (since the establishment of divisions in 1957), men’s basketball (since 1957) or women’s basketball (since 1982). Other college coaches in other divisions and/or other sports may also meet notability guidelines via WP:NBASIC. Gaelic games figures participating in GAA are likely notable if they are or have been a: Gaelic footballer who has played in the National League or at senior inter-county level in the Championship Gaelic handballer who has won at senior inter-county level Hurler who has played in the National Hurling League or at senior inter-county level in the Championship Athletes competing in primary or secondary school settings must satisfy GNG and be notable beyond a local level to have their own article. Articles about particular editions of year-round (Olympics, championships etc.) Olympics. Any of the following topics about modern Olympic/Paralympic Games are likely notable: Sportspeople/teams who earned a medal in any competition, unless the competition had three or fewer competitors (i.e. all competitors earned medals), but individual sports guidelines may outline exceptions. Nations participating at individual Summer or Winter Olympic or Paralympic Games. Sports and events at individual Summer or Winter Olympic or Paralympic Games. WikiProject Olympics contains advice on writing the articles. Non-Olympic individual seasons. The following guidelines generally apply: Individual season articles for top-tier professional teams, and top-tier professional competitions, are highly likely to be notable A national championship season at the top collegiate level is generally notable; not necessarily true for lower tiers in college sports. A season including a post-season appearance (or, if there is no post-season competition, a high final ranking) in the top collegiate level is often notable. For college programs considered elite in a sport (for example, Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, in men's basketball; Tennessee and UConn in women's basketball; Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, USC in football, etc.) many or all seasons might be notable regardless of the outcome. In cases in which the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article. Consider, however, the relative popularity of sports. The above examples deal with popular college sports in the United States (basketball, American football, baseball etc.). These sports, as well as soccer in Europe, rugby in Australia and New Zealand, or cricket in India, will generally receive extensive news coverage. Niche sports such as water polo or orienteering are highly unlikely to receive as much attention. Adjust these rules to the amount of sourcing available. Articles about individual games, series, cups etc. See generally the Events SNG. To be notable, individual games (professional- or college-level) should be extraordinary and have a lasting impact on the sport; news coverage should be extensive (e.g., outside of the week of its occurrence and in non-local newspapers). Merely citing stats is not good enough. Some games or series are likely or almost certain to be considered notable, such as: The final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league, e.g. of Stanley Cups, Super Bowls, UEFA Champions League cups, FIFA World Cups, Cricket World Cups, All-Ireland Senior Football Championship etc. College bowl games (not limited to BCS or College Football Playoff bowl games, e.g. see 2009–10 NCAA football bowl games). All-star or similar exhibition games, e.g., 2009 Major League Baseball All-Star Game A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g., The Malice at the Palace, 2009 Republic of Ireland v France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match). However, in some cases a related event is more notable than the game itself, (e.g. Hillsborough disaster), in which case the focus should be on the more notable event. If a game or series is already covered as a subtopic in another article, you should develop it there until it becomes clear that a standalone article is warranted (e.g. size considerations), even if the topic may be notable.
Web content	Any content accessed via the Internet and engaged with primarily through a web browser is considered web content. This includes blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines, e-books, other media, podcasts, webcomics, and web portals	No kind of web content is in itself notable. It is likely to be notable if: The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. Ideally, this award itself is also notable and already has a Wikipedia article. The content has made significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Non-notable web content may in some cases still be part of some other article or list such as List of internet phenomena.

Caveats

• A notable topic is not equal to a "famous", "popular", "interesting" or "important" topic. At least not equal to whatever perceived fame or degree of importance you attach to the topic. We have reliable secondary and independent sources to do that job.
• Notability is not generally inheritable - each topic should be independently notable for it to have an article. In other words, there is no such thing as notability by any sort of association with another notable topic (some SNGs above may create rare exceptions)
• Notability does not guarantee a stand-alone article. Sometimes the encyclopedia would benefit from treating the topic in another article, or group several topics in one big article. To see if you should, think whether the topic would be better seen in context of another topic, or as part of larger topic, and if you can improve the stand-alone article beyond the current state. Articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into whatever article closely associated with the topic is better developed and has better demonstrated notability; but if you can make it more than a stub, do so. It may also appear after a thorough discussion and inspection that the Wikipedia article fails notability after all, even if the article passes GNG and/or SNG on the first glance. In this case, also merge the content to other article(s).
• The concept does not apply to article content. Other content policies apply to article content. However, editors may agree to use list selection criteria for lists.
• The concept applies to the topic, not to the current state of the article. What matters is whether this topic has enough good coverage to build at least a basic article, not if Wikipedia uses it now or not even whether the Wikipedia article is full of tags indicating problems with verification. However, once you identify a subpar article and find adequate sourcing that demonstrates notability, please fix the article.
• Notability is not temporary, but attention over a sufficiently significant period of time is needed. Once an article meets GNG, it doesn't need ongoing coverage. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and does not allow advertisement or promotion, so if, after considering all sources out there, the article about the topic will resemble a newspaper article or an ad, particularly if coverage of the topic was not sustained over time, it will not be notable.
• Do not create articles about a person only known for a single event. If you believe you need an article, describe the event instead.

Content must be verifiable, but not all verifiable content must be on Wikipedia

All article content on Wikipedia must be verifiable, i.e. all content must be supported by the reference attached to the information. The source should be cited inline and directly support what you write. Other editors should be able to clearly identify the author, title, publisher, page/chapter/section, date, DOI, ISBN etc. of the source so that they could check it themselves (see WP:Citing sources for technical information). The source may NOT be your beliefs, opinions, your conviction that "this is the truth", unpublished information/ideas or whatever you make up.

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. The verifiable content may be excluded, among other things, because your content is sourced to a poor-quality source, is tangential or even irrelevant to the topic discussed, because it belongs elsewhere, because there are already enough sources offering a certain viewpoint and we need some others or because it may be defamatory or violate the person's privacy. Editors may determine by consensus to remove your content for any of these reasons. If you want to retain, restore or undelete content, it is up to you to rally consensus for it.

It is your responsibility to provide a citation to the content you add or want to retain or restore. If you are challenged when doing that, it is up to you to prove that the source indeed supports the content well enough. Make some research yourself and try to find a good source that supports the information, whether you want to delete or retain the information. If the information is not cited inline but there are some general references, find the specific fragments which support the text. Also, remember that exceptional claims require an exceptional quality and amount of sources, particularly when such statements are odd, not covered by reliable sources but would otherwise seem important or would turn mainstream assumptions on their head.

You may remove any content that is not verifiable. If you don't feel comfortable about that, you may add a {{citation needed}} template for unsourced information, {{verification needed}} to request verification and {{failed verification}} if the source does not support the text. In any case, leave a note on the article's talk page, or the talk page of the user who added it, so that people know why you did it. If you want to delete verifiable content, first see if you can fix it yourself - if you can, apply the fix; only delete it if you can't see a way to improve it. An exception: remove any unsourced/poorly sourced contentious content about living people/existing groups of people immediately, don't wait. You don't need prior discussion for that.

Accessibility of the source doesn't matter much. Do not dismiss a source simply because it is difficult or costly to access or is not available online - ask the editor who cited the source to provide you the quote that supports the content, or alternatively seek Resource Exchange's help. Sources in English are preferred on English Wikipedia - cite them when equal or superior to a foreign-language one - but non-English sources are fine, too, and better use a good foreign-language source than not. When citing non-English sources, provide the quote in the original language and its translation. For the translation, if available, use that from a reliable source; if it doesn't exist, you may prepare your own but you are fully responsible for its accuracy. Avoid machine translation. If your grasp of the foreign language is not so good, better consult translators who are willing to help than try to understand the source yourself, particularly in articles about living persons.

Do not conduct original research on Wikipedia

Original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. Original research is prohibited in Wikipedia articles. Examples may be your philosophical essay or results of some research you did in the laboratory - these are not allowed as content until they appear in a reliable source. In particular, do not create hoaxes, whatever your reason may be, including to illustrate a point you may have. This is because hoaxes are not a constructive way to test Wikipedia's ability to self-correct. Worse, they damage its reputation and, more importantly, disinform the reader, who often take what is written on Wikipedia at face value. For similar reasons, do not write patent nonsense to Wikipedia articles (whether random strings of characters, lorem ipsum or an incomprehensible word salad).

A special case of original research is improper editorial synthesis. Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. In other words, you are not the one who frames facts, indicates their importance or suggests or asserts opinions on them.

To say whether something is improper synthesis, you have to understand what the sources say, what the text says and whether any assertions in the text align with what the sources mean. If they do, this synthesis is proper. There is no hard-and-fast way to detect improper synthesis. You may avoid improper synthesis accusations by clearly demarcating which parts of the text are supported by which reference.

Some things are not improper synthesis. Summarising or explaining something is not improper synthesis if the general meaning of the concepts explained or summarised is preserved. Neither is translation or transcription. Uploading original images is fine so long as the image does not serve to illustrate or introduce unpublished concepts, including through captions, and is not manipulated to distort facts or positions on the image. If the consensus is that they are correct and meaningfully reflect sources, routine calculations, particularly basic arithmetical operations, are permissible as well. Direct comparison of statistics is OK if methodologies are the same. Finally, interpreting certain sources, like a map, an image, a chart or a graph is acceptable if there is consensus that the way you are interpreting them is correct and meaningfully reflects sources.

Privacy and reputation of living people

For the scope of biographies of living people (BLPs) and guidance on how to write about living people from a neutral point of view, see § Living people.

For guidance on which sources to use in articles about these topics, see § Biographies of living people (BLPs).

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, as you may have read earlier. This applies doubly to biographies of living people, as whatever information you include in the article may influence the life of the article's subject. Therefore, there are extra criteria that you must fulfill before adding this content. When interpreting rules for content about living people, apply all of them strictly

When writing about a living person, consider whether they are a high-profile personality, or in legal terms, if they are a public figure. A public figure will:

• actively solicit media attention, particularly news outlets with a wide-reaching audience; they would prefer to be a "media personality" (a.k.a. "public face" or "big name"), a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator
• voluntarily participate in activities to promote themselves or a cause they want to champion, including through being a featured performer or speaker for a publicly advertised event at which admission was collected and/or which garnered significant independent, non-local coverage (though being just a company's/politician's spokesperson is not in itself enough)
• seek or hold a position of pre-eminence, power, or authority in a (wide) field of research, a sport, a business market, a political sphere, or other area of human endeavor, usually at more than a locally-significant level
• seek to become a high-profile individual and has become such for a substantial period of time, even if they at some stage chose to no longer be in the limelight
• is typically notable for multiple major events, or at the very least a major role in a major event; and so will get extensive media and/or academic coverage.

This status may change during life, depending on the degree of attention-seeking or importance of the position they hold.

This distinction is important because a greater degree of privacy and more care should be afforded to low-profile individuals. Here is a summary; for more guidance, also look up notability guidelines about people and events.

Issues	High-profile individual	Low-profile individual
Should we have an article if the person passes notability criteria?	In general yes	In limited cases, for example if the person passes one of the subject-notability guidelines. If the person is only covered within the context of one event, and that event is insignificant, or it is significant but the person's role was not, merge the content towards the article about the event or else delete it.
What stuff to include?	Generally few restrictions on what to include, except for allegations of marginal importance or a minor incident	Only include material relevant to the subject's notability When the notability claim stems from being victims of another's actions, restrict inclusion only to information that is on-topic and do not include so much detail about their victimhood that could reasonably be seen as participating in or prolonging the victimization. If the article subject requested deletion of their own page, you need consensus to retain it.
Treatment of material that may be perceived as tarnishing the person's reputation; including criminal incidents or indictments	Include if documented in multiple independent reliable sources and if important to the subject's article, regardless of the subject's feelings about the event; exclude otherwise. When the sources post some allegations about the subject, describe them as such, include their substance and, if the subject denies the allegations, also report their denial. Beliefs in fringe theories should be reported, but only in proportion to the importance in their lives. When writing about people mainly known for fringe theory advocacy, take special care to not make the article appear to denigrate (or promote) the subject.	If the allegation, incident or beliefs held may negatively impact the person's reputation, consider omitting it unless essential to the subject's notability. Generally omit any content suggesting that the person is a criminal unless the person has been convicted. Remember that in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for non-public figures.
	Only criminal convictions count towards calling someone a "criminal". However, it will be usually better to describe what they were convicted of instead. Adding a person's mug shot to the article is only permissible if a top-quality reliable source ties them to the incident; and then consider not adding the information for low-profile individuals, or for people charged for minor crimes or misdemeanours. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other, include sufficient explanatory information.
Treatment of personal information	If the subject has posted their date of birth or assured it is not a problem that their date of birth is posted, or if it is widely reported in reliable sources, you may include the precise date of birth. If the article subject objects, restrict it to the year of birth. If multiple independent reliable sources state differing years or dates of birth in conflict, include all birth dates/years for which a reliable source exists, clearly noting discrepancies; do not cherrypick or extrapolate the DOB.	For low-profile individuals, restrict the amount of data you collect. If there are few reliable sources about their birth, just list the year unless the subject clearly agrees to post their full information. If the names are not widely disseminated in public or are deliberately anonymised/pseudonymised, the best practice is not to reveal them, particularly if revealing them adds little to the article. However, if reliable sources that are of higher quality than news media identify the person, or if the person agrees, you may consider adding the name. In articles about other subjects, only include names of low-profile individuals that are relevant to understanding the article subject. All personal information of minors should be excluded unless in very limited circumstances (e.g. high-profile minors or heirs to the throne)
	You may include properly sourced information about religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation if the person has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation. However, you may only add the person to the related category, list, navigation template and so on (categorisation) if this is relevant to their public life or notability. Do not post any contact information, including private residential addresses. Do not post the name of a workplace or school, other online and offline identities or accidentally disclosed IP addresses, medical information etc. unless the subject consents or that information is widely reported. Do not post media files (recordings, videos, photos) of a subject being in places where they would reasonably expect privacy (e.g. places not freely available to the public, medical facility and locker rooms or restrooms) without that person's consent, even if no law prohibits you from doing that. This applies to all of Wikipedia. If you see such information, contact the oversight team immediately; delete the information with a generic edit summary and do not draw attention in any way to material you want to suppress (beware of the Streisand effect). Links to websites maintained by the subject are permitted.
Caring about reputation	When writing an article, never insinuate by any means something that can be written and presented directly, especially if the content may be perceived as disparaging or if the insinuation cannot be properly sourced directly. Delete on sight any poorly sourced information that may defame, or that may create controversy about the subject, anywhere on Wikipedia and whatever its form is, textual, audio, video, image or otherwise, and consider oversighting it (suppressing from article history) if necessary. If oversighting/deleting is impossible, consider alternatives that will prevent the spread of libellous content. For example, users with names containing libellous messages, or containing personally identifiable, private or non-public information, must be blocked immediately, and their revisions and logs suppressed. People should not be added to a contentious categorisation (e.g. Criminals) without a factual basis (a conviction that was not overturned), and categorisation only expressing opinion that may damage the person's reputation (sexist, racist, ableist, extremist etc.) should not exist at all.
Treatment of article subject's grievances	You should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern. Correct errors or unfair material they identify, or, if you refuse, make sure you have a good policy- or source-based reason to explain your refusal. Treat the article subject's dignity and privacy like you would have treated your own in their circumstances. For the article subject: be kind towards volunteers even if they may make mistakes. You may correct very obvious mistakes by yourself, but otherwise post suggestions on the article talk page (see Help:Talk pages), place {{help me}} on your user talk page or ask the biographies of living persons noticeboard for help. Make sure you clearly identify the problem. For more serious issues: contact the oversight team if you see defamatory content or personally identifiable information whose disclosure you did not authorise; for legal or other serious concerns, write to the Wikimedia Foundation's (WMF) volunteer response team (VRT) at info-en-qwikimedia.org with a link to the article and details of the problem (see instructions); or contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly if all else fails. WMF operates under United States law.

Use reliable sources

All sources can be divided according to several classifications - whether the source is reliable or unreliable, independent or not, and how far it is removed from the event or phenomenon described. These classifications are independent of each other.

Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

All sources, can be divided, in order of increasing distance from the event or phenomenon discussed, as primary, secondary or tertiary sources. Grasping this distinction is vital to determine which sources may be used to justify notability, and which sources you may use to base your articles on. It is worth remembering that a source may contain elements from more than one type, or that the source type may change depending on the purpose it is used for. The properties of the sources, with their examples, are given below.

Type	Properties	Examples
Primary	Original materials; create or report on new information, data points, research and/or scientific discoveries, including for further analysis Are close to an event or phenomenon described Are often accounts written by people who are directly involved Have not been filtered through lens of external interpretation or evaluation	Audio recordings, photographs, breaking news articles, interviews, legal documents, autobiographies, works of art or literature; research reports, lab results, announcements of a discovery
Secondary	Interpret, analyze, evaluate and/or synthetise primary (or sometimes other secondary) sources Are at least one step removed from the event or phenomenon described - i.e. that person does not witness it Do not generate new information or data points - but generate interpretations of them.	Biographies, opinion essays, feature stories in newspapers, dictionaries/encyclopedias (also tertiary), histories, monographs; literature reviews, meta reviews, medical guidelines published by major health organizations, letters to the editor
Tertiary	Distill primary and secondary sources into a broad overview of the topic Do not generate new information or data points May interpret other sources, but generally not for the purpose of providing opinion - only to give factual information.	Dictionaries, encyclopedias, almanachs, fact books, manuals, textbooks, edited/lay scientific books

Independent sources

To answer if a source is independent, ask yourself this question: does the author have a conflict of interest when publishing the source the way they did? The answer will be yes if the author is in any sort of financial or legal relation with topic (e.g. they are employed, contracted, sponsored or are a client or investor of the company; they are a relative or a lawyer of the person described; or they have something, financially or otherwise, to gain or lose by writing about it); or if the content is produced or influenced by a person or organisation who has a stake in it (e.g. sponsored content, most self-published content, advertisements, public relations communications, propaganda, advocacy, or lawsuits). Always make sure that you know the ultimate beneficiary of the published content, as in some cases authors will try to hide their true sponsors to lend credence to their "independent" message (e.g. astroturfing campaigns).

Since primary sources tend to be accounts written by people directly involved in the event, primary sources will often not be independent. However, independence is not the same as lack of bias. A person doing computer hardware reviews may be more lenient when reviewing AMD's GPUs or CPUs than those of the competition (say, Nvidia or Intel), but if they are not being paid or influenced by any of the companies, or if the person doesn't have an ax to grind against any of them, their reviews will be independent. Independence also does not indicate reliability.

Sources may be published in various ways

A published source is any source that was made available to the public in some form and is still accessible through any means. The medium through which it is published (radio, TV, print, online, etc.) does not matter, but you still must check against other criteria, particularly the reliability checkpoints.

There are two ways content may be published. One way to do that is to submit your content for evaluation (e.g. peer-reviewed scientific articles or news articles going through internal copyediting and fact-checking). However, a lot of content is self-published. This may be a blog post, a social media reply, a book published through a vanity press or even a lawsuit or a patent.

Hallmarks of reliable sources

Finally, any source may be classified according to the degree of reliability we can accord to the source. Unfortunately, there are no easy solutions in sieving out reliable and questionable sources. Reliability falls on a spectrum - no source is 100% or 0% reliable for anything. What you should be looking for is a good source that very likely is reliable for given content. Context matters greatly. Age does too, because it may be that older sources contain outdated or since-debunked information; or sources that are too new haven't gone through enough scrutiny to see if their conclusions are valid. Article quality may also vary, so try to avoid making broad assumptions about a given outlet and analyse each article on its own merits. Sources that are reliable for a given statement will tend to:

• Be peer-reviewed or have other robust internal quality checks (editorial oversight)
• Have a reputation for accuracy and correct any mistakes they may have made, including confirmed by winning defamation lawsuits on the merits
• Come from an expert within the field of expertise that the article addresses
• Cite their sources for their assertions and which sources confirm that assertion, but these references should not be circular reporting
• Be widely and consistently cited by other sources, often without added comments or caveats
• Have stood the test of time, including by having veracity of their reporting or research results confirmed by other sources
• Discuss the statement in depth and not just in passing, even if the trivial mention comes from an otherwise reliable source
• Not engage in spreading gossip, rumours, other types of yellow journalism, or outright misquoting or mis-/disinformation
• Disclose any conflicts of interest that may influence content (e.g. clearly mark sponsored/promoted content and distinguish opinion pieces from factual reporting)
• Be independent from the topic discussed
• Not be self-published or user-generated, with some exceptions
• Not advance fringe theories or ideas widely considered extremist (but reliable sources may be biased)

Policies of usage

General

1. You should base your articles on up-to-date published reliable secondary or tertiary sources whose creators are completely independent from the subject(s) of the article. The tertiary sources will be particularly useful when primary and secondary sources contradict each other. Reputably published primary sources may occasionally be used, particularly alongside secondary/tertiary sources, but not to assert notability, not to base your article on and only for straightforward and uncontroversial facts. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself, instead use secondary and/or tertiary sources. Do not copy full-text primary sources to Wikipedia if the text is uncomfortably long or if it is copyrighted.
2. Strive towards the highest-quality sources available. Scholarship is generally the preferred type of sources (though see Medicine and other sciences section for what scholarship should and should not be cited).
3. Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering conclusions made by secondary sources.
4. If a source is of questionable reliability (i.e. it fails many of the criteria listed above) or is sponsored/promoted by a third party, do not use it.
5. Self-published sources should not normally be used, either. This includes any user-generated content (e.g. any social media or forum posts, any blogging website, Ancestry.com, Discogs, Fandom, Famous Birthdays, Find a Grave, Goodreads, IMDb, Know Your Meme, ODMP, TV Tropes, WhoSampled etc.).
   1. Exception 1. Self-published or questionable sources may be used de minimis for statements about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. They do not need external vetting. However, the claims should:
      • be neither unduly self-serving nor exceptional
      • not involve third parties, or events not directly related to the subject
      • appear in such a way that there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and authorship, and
      • these sources should not be a primary basis for the Wikipedia article
   2. Exception 2. A self-published source containing claims from established expert on the subject matter of the claim, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, may be used. These may not refer to claims about other living people, whatever they are.
   3. Note. Sources that have a substantial history of fabrication or other serious factual accuracy issues may be deprecated for Wikipedia usage. Their usage is only allowed when there is specific consensus for using this particular source in a particular context; all other uses are not allowed.
6. Be cautious when covering a subject that is currently part of breaking news coverage. Distrust anonymous sources, unconfirmed reports, and reports attributed to other news media; seek multiple independent sources which independently verify the information; seek verified eyewitness reports; and be wary of potential hoaxes. With mass shootings, remain skeptical of early reports of additional attackers, coordinated plans, and bomb threats. Replace any initial breaking news coverage with better-researched and verified sources as soon as they become available.
7. Even if a news outlet is generally reliable, headlines and subheadlines may not be used for statements of fact.
8. Opinion pieces are reliable for opinions of the author, but usually not for assertions of fact.
9. To ensure that quotes are not in any way altered, cite the original source containing the quote if available, or else use a reliable secondary source, preferably with a citation to the original.
10. Machine learning algorithms, chatbots or artificial intelligence may generate text, including citations, in response to your queries, but these answers are not reliable sources. If you use AI to write Wikipedia, you must vet any claim and source AI generates before publication.

The rules here try to make sure that Wikipedia is a reliable source. However, for the purpose of the policy for reliable sources, because Wikipedia is user-generated, it is not a reliable source for its articles unless the information contained in it is cited to relevant reliable sources (use these sources instead). Do not use Wikipedia mirrors, forks or publications relying on material from Wikipedia as sources (it will be a case of circular reporting). The only exception is when Wikipedia articles, policies, guidelines or other content are used to describe Wikipedia itself - in these cases, follow standard procedures for treating primary sources. Avoid undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference. The article text should clarify how the material is sourced from Wikipedia to inform the reader about the potential bias.

If unsure about any given source, consult the reliable sources noticeboard for help. Make sure you ask about the source in a particular context. Some sources discussed repeatedly and in different contexts are aggregated at the list of perennial sources, but this list is not an exhaustive guide over which sources you should, or should not use.

Medicine

Articles about medical topics have more stringent requirements so that we are sure that any health information we provide is accurate. Even though we are not meant to give medical advice - read the Medical disclaimer - many people will not read that page and in fact will trust any information as written in the article. This is one of the reasons for such requirements. General reliability rules apply here, too, unless this section contains more stringent policies.

An important term for medical articles is biomedical information. This concept covers information that relates to (or could reasonably be perceived as relating to) human or animal health (as in any health-related information that a doctor or a veterinarian may apply while doing their jobs). Also, information which (if true) would affect or imply conclusions about biomedical information is typically itself treated like biomedical information. The concept includes, among others:

• Attributes of a disease or condition: Symptoms, causes, prognoses, transmission, molecular/cellular basis of a disease and what biological factors (enzymes, ions, viruses, living creatures) may play a role in the disease
• Attributes of a treatment or drug: How, if it does, and to what degree, a treatment or drug works; dosage and timing information; side effects, benefits, and disadvantages; and factors that may affect any of the aforementioned types of information
• Medical decisions: identification, testing and diagnosis of a condition; usefulness and efficiency of said methods; what the standard of care is and whether a specific treatment, practice, or decision meets the standard of care; (expected) results of a medical decision; what constitutes a medical error and whether it occurred.
• Health effects: whether a given variable affects human/animal health; what those effects are, how and when they occur or how likely they are, at what levels they occur, and to what degree; whether the effects (or the original variables) are safe, nutritious, toxic, beneficial, detrimental, etc.
• Population data, epidemiology: number of people who have a condition, mortality rates, transmission rates, rates of diagnosis (or misdiagnosis), genetic studies, etc. (but disease origins are not necessarily biomedical)
• Biomedical research: Information about biomedical research (including clinical trials) that address the above entries or allow conclusions to be made about them.

There are different ways to rank level of evidence in medicine, but they similarly put high-level reviews and practice guidelines at the top.
Top to botom: Procter & Gamble, Canadian Association of Pharmacy in Oncology; general hierarchy of guidelines from scientific bodies (HTA=health technology assessment); general hierarchy of scholarly books

Other things related to health issues (commercial and business information; costs and economics; historical information, outdated treatments; societal, cultural and religious issues and portrayals; legal/regulatory issues; training descriptions; etymology/lexicon of disease and issues in medical ethics; labelling something conventional/Western/alternative medicine; or claims that relate to hospital admission but do not give a causal relationship between a factor and a disease) are not biomedical information.

This distinction is important because biomedical information requires a higher standard of sourcing, as outlined below. Non-biomedical information does not need sources compliant with guidelines mentioned below, but scholarship is still preferable.

1. You should base your articles on up-to-date published reliable secondary or tertiary sources whose creators are completely independent from the subject(s) of the article.
2. Your job is to summarise scientific consensus, therefore:
   1. Primary sources (research reports, lab/trial results, announcements of discovery, case reports, anecdotes etc.) should be used sparingly, if at all. In particular, in vitro or animal studies should not be used for claims about human health as their results are not necessarily reproducible in humans, and primary studies should not be used to imply that the treatment is generally recommended/avoided. Speculative proposals are generally inadmissible as sources. Synthesis of several primary studies to attempt to gauge scientific consensus is improper. For the rare cases when it may be proper to mention it (e.g. a large-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) with surprising results), you must explicitly mark this as a conclusion from a single study, and remove it in favour of secondary sources, once they appear, or remove altogether if they are not interested in the study. This does not apply to primary sources that are widely recognised as seminal, replicated, and thus often-cited. These may be mentioned in the main text in a context established by reviews.
   2. For as much as it is possible, rely on the highest classes of evidence when writing an article. These include recent, authoritative review articles (particularly those summarising several RCTs, or better still, a review of review articles); statements and practice guidelines issued by major professional medical or scientific societies or by widely respected governmental and quasi-governmental health authorities (for example, AHRQ, USPSTF, NICE, and WHO); textbooks; or scholarly monographs. Systematic reviews are normally of higher quality than narrative reviews and are less prone to bias, but both are generally acceptable. However, reviews of literature in otherwise primary sources (e.g. in "background" or "previous research" sections) are less reliable because their criteria of usage are often those that will fit the results of the study. Letters to the editor and commentary are equivalent to opinion pieces in news outlets, and thus should not be used for facts. Present any major controversies and/or contradictions that these guidelines have, as they help the reader understand the strength of consensus. Do not reject a higher-level source in favor of a lower one because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions in the higher-level sources.
   3. Keep your sources up-to-date, but not at the cost of compromising source quality. Generally review cycles last about 5 years, so whenever available, substitute older reviews with reviews from the newest cycles; but also try to let them stand the test of time to see if they are accepted by the scholarly community. Sources such as Cochrane Library reviews and NICE guidelines are generally reliable even if they are older than 5 years, as they are periodically reviewed. History sections may include older reviews for reference.
   4. We welcome researchers to help us, even if you have or may have a conflict of interest (CoI) of any kind. However, you should follow standard procedures outlined for users who have a CoI.
3. A lot of scholarly content is hidden behind a paywall. However, this is not a good reason to only base your article on free/open-access publications, particularly if this causes you to miss out on good but paywalled sources. Neither is it a good excuse to only base your work on the article abstract, as it may omit important details for sake of summarising the work in one or two short paragraphs. You may need to use the Wikipedia Library, visit a medical library, pay to read it, or ask someone at the Resource Exchange or WikiProject Medicine's talk page to either provide an electronic copy or read the source and summarize what it says; if none of this is possible, the editor may need to find a different source.
4. When editing within a given discipline, learn about the best journals and books within it (third-party metrics may help identify top journals within the field). You may also use third-party selections to help you. The Abridged Index Medicus provides a list of 114 selected "core clinical journals". The 2003 Brandon/Hill list includes 141 publications selected for a small medical library, is no longer maintained but the journals are still of high quality. Doody's Core Titles assembles basic textbook titles within each discipline, though these may be expensive and only available in specialist libraries. Core general medical journals include the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Annals of Internal Medicine, The BMJ (British Medical Journal), and the Canadian Medical Association Journal. Core basic science and biology journals include Nature, Science and Cell.
   1. Self-published sources should generally be avoided. This includes sources published on preprint servers (have not undergone peer review) or through predatory journals and publishers, whose peer review is usually at best deficient and at worst non-existent, and whose business practices are often questionable. Beall's List (website) contains a list of suspect titles; updates are added separately by an anonymous post-doctoral researcher. On Wikipedia, the CiteWatch compilation (updated twice monthly) and the Unreliable/Predatory Source Detector script can be leveraged to facilitate the detection of predatory journals. You may also see this article for additional guidance.
   2. Article quality within a journal may vary, but if a journal is not indexed in the bibliographic database MEDLINE, or the article's content is outside the journal's normal scope, these are big red flags. Occasionally the article may still prove valid, as evidenced by big citation counts (but make sure these are not inflated by self-referencing).
   3. Symposia and supplements to academic journals are often (but far from always) unacceptable sources, as they are commonly sponsored by companies or industry groups with a financial interest in the outcome of the research reported. They may lack independent editorial oversight and peer review, with no supervision of content by the parent journal. Sponsored supplements, and those where CoIs are not clearly declared, should not be cited. However, some supplements are perfectly legitimate sources, such as the Astronomy & Astrophysics Supplement Series, Nuclear Physics B: Proceedings Supplements, Supplement to the London Gazette, or The Times Higher Education Supplement. Public health agencies may also sponsor supplements, which will also be fine as sources.
   4. Books take longer to publish, so it is imperative that they be new, unless you need them for historical perspective. Medical textbooks published by academic publishers are often excellent secondary sources (post-grad and specialist literature is generally better than graduate/undergraduate-level literature). Major academic publishers (e.g., Elsevier, Springer Verlag, Wolters Kluwer, and Informa) publish specialized medical book series with good editorial oversight; volumes in these series summarize the latest research in narrow areas, usually in a more extensive format than journal reviews. Specialized biomedical encyclopedias from established publishers are also good. Books published by university presses or the National Academy of Sciences tend to be well-researched and useful for most purposes. However, popular science books should not be generally used for biomedical information, even if they provide an accessible overview of the subject.
5. Popular press articles are not a good source for biomedical information (they are primary sources, and besides usually retell the results of some published research, often inaccurately so due to exaggerations, omission of important context, misunderstanding the science, etc.). However, good lay explanations of a piece of research may be cited alongside the original source.
6. Doctoral dissertations are hit-and-miss, as the level of vetting may differ greatly and they may for a large part be a primary source. Make sure that the PhD thesis you cite has been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties; prefer monographs based on a PhD thesis than the PhD thesis itself, if available. If it does not conform to these criteria, better avoid it. Masters theses should generally be avoided unless they are influential in the field of study.
7. Medical information resources such as WebMD and eMedicine are usually acceptable sources for uncontroversial information; however, as much as possible Wikipedia articles should cite the more established literature directly. UpToDate is less preferred as it is not possible to reference specific versions of their articles, and archives do not exist. In any case, check against general reliability criteria, and see the list of frequently discussed resources.

Sourcing for other science articles should generally strive towards the spirit of the guidelines presented here. Points 3-6 apply in particular to any article, including scientific articles. Editors have not yet agreed to a guideline text that covers other sciences specifically.

Fringe theories

For the definition of "fringe theory" and guidance on how to write about fringe theories from a neutral point of view, see § Fringe theories and pseudoscience.

For all purposes, the best sources to use are independent reliable sources, outside the sourcing ecosystem of the fringe theory itself. The sources that can demonstrate fringeness have to be of good quality, but not necessarily peer-reviewed. Apply parity of sources (like-for-like sourcing) - because fringe theories are not published in peer-reviewed outlets (as in properly peer-reviewed, not simply claiming to have peer review), you don't need peer-reviewed sources either (but they are of course preferred if available and of good quality); likewise, don't remove the descriptions of adherents' views in the articles about the fringe theory just because they were not published reputably or in peer-reviewed outlets.

Fringe sources (including purported "journals") can be used to support text that describes fringe theories provided that such sources have been noticed and given proper context with third-party, independent sources. Otherwise they are unusable in Wikipedia contexts.

Biographies of living people (BLPs)

For the scope of BLPs and guidance on how to write about living people from a neutral point of view, see § Living people.

For guidance on what to include in articles about living people so as to preserve their privacy and reputation, see § Privacy and reputation of living people.

Special restrictions apply to articles about living people. Primary sources should generally be avoided, unless cited to augment a secondary source covering the same material. Do not use court records, trial transcripts, any public records or other public documents to support assertions or to cite information about a living person. Even if the source is otherwise reliable, avoid publishing gossip, rumours, yellow journalism content, content attributed to anonymous sources, and circular reporting.

Additionally, never use self-published sources authored by other people to support a claim about a living person article subject. If the article subject published a source themselves, information contained in it may be used to support claims about the subject. Standard restrictions apply to this kind of self-published content.

Whatever your source, avoid repeating gossip. Your material should be relevant to a disinterested article about the subject; dismiss it if it is not. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources.

Furthermore, questionable and self-published sources about living people should not be included in "External links" or "Further reading" sections.

Stick to a neutral point of view

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This policy is non-negotiable and this principle cannot be overridden by any kind of change.

What this means

• Avoid stating opinions, or seriously contested assertions, as facts, and vice versa. Opinions should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc., and not stated directly ("in Wikipedia voice" or "in wikivoice"). Where different reliable sources clash as to the facts, treat the assertions as opinions. However, facts about which there is little doubt should be stated in Wikipedia voice and the wording should not make it appear as if they were contested or just opinions. Assert facts, not opinions. Before starting to edit Wikipedia, make sure you can distinguish factual and opinion statements.
• Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source, whether you agree or disagree with the viewpoint presented there.
• Properly indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.
• Consider all reliable sources available on the topic, but do not suggest which are more important. Do not cherrypick sources that suit your views on how the subject should be covered. Also, do not attempt to overcompensate the bias in one reliable source with a different bias (or lack thereof) in other source(s) by giving more weight to the other sources than would otherwise be normally due. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to counter what your believe are systemic biases in academia or the news. As an extension of this rule,
  • Do not overemphasise events from a certain period, including recent events. Update the article with new information, but make sure that treatment of a subject does not get too much attention in a given timeframe unless there are clearly more events of high importance. Divide the article on a time scale and see how much space it dedicates to a certain timeframe, and then ask if these proportions would be reasonably expected in an article written, say, 50 years later.
  • Where applicable, cover the topic from all geographic perspectives. Many editors here are Anglophone, and most are from developed countries, and will generally reflect things happening in their cultural circles. However, whenever applicable, articles should cover from all national perspectives, whether they speak English or some other language, and not just stick to one geographical area, even when the sources are more readily available for them. For example, the general article about the police should not only present the American view and legal practice of police officers.

What this does not mean

• Having only "objective" content. When writing articles, you should not think about what is "objectively true" and stick to that. This is not the point, and engaging in philosophical disputes about objectivity is not the point, either. Rather, you should strive towards representing and describing the disputes and viewpoints fairly ("being 'objective'", in other words), accurately and as completely as the context permits. That is, you should report what people have said about it rather than what is so.
• A ban on all content that exhibits any bias. The rule bans editorial bias, but it does not ban properly sourced bias. We allow biased reliable sources, so we will generally also allow properly formulated content sourced to that reference even if it may introduce bias. In fact, unless the source promotes fringe or extremist ideas, bias is not generally a factor in reliability. The proper course of action with a reliable biased source is the same as with a non-biased source: position its opinion according to the principle of due weight, using all reliable sources available. Use the best ones whenever possible.
• "He said, she said". This rule does not say you must present all viewpoints equally at all times; in fact, doing so may create a false balance. The section about clashes of opinions has guidance about what to do instead.
• A licence to delete non-neutral content. Wikipedia is a work in progress, so if something is not ideal, don't rush to delete it. If you see a section written with editorial bias, fix it towards an editorially unbiased version. Only kill it with fire in cases where policy urges you to do so, such as when the content mis-/disinforms, cannot be fixed in any way, vandalism or defamatory claims about living people.

Write neutrally

There are a lot of ways you can influence the reader's perception of the content. Consider these two statements from different Wikipedia articles said in Wikipedia voice:

• The United Nations has been created to promote peace, and since its creation in 1945 there have only been 100 wars.
• The United Nations has been created to promote peace, and yet since its creation in 1945 there have been 100 wars.

They rely on the same facts, but the framing creates vastly different implications as to the United Nations efficiency in preventing wars. It is not only a problem of improper editorial synthesis, it is also a problem of neutral point of view. Article elements, tone, pejorative/promotional labels and cherry-picking facts or opinions, or presenting opinions as fact, may all influence the perception about the article's subject. Your job is to make sure that such influence is as small as practically possible. This is the ideal of "writing neutrally".

Article titles

In general, article names should strive to be neutral. Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue. However, when choosing between an obscure but neutral name and a widely-known name which may not be neutral, choose the latter, even if the names may appear to pass judgment (e.g. "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper"). Reader's comprehension is more important in this case.

In some cases, choosing an article title without favouring either side is impossible. In this case, other criteria may kick in. For example, aluminium, sulfur and caesium are preferred IUPAC names for these chemical elements, hence aluminum (NAmE), sulphur (BrE) and cesium (NAmE) are only redirects. Derry/Londonderry is another contentious example, which was resolved by compromise on the Manual of Style level. In such articles, mentioning alternative names and the controversies over their use is appropriate, particularly when the topic in question is itself the main topic being discussed. Avoid combining alternative names in an article title, unless specific rules say otherwise.

Article structure

Although specific article structures are not, as a rule, prohibited, make sure that the overall presentation is broadly neutral, so that it treats the opinions on the topic with due weight and it does not become a point-of-view fork. Avoid any stylistic or formatting approaches that might unduly favor one point of view or one aspect of the subject, so no excessive emphasis or over-capitalization, including all-caps "shouting", unless in quotes. Also, generally avoid segregation of content into different regions, subsections, stylistic devices such as footnotes, or other formatting elements, based on an apparent point of view of the content, so that it does not become a "proponents say... opponents say" dialogue, or create an apparent hierarchy of facts favouring a selected viewpoint, or tarnishing some other viewpoint. Instead fold the debates into a single narrative.

Maintain a formal, impartial and neutral tone

Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone. This means that you should write with a fairly academic approach, while remaining clear and understandable. Argot, slang, colloquialisms, most figures of speech, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader are not OK; the English language should be used in a businesslike manner. The encyclopedia style is often inconsistent with the news style, which you will often encounter in the sources, so don't try to compete at humor, cleverness, or at creating the most exquisite literary devices; don't use pull quotes, journalese, and headlinese. Just present the sourced information without embellishment, agenda, fanfare, cleverness, or conversational tone. Featured- and Good-class articles in the same category may contain examples of the tone you should use.

When writing an encyclopedia, use constructions that do not imply endorsing a certain view for the reader (e.g. As we can easily notice from Figure 9...) or appear to instruct the reader (e.g. To make pad thai, you should...). Third-person pronouns may be better instead. Use gender-neutral language where gendered language is not necessary, and especially when gender is not specific or unknown; this includes pronouns (i.e. use singular they instead of he alone, or humans instead of men). There may be reasonable exceptions where alterations are not desired, such as direct quotes, titles, company names, or where the subject prefers a gendered name or title. (See WP:Manual of Style § Identity for further information)

Wikipedia describes disputes, but does not engage in them. You should present viewpoints accurately, proportionately to their prominence and with a consistently impartial tone - do not make it seem that you are somewhow endorsing or rejecting them. Do not engage in persuasive writing, as your job is not to convince the reader. While no word is forbidden on Wikipedia, avoid using terms that may introduce bias or imply something beyond the plain meaning of the text, including by scare quoting or formatting certain passages. When describing a heated argument, summarise the positions instead of directly quoting the participants. And generally, let the facts alone do the talking.

Attribute opinions properly

Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best cricket player" expresses an opinion and must not be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's cricket skills have been praised by such people as Don Bradman and Garfield Sobers." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited. Another approach is to specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual. For example: "John Doe had the highest batting average in Test cricket from 1977 through 1982." People may still argue over whether he was the best baseball player, but if the statement is appropriately sourced, they will not argue over this.

Same rules apply to areas where you cannot objectively measure the degree of how good some stuff is, for example in measuring aesthetics or quality of a work of art. It is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts, critics, and the general public. More generally, it is sometimes permissible to note a subject's reputation when that reputation is widespread and potentially informative or of interest to readers. Articles on creative works should provide an overview of their common interpretations, preferably with citations to experts holding those interpretations. Public and scholarly critiques provide a useful context for works of art.

Avoid the temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words, for example, "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." Which people? How many? ("Most people think" is acceptable only when supported by at least one published survey, and even then it's better to just state the numbers, as in: "37% of respondents in a 1991 ABC survey voted John Doe the best cricket player ever, the most for any individual cricketer").

Do not create point-of-view forks

A point-of-view fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. At worst these forks will present the same material from opposing points of view, just as in the example with the United Nations above, so Wikipedia coverage will be in conflict with each other. POV forks are not permitted on Wikipedia.

All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of a spinoff sub-article. Some topics are so large that one article cannot reasonably cover all facets of the topic, so a spinoff sub-article is created. For example, Evolution as fact and theory is a sub-article of Evolution, and Creation–evolution controversy is a sub-article of Creationism. Any subarticle that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article. The daughter article must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article.

Editors have not agreed if a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but many criticism articles suffer from POV problems. If possible, use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider how would a "Praise of..." article look like).

Clashes of opinions

Very often opinions on a certain topic will clash with each other. In these cases, articles should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. By "fairly" we mean that the larger the prominence of the view as published and determined in reliable sources, the more attention in the article it should deserve. This is the principle of "due weight". When the prominence of contradicting viewpoints is about the same, simply describe all such viewpoints and use secondary or tertiary sources to describe the disagreement between them from a disinterested viewpoint. Note that we speak all the time of "published reliable sources" - relative prominence of opinion among editors or readers does not matter at all. It also doesn't matter if you agree with them, if you believe that the opinions are outrageous or they contradict your faith - your duty is not to express your opinions, but to summarize published knowledge in reliable sources.

Place the views in appropriate context. Majority views should never be represented as minority views and given only as much attention as a minority view would normally merit, and vice versa. Whenever relevant, you must always indicate what constitutes a majority and a minority view, including in articles dedicated to minority views, make clear when you explain the minority view, and show how the minority view diverges from the majority. You should also identify and explain any controversies regarding aspects of the minority view.

Some views will be notable enough for their own articles, and so an article will treat specifically about a minority view. Do not make them only about the minority view - make sure you explain how it relates to a majority view. Do not describe minority or fringe views, some speculation or plausible but unaccepted theories without comment alongside an accepted majority view (including mainstream scholarship), so that it appears as if they had equal validity to the majority viewpoint. This is false balance and must be avoided. Tiny minority and fringe views about a certain topic should generally be omitted or at most, if appropriate, given a very short mention and a See also article link if available. Note that in all these cases, we do not assert an opinion on whether they are right, we only describe the theories' tenets and how reliable sources see it. Do not try to prove an unknown/barely known idea on Wikipedia - you should first publish your thoughts in a reliable source.

This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material in articles as well.

Important things should get more coverage

The concept of "due weight" is about neutral representation of differing opinions, but in a way, this also applies to relative prominence of content according to its importance to the topic. In short, the more important this event or criticism is for the topic, the larger chunk of the article should be dedicated to it. As a corollary, trivial life events (say, a DUI conviction that did not alter the person's life significantly) should at most get a mention. Do not make a mountain out of a molehill. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news.

Similarly, do not shoehorn mentions of controversy around pseudoscientific notions, conspiracy theories and other fringe ideas into articles unrelated to them just because we mention a certain fact that these adherents object to. Sometimes you'd have to make certain assumptions when writing the article. Therefore, you'd often omit discussions around fringe ideas, and it's OK. For example, in writing about evolution, it is not helpful to hash out the creation-evolution controversy on every page. Discussions about flat Earth will not belong in the vast majority of contexts describing the planet. When writing about drug concentrations, it is not a good idea to tell everyone every time that there is a fringe belief homeopaths promote that more dilute solutions make for more "potent" drugs.

Sensitive subjects

Sensitive subjects require extra care to keep a neutral point of view, because there are often a lot of arguments surrounding the treatment of these topics or these ideas may appear repulsive to many. Here are three of the most-debated topics, fringe theories, religion and living people.

Fringe theories and pseudoscience

For guidance on which sources to use in articles about these topics, see § Fringe theories.

Fringe theory is a term that is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. This generally includes pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, pseudohistory, cases of negationism (e.g. Armenian genocide denial or the Lost Cause of the Confederacy) or esoteric claims about virtually any subject. By their definition, fringe theories have little acceptance in mainstream opinion and/or the scientific community.

The principle of due weight applies here doubly, which means that you must make it clear to the reader what is the majority opinion, how it relates to the fringe theory being discussed and clearly describe fringe theory as such. You should describe the current level of the fringe opinion's acceptance among the relevant academic community. You should also make the opinions of real experts in the relevant field prominent when discussing the theory.

Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. They will often propose changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon that allegedly occurs (but their justification for the change does not pass muster) and will often ignore evidence debunking their claims. However, naming a certain non-mainstream idea "pseudoscience" in Wikipedia voice will often be contentious, and in some cases not warranted at all. Current guidance in the area distinguishes four categories of cases that may appear:

• Obvious pseudoscience: theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus (e.g. perpetual motion), may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
• Generally considered pseudoscience: theories which have a following, such as astrology or homeopathy, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and be called that way.
• Questionable science: theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. There will usually be a reasonable amount of academic debate about this subject. Questionable science will also include bad science (e.g. poorly conducted research or research fraud), but bad science is not necessarily pseudoscience.
• Alternative theoretical formulations in science: if a theory has a following within the scientific community, or if a hypothesis is generated by researchers within the field of expertise and it's not yet in the mainstream, it is not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. Some ideas may even someday become accepted once an appropriate mechanism is found to explain certain phenomena (but don't try to predict the future and insert some Galileo gambits into the article).

Note that pseudoscience only applies to purportedly scientific claims that actually are far from it, which you must document by using reliable sources (as you should to assert that an idea is accepted in the scientific community). Regardless of the outlandishness of the claim, if it does not purport to be scientific, it is not pseudoscience. In particular, religious beliefs should not be considered through the lens of pseudoscience (though it may be appropriate if proponents attempt to use the beliefs to negate established science, as in creationism/intelligent design).

Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing. It is best to use peer-reviewed sources independent of the subject for this purpose, but other reliable sources are also allowed. However, if you can find no such source, it is very likely the topic is not notable after all.

Religion

Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from the religion's sacred texts as primary sources and modern archaeological, historical, and scientific works as secondary and tertiary sources.

Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view can be mentioned if it can be documented by relevant, reliable sources, yet note there is no contradiction. New religions may incorporate new information and adopt their doctrines to new circumstances, which you should describe. However, do not try to demonstrate that a certain religion or its branch is superior or inferior to some other religion and/or branch - our job is just to tell what the beliefs are, what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices and account for how they developed.

Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g., fundamentalism, myth, sect, cult and (as in the prior paragraph) critical. Make sure you use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offence or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and relevant sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about particular terms can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch.

Living people

For guidance on which sources to use in articles about these topics, see § Biographies of living people (BLPs).

For guidance on what to include or exclude in articles about living people so as to preserve their privacy and reputation, see § Privacy and reputation of living people.

Any currently living person, or any person whose confirmed date of death falls within the last two years (on or after 19 November 2022 []), is within the scope of the policy for biographies of living people. Anyone born at least 115 years ago, or reasonably inferred to have been born at least 115 years ago if the date of birth is unknown (on or before 19 November 1909 []) is presumed dead unless reliable sources confirm the person to have been living within the past two years. The BLP policy may also apply to small groups of people, but not normally to large ones.

BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, in a non-partisan manner and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking. Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.

Wikipedia article is a work in progress, so it is OK for most articles to have temporary issues because they will be eventually remedied. However, this does not apply to living people. Factual or neutrality issues in biographies of living people must be addressed immediately, including through deletion if necessary to maintain fairness to the subject, as such errors may cause real-life consequences.