Wikipedia:Common claims of significance or importance

Within the scope of speedy deletion criterion A7, an article can be deleted if it's about a real person, an individual animal, a group or corporation, event, or Web content, and it does not contain a credible claim of significance or importance. This essay strives to provide a comprehensive overview of common such claims, similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes.

Common claims of significance or importance

The following is a list of common claims of significance or importance that, if credible, may be sufficient to pass this threshold. Note that "significance or importance" is intentionally a lower criterion than "notability", and that "credible" does not mean "proven".

These claims are only presented as ways to determine if an existing article should be, or remain, tagged for A7. They are not designed to be used in assessing notability, nor in determining whether or not to approve a draft in an AfC review (it should be noted that drafts cannot be deleted under A7, A9, or A11 even in the absence of any claim of significance). Nor can they include all possible claims of significance. An article may well make a less usual claim of significance that is not mentioned here, but is enough to stop an A7. Indeed an article may not include any of these common claims but still be found notable on other grounds.

All subjects

• Article contains an assertion of coverage of any kind in at least one independent reliable source. This includes bare assertions of offline sources, e.g. books, magazines etc. (use Special:BookSources to verify the existence of books). If the reliability of a source is unclear, erring on the side of caution may be preferable.
• Has multiple Google News hits that cover this subject explicitly for the reasoning above. (An article that only passes this kind of test might meet A7's wording, although not its spirit, since per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM it's preferable to add the source one can find easily rather than to delete the article).
• Has multiple Google Books hits that cover this subject explicitly and where the publisher is unambiguously independent and not self-published (this weeds out self-promotional articles that cite books published on vanity presses such as iUniverse and Lulu)
• Claims winning one or multiple potentially notable awards or titles or participated in a notable competition in a noteworthy way

People

All people

• Has a strong association with a notable individual, such as a close relative or colleague.

Notes:

Simply being associated with someone notable is not necessarily sufficient, however. A sufficient claim of significance/importance generally exists if a casual reader can expect to find some information about the subject somewhere on Wikipedia, albeit not necessarily in a stand-alone article. In such cases alternatives to deletion such as redirecting and/or merging the information to the article about the notable individual may be preferable to deletion, and discussion of the subject at articles for deletion is preferred to speedy deletion.

As usual, especially when it comes to articles about living people, editors should utilize common sense in determining if a relationship meets the A7 bar, while remembering that erring on the side of caution and inviting a wider discussion is preferable in most cases.

• Any claim listed at WP:BIO
• While not strictly a claim of significance or importance itself, biographies of people who died >100 years ago are likely the result of some coverage in reliable sources somewhere. As such, articles about ancient Romans, Japanese samurai or similar subjects usually should not be tagged for A7 speedy deletion.

Actors

• Played a major role in a notable film or TV programme or series

  If, per WP:NACTOR #1, notability is presumed if the subject has played major roles in multiple notable films or TV programmes, it follows logically that the lower standard of significance is met if the subject has done so in one.

• Any claim listed at WP:NACTOR

Journalists

• Hosted/presented notable shows
• Any claim listed at WP:JOURNALIST

Athletes

• Played for a well-known notable team
• Has won a championship or taken part in a notable championship in a noteworthy way
• Any claim listed at WP:ATHLETE

Musicians

• Is or was part of a notable band

  If per WP:MUSICBIO #6 notability is presumed if the subject has been a member of two notable ensembles, the lower standard of significance is certainly met if they have been a member of one such band. Also, even if they are not notable, per WP:ATD-R and WP:FAILN there is a valid target for redirecting to. Even WP:MUSICBIO says that members of a notable band are redirected to the band article if not independently notable.

• Is or was associated with a notable musician
• Is or was signed to a label with a Wikipedia entry or to a label that is part of such a label
• Claims to have charted in national charts, no matter which country
• Has received airplay on larger radio stations
• Has been a featured act at a notable event
• Has won a notable award
• Has a musical recording that was certified "gold" or similar
• Any claim listed at WP:MUSICBIO

Business

• Is CEO or another high ranking employee of a notable company
• Founded or otherwise helped start a notable company
• Invented or pioneered a notable product / method

Politicians

• Holds (possibly) notable office and/or position

  In this day and age, there is unlikely to be any elected politician who has not been covered in reliable sources, even if only on a local level. As such, those articles should not be speedy-deleted. If the person is non-notable, oftentimes the article can be redirected to the one about their position.

• Any claim listed at WP:POLITICIAN

Computers and Websites

• Created notable webpage
• Created notable webcomic
• Develops or has developed notable software by themselves or has been a major contributor to such software

Artists

• (Co-)created notable work of art
• Any claim listed at WP:ARTIST

Academics

• Is a professor at a notable university or a teacher at an institute of higher learning with an reputation in excellence

  In most countries, professorships are only awarded to the most deserving academics,. This is the reason why articles for deletion discussions about such biographies have a 50-50 chance of ending in keep. As such, current consensus is that being a professor at any notable university indicates significance. This does not apply to professors at universities known to have very low standards although the burden of proof is on the tagging user. Similarly, being a non-professor teacher at Harvard, Cambridge etc. usually indicates significance since those institutions are not known for employing sub-par academics.

• Claims to be an expert in a particular field of study
• Any claim listed at WP:NACADEMIC

Royalty and nobility

• Has a credible assertion of being a Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount, or Baron or other equivalent titles on the Peer of the Realm (ideally the title should appear in a Google search; this excludes obviously made-up titles such as Screaming Lord Sutch, 3rd Earl of Harrow)
• Has a plausible claim to the throne of an existent monarchy

Organizations

Bands

• Has a notable band member

  If per WP:MUSICBIO #6 notability exists if the ensemble has two notable members, the lower standard of significance is certainly met if it only has one. Also, even if they are not notable, per WP:ATD-R and WP:FAILN there is a valid target for redirecting to.

• Is support band for a notable musician or otherwise associated with them
• Is signed to a label with a Wikipedia entry or to a label that is part of such a label
• Claims to have charted in national charts, no matter which country
• Has received airplay on larger radio stations
• Has or claims to have won one or more notable awards
• Has been a featured act at a notable event
• Has a musical recording that was certified "gold" or similar
• Any claim listed at WP:BAND

Companies

• Has a notable founder or CEO (or equivalent title, such as Managing Director)
• Produces one or more notable product(s)
• Is subsidiary or other child/family company to a notable company

  While WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:INHERITORG, and WP:INHERITWEB are useful arguments in a deletion discussion determining the subject's notability, consensus has so far been that they do not apply to A7. In most cases such articles can be redirected or merged per WP:ATD and WP:FAILN if the subject is itself not notable.

Sport clubs and teams

• Has played in a notable league (any sport)
• Won notable trophy (any sport)
• Any claim listed at WP:CLUB

Other organizations

• Is part of a nation's government
• Is part of a notable organization
• Has a notable founder or president
• Has multiple notable members
• Note: Educational institutions may not be tagged for deletion under A7.

Web content

• Created by notable person or company
• Claims to have won notable awards
• Any claim listed at WP:WEBCRIT

Events

• Attended by multiple notable people, groups, bands etc.
• Created by notable organization or company
• Hosted by notable person
• Any applicable claim listed at WP:EVENTCRITERIA or WP:SPORTSEVENT

Other indicators for ineligibility

Even if the article does not contain a claim of significance or importance, the subject might be suitable for inclusion. If the subject has an article in a different Wikipedia (see "languages" tab), check whether that article has more information on the subject and/or sources. Especially with foreign-language subjects there is often a high likelihood that the subject is indeed notable but the creator is not able to convey this sufficiently. In these cases, it is often advisable to tag the article with the appropriate {{expand language}} template instead.

See also

• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as importance or significance not asserted
• Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion
• Wikipedia:Field guide to proper speedy deletion
• Wikipedia:Why I Hate Speedy Deleters
• User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes