Omaha Commons:Notability

Notability is a criterion applied to some types of topics (e.g., people) in the Omaha Wiki in order to make a decision of whether the article should be included. The Omaha Wiki is an encyclopedia, not Facebook, MySpace, or a directory and not all proposed articles are worthy of inclusion. Notability implies 'worthy of notice' and is different from 'fame', 'importance', or 'popularity'. A topic or person is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted notability standard that is specific to the type of content.

[edit] General notability guideline

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

• "Presumed" means a rebuttable presumption. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable. However, many subjects with such coverage may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What the Omaha Wiki is not, or the coverage does not actually speak to notability when examined.^[1]
• "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.^[2]
• "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability. 'Vanity pages' are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. ^[3]
• Sources^[4] provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.^[5] Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works.^[6]
• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.^[7]

A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.

[edit] Notability requires objective evidence

The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines.

[edit] Notes

1. ↑ For example, advertisements, announcements, columns, and minor news stories are all examples of matters that may not be evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation, despite the existence of reliable sources.
2. ↑ Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are non-trivial. The one sentence mention of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, 1992-01-06.  ) is plainly trivial.
3. ↑ Self-promotion, autobiography, websites published by the subject, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it.
4. ↑ include, but not limited to, newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
5. ↑ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.
6. ↑ Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.
7. ↑ Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large.

{{{1}}}