It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
These are my notes on the subject-specific notability guidelines (SNGs). I learned a lot of this in NPP school, by picking the brains of top NPPs, and by participating in AFDs and paying attention to the outcomes. The official SNG pages are longer than they need to be (quite noisy), contain some obsolete criteria that are rarely used at AFD, and are missing some things that should be SNGs since that is how it works in practice at AFD.
I speculate that the SNGs remain frozen in an old state due to how controversial the topics of notability, inclusionism, and deletionism are. It is easier to leave the SNGs in an old state than to try to get consensus to update them.
Guidelines versus project essays
Policies and guidelines are the only things that should be cited in a deletion discussion. You will know these pages because there will be a banner at the top that says they are a notability guideline or a policy.
Some WikiProjects have written their own notability pages, but these are unofficial. They are usually marked with a banner at the top that says they are essays or explanatory supplements. You should avoid mentioning these at all in your AFD !votes, as the closer will probably downweight or ignore your vote if you do not cite the official policies and guidelines.
In each of the headings below, I have marked P = policy, G = guideline, E = essay or explanatory supplement
Shortcuts to pass GNG
Also known as "inherent notability" or "presumptive notability".
SNG "shortcuts to pass GNG" are conditions that Wikipedians have found highly correlate with a topic having enough sources to pass GNG. When these conditions are met, it can be assumed that there are enough sources for a topic to pass GNG, even if these sources have not been discovered yet. WP:N states topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article.
There have been attempts to erode the "shortcuts to pass GNG". For example, WP:NSPORT has changed its language to say things like The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline. This is currently an area of debate. For now, it should be safe to assume that passing an SNG is sufficient to keep an article at AFD, even if GNG sources cannot be presented on demand.
There may be situations where an article that passes an SNG should probably not be kept. For example, if the article has no reliable sources at all, it should be declined at AFC, and it may result in its deletion at AFD.
WP:NPROF (G)
Professors are an exception to the principles of GNG. There are professor articles that survive AFD with only citations to their university "about me" pages and/or their own papers.[1][2]
#1 - "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." "Claims of impact must be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, or library holdings, and so on."
If no Google Scholar or Scopus profile, do a Google Scholar search for their name. Each search result has citation counts, which is similar to a Google Scholar profile.
"As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of 20 or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations, is likely to be kept at AfD."[3]
WP:ACTOR #1 - "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."
2 main roles in multiple episodes in TV shows with Wikipedia articles = pass.
2 main roles in movies with Wikipedia articles = pass.
WP:CREATIVE
WP:CREATIVE #3 - "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."
Can be used for co-creators of TV shows whose TV shows have Wikipedia articles.
WP:NAUTHOR #3 - "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."
Essentially, if this author has a book that has a Wikipedia article = pass.
WP:ARTIST #4b - "The person's work (or works) has: (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition"
WP:ARTIST #4d - "The person's work (or works) has: (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums"
Google the artist's name plus the word "collection". Click on museums. If this artist's work is in 2 museums' permanent collections (in their online catalog, and it doesn't say anything about a specific exhibition) = pass.[7]
WP:NBOOK (G)
The book has received 2 book reviews (in reliable sources)
The book has won a major literary award.
WP:NFILM (G)
The film has received 2 full-length reviews. (Since these kinds of reviews almost always meet GNG, this essentially allows a film to pass GNG with 2 sources instead of the usual 3.)
The film has received a major award.
WP:NGEO (G)
WP:GEOLAND #1 - Populated, legally recognized places (official districts of a city, unincorporated cities) = pass
WP:GEOLAND #2 - Populated places without legal recognition (subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, housing "estates" (UK), informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods) = Need strict version of GNG. AFD voters like to see a lot of depth, and a non-local source.
WP:GEOLAND #4 - Named natural features = Pass, as long as sources that have more than coordinates and statistics exist.
3 mile long creeks are a gray area, but should probably keep. Some would argue that Wikipedia is a gazeteer.
WP:NBUILDING #1 "officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage"
Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
WP:NSONG
Top 3[10] on a national or significant music or sales chart.
Has won a Grammy, Latin Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice, or Grammis award.
WP:NSPORT (G)
WP:SPORTSBASIC - Implemented around 2022: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." So can't just be all databases.
WP:NMMA - Careful of muay thai and kickboxing practitioners. They can also qualify via WP:NKICK.
WP:NOLYMPIC - Any athlete that won a medal at the the Summer Olympics, Winter Olympics, or Paralympics, and the competition had 4+ competitors that year = pass.
De facto but unwritten SNGs
Species (plant, animal, fungus, bacteria, virus, etc.) with at least one source are always kept at AFD. These are a "de facto" SNG.[11][12][13]
No SNGs
There are no SNG shortcuts for...
artwork
royalty (that have not been heads of state) – However, these are often kept at AFD. For example, this AFD about a poorly sourced 10th century Korean royal consort was a strong keep.
The following are not SNGs, but their presence often corresponds to notability. If you see these, you will likely be able to find some GNG passing coverage if you look in the right places.
Lower-level Order of the British Empire awards (OBE, MBE)
Miscellaneous
GNG is not applied as strictly to ancient historical topics[16]
Even though WP:SOLDIER was deprecated, military generals are almost always kept at AFD.
Restrictions on top of GNG
BLP1E (P), BIO1E (G), VICTIM (G)
WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E, WP:VICTIM - There is a suggestion that people notable for only one event should be mentioned in their parent articles rather than having their own articles. However, in practice, if a person meets GNG, their article will be kept.[17]
WP:NCORP (G)
An article on the company's CEO or an article on one of the company's products does not count as SIGCOV for the company, unless it devotes significant attention to the company itself.[18]
Statistics and numbers do not count as SIGCOV (e.g. # of employees, # of YouTube subscribers, # of widgets produced, revenues, expenses, investment/cash influx).[19]
One of the sources must be non-local (i.e. regional, state, national, international).[20]
Books count as non-local.
WP:NFILM (G)
Films that have not started principal photography shouldn't get an article.
Films that have not been released yet should only get an article if the production process itself is notable and can pass GNG.
Cancelled films should not get their own articles unless they can pass GNG.
WP:COVERAGE - sustained coverage over a period of time, rather than a burst of coverage
Examples of NOTNEWS articles:
Small protests
Small shootings (Draft:1987 Merril Lynch Shooting)
Some events, you can tell they will get sustained coverage. The assassination of a world leader, for example.
WP:EVENTCRIT - Routine news (most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories", and viral phenomena) are usually not notable.
WP:NOT (P)
WP:NOTNEWS - Events must have sustained, lasting coverage to be encyclopedic. AFD voters often look for national or international coverage, as opposed to just local coverage. Closely related to WP:NEVENT. Examples:
Cessna-sized plane crashes with no non-local coverage, and the passengers don't have Wikipedia articles.
WP:NOTESSAY - "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts)." This is a type of original research.
WP:NOTDIC (P) - Not a dictionary
WP:NEO - Neologisms (recently invented words and phrases) need to pass GNG. Additionally, the coverage must be about the neologism, not just use or mention the neologism.
WP:SUSTAINED (G)
"Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability"
Related to WP:PERSISTENCE, which is similar, but focuses specifically on events.
Notability essays
I have chosen to only list policies and guidelines here. There are many notability essays, but these do not enjoy community support, and cannot be convincingly cited in deletion discussions. Trying to cite a notability essay in a deletion discussion is likely to get the response that GNG is needed.
Articles that are notable due to an SNG, but don't have good sourcing (independent, reliable sources backing up all major claims, and especially claims of SNG), are often draftified.[21][22]
DetectSNG.js
Some of these SNGs have big lists of qualifying criteria buried in them. For example, any book that has won any of these 600 literary awards is an SNG pass. Or any politician that has served in any of the hundreds of national legislatures is an SNG pass. You can install the user script DetectSNG.js to help detect these.
^ abWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andras Farago - This one closed as delete, but was close to being kept, and had absolutely no good GNG-passing sources. The sources were all university "about me" page. And the source quality wasn't even mentioned in the AFD discussion. The AFD discussion revolved completely around WP:PROF #1.
^WP:CORPDEPTH. "Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself)."
^WP:CORPDEPTH. "Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs. A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant. Views, hits, likes, shares, etc. have no bearing on establishing whether the coverage is significant. Similarly, arbitrary statistics and numbers (such as number of employees, amount of revenue or raised capital, age of the company, etc.) do not make the coverage significant. For the coverage to be significant, the sources must describe and discuss in some depth the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership instead of just listing the fact that the corporation employs 500 people or mentioning that John Smith was appointed as the new CEO."
