Wikipedia:Red flags of non-notability
 | This is an essay on notability. 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. |
Users involved in deletion discussions, speedy deletions and related tasks observe certain recurring characteristics of articles which fail Wikipedia's notability guideline, particularly biographies. These can be called red flags of non-notability.
Examples
[edit]Lack of sources
[edit]If no third-party information can be found about a person or organization, so all information about them comes from their own perspective, that is an indication that no one independent of the subject has bothered to write anything about them, and thus an article on them would fail to meet the notability guideline. This is often the case for articles on religious, youth, and music groups. If the only source about a particular group is its official website, then it is probably not notable.
Insufficient descriptions
[edit]Products
[edit]Articles on products should give readers information on what they do and who makes them. If readers cannot find such information, they may not even care to find out about anything else. Presumably, readers looking at an article about a product would want to learn about its functions and its manufacturer. Articles should state the facts (as given by reliable sources), but information should not be presented in a spammy way. Too often, something is described as a "solution". An article that claims its subject is a "web solution" (or a "waste solution") says nothing – is it a spider's sticky goo? That too is a "web solution", and any product or service that is claimed to be one in the figurative sense may not necessarily be as notable as a literal web solution.
Places
[edit]Articles that describe landmarks, man-made structures, or other geographical features, but fail to indicate where their subjects are located, are useless to most readers. If an article claims that an establishment is the first of its kind but fails to provide other meaningful information about it, that claim should be interpreted to mean that the establishment is only the first of its kind in its area, not accounting for previous establishments at its location.
Unreleased media
[edit]Articles on unreleased products, films, comics, television shows, video games and albums which have only recently been announced often have working titles. Sometimes, these items may never become actual products and never be previewed or have any impact. If a fan of the content is writing such articles, they may also contain fancruft and superlatives about how the subject is "legendary" and a "masterpiece".
Style
[edit]Typographical errors
[edit]If an article contains poor grammar or syntax and contains errors in spelling, spacing, punctuation and/or capitalization, it may not be considered worth reading. Articles full of such errors are typically created in vanity or haste, and their presence in article creators' revisions to their articles may give the impression that the only people who care enough about a topic to write a Wikipedia article about it are contributors with a poor grasp of the English language.
Violation of naming conventions
[edit]Generally, biographies should follow naming conventions. Honorifics like Dr., Mr. or Mrs. should be avoided, and individuals such as Mister Rogers and Dr. Phil should typically be referred to by their real or preferred names in the article title and throughout the text, especially if they are alive. Exceptions include anonymous individuals or people whose real names are unknown, such as Satoshi Nakamoto, the Zodiac Killer, and the Count of St. Germain. In some cases, an article on a subject whose real name is known may have the subject's pseudonym as its title if they are most notable under it. (e.g. Eminem, MrBeast)
Generally, subjects' names should be written such that the first letter is capitalized (e.g. William Henry Harrison, Kim Jong Un) unless a subject prefers to have their name capitalized in an unconventional manner. (e.g. bell hooks, k. d. lang, maia arson crimew)
Use of superlatives
[edit]If an article says that someone is a renowned expert in a particular area, a source should be easily found. However, if nothing is written about them, then they fail a notability test. Adjectives such as "well-known", "best", "renowned", "award-winning", "ground-breaking", "unique", and "well-liked", as well as weasel words like "one of the top" or "among the nation's best", are hallmarks of language that is more associated with promotional press releases than encyclopedias.