User:DreamRimmer/NPP-School/Jannatulbaqi

Notability in a nutshell

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large outlets are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller ones can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations, nor should they be used to provide blanket permissions for all articles about a certain subject.
See WP:NMEDIA - while the material is used for media notability, the message covers a much broader area for reviewers to consider, and why I made it the masthead.

Welcome New Trainee!

Instructions: Jannatulbaqi, below is a quote from the lead at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School that I want you to consider:

If you are looking to contribute to Wikipedia but do not intend to remain active on New Page Review, then this program is probably not for you.
Users who are less experienced, but who would still like to help maintain the quality of the encyclopedia, might like to consider Patrolling Vandalism instead – an essential function that requires less knowledge of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Deletion policy, although such knowledge is highly recommended. For training on Counter vandalism, see WP:CVUA.

If you still wish to proceed with training, your first exercise is to review the video @ Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help, and the NPP Tutorial. Become familiar with the flowcharts and curation tool as some of that information will come into play during the Q&A session. If you have any questions after you've read the tutorial and have a basic understanding of the page curation tool, please ping me from your session page.

Part of the training will involve your participation in a few live NPP reviews that I will assign. You are also expected to read and learn the relative WP policies and guidelines as presented in the 5 subsections below. You will provide a summary, in your own words, of what you've learned including what you consider to be the most important aspects of each. You will complete one section at a time, in the order presented, and ping me after you complete each part in order to, if deemed necessary, discuss your responses before proceeding to the next part. Please be mindful of the formatting.

Please do your best to answer all the questions in detail. I will also be observing how you react and respond throughout the exam. Remember, there is no rush, and you can work at your own pace. Good luck! – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Notability (Pt. 1)

Notability

In my view, notability is a standard used to determine if a topic is deserving of its own Wikipedia article (Standalone article). It’s based on whether the topic has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, making it worthy of notice. Essentially, notability reflects whether a topic can be verified and documented through sources that aren’t directly connected to it. For me, notability for Wikipedia means that the subject is covered in depth by reliable sources (WP:RS) such as newspapers, magazines, credible news websites, or historically reputable books. Personally, I trust journals and older, well-published books as strong indicators of a topic's notability. Thank you!

General Notability Guideline (GNG)

Based on my understanding of the General Notability Guideline (GNG), it’s the essential standard for evaluating whether a topic warrants its own Wikipedia page. Significant coverage in reliable sources can indicate that a topic is notable, but it doesn’t guarantee it. The coverage must provide in-depth discussion directly about the topic—going beyond minor mentions and without requiring original research (WP:OR). Reliable sources (WP:RS) are expected to have editorial oversight and can include a range of published work, but we must distinguish these from user-generated content, Generally, multiple secondary sources are required to establish notability, although the exact number depends on the sources' depth and quality an area with some flexibility. Importantly, these sources should be independent, meaning they are not produced by the subject or its affiliates.

Specific Notability Guidelines (SNG)

Subject-Specific Notability Guidelines provide criteria for determining when a standalone Wikipedia article on a specific topic can or should be created. They complement the General Notability Guideline (GNG) by addressing unique requirements for certain fields, such as films, biographies, academics, and organizations. SNGs outline verifiable criteria and examples of reliable sources for determining significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV).

Organizational and Company Notability and any other SNGs that relate to areas of patrol interest

Assessing organizations on Wikipedia is often a sensitive process. I would start by consulting the guidelines provided in Wikipedia:NCORP, WP:RS Wikipedia:ORGCRIT, Wikipedia:LISTED, and Wikipedia:SIGCOV. If there is an ongoing AfD (Articles for Deletion) discussion, I would also review the Wikipedia:SIRS table for additional context.

WP:RS

Reliable sources on Wikipedia are those with a reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and covering all perspectives on a topic. Their reliability depends on the content, author, and publisher—any of which, if unreliable, can invalidate the source. Reliable sources should ideally be secondary, offering neutral views and undergoing thorough scrutiny by their authors.

Different fields, such as academic scholarship or journalism, have specific criteria for reliability. User-generated content (e.g., IMDb) is not considered reliable. Breaking news articles are generally unreliable initially, as they often contain speculative information that evolves over time; waiting allows for inaccuracies to be addressed. Some sources are deprecated or blacklisted and should not be used without consensus or at all. Lastly, proving notability requires multiple independent, high-quality sources one source is rarely sufficient.