wikipedia-notability-assessment

name	wikipedia-notability-assessment
description	Evaluate whether a subject meets Wikipedia notability guidelines — the General Notability Guideline (GNG), all 13 subject-specific SNGs with decision trees, source quality evaluation, structured report generation, AfD-ready summaries, and common invalid arguments
license	MIT
compatibility	opencode
skill_discovery_hints	[{"keywords":["notability","notable","WP:GNG","WP:N","article deletion","AfD","should this exist"]},{"keywords":["SNG","NACADEMIC","NCORP","NMUSIC","NGEO","BIO","notability guideline"]},{"keywords":["source evaluation","reliable source","independent source","significant coverage"]},{"keywords":["article creation","notability assessment","subject-specific notability"]}]
last_verified	"2026-06-11T00:00:00.000Z"
depends_on	["wikimedia-api-access"]

⚠️ User-Agent required: API examples in this skill access Wikipedia. See the wikimedia-api-access skill for User-Agent format and rate limiting.

💡 Related skills: For how to write an article once notability is confirmed, see wikipedia-en-biography-writing and the general article drafting guidance. For how to delete a non-notable article, see the proposed deletion-processes skill. For how to patrol new pages, see wikipedia-reference-verifiability (includes PageTriage API documentation).

---

Table of Contents

1. What Notability Is and Why It Matters
2. SOP: The GNG — The Four-Element Test
3. SOP: The 13 Subject-Specific Notability Guidelines
4. SOP: WP:BIO Sub-Criteria (8 Paths)
5. SOP: Source Quality Assessment
6. SOP: What Never Counts
7. SOP: Producing a Structured Notability Report
8. SOP: Special Topics
9. Guardrails
10. Cross-References

---

What Notability Is and Why It Matters

Notability is Wikipedia's test for whether a topic warrants its own article. It is defined by the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) and elaborated by Subject-Specific Notability Guidelines (SNGs).

Key principles:

Principle	Shortcut	Meaning
Notability ≠ fame	WP:NFAME	Someone can be famous but not notable; someone can be notable but not famous. Notability is about coverage, not popularity.
Notability ≠ article quality	WP:CONTN	A beautifully written article makes a subject no more notable. A poorly sourced article makes a subject no less notable. Notability is about the subject, not the article.
Notability is not inherited	WP:NOTINHERITED	Being Elon Musk's child does not make you notable. The child must have independent coverage.
Notability is based on existing sources, not in-article citations	WP:NEXIST	If sources exist in the real world, the subject is notable even if no one has cited them yet.
Notability is not temporary	WP:NTEMP	Once a subject has significant coverage, it doesn't need ongoing coverage to remain notable.
Notability is presumed, not guaranteed	WP:GNG	Meeting GNG or an SNG creates a presumption of notability. Deletion discussions may still determine against inclusion (e.g., due to WP:NOT).

What notability is NOT

Notability ≠ Famous, Important, Well-known, Popular, Google hits, YouTube views
Notability ≠ Well-written article, Lots of blue links, Exists on other Wikipedias
Notability ≠ Published by major publisher, Has IMDb page, Has LinkedIn profile

The notability decision tree (simplified)

Does the subject have significant coverage in multiple
reliable, independent sources (GNG)?
├── Yes → Likely notable (subject may have its own article)
├── No → Does it meet any Subject-Specific Notability Guideline (SNG)?
│   ├── Yes → Presumed notable
│   └── No → Does it fail any exclusion criteria (BLP1E, NOTNEWS, etc.)?
│       └── Likely not notable → Merge, redirect, or delete

---

SOP: The GNG — The Four-Element Test

The GNG has four elements. ALL four must be present:

1. Significant Coverage (WP:SIGCOV)

The source must address the subject directly and in detail, not just mention it in passing.

# What counts as significant coverage:
- Feature-length newspaper or magazine profile
- In-depth academic analysis (journal article, book chapter)
- Book-length treatment or dedicated biography
- Documentary film focused on the subject
- Multiple paragraphs in a major reference work

# What does NOT count:
- "He was born in Boston and attended Harvard" (two sentences in a larger article)
- "The company was founded in 2010" (routine announcement)
- "Also appearing was..." (passing mention in event coverage)
- Trivial directory listing, database entry, or search result

Test: Could you write 3+ substantial paragraphs about the subject using ONLY this source? If no, it's not significant coverage.

2. Reliable Sources (WP:RS)

The source must have editorial oversight, fact-checking, and a reputation for accuracy.

Tier	Examples	Contributes to Notability?
High	Peer-reviewed journals, major newspapers (NYT, Guardian, Reuters), books from academic presses	✅ Yes
Medium	Trade publications, reputable magazines (Wired, The Atlantic), local newspapers	✅ Yes, but weight accordingly
Low	Personal blogs, self-published books, company websites, press releases	❌ No
Never	Wikipedia, IMDb, Social media, forums, user-generated content	❌ No

3. Independent of the Subject (WP:INDY)

The source must not be produced by, paid by, or affiliated with the subject.

Independent:      Newspaper article by a journalist who doesn't work for the subject
Not independent:  Press release from the subject's PR firm
Not independent:  The subject's autobiography or memoir
Not independent:  The subject's company website or annual report
Not independent:  An interview (the subject's own words are primary, not independent)

4. Multiple Sources

Multiple independent sources are required. Note that:

• Multiple articles from the same wire service (AP, Reuters) count as ONE source
• Multiple articles by the same author (re-reporting same information) count as ONE source
• Multiple articles from the same press release (churnalism) count as ONE source

The four-element test in code:

from notability_checker import NotabilityChecker

checker = NotabilityChecker()
report = checker.assess(
    name="Jane Smith",
    subject_type="academic",
    description="Professor of quantum physics at MIT",
    sources=[
        {"title": "Nature profile", "type": "news_feature",
         "reliable": True, "independent": True, "significant": True},
        {"title": "NYT article about her research",
         "type": "news_article", "reliable": True,
         "independent": True, "significant": True},
    ],
)
print(report.overall_verdict)  # "notable" or "not_notable" or "unclear"

---

SOP: The 13 Subject-Specific Notability Guidelines

Each SNG is a specialized test for a specific topic area. Meeting any one SNG creates a presumption of notability, even if the GNG is not met.

See references/sng-decision-trees.md for detailed decision tree cards for each SNG.

Quick Reference Table

#	SNG	Shortcut	Who	Key Test
1	Academics	WP:NACADEMIC	Scholars, researchers	Named chair, major award, highly cited, learned society fellow (8 criteria, any 1)
2	Astronomical objects	WP:NASTRO	Celestial objects	Confirmed exoplanet, numbered asteroid, NGC object
3	Books	WP:NBOOK	Published works	Multiple independent reviews OR major literary award OR verified bestseller
4	Events	WP:NEVENT	Occurrences	Persistent coverage beyond news cycle, lasting impact
5	Films	WP:NFILM	Movies	Publicly released, multiple reviews (WP:NFF for unreleased)
6	Geographic features	WP:NGEO	Places, natural features	Named populated place or natural feature → notable
7	Music	WP:NMUSIC	Musicians, bands, albums	Charted, certified, major label, major award (12 criteria, any 1)
8	Numbers	WP:NNUMBER	Integers, constants	Only 1–99 and mathematically significant numbers
9	Organizations & companies	WP:NCORP	Businesses, non-profits	Strictest SNG — significant independent coverage required
10	People	WP:BIO	All biographical subjects	Umbrella — see sub-criteria below
11	Species	WP:NSPECIES	Biological taxa	All described species presumed notable
12	Sports	WP:NSPORT	Athletes, teams	Competed at highest professional or major international level
13	Web content	WP:NWEB	Websites, podcasts, influencers	Very strict — significant independent coverage required

Using the SNG Checker

from notability_checker import NotabilityChecker

checker = NotabilityChecker()

# Auto-classify subject type from description
subject_type = checker.classify_subject(
    "A peer-reviewed study on quantum entanglement published in Nature"
)
# → "academic"

# Check a specific SNG
result = checker.check_sng("NPOL", 
    "Senator from California, served 2000-2010")
print(result.criteria_met)  # ["Held notable political office"]
print(result.confidence)    # "high"

Key SNG Details

WP:NACADEMIC — 8 criteria, any ONE sufficient:

1. Named chair or distinguished professorship
2. Highly cited (field-dependent)
3. Major academic award (Fields, Nobel, Turing, MacArthur, etc.)
4. Editorial role at top journal
5. Fellow of prestigious learned society (NAS, Royal Society, etc.)
6. Highly influential monograph/textbook
7. Research with major impact on policy/practice
8. Substantial entry in major reference work

WP:NCORP — The strictest SNG. Requires:

• Multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage
• Press releases, product announcements, and routine business coverage do NOT count
• Being a public company or Fortune 500 does NOT guarantee notability
• See also: most K-12 schools are not notable; universities generally are

WP:NMUSIC — 12 criteria, any ONE sufficient:

• Charted on national/international chart
• Gold record or higher certification
• Album on major or notable independent label
• Major music award nomination/win
• Multiple independent reviews in notable publications
• Significant national radio airplay

---

SOP: WP:BIO Sub-Criteria (8 Paths)

The People guideline (WP:BIO) contains 8 distinct paths. Check ANYBIO first (quickest pass).

Quick Decision Tree

ANYBIO → Quick check:
  ├── Major award/honor? → Notable
  ├── Enduring historical record? → Notable
  ├── National biographical dictionary entry? → Notable
  └── None → Check specific sub-path:

1. NACADEMIC → Scholars, researchers (8 criteria)
2. NCREATIVE → Authors, artists, architects, journalists (4 criteria)
3. NENTERTAINER → Actors, comedians, models, voice actors (2 criteria)
4. NPOL → Politicians, judges (elected or high-level appointed office)
5. NSPORT → Athletes (professional or international competition)
6. NCRIME → Victims, perpetrators (very high bar)
7. BIO1E → Single-event notability (default: cover the event, not the person)

Notable Exceptions

Case	Rule	Example
Mayor of a small town	Not inherently notable	Must pass GNG
US Senator	NPOL → Notable	Officeholder
City council member	Not inherently notable	Must pass GNG
Olympic athlete (competed)	NSPORT → Notable	Even if no medal
NCAA athlete	Not inherently notable	Must pass GNG
Professor at community college	Not inherently notable	Must check NACADEMIC criteria
Nobel laureate	ANYBIO → Notable	Any field
Child of celebrity	NOTINHERITED → Not notable	Unless independent coverage
Victim of crime	NCRIME → Very high bar	Default: mention in event article
Person known for one news event	BIO1E → Redirect to event	Default: not standalone article

---

SOP: Source Quality Assessment

Notability is determined by what sources exist, not by what's cited in the article. The skill includes a SourceEvaluator for rating sources.

from source_evaluator import SourceEvaluator

evaluator = SourceEvaluator()

# Evaluate a source by URL and description
result = evaluator.evaluate(
    title="Nature profile of Dr. Smith",
    source_type="news_feature",
    url="https://nature.com/articles/profile",
)

print(result["reliable"])     # True
print(result["significant"])  # True
print(result["score"])        # 9/10

# Classify an unknown source
source_type = evaluator.classify_source(
    url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein"
)
# → "self_published" (Wikipedia doesn't count for notability)

Source Hierarchy

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│              Source Quality Hierarchy                │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  10  Peer-reviewed journal articles                  │
│   9  Books from academic presses                     │
│   8  Major newspapers (NYT, Guardian, Reuters)       │
│   7  Reputable magazines (Wired, New Yorker)         │
│   6  Trade publications                              │
│   5  Local newspapers (for local topics)             │
│   4  Company blogs, press releases                   │
│   3  Personal blogs, social media                    │
│   2  IMDb, Wikipedia, user-generated content         │
│   1  Self-published, anonymous sources               │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Only sources at 5+ count toward establishing notability.

Churnalism Detection

When multiple sources have identical or near-identical content, they may all derive from the same press release:

# If 10 news articles all say the same thing and attribute it to "a press release",
# they count as ONE source for notability purposes.
sources = [
    "Company X announces new product — PR Newswire",
    "Company X announces new product — Reuters (same PR)",
    "Company X announces new product — Local News (same PR)",
]
# → 0 independent sources. These are all churnalism.

---

SOP: What Never Counts

See references/invalid-arguments.md for a complete reference.

Quick Reference: Arguments That Always Fail

Argument	Why
"Spouse of notable person"	WP:NOTINHERITED
"High Google ranking"	WP:GOOGLEHITS
"Has an IMDb page"	WP:NOTDATABASE
"Popular on YouTube"	WP:NWEB
"Article X exists, so should this"	WP:WAX (whataboutism)
"It's well-written"	WP:CONTN
"It exists"	Existence ≠ notability
"Sources exist (but I won't name them)"	WP:NEXIST — name them
"Delete because it's poorly written"	WP:IMPERFECT — fixable
"Keep because I like it"	WP:ILIKEIT
"Has an article on fr.wikipedia"	Different standards per language

---

SOP: Producing a Structured Notability Report

Using the NotabilityChecker

from notability_checker import NotabilityChecker
from notability_templates import format_report, generate_afd_summary

checker = NotabilityChecker()

# Assess a subject
report = checker.assess(
    name="Dr. Jane Smith",
    subject_type="academic",
    description="Professor of quantum physics at MIT, named chair holder",
    sources=[
        {"title": "Nature profile of Smith", "type": "news_feature",
         "reliable": True, "independent": True, "significant": True},
        {"title": "NYT: Smith wins major award",
         "type": "news_article", "reliable": True,
         "independent": True, "significant": True},
        {"title": "Smith's MIT faculty page",
         "type": "self_published", "reliable": False,
         "independent": False, "significant": False},
    ],
)

# Get structured output
report_dict = report.to_dict()
# → {"verdict": {"overall": "notable", "confidence": "high"}, ...}

# Full formatted report
print(format_report(report))

# AfD-ready summary
print(generate_afd_summary(report))

CLI Usage

# Quick assessment
python3 assets/notability_checker.py "Jane Smith" \
    --description "Professor of quantum physics at MIT, named chair" \
    --type academic

# With sources
python3 assets/notability_checker.py "Jane Smith" \
    --description "Professor of quantum physics at MIT" \
    --type academic \
    --source "Nature profile|news_feature|yes|yes|yes" \
    --source "NYT article|news_article|yes|yes|yes"

# Shell script
bash scripts/notability-check.sh "Jane Smith" \
    --type academic \
    --desc "Professor of quantum physics at MIT" \
    --source "Nature profile|news|yes|yes|yes" \
    --json

# Evaluate a specific source
python3 assets/source_evaluator.py \
    --title "Nature profile of Smith" \
    --type news_feature \
    --url "https://nature.com/articles/profile"

What the Report Looks Like

==================================================
NOTABILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT
==================================================

Subject: Dr. Jane Smith
Type:    academic
Desc:    Professor of quantum physics at MIT, named chair

✅  Verdict: NOTABLE
   Confidence: HIGH

📋 SUBJECT-SPECIFIC GUIDELINES (SNGs):
   ✅ NACADEMIC: Named chair or distinguished professorship

📊 GENERAL NOTABILITY GUIDELINE (GNG):
   ✅ Overall: PASS
   ✅ Significant coverage
   ✅ Reliable sources
   ✅ Independent sources
   ✅ Multiple sources
   Sources evaluated: 3

💡 RECOMMENDATIONS:
   → Subject likely meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. Proceed with article creation.

Report Types

Format	Use Case	Command
Full report	Detailed assessment	format_report(report)
One-line summary	Quick reference	format_short(report)
AfD summary	Deletion discussion	generate_afd_summary(report)
Maintenance tag	Flagging an article	generate_notability_tag(report) → `{{notability

---

SOP: Special Topics

Notability of Lists (WP:NLIST)

Standalone lists have their own notability rules:

• Lists can exist if the list topic is notable (not each individual entry)
• Entry in a list does NOT need to be independently notable (list criteria determine inclusion)
• Common list types: discographies, bibliographies, filmographies, awards lists

Notability Is Not Temporary (WP:NTEMP)

Once a topic has significant coverage, it retains notability even if coverage stops.

• A 1990s band with significant coverage in the 90s is still notable today
• A historical event with significant coverage is permanently notable
• Exception: Living persons may need reassessment if sources become unavailable

Sustained Coverage (WP:SUSTAINED)

For currently-developing topics (news events, new companies), look for sustained coverage:

• Brief burst of news coverage → not enough (WP:NOTNEWS)
• Coverage that persists for months/years → strong signal
• New organizations need time to demonstrate notability

Future Events (WP:CRYSTAL)

• Do not create articles for events that haven't happened yet
• Exception: Planned events where notability is reasonably assured (Olympics, major elections)
• Films: Create article only after principal photography has started (WP:NFF)
• Albums: Must have confirmed release date and verifiable content

Redirects vs. Articles

When a subject is notable mainly for a single event:

• Default: Create redirect to the event article
• Only create standalone biography if the person's role is historically significant
• Example: Assassin of a major political leader → standalone article likely appropriate
• Example: Witness to a crime → redirect to crime article

---

Guardrails

1. Never Assess Notability by Article Quality

A well-written article about a non-notable subject is still non-notable (WP:CONTN). Notability is about the subject, not the Wikipedia article.

2. Never Cite Wikipedia Itself as a Source

Wikipedia articles, other language Wikipedias, and Wikidata entries do not demonstrate notability. They are derivative sources.

3. Distinguish "Notable" from "Famous"

"Famous" people can fail notability if they lack significant coverage in reliable independent sources. "Obscure" scholars can pass notability through NACADEMIC criteria (named chair, major awards, etc.).

4. SNGs Are Guidelines, Not Policies

Meeting an SNG creates a presumption of notability, not a guarantee. Reasons to still exclude: WP:NOT (not an encyclopedia topic), WP:BLP1E (single-event person), WP:NOTNEWS (routine coverage).

5. BLP Subjects Require Extra Care

For living people:

• Apply notability standards strictly
• Sources must be reliable (BLP policy)
• The bar for deletion is lower if sources are weak
• Default: no article for people notable only for one event (BLP1E)

6. Don't Count Press Releases

Press releases, even when reproduced verbatim by multiple news outlets, count as ZERO independent sources. This is called churnalism — identify it and exclude it.

7. Local Notability vs. Global Notability

• Local politician with only local newspaper coverage: fails GNG
• Local business with only local business journal coverage: fails NCORP
• Exception: Local topics of clear encyclopedic value (historic buildings, significant local events)

8. NOTINHERITED Applies Broadly

• Spouse of notable person → not notable (unless own coverage)
• Child of notable person → not notable (unless own coverage)
• Student of notable teacher → not notable (unless own coverage)
• Employee of notable company → not notable (unless own coverage)

9. Multiple Same-Source Articles Count as One

If 50 newspapers carry the same AP story about a subject, that counts as ONE source, not 50. Identify the original source.

10. When Unsure, Flag It

If notability is unclear:

• Add {{notability|date=June 2026}} tag
• Suggest the user provide more sources
• Do not create the article — better to wait for clarity

---

Cross-References

Related Skill	Why
wikipedia-en-biography-writing	Drafting an article AFTER notability is confirmed
wikipedia-reference-verifiability	New page patrol — assessing notability of recently created pages (includes PageTriage API)
wikipedia-citations	Formatting the sources that demonstrate notability
wikimedia-api-access	Searching for sources to evaluate notability
wikimedia-search-cirrussearch	Finding sources using CirrusSearch (hastemplate:"notability")
wikimedia-ml-services	Article quality scoring (complementary to notability)
wikipedia-error-handling	API error handling when searching for sources