User:Emu/Notability

Goal: This page attempts to clarify certain aspects of Wikidata’s notability policy. Its main focus are items about people and organizations. Status: Everything written here is my (Emu) current understanding of the notability criteria. It’s work in progress and has no official status whatsoever. Please feel free to comment on the discussion page.

Wikidata:Notability lists three criteria for notability:

An item is acceptable if and only if it fulfills at least one of these two goals, that is if it meets at least one of the three criteria below:

1. It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page on Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikidata, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, or Wikimedia Commons. […]
2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references.
3. It fulfills a structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful.

Some terms are defined pretty clearly:

• Criterion #1 is pretty comprehensive, it rarely causes problems.
• “clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity” rarely causes problems for items about people (instance of (P31)human (Q5))

Note that #2 refers to "references" in the plural. Some people interpret this to mean that at least two references are required. However, it is not common practice to demand a second reference if the first one is beyond reproach.

“A ‘serious source’ is usually independent of the described entity, not user-generated content, and not predominantly promotional.” ([1]). They can “be described as authentic, organic sources from independent third-parties.” ([2])

We generally accept identifiers from major libraries and library systems like:

• Library of Congress authority ID (P244)
• GND ID (P227)
• Bibliothèque nationale de France ID (P268)
• but not VIAF ID (P214) and ISNI (P213)

We generally do not accept user-generated content and databases without clear editorial review, including:

• most wikis
• IMDb
• ISNI
• Crunchbase
• Discogs

We do not accept Freebase or Google Knowledge Graph identifiers as proof of notability.

We generally accept serious news coverage by independent media unless they are

• advertorials, “branded content” or “community reporter” articles

While various reasons are given, users mostly agree that Wikidata shouldn’t contain data indiscriminately:

• Wikidata:Requests for comment/Must 'Serious' WikiData sources be selective?

Some (including myself) think that even reliable sources cannot be considered “serious” if they record data indiscriminately. This is the case for many state-governed registries, such as commercial registers.

• Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2022/11/17#Q114557711 and User_talk:Estopedist1#Request_for_undeletion_of_Q114558240

Note however that this requirement is sometimes waived with different reasons:

• Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2023/11/09#Q117283304
• Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2023/11/09#Q117844136

We generally accept a structural need for:

• the immediate family of people with a sitelink, especially if the items don’t seem promotional; note however WD:BLP, especially if the items are about minors
• CEOs and founders of companies with a sitelink

It is disputed if “structural need” refers to Wikidata needs or also the needs of other projects.

Use within Structured Data on Commons does not imply notability may imply notability:

• Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2022/09/17#Q113542801
• compare however Topic:Xac1or8pnu2tul53
• see also w:de:Benutzer:M2k~dewiki/FAQ#Deletion_of_Wikidata_objects_and_effect_on_structured_data_on_Commons_(SDC)

There is no clear consensus if entries in The Peerage and other genealogical databases are enough to reach the threshold of notability. Administrators are generally reluctant to delete items that rely on The Peerage unless they also violate WD:BLP.

Some users believe that having a (very) high follower count on major social media platforms indicates notability. However, it is unclear which of the notability criteria is being met in this case.

Some feel that Wikimedians and their projects shouldn’t be judged by the notability criteria. There is no consensus that this should be the case. Current practice, however, suggests that those items hardly ever get deleted regardless of their merit sometimes get deleted, sometimes not.

• July to November 2021: Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2021/11/03#Q3305990 and similar cases on the same page
• September 2021: Wikidata talk:Notability/Archive_6#Propose_to_add_Wikimedia_Toolforge_tools_to_inclusion_criteria
• February to March 2022: Wikidata_talk:Notability/Archive_6#Wikidata_information_is_being_directly_used_on_another_Wikimedia_project
• March to September 2022: Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2022/09/16#Bulk_deletion_request:_Wikidata_talks with an afterthought at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2022/09#RfD_Wikidata_talks
• October to November 2022: Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2022/11/20#Wikimedia_developers

Compare also the somewhat infamous list at User:Multichill/Questionable notability Wikimedians.

Items with a Commons category link are notable per WD:N #1.4. This rule is “surprising” ([3]) and controversial because of the lax notability policy and enforcement problems at Commons. To avoid damage to Wikidata’s credibility, non-trivial statements on such items have to be verifiable by independent sources (Help:Sources). ([4])

See however cases where a Commons category wasn’t enough:

• Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2022/11/21#Q110567956
• Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2023/01/31#Bulk_deletion_request,_created_by_Jamesjones2234