User:Khamar/Notability (skeptics)

This is the user sandbox of Khamar. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here.

Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox

Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review!

This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline.

Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page.

Shortcut

WP:SKEPTICS

This page in a nutshell: A skeptic is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major skeptic conference or event or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q1:

A1:

This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a skeptic or skeptical organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the skeptic specific criteria set forth below.

If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines).

Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion, along with relevant policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Applicable policies and guidelines

All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about skeptics, must be verifiable. In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. Information about living persons must meet the more stringent requirements for those types of articles.

Subjects that do not meet the skeptic-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline.

Basic criteria

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published^[1] non-trivial^[2] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,^[3] and independent of the subject.^[4] The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that skeptical figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion.

Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability.
Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.
Some sources must be used with particular care when establishing notability, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Local sources must be clearly independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine coverage.

Professional skeptics

American Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

Shortcut

WP:CSI

American skeptics are presumed notable if they

Have appeared in at least one regular meeting as a guest or featured speaker.
Have received at least one award at a national meeting.

Freedom From Religion Foundation

Shortcut

WP:FFRF

Foundation figures are presumed notable if they meet the following:

Have appeared in at least one regular meeting as a guest or featured speaker.
Have received at least one award at a national meeting.

Independent Investigations Group

Shortcut

WP:IIG

Group figures are presumed notable if they meet the following:

Have appeared in at least one regular meeting as a guest or featured speaker.
Have received at least one award at a national meeting.

James Randi Educational Foundation

Shortcut

WP:JREF

Foundation figures are presumed notable if they meet the following:

Are an elected member of the foundation board.
Have appeared in at least one regular meeting as a guest or featured speaker.
Have received at least one award at a national meeting.

Amateur skeptics

Amateur placeholder

Amateur skeptics are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include social media publishers who:

Have won a national award from a major skeptical organization.
Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a member for a notable organization.

Research links

The following are some potential places to look for sources to establish notability:

Chronicling America Library of Congress, historic newspapers from 1836–1922 (free)
Google news search (mostly free)
Newspaper archive Digitized newspapers, broad coverage (free search, paid access)
NewsLibrary Digitized newspapers, broad coverage (free search, paid access)
Newspapers.com Digitized newspapers, broad coverage (free search, paid access)

Notes

^ What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.
^ Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. Database sources such as Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database and Internet Adult Film Database are not considered credible since they are, like wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion.
^ Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.
^ Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability.

[note2-1] What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.

[note5-2] Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. Database sources such as Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database and Internet Adult Film Database are not considered credible since they are, like wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion.

[note3-3] Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.

[note4-4] Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]