italics, bold, and both copy edit copy editors Android Frog#Locomotion locomotion in frogs Frog § Locomotion Red link example https://www.wikipedia.org [1] Wikipedia Hello^[1] World!^[2]

Hello again!^[1]^[3]

References:

^ ^a ^b Library of Congress
^ "World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)".
^ Perry's Handbook, Sixth Edition, McGraw-Hill Co., 1984.

This statement is true.^{[citation needed]} User:Example Example ~~This topic isn't notable.~~ This topic is notable

Category:Category name File:File name

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Level 5

Level 6

One
Two
- Two point one
Three

One
Two
1. Two point one
Three

Heading 1

Heading 2

Heading 3

Heading 4

Heading 5

Heading 6

A single newline here has no effect on the layout.

But an empty line starts a new paragraph, or ends a list or an indented part. Normal text

The blockquote tag will indent both margins when needed instead of the left margin only as the colon does.

Normal text

Centered text

Text on the right

Item1
Item2
Item3
Item4
- Sub-item 4 a)
  - Sub-item 4 a) 1.
    - Sub-item 4 a) 1. i)
    - Sub-item 4 a) 1. ii)
- Sub-item 4 b)
Item5

Item1
Item2
Item3
Item4
1. Sub-item 1
  1. Sub-sub-item
    1. Sub-sub-sub-item
2. Sub-item 2
Item5

Term: Definition1
Term: Definition1; Definition2; Definition3; Definition4

In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
  A stately pleasure-dome decree:
Where Alph, the sacred river, ran
  Through caverns measureless to man
Down to a sunless sea.

So twice five miles of fertile ground
  With walls and towers were girdled round:
And there were gardens bright with sinuous rills,
  Where blossomed many an incense-bearing tree;
And here were forests ancient as the hills,
  Enfolding sunny spots of greenery.

Frère Jacques, frère Jacques,
Dormez-vous? Dormez-vous?
Sonnez les matines! Sonnez les matines!
Ding, dang, dong. Ding, dang, dong.

Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping?
Brother John, Brother John,
Morning bells are ringing! Morning bells are ringing!
Ding, dang, dong. Ding, dang, dong.

To italicize text, put two consecutive apostrophes on each side of it.

Three apostrophes each side will bold the text.

Five consecutive apostrophes on each side (two for italics plus three for bold) produces bold italics.

Italic and bold formatting works correctly only within a single line.

For text as small caps, use the template {{smallcaps}}. function int m2() is nice.

#include <iostream>
int m2 (int ax, char *p_ax) {
  std::cout <<"Hello World!";
  return 0;
}

Use small text only when necessary. To match, for example, the font-size used in an image caption, the "small" tag can also be used to reduce a text's font-size to 87%. Better not use big text, unless it's within small text. Mr. Smith or 400 km/h Mary had a little lamb. À Á Â Ã Ä Å Æ

Ç È É Ê Ë

Ì Í Î Ï Ñ

Ò Ó Ô Õ Ö Ø Œ

Ù Ú Û Ü Ÿ ß

à á â ã ä å æ ç

è é ê ë

ì í î ï ñ

ò ó ô õ ö ø œ

ù ú û ü ÿ ¿ ¡ § ¶ † ‡ • – — ‹ › « » It follows that $x 2 \geq 0$ for real $x$ . $\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }{\frac {x^{n}}{n!}}$ Texas Lone Star State London has public transport. Link to this page: "Help:Wikitext" will appear only as bold text. New York also has public transportation. kingdom Seattle Village pump Manual of Style [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Links|]] San Francisco also has public transportation. Examples include buses, taxicabs, and trams. A micro-second A micro-second. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Italics is a link to a section within another page. #Links and URLs is a link to another section on the current page. Links and URLs is a link to the same section without showing the # symbol. Italics is a piped link to a section within another page. The article about cardboard sandwiches doesn't exist yet. See the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Wiktionary:hello hello Wiktionary definition of "hello" Wiktionary:fr:bonjour fr:bonjour bonjour Category:Character sets Character sets Wikipedia [2] https://www.wikipedia.org/ Wikipedia Sound edit edit Hindenburg disaster

$\relative c' { fis d fis a d f e d c cis d e a g f ees }$

The image name, the word thumb then the caption :

A picture: With alternative text: With link: Forced to the centre of the page using the frame tag (attribute), a centre tag and a caption:

Forced to the left side of the page using the thumb attribute, the left attribute and a caption:

Forced to the right side of the page without a caption:

Forced to the right side of the page without a caption:

A picture resized to 50 pixels... Linking directly to the description page of an image: File:wiki.png Linking directly to an image without displaying it: Image of jigsaw globe Example:

Example:

This text comes from the page named Template:Transclusion demo. It has been transcluded into this page.

This transclusion demo is a little bit of text from the page Help:Transclusion demo to be included into any file. This template takes two parameters, and creates underlined text with a hover box for many modern browsers supporting CSS:

Hover your mouse over this text

Go to this page to see the Tooltip template itself: {{Tooltip}} Diff between revisions 330349143 and 330350877 Diff between revisions 330349143 and 330350877 Diff between revisions 330349143 and 330350877 Revision 330350877 Special:WhatLinksHere/Beetroot Special:RecentChangesLinked/Beetroot Special:Contributions/UserName Special:Contributions/192.0.2.0 Special:Contributions/2001:0db8:0000:0000:0000:ff00:0042:8329 I will change the color in the middle part of this sentence. This is how to highlight part of a sentence. This is a correct example for comparison Y This is an incorrect example for contrast N This is in monospace for comparison This is in monospace for contrast This is in bold for comparison This is in bold for contrast You can indicate ~~deleted~~ and inserted material. This is ~~an obsolete stretch of text~~ for comparison

This is

an obsolete bulleted list
with two items

for comparison

like <nowiki> tag:

The <nowiki> tag ignores [[wiki]] ''markup''. It reformats text by removing newlines and multiple spaces. It still interprets characters specified by &name;: → <pre> tag:

The <pre> tag ignores [[wiki]]
''markup'' as does the <nowiki>
tag. Additionally, <pre> displays
in a mono-spaced font, and does
not  reformat    text    spaces.
It still interprets special
characters: →

[Text without a URL]:

Single square brackets holding [text without a HTTP URL] are preserved, but single square brackets containing a URL are treated as being an external Web link. Leading space:

Leading spaces are another way to preserve formatting.

Putting a space at the
beginning of each line
stops the text   from
being reformatted.
It still interprets wiki
markup and special characters: &

Ordered list

# Ordered list A micro-second. A micro-second. a b ''Italics' markup'' [[Example]]  page name [[ wp:pagename | page name ]] [[ wp:pagename | page name ]] [[ wp:pagename | page name ]] [[wp:pagename | page name ]] wp: pagename [[ wp: {{ 1x | pagename }} ]] [[ wp: {{ 1x | pagename }} ]] [[ wp: {{ 1x | pagename }} ]] label [[ wp: pagename | {{ 1x | label }} ]] <nowiki> label </nowiki> {{ val | u=> ms | 49082 }} {{ val | u=> ms | 49082 }} {{ val | u=> ms | 49082 }} {{ val | u= > ms | 49082 }} {{ val | u= > [[ ms ]] | 49082 }} outYes {{ #ifeq: inYes | inYes | outYes | outNo }} {{ #ifeq: inYes | inYes | outYes | outNo }} {{ #ifeq: inYes | inYes | outYes | outNo }} {{ #ifeq: inYes | inYes | outYes | outNo }}

1. 
2. __HIDDENCAT__

Blue <span style=color:blue> Blue </span> bel /> <section end=label /> <nowiki>...</ nowiki > < nowiki>...</ nowiki > <nowiki>...</ nowiki > <nowiki /> < nowiki /> <<nowiki /> nowiki /> <nowiki>< nowiki /></nowiki> 1<nowiki>2<nowiki>3</nowiki>4</nowiki> <nowiki>|<nowiki></nowiki>|</nowiki>

<!--Comment-->

[[wiki]] markup &


wiki markup &

File:FILENAME

DESCRIPTION

Pagename Bumni/Sample page

This page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline.

Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus.

Shortcuts

This page in a nutshell: Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that fellow editors are trying to improve the project, not harm it. If criticism is necessary, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing them of harmful motives.

Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful. This is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. Otherwise, a project like Wikipedia would have been doomed from the beginning.

For example, if someone adds poorly sourced contentious matter about a living person, then you need to either add high-quality sources or remove it immediately. But you don't need to assume that the person was trying to hurt Wikipedia through their contribution.

Y Response that assumes good faith: "That person probably just doesn't understand Wikipedia's sourcing standards. I'm reverting this."
N Response that assumes bad faith: "This person is trying to destroy Wikipedia by adding badly sourced garbage! I'm reverting this."

When disagreement occurs, try your best to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus.

When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself when possible. Be civil and follow dispute resolution procedures, rather than attacking editors or edit-warring with them. If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence, so that people can understand the basis for your concerns. Although bad conduct may seem to be due to bad faith, it is usually best to address the conduct without mentioning motives, which might intensify resentments all around.

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism), nor does assuming good faith prohibit discussion and criticism, as even editors who try to improve Wikipedia may not have the information or skills necessary to succeed in their good-faith goals. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such.

About good faith

Everyone makes mistakes, both behavioral (such as personal attacks) and content-based (such as adding original research). Most of the time, we can correct such mistakes with simple reminders. However, there will be disagreements on Wikipedia for which no policy or guideline has an easy answer. When disagreements happen, ill intent may not be involved. Keep a cool head, and consider dispute resolution if disagreements seem intractable; many of them are not.

Violation of policies—such as engaging in sockpuppetry, violating consensus, and so on—may be perpetrated in either good or bad faith. There are processes for dealing with all of these, and sanctions for repeated violation of policy will apply regardless of whether bad faith was involved or not.

Good faith and newcomers

It is important to be patient with newcomers, who will be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's culture and rules, but may nonetheless turn out to be valuable contributors.

A newcomer's behavior probably seems appropriate to them, and a problem in that regard usually indicates unawareness or misunderstanding of Wikipedian culture. It is not uncommon for a newcomer to believe that an unfamiliar policy should be changed to match their notion of how things should function, especially if they notice that there is already some level of disagreement over the policy in question. Similarly, many newcomers want to have their contributions to articles accepted without question, especially those which pertain to subjects on which they have extensive knowledge. Behaviors arising from these perspectives, while possibly misguided, are usually not malicious and should not be treated as such. Many new users who lack an intuitive grasp of Wikipedia customs are gradually brought around, once the logic behind these customs becomes clearer to them.

Good faith and copyright

Shortcut

WP:AGFCWP:AGFC

When dealing with possible copyright violations, good faith means assuming that editors intend to comply with site policy and the law. That is different from assuming they have actually complied with either. Editors have a proactive obligation to document image uploads, etc. and material may be deleted if the documentation is incorrect or inadequate. Good-faith corrective action includes informing editors of problems and helping them improve their practices.

Good faith and administrative action

When dealing with potential breaches of policy, administrators should not assume editors have breached policy in bad faith without evidence to that effect.

What good faith is not

Shortcut

WP:GFISNOTWP:GFISNOT

Many people misunderstand Wikipedia's "assume good faith" policy as meaning "assume another editor performed due diligence" or "assume blind faith" regarding a reference, editor, or content. However, the actual intention is closer to "presume good intent", which does not mean "I do not have access to a source, so I 'assume good faith' about the source's content," nor does it mean "an editor has removed unreferenced material, so I 'assume good faith' that they've performed due diligence to ensure there are no reliable sources available."

This policy also does not mean you should ignore clear evidence of disruptive behavior or violations of site guidelines or accept all edits without question. Some bad actors may insist that trust in them should be immutable, per "assume good faith", even when there is evidence against this. However, editors should remember to not disregard patterns of harmful editing, nor should they overlook obvious attempts to deceive, vandalize, or push a biased agenda. Instead, "assume good faith" encourages editors to start with the belief that others are trying to improve Wikipedia. When you encounter a problematic edit, it's important to investigate and address it, but do so with the mindset that mistakes can happen and not every error is made with malicious intent. The purpose of assuming good faith is to maintain a collaborative and respectful editing environment.

Demonstrate good faith

Shortcut

WP:DGFWP:DGF

In addition to assuming good faith, encourage others to assume good faith by demonstrating your own good faith. You can do this by articulating your honest motives and by making edits that show your willingness to compromise, interest in improving Wikipedia, adherence to policies and guidelines, belief in the veracity of your edits, avoidance of gaming the system, and other good-faith behavior. Showing good faith is not required, but it aids smooth and successful interactions with editors.

Dealing with bad faith

Shortcut

WP:BFWP:BF

Even if bad faith is evident, do not act uncivilly yourself in return, attack others, or lose your cool over it. It is ultimately much easier for others to resolve a dispute and see who is breaching policies if one side is clearly acting appropriately throughout.

Wikipedia administrators and other experienced editors involved in dispute resolution will usually be glad to help, and are very capable of identifying policy-breaching conduct if their attention is drawn to clear and specific evidence.

Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed; exhortations to "assume good faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others.

Accusing others of bad faith

Shortcut

WP:AOBFWP:AOBF

Avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence in the form of diffs. Making such claims often serves no purpose and could be seen as inflammatory and hence aggravate a dispute. Without clear evidence that the action of another editor is actually in bad faith or harassment, repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack. The result could be accusations of bad faith on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle of unhelpful accusations and counter-accusations.

General notability guideline

Shortcut

WP:GNGWP:GNG

A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.^[1]
Shortcut
- WP:SIGCOVWP:SIGCOV
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
- The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
- Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,^[2] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"Sources"^[3] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.^[4] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.^[5]

If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might nonetheless be useful to discuss it within another article.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

Shortcut

WP:SNGWP:SNG

In some topic areas, subject-specific notability guidelines (SNGs) have been written to help clarify when a standalone article can or should be written. The currently accepted subject guidelines are listed in the box at the top of this page and at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines. Wikipedia articles are generally written based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing with some subject-specific exceptions. The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia.

SNGs also serve additional and varying purposes depending on the topic. Some SNGs, for example the ones in the topic areas of films, biographies, and politicians, provide topic-related guidance when articles should not be created. SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as the treatment of book reviews for our literature guidelines and the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. Some SNGs have specialized functions: for example, the SNG for academics and professors and the SNG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GNG.

Some WikiProjects have provided additional guidance on notability of topics within their field – see Category:WikiProject notability advice and Category:Wikipedia essays about notability. Editors are cautioned that these WikiProject notability guidance pages should be treated as essays and do not establish new notability standards, lacking the weight of broad consensus of the general and subject-specific notability guidelines in various discussions (such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion).

Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists

Shortcuts

The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles. It also does not apply to the contents of stand-alone lists, unless editors agree to use notability as part of the list selection criteria. Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies. For additional information about list articles, see Notability of lists and List selection criteria.

Article content does not determine notability

Shortcuts

Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the topic has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvement to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the topic notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the topic's notability.

Notability requires verifiable evidence

Shortcuts

The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.

No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article

Shortcuts

The absence of sources or citations in a Wikipedia article (as distinct from the non-existence of independent, published reliable sources online or offline) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any.

Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.

The current state of the article does not determine notability
Current state of the article	Sources available in the real world	Result
N No or few suitable sources cited	N No or few suitable sources that could be cited	N Likely not notable
N No or few suitable sources cited	Y Multiple suitable sources that could be cited	Y Likely notable
Y Multiple suitable sources cited	Y Multiple suitable sources that could be cited	Y Likely notable

Notability is not temporary

Shortcuts

Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.

While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, an article may be proposed for deletion months or even years after its creation, or recreated whenever new evidence supports its existence as a standalone article.

Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time

Shortcuts

Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Just as a lagging economic indicator indicates what the economy was doing in the past, a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it". Once established, notability is not temporary. Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described by notability of events. New organizations and future events might pass WP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and these must still also satisfy WP:NOTPROMOTION.

If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.

Similarly, reproductions or close paraphrasing of press releases (aka churnalism) does not count as sustained coverage.

Whether to create standalone pages

Shortcuts

When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic). Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes. Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia, and so the amount of content and details should not be limited by concerns about space availability.

Does other information provide needed context? Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page (Barack Obama 2012 presidential campaign § Other initiatives and Mitt Romney 2012 presidential campaign § International trip, for example). Other times, standalone pages are well justified (as with President of the United States as well as standalone biographies of every individual President). One should particularly consider due and undue weight. Fringe theories, for example, may merit standalone pages but have undue weight on a page about the mainstream concept.
Do related topics provide needed context? Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page (as at Music of the Final Fantasy VII series). Other times, when many similar notable topics exist, it is impractical to collect them into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. In that case, a viable option is creating a new list or category for the broader topic and linking to the individual articles from it (as with Category:Restaurants in New York City).
What sourcing is available now? Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub. On the other hand, an article may be a stub even though many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet. Such a short page is better expanded than merged into a larger page (see also the essays Wikipedia:Every snowflake is unique and Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill). Sometimes, when information about a future event is scarce, coverage may instead be better suited to a larger encompassing article (see also WP:CRYSTAL). Other times, a future event may clearly be suitable for a standalone page before it happens (such as the next upcoming Summer Olympics). However, before creating such an article, make sure that the likelihood of the future event occurring is reasonably assured. For example, the WikiProject Film strongly recommends that a standalone article for a new film be created only if reliable sources confirm that principal photography for the film has commenced (which makes it very likely the film will be completed).

Subject-specific notability guidelines and WikiProject advice pages may provide information on how to make these editorial decisions in particular subject areas. When a standalone page is created, it can be spun off from a broader page. Conversely, when notable topics are not given standalone pages, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them (see also Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap).

Why we have these requirements

Shortcut

WP:WHYNWP:WHYN

Editors apply notability standards to all subjects to determine whether the English language Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article on that subject. The primary purpose of these standards is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies.

We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. (See the advice below.)
We require the existence of "reliable sources" so that we can be confident that we're not passing along random gossip, perpetuating hoaxes, or posting indiscriminate collections of information.
We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization. See Wikipedia:Autobiography for discussion of neutrality concerns of self-published sources.
We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources.
We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view. This is also why multiple publications by the same person or organization are considered to be a single source for the purpose of complying with the "multiple" requirement.
We require editors to use their judgment about how to organize subjects so that we have neither long, bloated articles nor articles so narrow that they cannot be properly developed. Editors may decide that it is better for readers to present a narrow subject as part of a broader one. For example, editors normally prefer to merge information about translations of books into the larger subject of the original book, because in their editorial judgment, the merged article is more informative and more balanced for readers and reduces redundant information in the encyclopedia. (For ideas on how to deal with material that may be best handled by placing it in another article, see WP:FAILN.)

Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria. They do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g. all disambiguation pages and some lists).

Common circumstances

Self-promotion and publicity

Shortcut

WP:SPIPWP:SPIP

Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement, press releases, branding campaigns, advertisements, and paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, company, or vendor) have actually considered the topic worth writing and publishing non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

Independent sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they are not a measure of the attention a subject has received.

Events

Shortcut

WP:SBSTWP:SBST

Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage. The Wikimedia project Wikinews may cover topics of present news coverage. In some cases, notability of a controversial entity (such as a book) could arise either because the entity itself was notable, or because the controversy was notable as an event—both need considering.

Stand-alone lists

Shortcuts

Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.

There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.

Fringe topics

In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight,^[6] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.

There are numerous reasons for these requirements. Wikipedia is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant subjects, and it is not a forum for original research.^[7] For writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality.

The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies: Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence.

Fringe theories and related articles have been the subject of several arbitration cases. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases.

Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines

Shortcut

WP:FAILNWP:FAILN

Topics that do not meet this criterion are not retained as separate articles. Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages, while non-notable topics without such merge targets are generally deleted.

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:

Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject^[8] for advice on where to look for sources.
Place a {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors.
If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context.^[9] Otherwise, if deleting:^[10]

If the article meets our criteria for speedy deletion, one can use a criterion-specific deletion tag listed on that page.
Use the {{prod}} tag for articles which do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but are uncontroversial deletion candidates. This allows the article to be deleted after seven days if nobody objects. For more information, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion.
For cases where you are unsure about deletion, believe others might object, or another editor has already objected to a previous proposed deletion, nominate the article for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for seven days.

For articles on subjects that are clearly not notable, then deletion is usually the most appropriate response, although other options may help the community to preserve any useful material. Since deletion of an article is often heavily contested, editors are advised to thoroughly follow several recommended steps prior to nomination.

Notes

^ Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.
^ Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.
^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.
^ Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are not evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Questionable sources for handling of such situations.
^ See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, in particular Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Due and undue weight.
^ See in particular "Synthesis of published material that advances a position".
^ Sometimes contacting the subject of a biography or the representative of a subject organization will yield independent source material. Of course we have to be careful to observe and evaluate independence. You might also see if there is an active WikiProject related to the topic, and ask for help there.
^ For instance, articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in ..."; articles on schools may be merged into articles on the towns or regions where schools are located; relatives of a famous person may be merged into the article on the person; articles on persons only notable for being associated with a certain group or event may be merged into the main article on that group or event.
^ Wikipedia editors have been known to reject nominations for deletion that have been inadequately researched. Research should include attempts to find sources which might demonstrate notability, and/or information which would demonstrate notability in another manner.

[LoC-1] Library of Congress

[2] "World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)".

[3] Perry's Handbook, Sixth Edition, McGraw-Hill Co., 1984.

[4] Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

[5] Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.

[6] Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.

[7] Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.

[8] Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are not evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Questionable sources for handling of such situations.

[9] See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, in particular Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Due and undue weight.

[10] See in particular "Synthesis of published material that advances a position".

[11] Sometimes contacting the subject of a biography or the representative of a subject organization will yield independent source material. Of course we have to be careful to observe and evaluate independence. You might also see if there is an active WikiProject related to the topic, and ask for help there.

[12] For instance, articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in ..."; articles on schools may be merged into articles on the towns or regions where schools are located; relatives of a famous person may be merged into the article on the person; articles on persons only notable for being associated with a certain group or event may be merged into the main article on that group or event.

[13] Wikipedia editors have been known to reject nominations for deletion that have been inadequately researched. Research should include attempts to find sources which might demonstrate notability, and/or information which would demonstrate notability in another manner.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

v t e Stochastic processes
Discrete time	Bernoulli process Branching process Chinese restaurant process Galton–Watson process Independent and identically distributed random variables Markov chain Moran process Random walk Loop-erased Self-avoiding Biased Maximal entropy
Continuous time	Additive process Airy process Bessel process Birth–death process pure birth Brownian motion Bridge Dyson Excursion Fractional Geometric Meander Cauchy process Contact process Continuous-time random walk Cox process Diffusion process Empirical process Feller process Fleming–Viot process Gamma process Geometric process Hawkes process Hunt process Interacting particle systems Itô diffusion Itô process Jump diffusion Jump process Lévy process Local time Markov additive process McKean–Vlasov process Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process Poisson process Compound Non-homogeneous Quasimartingale Schramm–Loewner evolution Semimartingale Sigma-martingale Stable process Superprocess Telegraph process Variance gamma process Wiener process Wiener sausage
Both	Branching process Gaussian process Hidden Markov model (HMM) Markov process Martingale Differences Local Sub- Super- Random dynamical system Regenerative process Renewal process Stochastic chains with memory of variable length White noise
Fields and other	Dirichlet process Gaussian random field Gibbs measure Hopfield model Ising model Potts model Boolean network Markov random field Percolation Pitman–Yor process Point process Cox Determinantal Poisson Random field Random graph
Time series models	Autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (ARCH) model Autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model Autoregressive (AR) model Autoregressive–moving-average (ARMA) model Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH) model Moving-average (MA) model
Financial models	Binomial options pricing model Black–Derman–Toy Black–Karasinski Black–Scholes Chan–Karolyi–Longstaff–Sanders (CKLS) Chen Constant elasticity of variance (CEV) Cox–Ingersoll–Ross (CIR) Garman–Kohlhagen Heath–Jarrow–Morton (HJM) Heston Ho–Lee Hull–White Korn-Kreer-Lenssen LIBOR market Rendleman–Bartter SABR volatility Vašíček Wilkie
Actuarial models	Bühlmann Cramér–Lundberg Risk process Sparre–Anderson
Queueing models	Bulk Fluid Generalized queueing network M/G/1 M/M/1 M/M/c
Properties	Càdlàg paths Continuous Continuous paths Ergodic Exchangeable Feller-continuous Gauss–Markov Markov Mixing Piecewise-deterministic Predictable Progressively measurable Self-similar Stationary Time-reversible
Limit theorems	Central limit theorem Donsker's theorem Doob's martingale convergence theorems Ergodic theorem Fisher–Tippett–Gnedenko theorem Large deviation principle Law of large numbers (weak/strong) Law of the iterated logarithm Maximal ergodic theorem Sanov's theorem Zero–one laws (Blumenthal, Borel–Cantelli, Engelbert–Schmidt, Hewitt–Savage, Kolmogorov, Lévy)
Inequalities	Burkholder–Davis–Gundy Doob's martingale Doob's upcrossing Kunita–Watanabe Marcinkiewicz–Zygmund
Tools	Cameron–Martin formula Convergence of random variables Doléans-Dade exponential Doob decomposition theorem Doob–Meyer decomposition theorem Doob's optional stopping theorem Dynkin's formula Feynman–Kac formula Filtration Girsanov theorem Infinitesimal generator Itô integral Itô's lemma Karhunen–Loève theorem Kolmogorov continuity theorem Kolmogorov extension theorem Lévy–Prokhorov metric Malliavin calculus Martingale representation theorem Optional stopping theorem Prokhorov's theorem Quadratic variation Reflection principle Skorokhod integral Skorokhod's representation theorem Skorokhod space Snell envelope Stochastic differential equation Tanaka Stopping time Stratonovich integral Uniform integrability Usual hypotheses Wiener space Classical Abstract
Disciplines	Actuarial mathematics Control theory Econometrics Ergodic theory Extreme value theory (EVT) Large deviations theory Mathematical finance Mathematical statistics Probability theory Queueing theory Renewal theory Ruin theory Signal processing Statistics Stochastic analysis Time series analysis Machine learning
List of topics Category

v t e Essays influenced by the assume good faith guideline
Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Assume
Non-humorous essays	Assume high intelligence Assume ignorance Assume no clue Assume the assumption of assuming good faith Assume the assumption of good faith Don't assume
Humorous essays	Assume bad faith Assume faith Assume good wraith Assume stupidity Assume that everyone's assuming good faith, assuming that you are assuming good faith

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Level 5

Level 6

Heading 1

Heading 2

Heading 3

Heading 4

Heading 5

Heading 6

About good faith

Good faith and newcomers

Good faith and copyright

Good faith and administrative action

What good faith is not

Demonstrate good faith

Dealing with bad faith

Accusing others of bad faith

See also

Guidelines

Essays

Articles

General notability guideline

Subject-specific notability guidelines

Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists

Article content does not determine notability

Notability requires verifiable evidence

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article

Notability is not temporary

Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time

Whether to create standalone pages

Why we have these requirements

Common circumstances

Self-promotion and publicity

Events

Stand-alone lists

Fringe topics

Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines

See also

Notes