Within the scope of speedy deletion criterion A7, an article can be deleted if it's about a real person, an individual animal, a group or corporation, event, or Web content, and it does not contain a credible claim of significance or importance. This essay strives to provide a comprehensive overview of common such claims, similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes.

Common claims of significance or importance[edit]

The following is a list of common claims of significance or importance that, if credible, may be sufficient to pass this threshold. Note that "significance or importance" is intentionally a lower criterion than "notability", and that "credible" does not mean "proven".

These claims are only presented as ways to determine if an existing article should be, or remain, tagged for A7. They are not designed to be used in assessing notability, nor in determining whether or not to approve a draft in an AfC review (it should be noted that drafts cannot be deleted under A7, A9, or A11 even in the absence of any claim of significance). Nor can they include all possible claims of significance. An article may well make a less usual claim of significance that is not mentioned here, but is enough to stop an A7. Indeed an article may not include any of these common claims but still be found notable on other grounds.

All subjects

People

All people

Notes:
Simply being associated with someone notable is not necessarily sufficient, however. A sufficient claim of significance/importance generally exists if a casual reader can expect to find some information about the subject somewhere on Wikipedia, albeit not necessarily in a stand-alone article. In such cases alternatives to deletion such as redirecting and/or merging the information to the article about the notable individual may be preferable to deletion, and discussion of the subject at articles for deletion is preferred to speedy deletion.
As usual, especially when it comes to articles about living people, editors should utilize common sense in determining if a relationship meets the A7 bar, while remembering that erring on the side of caution and inviting a wider discussion is preferable in most cases.

Actors

Journalists

Athletes

Musicians

Business

Politicians

Computers and Websites

Artists

Academics

Royalty and nobility

Organizations

Bands

Companies

Sport clubs and teams

Other organizations

Web content

Events


Other indicators for ineligibility[edit]

Even if the article does not contain a claim of significance or importance, the subject might be suitable for inclusion. If the subject has an article in a different Wikipedia (see "languages" tab), check whether that article has more information on the subject and/or sources. Especially with foreign-language subjects there is often a high likelihood that the subject is indeed notable but the creator is not able to convey this sufficiently. In these cases, it is often advisable to tag the article with the appropriate ((expand language)) template instead.


References[edit]

  1. ^ Per discussions at WT:CSD (see Archive 38, Archive 44, Archive 45, Archive 52, Archive 78) any article that contains at least a link to coverage in non-local newspapers is usually exempt from A7, unless it's crystal-clear that there won't be more coverage than that.
  2. ^ Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 10
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w Per this RfC, a strong connection with a notable entity indicates significance. The RfC urged editors to apply commonsense when considering whether a connection implied significance.
  4. ^ a b c d e f g See lengthy discussion at WT:CSD, Archive 43.
  5. ^ a b See discussion at WT:CSD, Archive 42.
  6. ^ See discussion at WT:CSD, Archive 36.
  7. ^ See discussions at WT:CSD Archive 37, Archive 39 and Archive 42.
  8. ^ See discussion at WT:CSD, Archive 43.

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k These are claims of the higher standard of notability, and therefore exceed the significance standard needed to survive A7 deletion.

See also[edit]