Kullanıcı:Nanahuatl/Çalışma4

"VP:KD" buraya yönlendirilmektedir. Diğer kullanımlar için VP:KD (anlam ayrımı) sayfasına bakınız.

"WP:NOTE" buraya yönlendirilmektedir. article footnotes için WP:NOTES sayfasına bakınız. instructional and presumptuous language için, MOS:NOTE sayfasına bakınız. notifications için, WP:NOTIFS sayfasına bakınız.

Şablon:Notabilityguide On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.

Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

1. It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG); and
2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list, though notability is commonly used as an inclusion criterion for lists (for example for listing out a school's alumni). For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.

Genel kayda değerlik yönergesi

Bir konu, kendisinden bağımsız ve güvenilir kaynaklarda önemli miktarda bahsedilmişse, o konunun ayrı bir madde ya da liste olarak işlenmeye uygun olduğu varsayılır.

• "Varsayılır" ile, güvenilir kaynaklarda dikkate değer bir şekilde işlenen bir konunun, kendi maddesinin olmasını garanti etmemesi, yalnızca bir varsayım oluşturması kastedilir. Kimi zaman o konunun ayrı bir maddesinin olması, "Vikipedi ne değildir?" politikasını, özellikle de Vikipedi gelişigüzel bilginin toplandığı bir yer değildir kısmını ihlal ettiğinden dolayı derin bir tartışma gerektirebilir. Bununla birlikte, güvenilir kaynaklarda işlenen her içerik, bir madde oluşturulması için başlı başına yeterli değildir. Rehberler, veritabanları, reklamlar, ilan sayfaları ve küçük haber küpürleri, güvenilir kaynak olsalar dahi kayda değerliğin incelenmesinde dikkate alınmayabilecek örneklerdendir.
• "Önemli miktarda" ile, kaynaklarda konunun doğrudan ve ayrıntılı bir şekilde işlenmesi, bu sayede de maddede özgün araştırmanın yer almaması kastedilir. Burada aranan, kaynağın ana konusunun incelenen konu üzerine olması gerekliliği değil, gelişigüzel ve sıradan bir şekilde bahisten fazlası olmasıdır.
  • Necdet Evliyagil'in Anıtkabir üzerine yazdığı kitap, Anıtkabir ile ilgili önemli miktarda içerik barındırır.
  • Bill Clinton ile ilgili bir gazete haberinde yer alan "lisedeyken, Three Blind Mice adlı bir caz grubunun üyesiydi" ifadesi, o gruptan açık bir şekilde önemsiz bir şekilde bahsedilmesine bir örnektir.
• "Güvenilir" ile kaynakların, güvenilir kaynaklar yönergesine uygun olarak, kayda değerliğin doğrulanabilir ölçümüne izin verecek editöryel doğruluğa sahip olması gerektiği kastedilir. Kaynaklar, farklı biçim ve ortamlarda, herhangi bir dilde yayımlanmış olmalıdır. Konuyu işleyen ikincil kaynakların varlığı, kayda değerliğin tespiti için iyi bir yöntemdir.
• "Kaynaklar" ile, kayda değerliğe dair en nesnel kanıtları sunan ikincil kaynaklar kastedilir. Kaynaklarda işlenen içeriğin çeşitli kalite ve derinliklerde olmasından ötürü, sabit bir ihtiyaç duyulan kaynak sayısı olmasa da, genel olarak birden fazla kaynak olması gerekir. Kaynakların çevrimiçi erişilebilir veya Türkçe olması zorunlu değildir. Aynı yazar ya da kuruma ait birden fazla kaynaklar, kayda değerliğin ortaya konulması konusunda genellikle tek bir kaynak olarak kabul edilir.
• "Konudan bağımsız" ile, maddenin konusu ya da konusuyla bağlı birisi tarafından oluşturulan kaynakların, kayda değerliğin tespiti konusunda göz ardı edilmesi gerektiği kastedilir. Örneğin; reklamlar, basın bültenleri, otobiyografiler ve madde konusunun İnternet siteleri, bağımsız değildir.

Konuya özel kayda değerlik yönergeleri

Konuya özel kayda değerlik yönergelerinin tamamı için Kategori:Vikipedi kayda değerlik yönergeleri sayfasına bakınız.

Fikir birliği sonucu bazı konu alanlarında oluşturulan konuya özel kayda değerlik yönergeleriyle, ayrı bir maddenin ne zaman oluşturulabileceği ya da oluşturulması gerektiği netleştirilmeye çalıştırılmıştır.

Mevcut konuya özel kayda değerlik yönergeleri, bu sayfanın sağ üst kısımdaki kutuda veya Kategori:Vikipedi kayda değerlik yönergeleri sayfasında görülebilir. Konuya özel kayda değerlik yönergeleri genelde, bir konunun uygun bir şekilde kaynaklandırılmasının nasıl olacağına dair doğrulanabilir kriterler içerir. Bundan ötürü, bu yönergelerdeki şartları sağlamak, bir madde için başarı kabul edilse de, konuya özel kayda değerlik kriteri yönergesi ya da genel kayda değerlik yönergesindeki şartları sağlalarına rağmen maddeler, özellikle yeterli kaynaklandırma ya da önemli miktarda kaynaklarda işlenme bulunamamışsa yahut konu, bir ansiklopediye uygun değilse, silinebilir ya da başka bir maddeyle birleştirilebilir.

Konuya özel kayda değerlik yönergeleri; maddelerin hangi durumlarda oluşturulmamaları gerektiği, konu özelinde kaynak örnekleri, kaynaklarda konunun nasıl ele alındığı, kayda değerliğe karar vermek için kaynakların nasıl incelenmesi gerektiği gibi ek konulara dair içerik de sunar. Bazı konuya özel kayda değerlik yönergeleri, genel kayda değerlik yönergesinden farklı ilkeler sunar ve bundan bağımsız işler.

Bazı Vikiprojeler, kendi alanlarındaki bazı konular dahilinde birtakım ek kayda değerlik yönergeleri barındırır. Bu sayfalar, geniş çaplı bir fikir birliği sonucu oluşturulmamalarından ötürü bir deneme gibi değerlendirilir ve yeni kayda değerlik standartları getirmezler.

Kayda değerlik yönergeleri, madde içerikleri veya listelerde uygulanmaz

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.

Madde içeriği, kayda değerliğe karar vermez

Kayda değerlik, bir Vikipedi maddesinin içeriğiyle değil, konusuyla ilgilidir. Bu konu Vikipedi dışında işlenmemişse, Vikipedi içeriğinde yapılan hiçbir geliştirme, bu konuyu aniden kayda değer yapmayacaktır. Diğer taraftan, kaynakların var olduğu bir konu, Vikipedi maddesi çok zayıf yazılmış ve kaynaklandırılmış olsa dahi konunun kayda değerliğini azaltmayacaktır.

Kayda değerlik için doğrulanabilir kanıt gerekir

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.

Kayda değerlik, maddenin kaynaklandırılma durumuna değil, geçerli kaynakların varlığına dayanır

The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not 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.

Kayda değerlik geçici değildir

Kayda değerlik geçici değildir ve bir konu herhangi bir zamanda kayda değerlik kriterlerine uygun bir şekilde kayda değer olmuşsa, ilerleyen dönemde bu durum tersine dönmez. Öte yandan mevcut bir maddenin kayda değerliği ya da varlığının uygunluğuna dair kanıtların yeniden değerlendirilmesi, herhangi bir kullanıcı tarafından silinmeye aday gösterilme sürecinde yapılabilir ve bu süreçte, önceleri uygunsuz olduğu düşünülen bazı yeni kanıtlar da ortaya çıkabilir. Böylelikle bir madde, açılmasından aylar, hatta yıllar sonra dahi silinmeye aday gösterilebilir ya da ayrı bir madde olmayı gerektirecek yeni kanıtların ortaya çıkmasıyla birlikte yeniden oluşturulabilir.

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

Ayrıca bakınız: Wikipedia:Notability § Events ve WP:BLP1E

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". 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.

Whether to create standalone pages

Daha fazla bilgi: Wikipedia:Summary style, Wikipedia:Content forking, Wikipedia:Article size ve Wikipedia:Merging

the guideline on red-linked articles in hatnotes için WP:NOARTICLE sayfasına bakınız.

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 presidential campaign, 2012#Other initiatives and Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#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 Wikipedia: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, as completion of the film is generally seen out to the end from this point on.

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).

Neden bu gereklilikler var?

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).

Yaygın durumlar

Self-promotion and publicity

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, 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.

Olaylar

Ana sayfa: Wikipedia:Notability (events)

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

Daha fazla bilgi: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists) § Selection criteria ve Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates § Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative

Ayrıca bakınız: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists § Adding individual items to a list

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; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. 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 items 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.

Uç konular

Ana sayfa: Vikipedi:Uç konular

Kayda değerlik yönergelerini karşılamayan maddeler

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 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. Otherwise, if deleting:

• 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.

Ayrıca bakınız

• An extensive set of subject-specific guideline pages for different aspects of notability can be found at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines, with subject specific essays and proposed guidelines at Category:Wikipedia notability.
• Wikipedia's article on Notability in the English Wikipedia.
• For commentary and discussion of this guideline, see Wikipedia:Essays in a nutshell/Notability and Category:Wikipedia essays about notability.
• Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent, an essay on the difference between first-person, first-party, and primary sources.
• Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources
• Wikipedia:Viability of lists
• Wikipedia:Search engine test [cf. Google (verb) ?]
• Wikipedia:Recentism
• Wikipedia:Relevance of content
• Wikipedia:Categorization § Defining
• No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability
• {{assess table}} and {{source assess}}, two templates used to present an assessment of the sources present in an article
• MOS:NOTE: Manual of Style on "Instructional and presumptuous language"