This is an explanatory essay about the Wikipedia:Deletion policy page. This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. |
There have been many Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (AfD) debates over the years. This page summarizes how various types of articles, subjects, and issues have often been dealt with on AfD.
For an archive of this page, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents/Archive.
This page summarizes what some editors believe are the typical outcomes of past AfD discussions for some commonly nominated subjects.
This page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones. The community's actual notability guidelines are listed in the template at the right. Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, not their subjective importance or relationship to something else. All articles should be evaluated individually on their merits and their ability to conform to standard content policies such as Verifiability and Neutral point of view.
As guidelines and actual practice change, this page should be updated to reflect current outcomes.
Avoid over-reliance on citing these "common outcomes" when stating one's case at Articles for Deletion. While precedents can be useful in helping to resolve notability challenges, editors are not necessarily bound to follow past practice. When push comes to shove, notability is demonstrated by the mustering of evidence that an article topic is the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources.
This page simply attempts to summarize Wikipedia's common daily practice with respect to deletion debates. If you feel that an outcome common to articles like the one you are discussing does not apply, then give a common-sense or guidelines-based reason why it shouldn't apply. Avoid weak or illogical arguments, such as "Notability is only an optional guideline" or "We always keep these articles".
You can use the template {{Outcomes}} to link to this section.
A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. However, there is still a lot of debate on notability.
The closure of this February 2017 RFC provided the following RfC nutshell results regarding the above section:
|
The general notability guideline is the guideline of import for determining the notability of broadcast media outlets, per a 2021 RfC.
There are no special notability guidelines about monarchs, nobility and their descendants. The guidelines for politicians are applied to those who have exercised political authority. As such, kings and queens regnant, as well as nobles who have ruled a territory or served as head of state are presumed to be notable. The notability of their spouses (kings and queens consort), as well as other nobility (dukes, counts, barons, knights, etc.) is decided on a case-by-case basis based on the general notability guideline, although kings and queens consort are generally found to be notable.
The descendants of monarchs or nobles, especially deposed ones, are not considered notable for this reason alone. The principle that Wikipedia articles are not genealogical entries is often mentioned in this context. But persons who are active in their capacity as a member of a royal house or as a holder of a title of nobility will often receive media coverage for it, which may help establish their notability according to the general notability guideline.