ৱিকিপিডিয়া:উল্লেখযোগ্যতা

এই পৃষ্ঠাখন অসমীয়া ৱিকিপিডিয়াৰ সম্পাদনাৰ পথনিৰ্দেশিকা থকা প্ৰবন্ধ। এয়া হৈছে সাধাৰণতে স্বীকৃত মানদণ্ড যাক সম্পাদকসকলে অনুসৰণ কৰিবলৈ চেষ্টা কৰা উচিত, যদিও ইয়াক সাধাৰণ জ্ঞানৰ সৈতে সৰ্বশ্ৰেষ্ঠ ব্যৱহাৰ কৰা হয়, আৰু মাজে মাজে ব্যতিক্ৰমো হ'ব পাৰে। এই পৃষ্ঠাৰ যিকোনো গুৰুত্বপূৰ্ণ সম্পাদনাই সহমত প্ৰতিফলিত কৰিব লাগে। যদি ইয়াৰ কোনো বিষয় স্পষ্ট হোৱা নাই, প্ৰথমে আলোচনা পৃষ্ঠাত আলোচনা কৰক।

চমুপথবোৰ: WP:N WP:NN WP:NOTE

সংক্ষেপে এই পৃষ্ঠাখন: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.

If you want to ask advice whether an article topic is likely to be notable please visit the notability noticeboard.

ৱিকিপিডিয়াত উল্লেখযোগ্যতা হৈছে সম্পাদকসকলে কোনো বিষয়ৰ নিজা প্ৰবন্ধ থাকিব পাৰে নে নাই সেয়া নিৰ্ণয় কৰিবলৈ ব্যৱহাৰ কৰা নীতি। ৱিকিপিডিয়াত থকা যিকোনো তথ্য সত্যাপনযোগ্য (verifiable) হোৱাৰ দৰকাৰ; যদিহে কোনো এটা বিষয়ৰ ওপৰত নিৰ্ভৰযোগ্য আৰু তৃতীয় পক্ষ (third-party)ৰ পৰা তথ্য উৎস পোৱা নাযায়, তেন্তে সেই বিষয়ৰ ওপৰত পৃথককৈ প্ৰৱন্ধ সৃষ্টি কৰা উচিত নহয়। ৱিকিপিডিয়াৰ উল্লেখযোগ্যতাৰ ধাৰণাটোৱে বিষয়সমূহৰ বিষম্যহীন অন্তৰ্ভুক্তি (indiscriminate inclusion) এৰাই চলিবলৈ এটা প্ৰাথমিক মানদণ্ড (basic standard) প্ৰয়োগ কৰে। প্ৰবন্ধ আৰু তালিকাৰ বিষয়সমূহ উল্লেখযোগ্য হ'ব লাগিব, বা "জনাৰ যোগ্য (worthy of notice)" হ'ব লাগিব। উল্লেখযোগ্যতা নিৰ্ণয় কৰাটো কেৱল খ্যাতি, গুৰুত্ব বা জনপ্ৰিয়তাৰ দৰে কথাৰ ওপৰত নিৰ্ভৰশীল নহয়। তথাপি এই কাৰকসমূহে নিম্নোল্লিখিত নীতি বা নিৰ্দেশনা পূৰণ কৰি বিষয় এটাৰ গ্ৰহণযোগ্যতা বৃদ্ধি কৰিব পাৰে।

এটা বিষয়ৰ ওপৰত ৱিকিপিডিয়াত প্ৰৱন্ধ সৃষ্টি কৰিবলৈ হ'লে ই তলৰ সাধাৰণ উল্লেখযোগ্যতা নিৰ্দেশনা পূৰণ কৰিব লাগিব আৰু যদিহে ৱিকিপিডিয়া কি নহয় ৰ অধীনত তেনে বিষয় এটা বাদ দিয়া নহয়। কোনো এটা বিষয়ে যদি সোঁফালে থকা বাকচটোত তালিকাভুক্ত বিষয়-নিৰ্দিষ্ট নিৰ্দেশনাত উল্লেখ কৰা মাপকাঠী পূৰণ কৰে তেতিয়াও সেই বিষয়টো উল্লেখযোগ্য বুলি ধৰা হয়।

These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.

সাধাৰণ উল্লেখযোগ্যতা নিৰ্দেশনা

চমুপথবোৰ: WP:GNG WP:SIGCOV

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.^[1]
"Reliable" means 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",^[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.^[3] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be 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 those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.^[4]
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.^[5]

A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.

Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article

চমুপথবোৰ: WP:NNC WP:N#NCONTENT WP:NLISTITEM

The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. For additional information about list articles, see Notability and lists and Lead and selection criteria.

Notability requires verifiable evidence

চমুপথ: WP:NRVE

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. The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable.

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.

Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. 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. 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. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.

Notability is not temporary

চমুপথবোৰ: WP:N#TEMP WP:NTEMP

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 re-assessment 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. As a result articles may be proposed for deletion or recreated months or even years after being earlier considered.

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

Common circumstances

Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity

চমুপথ: WP:SPIP

Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability:

Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement 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 notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

Neutral sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written—self-published sources cannot be assumed neutral; see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received.

Events

প্ৰধান পৃষ্ঠা: 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 covers 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

চমুপথবোৰ: WP:NOTESAL WP:LISTN

অতিৰিক্ত তথ্য: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists)

Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. A list topic is considered notable 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 the size of large lists by including entries only for items that are independently notable or already have 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 whether there are other means of forming stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in WP:NOT. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.

Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines

চমুপথ: WP:FAILN

Articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, although there are alternatives.

For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.

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^[6] 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.^[7] Otherwise, if deleting:^[8]

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 or believe others might object, 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.

Notes

↑ Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1240962,00.html. ) is plainly trivial.
↑ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and scientific 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 unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.
↑ 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.
↑ 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 a Wikipedia project 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.

[1] Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1240962,00.html. ) is plainly trivial.

[2] Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and scientific 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.

[3] 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.

[4] Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.

[5] 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.

[6] 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 a Wikipedia project related to the topic, and ask for help there.

[7] 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.

[8] 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]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]