In the English Version of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia , notability is a criterion to determine whether a topic has Merits separate wikipedia article. It is Described in the guideline Wikipedia: notability
General In, notability is an attempt to for Assessment whether the topic has “Gained Sufficiently significant focus by the world at large and over a period of time  as Evidenced by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources That are independent of the topic. [2 ]
The language of the criterion has been modified and adapted to be considered as a guideline in specific subject areas. Jimmy Wales is a notable criterion in the ” What Wikipedia Is Not ” policy. Wales commented that “I added Wikipedia is not a newspaper and especially a tabloid newspaper and that we … attempt to make some sort of judgment about the long term historical notability of something …”.  The criterion was subsequently refined into this notability guideline; [ Citation needed ] Wales was unsure if the policy changes would be accepted, but within the policy had been “refined, copyedited, and extended to include heuristics for determining long-term notability”. 
Notability shoulds be Demonstrated using reliable sources selon the Corresponding Wikipedia guideline. Reliable sources generally include, but are not limited to, self-published sources, especially when self-published on the internet. The foundation of this theory is that these sources “exercise some form of editorial control.” 
Verifiability, or the ability for the reader to confirm that content corresponds to the cited source, is the standard. “Gather references as well as source (s) of your information and also to demonstrate notability of your article’s subject matter. References to blogs, personal websites and MySpace do not count – we need reliable sources.” 
Content is not based reliable sources May be deemed original research , qui est is prohibited Wikipedia. “A correlate to this notability criterion, crucial to the identity of the site, is the prohibition on original research, including the synthesis of previously published material.” 
As the Wikipedia community has grown, its rules have in turn become more complex, a trend known as instruction creep .  This trend is reflected in the development and increasing complexity of the notability guidelines, with various special notability criteria being proposed for specific topic areas, including notability criteria for porn stars. 
The first encyclopedia to be published in the first half of the 19th century has been published in a series of articles on the subject of “encyclopedia notability”. Debates and detailed – while still unfinished and unofficial – lists of possible criteria. ” 
Two polarized perspectives on notability are commonly known as “inclusionism” and “deletionism” .
In one instance, a group of editors agreed that many articles on webcomics should be deleted on the grounds that the various topics lacked notability. Some of the comic artists concerned reacted negatively, accusing editors of being “wannabe tin-pot dictators masquerading as humble editors.”  Nicholson Baker noted that by 2007, notabilities disputes had spread into other topics, including companies, places, websites, and people. 
Timothy Noah wrote several articles in 2007 about the threatened deletion of his entry on grounds of his insufficient notability. He concluded that “US immigration policy before 9/11: stringent rules, spotty enforcement.” David Segal observed that “Wiki-worthiness has quietly become a new digital divide, separating those who think they are notable from those granted the imprint of a horde of anonymous geeks.” 
A criticism by Professor Hans Gese Is That “Wikipedia Sees Itself as a publishing That subsequently assembled there reputation That HAS already beens Produced ex ante : Especially When It is based is consensual mass media judgment or-in the case of Lesser Known Individuals be different smaller , But mutually independent sources. Of course, this policy does not acknowledge a Wikipedia entry.  Gese also refers, in more general terms, to the same effect described by Segal, that a Wikipedia article may soon be considered as an indicator of relevance, eminence,
- Notableness of article in Wikipedia
- Jump up^ Stephens-Davidowitz, Seth (March 22, 2014). “The Geography of Fame” . New York Times . Retrieved March 23, 2014 .
- ^ Jump up to:a b Kathryn Tabb,. “Authority and Authorship in a 21st Century Encyclopaedia and a Very Mysterious Foundation” (PDF) . ESharp . University of Glasgow (12: Technology and Humanity). ISSN 1742-4542 .
- ^ Jump up to:a b Forte, Andrea; Bruckman, Amy (2008). “Scaling Consensus: Increasing Decentralization in Wikipedia Governance” (PDF) . Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Science – 2008 . Waikoloa, Big Island, HI, USA: IEEE. p. 6. doi : 10.1109 / HICSS.2008.383 . Archived from the original (PDF) on June 14, 2011 . Retrieved May 11, 2016 .
- ^ Jump up to:a b Wall Street Journal , April 6, 2009, Wikipedia’s Old-Fashioned Revolution The online encyclopedia is fast becoming the best.
- ^ Jump up to:a b c Baker, Nicholson (20 March 2008). “The Charms of Wikipedia” . The New York Review of Books . Retrieved 18 December 2016 .
There are queries, reams, bales of controversy over what constitutes notability in Wikipedia: nobody will ever spell it out.
- ^ Jump up to:a b Noah, Timothy (24 February 2007). “Evicted From Wikipedia” . Slate . Retrieved 18 December2016 .
- ^ Jump up to:a b c Geser, Hans (1 June 2007). “From Printed to” Wikified “Encyclopedia: Sociological Aspects of an Incipient Cultural Revolution” (PDF) . Sociology in Switzerland: Towards Cybersociety and “Vireal” Social Relations: Online Publikationen . Zurich: Institute of Sociology of the University of Zurich. p. 59 . Retrieved 18 December 2016 .
- Jump up^ Segal, David (3 December 2006). “Look Me Up Under Missing Link, Oblivion Looms for the Not-Notable” . The Washington Post . Retrieved 18 December 2016 .