Wikipedia:Độ nổi bật (người)/Nháp
 | Trang này giải thích một hướng dẫn độ nổi bật của Wikipedia tiếng Việt. Đây là tiêu chuẩn đã được chấp thuận mà các thành viên nên cố gắng tuân theo. Vì có thể sẽ có những ngoại lệ, hãy áp dụng nó một cách có ý thức. Bất kỳ thay đổi nào liên quan đến nội dung này nên phản ánh sự đồng thuận. Nếu bạn hoài nghi về hướng dẫn nào đó, hãy thảo luận trước tại trang thảo luận. |
 | Tóm tắt trang này:
|
Trên Wikipedia, độ nổi bật là một bài kiểm tra được sử dụng bởi các biên tập viên để quyết định xem một chủ đề nhất định có đảm bảo bài viết của mình hay không. Đối với mọi người, người là chủ đề của một bài viết tiểu sử nên có "độ nổi bật"[1] hoặc "sự chú ý"[2]—đó là, "thành tích đáng nể"[2] hoặc "đáng kể, thú vị hoặc đủ bất thường để xứng đáng được chú ý hoặc được ghi lại"[1] trong Wikipedia như một tài khoản bằng văn bản về cuộc sống của người đó. "Độ nổi bật" theo nghĩa là nổi tiếng hay phổ biến—mặc dù không liên quan— là thứ yếu.
Hướng dẫn độ nổi bật này cho tiểu sử[3] phản ánh đồng thuận đạt được thông qua các cuộc thảo luận và củng cố bằng thực tiễn đã được thiết lập, và thông báo các quyết định về việc liệu một bài viết về một người có nên được viết không, được hợp nhất, bị xóa, hoặc phát triển hơn nữa. Để được tư vấn về cách viết bài tiểu sử, xem Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography và Wikipedia:Tiểu sử người đang sống.
Tên bài viết nên định nghĩa những gì bài viết nói đến. Nếu có đủ nội dung hợp lệ để điền vào một bài viết về một người, thì tên của người đó (chẳng hạn như "John Doe" hoặc "Jane Doe") sẽ là một tiêu đề thích hợp. Tuy nhiên, nếu chỉ có đủ thông tin về một sự kiện nổi bật liên quan đến người đó, thì bài viết nên có tiêu đề cụ thể về sự kiện đó, chẳng hạn như Cái chết của George Floyd. Đôi khi khi một người nổi tiếng qua đời, có đủ thông tin cho một bài viết về cái chết của họ, chẳng hạn như Cái chết của Michael Jackson hoặc Cái chết của Diana, Vương phi xứ Wales. Nếu một bài viết chính của một người nổi bật quá dài để chứa tất cả các tác phẩm của họ, thì một trang riêng có thể được tạo cho thông tin đó, chẳng hạn như Tiểu sử 12 hoàng đế. Nếu người đó là nạn nhân của một vụ giết người nổi bật, thì một tiêu đề như Nam nhân của công chúa sẽ thích hợp.
Tiêu chí cơ bản[sửa | sửa mã nguồn]
Một người được coi là nổi bật nếu họ đã nhận được sự quan tâm đáng kể trong nhiều nguồn xuất bản[4] nguồn thứ cấp tin cậy, độc lập về trí tuệ của nhau,[5] và độc lập với chủ đề.[6]
- Nếu độ sâu của phạm vi quan tâm trong bất kỳ nguồn nào không đáng kể, thì nhiều nguồn độc lập có thể được kết hợp để chứng minh sự nổi bật; phạm vi quan tâm tầm thường của một chủ đề bởi các nguồn thứ cấp có thể không đủ để thiết lập độ nổi bật.[7]
- Nguồn chính có thể được sử dụng để hỗ trợ nội dung trong một bài viết, nhưng chúng không góp phần chứng minh độ nổi bật của một chủ đề.
Những người đáp ứng các tiêu chí cơ bản có thể được coi là nổi bật mà không đáp ứng các tiêu chí bổ sung dưới đây. Bài viết vẫn có thể không được tạo cho những người như vậy nếu họ thuộc các tiêu chí loại trừ, chẳng hạn như chỉ nổi bật cho một sự kiện duy nhất, hoặc như những người được liệt kê trong Wikipedia:Những gì không phải là Wikipedia.
Tiêu chí bổ sung[sửa | sửa mã nguồn]
Một người có thể sẽ nổi bật nếu họ đáp ứng bất kỳ tiêu chuẩn nào sau đây. Việc không đáp ứng các tiêu chí này không phải là bằng chứng thuyết phục rằng không nên đưa vào một chủ đề; ngược lại, gặp một hoặc nhiều người không đảm bảo rằng một chủ đề nên được đưa vào.
Một người không đáp ứng các tiêu chí bổ sung này có thể vẫn đáng chú ý theo Wikipedia:Độ nổi bật. Biên tập viên có thể thấy các tiêu chí này hữu ích khi quyết định có gắn thẻ bài viết khi cần thêm trích dẫn bổ sung hay không (sử dụng {{BLP sources}}), hoặc thay vào đó bắt đầu một biểu quyết xóa bài.
Tiểu sử bất kỳ[sửa | sửa mã nguồn]
- Người đã nhận được một giải thưởng hoặc danh hiệu nổi bật và có ý nghĩa, hoặc đã được đề cử cho một giải thưởng như vậy nhiều lần.
- Người này đã có một đóng góp được công nhận rộng rãi là một phần của hồ sơ lịch sử lâu dài trong một lĩnh vực cụ thể.[8]
- Người có một mục trong Từ điển tiểu sử quốc gia (Hoa Kỳ) hoặc các công bố tương tự.
Academics[sửa | sửa mã nguồn]
Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.
Creative professionals[sửa | sửa mã nguồn]
Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:
- The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
- The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
- The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
- The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
Crime victims and perpetrators[sửa | sửa mã nguồn]
A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.
Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size.
Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:
For victims, and those wrongly accused or wrongly convicted of crime,
- The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.[9]
For perpetrators,
- The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities.[10]
- The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.[11]
- Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.
Entertainers[sửa | sửa mã nguồn]
Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:
- Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
- Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
- Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
Previous criteria for pornographic actors and models were superseded by the above and the basic guidelines after a March 2019 request for comment.
Military personnel[sửa | sửa mã nguồn]
Politicians and judges[sửa | sửa mã nguồn]
The following are presumed to be notable:
- Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.[12] This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.
- Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[8]
Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.
Sports personalities[sửa | sửa mã nguồn]
A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
Invalid criteria[sửa | sửa mã nguồn]
- That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Jason Allen Alexander is included in the article on Britney Spears and the page Jason Allen Alexander merely redirects to that article.
- Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (for example, Google hits or Alexa ranking), or measuring the number of photos published online. The adult film industry, for example, uses Googlebombing to influence rankings,[13] and for most topics search engines cannot easily differentiate between useful references and mere text matches. For example, while the Alexa Toolbar is useful, its utility is limited by its userbase (numbers and willingness) and by data scarcity (less data tends to raise error margins). When using a search engine to help establish the notability of a topic, evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of the links.
Failing all criteria[sửa | sửa mã nguồn]
If no criterion can be met for either a standalone article or inclusion in a more general article, and improvements have not worked or cannot be reasonably tried, then three deletion procedures can be considered:[14]
- If speedy deletion criterion A7 applies, use the {{db-person}} tag to request speedy deletion.
- For articles that do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but are uncontroversial deletion candidates, use the {{thế:prod}} tag. This allows the article to be deleted after seven days if nobody objects (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 its merits will be discussed for 7 days.
Special cases[sửa | sửa mã nguồn]
Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria[sửa | sửa mã nguồn]
If neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article, but the person meets one or more of the additional criteria:
- Merge the article into a broader article providing context.
- Place a {{Mergeto}} tag on the page, indicating the page where the article may be merged.
- If no article currently exists into which the person can be merged, consider writing the article yourself or request the article be written.
Failure to explain the subject's notability[sửa | sửa mã nguồn]
If an article does not explain the notability of its subject,[15] try to improve it by:
- Adding the {{cleanup biography}} template, which requests birthdate, historical significance, etc.
- Rewriting it yourself
- Asking the article's editor(s) for advice.
Insufficient sources[sửa | sửa mã nguồn]
If an article fails to cite sufficient sources:
- Look for sources yourself
- Ask the article's editor(s) for advice on where to look for sources.
- Put the
{{notability|biographies}}tag on the article to notify other editors. - If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert needed}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.
People notable for only one event[sửa | sửa mã nguồn]
When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.[16]
If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination.
Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have separate articles on the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage. For example, Steve Bartman redirects to Steve Bartman incident. In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved.
Editors are advised to be aware of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people.
It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event. Conversely, a person may be generally famous, but significant coverage may focus on a single event involving that person.
Lists of people[sửa | sửa mã nguồn]
Many articles contain (or stand alone as) lists of people. Inclusion within stand-alone lists should be determined by the normal criteria established for that page. Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:SOURCELIST, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including Wikipedia:Trivia sections).
Family[sửa | sửa mã nguồn]
Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable.
Articles on Wikipedians[sửa | sửa mã nguồn]
Some Wikipedia editors are the subject of an article (see Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles); however, their status as Wikipedian editors by itself has no effect on their notability, regardless of whether they edited Wikipedia before or after their articles were created.[17] (The conflict of interest guideline still has bearing on their editing of articles about themselves.) All articles should be judged solely by applicable content and inclusion guidelines and policies, such as this guideline, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
See also[sửa | sửa mã nguồn]
- Wikipedia:Namechecking (essay)
- Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced
- Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Recently dead or probably dead
- Wikipedia:Diplomatic notability (essay giving examples of the type of diplomats likely to meet notability guidelines)
- Wikipedia:Interviews (essay)
- Wikipedia:What is one event (essay)
- Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual (essay)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Notability guide § People (essay giving examples of the types of persons related to the Catholic Church likely to meet notability guidelines)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide § People (essay giving examples of the types of persons related to military servicemember likely to meet notability guidelines)
- Wikipedia:Don't build the Frankenstein (essay)
- Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state (essay)
- Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (a WikiProject focused on "Wikipedia articles that are perceived as actually being notable that are going through Articles for deletion (AfD)")
Notes[sửa | sửa mã nguồn]
- ^ a b “Notable”. Encarta. Bản gốc lưu trữ ngày 28 tháng 5 năm 2011. Truy cập ngày 13 tháng 12 năm 2018.
- ^ a b “Notable”. American Heritage Dictionary. Truy cập ngày 17 tháng 1 năm 2015.
- ^ While this guideline also pertains to small groups of closely related people such as families, co-authors, and co-inventors, it does not cover groups of unrelated people, which are covered by the notability guideline for organizations and companies.
- ^ What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.
- ^ Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.
- ^ Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not contribute toward notability, nor do web pages about an organization's own staff or members.
- ^ Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. Database sources such as Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database and Internet Adult Film Database are not considered credible since they are, like many wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion. In addition, in cases like the Internet Movie Database, inclusion is routine for people in the associated domain and can therefore especially not be taken as evidence of notability.
- ^ a b Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.
- ^ Example: Matthew Shepard.
- ^ Example: John Hinckley Jr.
- ^ Example: Seung-Hui Cho.
- ^ This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion. Biographers and historians will usually have already written about the past and present holders of major political offices. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless.
- ^ Adrian Degus (19 tháng 2 năm 2014). “SEO: Linking Up in 2014”. XBIZ. Truy cập ngày 26 tháng 2 năm 2014.
Since the early days of our industry we have relied on a standard set of methods to rank our sites for popular keywords, specifically buying and trading links. These two methods have always gone against Google's guidelines, they just didn’t have a reliable way to detect it until now.
- ^ 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.
- ^ The text of an article should include enough information to explain why the person is notable. External arguments via a talk page or AFD debate page are not part of the article itself, and promises on those pages to provide information are not as valid as the existence of the information on the article page itself.
- ^ It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of WP:BIO1E when compared to WP:BLP1E. Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died. Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low profile individuals.
- ^ While actions on Wikipedia can lead to notable topics, such as the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident and the Essjay controversy, the information in those articles is based on independent, third-party sources talking about Wikipedia, rather than Wikipedia itself.