Kullanıcı:Nilolina/Ansiklopediklik

Bir konu eğer birden fazla önemli yayımlanmış, birbirlerinden ve konudan bağımsız kaynakları olan eserde ele alınmışsa ansiklopediktır. Bir maddenin Vikipedi'ye dahil olması için bütün konular minimum derecede ansiklopediklik içermelidirler. Bu gereklilik, konu hakkında doğrulanabilir bir ansiklopedi maddesi yazmak için yeterli kaynak materyal olduğunu garanti eder.

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other. All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable encyclopedia article about the topic.

"Ansiklopedik" burada "dikkate değer, kayda değer, bahsedilmeye değer" anlamında kullanılmıştır. "Göze çarpan veya önemli" anlamında, ya da "ünlü" anlamında değildir. Ünle, şöhretle, önemlilikle bağlantılı değildir. Vikipedistlerin sübjektif değerlendirmesine açık değildir. "Haber değeri taşıyan" anlamına da gelmemektedir.

"Notable" here is used in its adjectival sense of "worthy of being noted" not in its other adjectival sense of "prominent or important", nor in its noun sense of "a celebrity". It is not synomyous with fame or importance. It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. It is not "newsworthiness".

bir tablo yaratacak mıyız bu konuda????

The guidelines in the table on the right have been created, or are under discussion, to set out more precisely some additional criteria in certain areas.

Birincil ansiklopediklik kriteri (The primary notability criterion)

Neredeyse bütün ansiklopediklik yönergeleri ve Vikipedi:Vikipedi ne değildir tarafından paylaşılan birincil kriter, bir tema, kaynakları kendisinden bağımsız olan birden çok yayımlanmış esere konu olmuşsa ansiklopediktir kriteridir.

One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the subject-specific notability guidelines, as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is notŞablon:Fn, is the criterion that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.

• "Yayımlanmış eserleri" oluşturanlar mahsus/özellikle geniş(esaslı?)tir ve gazeteler, kitaplar ve elektronik kitaplar (e-books), magazinler, televizyon ve radyo belgeselleri/dökümanterleri, devlet kurumlarının raporları, bilim dergileri, vs. de dahil olmak ancak bunlarla sınırlı olmamak üzere bütün yayımlanma biçimlerini kapsar.

<-- What constitutes "published works" is intentionally broad and encompasses published works in all forms, including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. -->

• "Bağımsızlık" niteliği şahsen yayımlanmayı, öznel reklamları, şahsen yayımlanmış materyali, otobiyografileri, basın bültenlerini, konuya bağlı diğer eserleri, yaratıcılarını, veya yerleşmiş menfaatleri veya peşin hükümleri olan diğerlerini hariç tutar.

<-- The "independence" qualification excludes all self-publicity, advertising by the subject, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, and other such works affiliated with the subject, its creators, or others with a vested interest or bias.Şablon:Fn -->

• "Non-triviality" is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject.Şablon:Fn
• "Birden çok" niteliği özellikle birden fazla olması dışında kesin bir sayıyı belirtmez. Farklı gazetelerin bir haber ajansından aldıkları aynı makaleyi yayımlaması eserin çokluğu anlamına gelmez.

The "multiple" qualification is intentionally not specific as to number, except that it be more than one. Several newspapers all publishing the same single article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works. But several researchers or journalists all doing their own individual legwork on a single subject and writing their own separate articles is a multiplicity of works, as is one researcher or journalist writing and publishing a series of different articles on a single subject.Şablon:Fn

One rationale for this criterion is that the fact that people independent of a subject have noted that subject in depth (by creating multiple non-trivial published works about it) demonstrates that it is notable.

Ansiklopedik olmayan konularla ilgilenmek/Dealing with non-notable topics

Topics that do not satisfy notability criteria are dealt with in two ways: birleştirme and silme. The most appropriate route depends on how the subject fails to satisfy the criteria (in the main how it fails to satisfy the primary criterion).

Birleştirme/Merging

A topic can fail to satisfy the criteria because, though it may be found in published works that are not simple directories and that are from sources that are independent of the subject, it is mentioned trivially rather than being an in-depth subject of the works. Information which is given only superficial treatment or which is tangentially mentioned in discussions surrounding the actual focus of a work, is not sufficient to build a full, sourced encyclopedia article that stands independent of the main subject.

One common recommendation across all notability guidelines is not to nominate articles on such subjects for deletion but to rename, refactor, or merge them into articles with broader scopes, or into the articles that discuss the main subject, which may be created if they do not already exist.Şablon:Fn

İlgili konu ve sorunlar için Vikipedi:Tarafsız bakış açısı#Yersiz önem verme, Wikipedia:Content forking, and Wikipedia:Summary style sayfalarına bakınız.

Silme

A topic can fail to satisfy the criteria because there are insufficient published works from reliable sources that are independent of the subject.Şablon:Fn Without such sources, a proper encyclopedia article cannot be built at all. Such articles are usually nominated for deletion, via one of the Wikipedia deletion processes.Şablon:Fn

İlgili konu ve sorunlar için Vikipedi:Otobiyografi and Vikipedi:Bağımsız kaynaklar sayfalarına bakınız.

Yayımlanmış bir eserde gerçeklenemeyen konular doğrulanamazlar ve silinmelidirler.

Rationale for requiring a level of notability

• In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources.
• In order to have a neutral article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors.
• Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

Ansiklopediklik sübjektif (öznel) değildir Notability is not subjective

Öznel değerlendirmeler, bir konunun Vikipedi'ye dahil olup olmadığını belirlemek için uygun değildir. Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc.

Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy.

Ansiklopediklik kalıcıdır

Eğer bir temayı konu olan birden fazla güvenilir yayımlanmış kaynak varsa konunun dışarıdan takip edilip hakkında yazılması aynı sıklıkta tekrarlanmaması konunun artık ansiklopedik olmadığı anlamına gelmez. Bu suretle, eğer bir tema birincil ansiklopediklik kriterine uyuyorsa zaman içinde de uymaya devam eder.

Temaların Vikipedi içerisinde ansiklopedikliklerini etkileyebilecek diğer etkenler, politika ve yönergeler ve fikir birliğinin zaman içerisinde değişebilmesidir.

If there are multiple independent reliable published sources that have a topic as their subject, this is not changed by a lack of continued frequency of external coverage. Thus, if a topic satisfies the primary notability criterion, it continues to satisfy it over time.

Other factors that may influence the notability of topics in the context of Wikipedia include the fact that policy and guidelines as well as consensus can change over time.

Ayrıca bakınız

Essays related to notability:

• Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - An essay arguing against the use of subjective criteria such as "I like it" and "I don't like it"
• Wikipedia:Independent sources - An essay explaining further why independent sources are needed to write an encyclopedia article.
• User:Uncle G/On notability - An essay on the necessity of considering notability to determine inclusion or exclusion of articles. This essay is the source of the Primary Notability Criterion, described above.
• Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments - A list of arguments for both application and non-application of notability.

Notlar

• Şablon:Fnb That is, "has been featured in several external sources" — "featured" and "several" corresponding to "non-trivial" and "multiple".
• Şablon:Fnb Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the subject. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material. Also see Wikipedia:Independent sources.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it.
• Şablon:Fnb Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The 1 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.  ) is plainly trivial.
• Şablon:Fnb In other words, a single subject that is discussed by multiple authors in their own separate works qualifies as having been discussed in multiple published works, even though those authors may have all written about the subject at the same time.
• Şablon:Fnb Some examples:
  • Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) recommends that individual articles on minor characters in a work of fiction be merged into a "list of minor characters in ..." page.
  • Wikipedia:Notability (schools) recommends that individual articles on schools where there are no non-trivial published works from sources other than the school itself be merged into articles on the towns or regions where schools are located, or into articles on the school districts, education authorities, or other umbrella school organizations as appropriate.
  • Non-prominent relatives of a famous person tend to be merged into the article on the person, and articles on persons who are only notable for being associated with a certain event tend to be merged into the main article on that event.
  • An article on a band that doesn't satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability (music) criteria, such as the garage band that John Kerry used to play in, is merged into John Kerry.
• Şablon:Fnb In other words, the only discussion of the subject is in published works from sources that are not independent of the subject, such as autobiographies.
• Şablon:Fnb Wikipedians have been known to frown on nominations that have been inadequately researched.