User:Velella/sandbox/Notability of elections

This page is to help determine whether an election of representatives as part of a democratic political process is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that election. The scope of this guideline covers all elections including supra-national, national, state, county, city, town community or any other local names applied to electoral boundaries.

In this context an election is a formally constituted process for election one or more representatives to serve a community.

Decisions based on verifiable evidence

Main page: Wikipedia:Notability § Notability requires verifiable evidence

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an election is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the election has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the election. Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published—even if these sources are not actually listed in the article yet (though in most cases it probably would improve the article to add them).

Inherent notability of scheduled elections

The majority of elections are not considered inherently notable although it is expected that all scheduled, periodic, National and International elections would inevitably be able to demonstrate notability. If is also likely that in many large countries Periodic schedules State elections or their equivalent would be able to demonstrate notability. All other scheduled periodic elections would need to demonstrate notability using several independent and reliable sources published at a national level. This may occur when a local election is seen as an indicator of a significant political shift in the country and is reported as such. Articles claiming notability are likely to include a significant element of reported analysis together with a summary of the results

When evaluating the notability of elections, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on the political culture or governance within the country

Notability of unscheduled elections

Elections may occur for unexpected reasons such as the death of the incumbent, a constituency boundary realignment or for a number of other reasons.Where the only sources of notability arise from the demise of the previous incumbent then that is not sufficient to establish notability for the election. However if a local unscheduled election takes place and is perceived by multiple reliable and independent sources as a bell-weather for the country or state as a whole, then that may be sufficient to establish notability.

Eelections with notable politicians

An election is not notable merely because a notable person was associated with it. Simply because a notable politician is standing, does not make the election notable. However, the defeat of a current and notable politician might generate reporting of the election which might appear to establish notability. However in almost every case the sources are likely to be referencing the politician and not the election and the new text should be added to the polician's article and not in a newly created article about the election.

Primary criteria

See also: WP:PSTS and Wikipedia:Notability § General notability guideline

An election in a democratic country is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by political and public relations professionals. The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for political canvassing. As such, the guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article.

How to apply the criteria

The primary criteria have five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:

1. significant coverage in
2. independent,
3. multiple,
4. reliable,
5. secondary sources.

Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability. I.e. each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. Then, there must be a multiple of such qualifying sources. If the suitability of a source is in doubt, it is better to exercise caution and to exclude the source for the purposes of establishing notability.

For example, a draft article on the Winchester West 2018 election cites four sources: a single-sentence mention in an article by The New York Times when pointing out a minor traffic violation of one candidate , an extensive political party specific Forbes blog by a non-staff contributor, a blog post from a local party supporter who has provided a Q&A piece, and a court filing by a one party claiming serious electoral irregularities. Analysis:

• The New York Times is reliable, independent, and secondary – but not significant (a single-sentence mention in an article about another company).
• The profile in Forbes blog is significant and secondary – but not independent or reliable (most of such posts are company-sponsored or based on company's marketing materials).
• The blog post is significant and secondary – but not independent (blog posts are often sponsored; thus without evidence otherwise, editors should exercise caution and exclude the source) and not reliable (self-published sources are generally not reliable).
• The court filing is significant, independent, and reliable – but not secondary (court filings are primary sources).

Therefore, the article does not have a single source that could be used to establish the notability of the company, let alone multiple sources. The analysis can be summarized in the following table:

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
New York Times	N	Y	Y	Y	0	A single-sentence mention in an article about another company
Profile in Forbes	Y	N	N	Y	0	Most of such posts are company-sponsored or based on company's marketing materials
Tech blog post	Y	N	N	Y	0	Blog posts are often sponsored and self-published sources are generally not reliable
Court filing	Y	Y	Y	N	0	Court filings are primary sources
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

Significant coverage

The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Elections will always produce statistical results, numbers of votes cast, shifts in fortune of political parties, and extrapolations to State or National levels. Such coverage is not significant. Deep or significant coverage that provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the election and the parties and individuals taking part and which provides a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions, statistical tables and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the election is needed for notability.

Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs. A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant. Views, hits, likes, shares, etc. have no bearing on establishing whether the coverage is significant. Similarly, arbitrary statistics and numbers (such as number of votes cast, % swing to one or other party. % turnout etc.) do not make the coverage significant. For the coverage to be significant, the sources must describe and discuss in some depth the issues at debate and and the responses by the affected parties instead of just listing the fact that the election is taking place with parties x, y and z represented accompanied by statistical tables. Further, the significance is not determined by the reputation of the source. For example, a 400-word article in The Village Voice is a lot more significant than a single-sentence mention in The New York Times. However, the reputation of the source does help to determine whether the source is reliable and independent.

Further, sources are not transferable or attributable between related parties. Therefore, for example, an article on a messy divorce of a prominent politician is significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the politician, but not a significant coverage on the election in which that politician stands unless that divorce is the reason for the election or is a significant issue in the political debate around the election (i.e if the politician has argued strongly against letting couples divorce.)

Examples of trivial coverage

Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement:

• simple listings or compilations, such as:
  • of % turn out, votes cast for each candidate, % shifts in voting patterns in previous elections
  • statistical comparisons with national or supra national patterns of voting

The examples above are not meant to be exhaustive.

See #Product reviews for a full discussion on what reviews of restaurants, events, and products qualify as significant coverage.

Examples of substantial coverage

Examples of substantial coverage that would generally be sufficient to meet the requirement:

• A news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding the conduct of elections in this constituency
• A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on this particular election
• A documentary film exploring allegations of corruption or mismanagement of the election process,

Audience

The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.

Illegal conduct

It is possible that an election that is not itself generally notable will have a number of significant sources discussing illegal conduct financial or administrative of the election conduct. Sources which primarily discuss purely such conduct shall not be used to establish an election's notability per this guideline. However, the election may still be notable, in whole or in part due to such sources, under different guidelines, e.g., WP:CRIME.

Independent sources

See also: WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:COI

A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered the election notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it. One political party promoting its involvement is not a routeto qualifying for an encyclopedia article. There are two types of independence to consider when evaluating sources:

• Independence of the author (or functional independence): the author must be unrelated to the election process or the parties involved. Related persons include personnel affiliated to one of the political parties, individuals trying to cover up irregularities or draw attention away from significant issues sponsors and sponsorees (including astroturfing), and other parties that have something, financially or otherwise, to gain or lose.
• Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties. Too often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

Political publications must be used with great care. Similarly, sources from media organisations that are known to have significant political leanings must be used with great circumspection to avoid unintended bias. If source's independence is of any doubt, it is better to exercise caution and exclude it from determining quality sources for the purposes of establishing notability. If contested, consensus on the use of sources can be sought at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used with appropriate care to verify some of the article's content. 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.

Examples of dependent coverage

Examples of dependent coverage that is not sufficient to establish notability:

• press releases, press kits, or similar public relations materials
• any material which is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism),
• advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of any of the political parties involved.
  • including pieces like "case studies" or "success stories" by Chambers of Commerce, business incubators, consulting firms, etc.
• any paid or sponsored articles, posts, and other publications,
  • including pieces by non-staff "contributors" to Forbes, Huffington Post, Entrepreneur.com, Inc.com, TechCrunch, Medium.com, and other publications that accept public contributions and that do not provide meaningful editorial oversight of the submitted content,
• self-published materials, including vanity press,
• any material written or published, including websites, by any of the parties, its members, or sources closely associated with it, directly or indirectly,
• other works in which a party with a representative fighting an election talks about itself — whether published by itself, or re-printed by other people (for example, self-submitted biographies to Who's Who).

Multiple sources

A single significant independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an election.

"Source" on Wikipedia can refer to the work itself, the author of the work, and/or the publisher of the work. For notability purposes, sources must be unrelated to each other to be "multiple". A story from a single news organization (such as AP) reprinted in multiple newspapers (say, in the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Orlando Sentinel) is still one source (one newspaper article). If multiple journalists at multiple newspapers separately and independently write about the same subject, then each of these unrelated articles should be considered separate sources, even if they are writing about the same event or "story". A series of articles by the same journalist is still treated as one source (one person). The appearance of different articles in the same newspaper is still one source (one publisher). Similarly, a series of books by the same author is one source.

The existence of multiple significant independent sources needs to be demonstrated. Hypothetical sources (e.g. "the company is big/old/important so there must be more sources, I just don't have/can't find them") do not count towards the notability requirement.

The word "multiple" is not a set number and depends on the type of election. Editors should recognize certain biases, such as recentism (greater availability of recent sources) when assessing historical companies or systemic bias (greater availability of English and Western sources) when discussing elections in the developing world. Therefore, for example, a Bangladeshi women's rights organization from the 1960s who succeeded in getting a member elected might establish notability with just one or two quality sources, while the same is not true for City election in Canada

Reliable sources

See also: WP:SOURCE and WP:RS

Reliable sources, generally, are third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Self-published sources are generally not accepted as reliable sources. For a full discussion on what is and what is not a reliable source, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.

Secondary sources

See also: WP:SECONDARY

A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily significant, reliable or independent sources.

A primary source is original material that is close to an event, and is often an account written by people who are directly involved. Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability. In a business setting, frequently encountered primary sources include:

• policy statements
• recitation of local issues and grievances

If it's not notable

Further information: WP:FAILN

Although an election that fails to meet the criteria of this guideline should not have a separate article. In some cases an election may be one of many happening ar around the same time and it may be more appropriate to have an article about that event rather than a single local election. Information about the election may also be included in other ways in Wikipedia provided that certain conditions are met.

Content about the election can be added into relevant articles if it:

• has the appropriate level of detail and significance for that article;
• avoids self-promotion; and
• only includes information that can be verified through independent sources.

For elections local to a city, town, or county, content conforming to the above criteria may be added to articles for that locale. For example, an election that is significant to the political history of a small town might be described in the History or Economy section of the small town.

See also

Essays:

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not LinkedIn
• Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill, on the non-notability of run-of-the-mill organizations and routine media coverage
• Wikipedia:Every snowflake is unique, on the notability provided by professional and reliable critical reviews
• Wikipedia:InstallAware Software, an example of an AfC article which was declined 11 times and gained outside coverage
• WP:MILUNIT, WikiProject Military History essay on notability of units and formations
• WP:B2B, on notability for Internet related, computing, and services businesses