Wikipedia:One hundred words
 |
This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
At the present time, the general notability guideline provides inadequate guidance as to what level of coverage is significant. The example presently offered, which is two large books, would be so absurd a maxima that it cannot possibly be intended to be taken seriously as a practical aid to decision making, it being inconceivable that such a level of coverage, or anything approaching it, would ever be expected for any topic. It is therefore suggested that one hundred non-repetitious words, written in more or less continuous prose,[1] in one or more sources, is clearly significant coverage in all cases. This figure is, however, only suggested as a maximum. Fifty such words would likely be significant.
[These numbers were inspired by the length of articles in the New Discovery Encyclopedia (Rainbow Books, 1990), though they are not averages or any other kind of statistic. They roughly correspond with the length of a decent sized paragraph. They also happen to be round numbers.]
Notes[edit]
- ^ Publications such as biographical dictionaries are sometimes written in a highly abbreviated language that conveys more information in fewer words. If a source is written in language that looks more like a set of notes than complete sentences, the figures offered in this essay will be too high.
