PBC:Notability: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
PeaceDeadC (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{short description|Guideline on article inclusion criteria for Wikimedia projects (Wikipedia, Wiktionary and others)}} {{Redirect|PBC:N|the neutrality policy|PBC:NPOV}} {{Red...") |
PeaceDeadC (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to [[PBC:Merging|merge]] or group two or more related topics into a single article. These guidelines only outline how suitable a {{em|topic}} is for {{em|its own article or list}}. They {{em|do not}} limit the {{em|content}} of an article or list, though notability is commonly used as an inclusion criterion for lists. For PBC's policies regarding content, ''see'' [[PBC:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]], [[PBC:Verifiability|Verifiability]], [[PBC:No original research|No original research]], [[PBC:What PBC is not|What PBC is not]], and [[PBC:Biographies of living persons|Biographies of living persons]]. |
This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to [[PBC:Merging|merge]] or group two or more related topics into a single article. These guidelines only outline how suitable a {{em|topic}} is for {{em|its own article or list}}. They {{em|do not}} limit the {{em|content}} of an article or list, though notability is commonly used as an inclusion criterion for lists. For PBC's policies regarding content, ''see'' [[PBC:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]], [[PBC:Verifiability|Verifiability]], [[PBC:No original research|No original research]], [[PBC:What PBC is not|What PBC is not]], and [[PBC:Biographies of living persons|Biographies of living persons]]. |
||
== General notability guideline == |
|||
<!-- "PBC:Notability (people)#Basic criteria" links here --> |
|||
{{shortcut|PBC:GNG|PBC:SIGCOV}} |
|||
If a topic has received {{strong|significant coverage}} in {{strong|[[PBC:reliable sources|reliable sources]]}} that are {{strong|[[PBC:Independent sources|independent]] of the subject}}, it is {{strong|presumed}} to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. |
|||
* "'''Significant coverage'''" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that [[PBC:No original research|no original research]] is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. |
|||
* "'''Reliable'''" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow [[PBC:Verifiability|verifiable]] evaluation of notability, per [[PBC:Reliable sources|the reliable source guideline]]. Sources may encompass [[PBC:Published|published]] works in all forms and media, and [[PBC:NONENG|in any language]]. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. |
|||
* "Sources"<ref>Including <em>but not limited to</em> newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.</ref> should be [[PBC:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|'''secondary sources''']], as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but [[PBC:Multiple sources|multiple sources are generally expected]].<ref>Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.</ref> Sources do {{em|not}} have to be [[PBC:SOURCEACCESS|available online]] or [[PBC:NONENG|written in English]]. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. |
|||
* "'''Independent of the subject'''" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.<ref>Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: [[PBC:Verifiability#Questionable sources]] for handling of such situations.</ref> |
|||
* "Presumed" means that significant coverage [[PBC:RS|in reliable sources]] creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates [[PBC:What PBC is not|what PBC is not]], particularly the rule that [[PBC:INDISCRIMINATE|PBC is not an indiscriminate collection of information]].<ref>Moreover, not all coverage in [[PBC:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as [[PBC:RS|reliable sources]].</ref> |
|||
If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article. |
|||
Revision as of 18:35, 25 August 2020
| File:Blue check.png | This page documents an English Porn Base Central notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. |
<section begin=nutshell />
 | This page in a nutshell: PBC articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of PBC. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. |
<section end=nutshell />
| Notability |
|---|
| Subject-specific guidelines |
| See also |
On Porn Base Central, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.
Information on PBC must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. PBC's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.
A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
- It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
- It is not excluded under the What PBC is not policy.
This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list, though notability is commonly used as an inclusion criterion for lists. For PBC's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What PBC is not, and Biographies of living persons.
General notability guideline
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
- "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
- "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
- "Sources"[1] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[2] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
- "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[3]
- "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what PBC is not, particularly the rule that PBC is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[4]
If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.
- ↑ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
- ↑ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.
- ↑ Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: PBC:Verifiability#Questionable sources for handling of such situations.
- ↑ Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.