PBC:Notability: Difference between revisions
PeaceDeadC (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
PeaceDeadC (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article. |
If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article. |
||
==Subject-specific notability guidelines== |
|||
{{shortcut|PBC:SNG}} |
|||
{{For|a full list of subject-specific notability guidelines|Category:PBC notability guidelines}} |
|||
In some topic areas, consensus-derived subject-specific notability guidelines (SNGs) have been written as alternative to the general notability guideline to allow for a standalone article. The currently-accepted subject-specific notability guidelines are listed in the box at the top of this page and listed at [[:Category:PBC notability guidelines]]. These subject-specific notability guidelines are generally derived based on verifiable criteria due to accomplishment or recognition in that field that either in-depth, independent sourcing likely exists for that topic but may take time and effort to locate, or that sourcing will likely be written for the topic in the future due to the strength of accomplishment. Thus, we allow for the standalone article on the presumption that meeting the SNG criteria will guarantee the existence or creation of enough coverage to meet GNG. |
|||
These are considered shortcuts to meeting the general notability guideline. A topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline to qualify for a standalone article. Note, however, that in cases where GNG has not been met and a subject's claim to meeting an SNG is weak or subjective, the article may still be deleted or merged: a presumption is neither a guarantee that sources can be found nor a mandate for a separate page. |
|||
Note that in addition to providing criteria for establishing notability, some SNGs also add additional restrictions on what types of coverage can be considered for notability purposes. For example, the [[PBC:NCORP|SNG for companies and organizations]] specifies a very strict set of criteria for sources being considered. SNGs may also include suggested alternatives to deletion in the event that a subject is not found to be notable. |
|||
Revision as of 18:44, 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.
Subject-specific notability guidelines
In some topic areas, consensus-derived subject-specific notability guidelines (SNGs) have been written as alternative to the general notability guideline to allow for a standalone article. The currently-accepted subject-specific notability guidelines are listed in the box at the top of this page and listed at Category:PBC notability guidelines. These subject-specific notability guidelines are generally derived based on verifiable criteria due to accomplishment or recognition in that field that either in-depth, independent sourcing likely exists for that topic but may take time and effort to locate, or that sourcing will likely be written for the topic in the future due to the strength of accomplishment. Thus, we allow for the standalone article on the presumption that meeting the SNG criteria will guarantee the existence or creation of enough coverage to meet GNG.
These are considered shortcuts to meeting the general notability guideline. A topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline to qualify for a standalone article. Note, however, that in cases where GNG has not been met and a subject's claim to meeting an SNG is weak or subjective, the article may still be deleted or merged: a presumption is neither a guarantee that sources can be found nor a mandate for a separate page.
Note that in addition to providing criteria for establishing notability, some SNGs also add additional restrictions on what types of coverage can be considered for notability purposes. For example, the SNG for companies and organizations specifies a very strict set of criteria for sources being considered. SNGs may also include suggested alternatives to deletion in the event that a subject is not found to be notable.
- ↑ 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.