PBC:Notability: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
PeaceDeadC (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
PeaceDeadC (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 47:
{{shortcut|PBC:ARTN|PBC:CONTN}}
Notability is a property of a {{em|subject}} and not of a PBC article. If the subject has not been covered outside of PBC, [[PBC:OVERCOME|no amount of improvements]] to the PBC content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a PBC article will not decrease the subject's notability.
== <span id="TEMP" ></span>Notability is not temporary ==
{{Shortcut|PBC:NTEMP|PBC:NOTTEMPORARY|PBC:15MOF<!-- other variations that come here, but they don't all need to be shown in the list: [[PBC:15MIN]] [[PBC:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY]] -->}}
{{anchor|TEMP|is not temporary}}Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.
While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a [[PBC:AFD|deletion discussion]], or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, an article may be proposed for deletion months or even years after its creation, or recreated whenever new evidence supports its existence as a standalone article.
{{anchor|SUSTAINED}}
== Whether to create standalone pages ==
{{Shortcut|PBC:PAGEDECIDE|PBC:NOPAGE}}
{{Further|PBC:Summary style|PBC:Content forking|PBC:Article size|PBC:Merging}}
When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in PBC, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic. Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal [[PBC:ILIKEIT|likes]] or [[PBC:IDONTLIKEIT|dislikes]]. PBC is a [[PBC:NOTPAPER|digital encyclopedia]], and so the amount of content and details should not be limited by concerns about space availability.
* '''Does other information provide needed context?''' Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page. Other times, standalone pages are well justified. One should particularly consider [[PBC:DUE|due and undue weight]].
* '''Do related topics provide needed context?''' Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page. Other times, when many similar notable topics exist, it is impractical to collect them into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. In that case, a viable option is creating a new list or category for the broader topic and linking to the individual articles from it.
* '''What sourcing is available now?''' Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a [[PBC:PERMASTUB|permanent stub]]. On the other hand, an article may be a stub even though many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet. Such a short page is better expanded than merged into a larger page. Sometimes, when information about a future event is scarce, coverage may instead be better suited to a larger encompassing article (see also [[PBC:CRYSTAL]]). Other times, a future event may clearly be suitable for a standalone page before it happens. However, before creating such an article, make sure that the likelihood of the future event to happen is reasonably assured.
== Why we have these requirements ==
{{shortcut|PBC:WHYN}}
Editors apply notability standards to all subjects to determine whether the English language PBC should have a separate, stand-alone article on that subject. The primary purpose of these standards is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies.
* We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a [[PBC:PBC is not a dictionary|definition]] of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be [[PBC:Merging|merged]] into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. (See [[PBC:FAILN|the advice below]].)
* We require the existence of [[PBC:Reliable sources|"reliable sources"]] so that we can be confident that we're not passing along random gossip, perpetuating hoaxes, or posting [[PBC:IINFO|indiscriminate collections of information]].
* We require that all articles rely primarily on [[PBC:Independent sources|"third-party" or "independent sources"]] so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with [[PBC:Neutral point of view|PBC's neutral point of view policy]] and to ensure that articles are [[PBC:NOTADVERTISING|not advertising]] a product, service, or organization.
* We require the existence of at least one [[PBC:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources|secondary source]] so that the article can comply with [[PBC:No original research]]'s requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources.
* We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with [[PBC:Neutral point of view]], rather than representing only one author's point of view. This is also why multiple publications by the same person or organization are considered to be a single source for the purpose of complying with the "multiple" requirement.
* We require editors to use their judgment about how to organize subjects so that we have neither long, bloated articles nor [[PBC:Permastub|articles so narrow that they cannot be properly developed]]. Editors may decide that it is better for readers to present a narrow subject as part of a broader one. For example, editors normally prefer to merge information about translations of books into the larger subject of the original book, because in their editorial judgment, the merged article is more informative and more balanced for readers and reduces redundant information in the encyclopedia. (For ideas on how to deal with material that may be best handled by placing it in another article, see [[PBC:FAILN]].)
Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the [[PBC:GNG|general notability criteria]]. They do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g. all [[PBC:Disambiguation|disambiguation]] pages and [[PBC:LSC|some lists]]).
== Common circumstances ==
=== <span id="SPIP" ></span>Self-promotion and publicity ===
{{Shortcut|PBC:SPIP}}
Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. [[PBC:Promotion|PBC is not a promotional medium]]. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most [[PBC:Paid editing|paid material]] are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.
Independent sources are also needed to guarantee a [[PBC:NPOV|neutral article]] can be written; see [[PBC:Autobiography]] for discussion of neutrality concerns of self-published sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they are not a measure of the attention a subject has received.
=== {{anchor|SBST}}Events ===
{{shortcut|PBC:SBST}}
{{main|PBC:Notability (events)}}
[[PBC:NOTNEWS|PBC is not a news source]]: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and [[Tabloid journalism#To refer to sensationalist journalistic practices|tabloid journalism]] is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage.
=== Stand-alone lists ===
{{Shortcut|PBC:NOTESAL|PBC:LISTN}}
{{Further|PBC:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists)#Selection criteria}}
{{See also|PBC:Manual of Style/Lists#Adding individual items to a list}}
Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed {{em|as a group or set}} by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a [[PBC:SALAT|stand-alone list]]. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the {{em|group or set}} is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, [[PBC:LSC|choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with PBC articles]].
There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although [[PBC:What_PBC_is_not#Non-encyclopedic_cross-categorizations|non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations]] are touched upon in [[PBC:What PBC is not]]. Lists that fulfill [[PBC:LISTPURP|recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes]] often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.
== Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines ==
{{Shortcut|PBC:FAILN}}
Topics that do not meet this criterion are not retained as separate articles. Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often ''merged'' into those pages, while non-notable topics without such merge targets are generally deleted.
If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:
* Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject<ref>Sometimes contacting the subject of a biography or the representative of a subject organization will yield independent source material. Of course we have to be careful to observe and evaluate independence.</ref> for advice on where to look for sources.
* Place a {{tl|notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors.
If appropriate sources ''cannot be found'' after a good-faith search for them, consider [[PBC:Merging|merging]] the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context.<ref>For instance, articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in{{nbsp}}..."; articles on schools may be merged into articles on the towns or regions where schools are located; relatives of a famous person may be merged into the article on the person; articles on persons only notable for being associated with a certain group or event may be merged into the main article on that group or event.</ref> Otherwise, if deleting:<ref>PBC editors have been known to reject nominations for deletion that have been inadequately researched. Research should include attempts to find sources which might demonstrate notability, and/or information which would demonstrate notability in another manner.</ref>
* If the article meets our [[PBC:Criteria for speedy deletion|criteria for speedy deletion]], one can use a criterion-specific deletion tag listed on that page.
* Use the {{tl|prod}} tag for articles which do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but are uncontroversial deletion candidates. This allows the article to be deleted after seven days if nobody objects. For more information, see [[PBC:Proposed deletion]].
* For cases where you are unsure about deletion, believe others might object, or another editor has already objected to a previous proposed deletion, nominate the article for the [[PBC:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for seven days.
For articles on subjects that are ''clearly'' not notable, then deletion is usually the most appropriate response, although other options may help the community to [[PBC:PRESERVE|preserve any useful material]].
| |||