User:Dugwiki/Draft revision from Notability to Article Inclusion

All article topics should meet a minimum potential referencing threshold to be included in Wikipedia. This is not synonymous with a topic being "famous" or "important", but is a measure of the quality, quantity, lack of bias and potential usefulness to the reader of the information available. Topics which meet these criteria may be said to be "worthy of article inclusion" within their general subject areas. Article inclusion guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles. A topic is generally worth including if a substantive article discussing the topic can be written using sources that are independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable. The potential substantiveness of the article and the quality of it potential sources must be considered in determining whether the coverage establishes article inclusion, and enough such sources must potentially exist to verify all facts presented in the article.

The table to the right lists further guidelines which have been accepted, or are being considered, to more precisely determine the encyclopedic suitability of a subject.

The primary Article inclusion criterion
The primary criterion for article inclusion, and one shared by many of the subject-specific article inclusion guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is that:

"A topic is worthy of inclusion in a separate article if (but not only if) it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by two or more published works.'' Such sources should be reliable and independent of the subject. Articles should substantive and all information in an article should be verifiable through its reliable independently published references."


 * "Non-trivial" means the source addresses the subject directly, and no original research is needed to extract the content.
 * The "Two or more" sources referred to above should be intellectually independent, and the number needed varies depending on the quality of the sources.
 * "Substantive" means that an article which covers the topic in sufficient detail will be non-trivial in length, usefulness and interest to the general reader. It is advisable to have multiple sources in order to ensure lack of bias between sources and sufficient editorial and reader interest in the topic within its field. While it is possible for a single well written source that directly discusses the topic to produce an article worthy of inclusion, in general the lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic is more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.
 * "Published references" has broad meaning and encompasses published works in all forms, and various media.
 * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow attributable evaluation of Article inclusion, per the reliable source guideline.
 * "Independence" excludes works affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

This is the primary, but not the sole criterion, so the converse is not necessarily true. Alternative tests are used in some cases to establish article inclusion. The subject-specific article inclusion guidelines expand on these descriptions, and include subject-specific details and interpretations. Some provide specific alternative criteria that still ensure an encyclopedic article may be written about the topic.

This criterion does not deal in the number of sources currently cited in an article, but in the number of published works that actually exist. Obtaining sources for an article that doesn't cite any sources is an improvement to that article, but the lack of citations in an article does not demonstrate that published works do not exist. Conversely, the existence of one strong source indicates that other published works are very likely to exist, but multiple works are still required. Also note that the longer an article exists without providing sufficient references following requests for such information, the greater the likelihood that it does not in fact have the potential to be verifiable based on reliable sources and therefore the greater the scrutiny it will face when reviewed for inclusion.

Dealing with topics not worth including
Topics that do not satisfy article inclusion criteria are dealt with in two ways: merging and deletion. The most appropriate route depends on how the topic fails to satisfy the criteria, mainly how it fails to satisfy the primary criterion. Articles that may not meet the article inclusion guidelines should be marked with the Article Inclusion template to make other editors aware of the problem, and give them a chance to address the issues.

Merging
A topic can fail to satisfy the criteria because, though verifiable unbiased information it may be found in published works that are not simple directories and that are from sources that are independent of the subject, an article on that topic can not hope to be substantive. Sources which give only superficial treatment or which tangentially mention the actual focus of a work are generally not sufficient to build a fully substantive verifiable encyclopedia article that stands independent of its main subject area.

One common recommendation across all article inclusion guidelines is not to nominate articles on such subjects for deletion but to rename, refactor, or merge them into articles with broader scopes, or into the articles that discuss the main subject, which may be created if they do not already exist.


 * For related issues, see Neutral point of view, Content forking, and Summary style.

Deletion
A topic can fail to satisfy the criteria because there are insufficient published works from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Without such sources, a proper encyclopedia article cannot be built at all. Such articles are usually nominated for deletion, via one of the Wikipedia deletion processes regardless of whether their potentially unverifiable or biased information is substantive or not.

Similarly, a topic may lack multiple published works. Again, most such single sourced subjects can be renamed, refactored, or merged into an article whose scope is broad enough that it is the subject of other published works.


 * For related issues see Autobiography and Independent sources.

Topics that cannot be substantiated in any published works at all are simply unattributable and should be deleted.

For an indication on what is likely to be kept or deleted in a deletion debate, please see Common outcomes of deletion debates. Note however that outcomes of prior deletion debates do not supersede the primary article inclusion criterion or the ancillary article inclusion guidelines listed in the box above.

Rationale for requiring a level of Article inclusion

 * In order to have an attributable article, a topic should demonstrate that it has enough substantive information about it that is researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources.
 * In order to have a neutral article, a topic should have published information from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors.
 * Topics should be able to produce substantive articles that can stand on their own within their subject area because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

Article inclusion is not subjective
Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Article inclusion criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to &#91;some group&#93;", etc.

The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary article inclusion criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be worth including. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy.

Article inclusion is generally permanent
If a topic has multiple independent reliable published sources, this is not changed by the frequency of coverage decreasing. Thus, once a topic satisfies the primary article inclusion criterion, it continues to satisfy it over time. The reverse is not true; topics that initially are not worthy of inclusion may become worthy as time passes. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the subject may be worth including in the future.

Other factors that may influence inclusion of topics in the context of Wikipedia are the fact that policy and guidelines and consensus can change over time.

Article inclusion is not popularity
Popularity does not ipso facto render a subject worth including, nor does lack of popularity render it not worth including. For example, popular Internet fads may be the subject of few or no reliable sources and fail to be worth including, but a rather obscure seventeenth-century poet may have substantial coverage in reliable histories qualifying it as worth including. Availability and quality of sources, not popularity or fame, establishes article inclusion.

Article inclusion guidelines do not directly limit article-content
These and all the article inclusion guidelines are for allowable article topics within Wikipedia, not for allowable content within a legitimate Wikipedia article. That is, not all material included in an article must, in itself, meet these criteria. For issues of article content, see especially the guidelines on reliable sources and trivia. Note also, though, that other Wikipedia guidelines refer in places to "article inclusion", meaning article inclusion as defined by the article inclusion guidelines.