User:Protonk/renamed

On Wikipedia, inclusion is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Our standards for inclusion do 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 all of the following are true:
 * It meets either the general inclusion guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right.
 * It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia 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. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia 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 need not be the main topic of the source material.
 * "Reliable" means 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" 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. Sources do not have to be available online and do not have to be 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.
 * "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.

Inclusion guidelines do not apply to content within an article
The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The inclusion guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. For additional information about list articles, see Notability and lists and Lead and selection criteria.

Article content does not determine notability
Independent coverage is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject eligible for inclusion. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's eligibility.

Notability requires verifiable evidence
The common theme in the inclusion guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim for inclusion. The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not eligible for inclusion.

No subject is automatically or inherently eligible for inclusion merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.

Editors evaluating a subject should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of sources that are not currently named in the article. Wikipedia requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be included if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. However, once an article has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.

Notability is not temporary
Eligibility for inclusion 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.

Hoaever, from time to time, a reassessment of the evidence of suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, articles may be proposed for deletion or recreated months or even years after being earlier considered.

In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.

Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Just as a lagging economic indicator indicates what the economy was doing in the past, a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it". As such, brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability, while sustained coverage would be, as described by notability of events.

Whether to create standalone pages
When creating new content about a 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 topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a 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 likes or dislikes. Wikipedia is a 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 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 (Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 and Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, for example). Other times, standalone pages are well justified (as with President of the United States as well as standalone biographies of every individual President). One should particularly consider due and undue weight. Fringe theories, for example, may merit standalone pages but have undue weight on a page about the mainstream concept.
 * Do related topics provide needed context? Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly eligible for inclusion, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page (as at Music of the Final Fantasy VII series). Other times, when many similar 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 (as with Category:Restaurants in New York City).
 * What sourcing is available now? Sometimes, when a subject is suitable for a standalone article, 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 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 (see also the essays Every snowflake is unique and Run-of-the-mill). When information about a future event is scarce, coverage may sometimes be better suited to a larger encompassing article (see also CRYSTAL). Other times, a future event may clearly be suitable for a standalone page before it happens (such as the 2020 Summer Olympics).

Subject-specific notability guidelines and WikiProject advice pages may provide information on how to make these editorial decisions in particular subject areas. When a standalone page is created, it can be spun off from a broader page. Conversely, when notable topics are not given standalone pages, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them (see also Redirects are cheap).

Why we have these requirements
Editors apply inclusion standards to all subjects to determine whether the English language Wikipedia 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 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 merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. (See the advice below.)
 * We require the existence of "reliable sources" so that we can be confident that we're not passing along random gossip, perpetuating hoaxes, or posting indiscriminate collections of information.
 * We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization.
 * We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with 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 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 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 WP:FAILN.)

Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria. They do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (i.e., all disambiguation pages and some lists).

Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity
Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence a subject is suitable for a stand-alone article:

Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement 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.

Neutral sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written—self-published sources cannot be assumed neutral; see Autobiography and Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received.

Events
Wikipedia 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 is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage. In some cases, a controversial entity (such as a book) could garner significant coverage either directly, or because the controversy was notable as an event—both need considering.

Stand-alone lists
Inclusion guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables as a group (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs"). One accepted reason why a list topic is considered suitable for inclusion is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; these list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources to justify inclusion, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is suitable for inclusion, the individual items in the list need not be independently scrutinized, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries which have or could have Wikipedia articles.

There is no present consensus for how to assess the eligibility of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify inclusion of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of these guidelines. Editors are still urged to demonstrate suitability for inclusion via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.

Fringe topics
For guidance on Fringe topics, see WP:FRINGE

Articles not satisfying the inclusion guidelines
Topics that do not meet this criterion are not retained as separate articles. Topics such as these with closely related articles or lists are often merged into those pages, while topics without such merge targets are generally deleted.

Where it is unclear whether or not an article is suitable for inclusion, deletion should be a last resort.

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to merit inclusion of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:
 * Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject for advice on where to look for sources.
 * Place a notability tag on the article to alert other editors.
 * If the article is about a specialized field, use the PROJECT-NAME tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context. Otherwise, if deleting:
 * If the article meets our criteria for speedy deletion, one can use a criterion-specific deletion tag listed on that page.
 * Use the 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 Proposed deletion.
 * For cases where you are unsure about deletion or believe others might object, nominate the article for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for seven days.

For articles on subjects that are clearly not suitable for the encyclopedia, then deletion is usually the most appropriate response, although other options may help the community to preserve any useful material.