User:Red Phoenix/Due weight as a measure of appropriate coverage

When considering articles at Articles for deletion or when writing new articles, it's important to consider how appropriate is the coverage for Wikipedia. The ultimate determining factor is notability, that if a subject is covered in independent, reliable sources significantly, it should be covered on Wikipedia. But, to what extent should it be covered? Does it deserve a full article to itself, or could it be covered within another article? Is just the name itself significant enough to be a redirect, or should it even be mentioned at all?

The concept of due weight is one that can help to solve to what level article subjects should be covered on Wikipedia.

Applying due weight to appropriate coverage on Wikipedia
WP:NPOV defines due weight as "each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Of course, as part of the neutral point of view policy, this section of NPOV is focused on excluding fringe theories and ensuring the appropriate coverage of majority and minority viewpoints on the encyclopedia.

However, this also can be used as a lens to article writing in general, as well as deletion arguments. Well-written articles tend to be well covered in reliable sources, and a quality article requires quality significant coverage. Higher-quality articles, such as those listed at Good articles and Featured articles, could only be so because they have enough coverage in reliable sources to address all of the significant aspects of the subject, and proportionally enough to justify an entire article dedicated to the subject. Some exceptions do occur from time to time, but if a subject does not possess significant coverage, it will never be a high-quality article.

Giving too much emphasis to something that does not warrant it is a concept called "undue weight". According to the neutral point of view policy, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery." Again, the same concept can be applied to the worthiness of an article to be one. Does the article possess enough weight to make an article in the encyclopedia, without being full of puffery?

Reliable sources need to be focused on the subject. Being a passing mention or a paragraph in a source about something related or something else entirely is not "significant coverage". Attempting to base an article on sources that focus on a larger subject than the article's focus should be handled with caution not to give undue weight to the particular facet that the article is about.

Quality, not quantity
Why quality over quantity? Why not have a little article on every little facet of every subject?

Put simply, fractioning information into multiple little articles makes it harder for readers to find the encyclopedic coverage for which they are looking. One fully, well-developed article is much better than four articles that cover multiple facets of the same subject and are filled with puffery. Readers appreciate being able to search for and find information in one place. As long as the article is well-written and well-referenced, the presence of the subject material duly weighted in a larger article can provide further context. It could also provide an editor who has context about another facet a reason to develop the article further, knowing they are adding to articles with potential.

The converse can also be true, that a spinout article is warranted where it does not exist. Large articles that have issues with article size are usually good candidates to be split out. Similarly, a small article, even a stub, can be okay as a permastub if that's all the coverage the subject warrants and it can't logically be fitted into another article. However, permastubs should still be completely referenced and not beneficial to be part of a larger article.

In a larger sense, quality helps to build trust with readers. We are writing for a worldwide audience, in terms and descriptions a layman would need to understand to comprehend the subject, and they come to us because we can provide that. Too many splits and not enough independent notability weakens that position with our audience.

Application methodology
A good methodology to use due weight as a concept on how your subject should be covered:


 * 1) What is the closest-related larger subject article which your subject is part of?  An example would be the closest-related article larger subject than Challenger Deep would be the Mariana Trench.  Pacific Ocean would not be wrong, but the closer the fit, the better if it turns out an article isn't practical.
 * 2) Are there reliable sources about the subject? If this is a no, it may not be notable enough for the encylopedia at all.
 * 3) Is significant coverage focused on your subject specifically? Consider the detail level of those sources.  A source that is focused on the specific subject and covers it in detail is significant coverage, as it gives more weight to the topic.  There may not be enough weight to your topic if the sources are not specific to your subject.  Even if your topic has sources focused on it, small sources that don't say much may not be enough or may be WP:ROUTINE. At this stage, consider a mention in the closest-related larger article with a source, and be careful not to create puffery.
 * 4) How much significant coverage is there, compared to the main subject?  Multiple sources about the specific subject are more likely to be able to produce quality articles, and is more weight.  More sources that meet the significant coverage threshold can help make that happen. If there is a significant amount of coverage, but it's smaller, it may be worth a section in the closest-related larger article.  A good number of reliable sources that provide significant coverage suggest a full article could be warranted.
 * 5) Build it in draft space or a sandbox.  Does it look right?  Does it read well without puffery? Could this have the potential to be a high-quality article, fully sourced and focused on notable aspects?  Is this the most adequate way to cover this topic in context?

In short, if the specific subject you want to write about has coverage focused on it in reliable sources, it has enough due weight to be in the encyclopedia. If it does not, it should not be stretched to try and create a full article.

Article focus
A common issue with articles that are referred for deletion is one of focus. Again, due weight serves as an excellent lens through which to view this. While there may be coverage of a subject in reliable sources, it is important to consider at what level that focus is, especially when creating articles such as summary style spinouts of larger articles, or broad-concept articles that encompass smaller ones. What will ultimately determine how qualified these articles are to be articles is the weight of their coverage in reliable sources. Is there coverage at a highly detailed level, or at a broader level?

Let's demonstrate an example here. Wisp (Sonic) was an article about characters from the video game Sonic Colors, as well as later games. At its peak, it looked like this, was featured as a did you know on the Main Page, made it to Good Article status, and was even a featured article candidate. Now, the article has been merged into List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters. So what went wrong? A look at the references for the article reveals the issue. Over half of the sources were primary sources, and the remainder did not actually focus on the character, but the games in which they played a role. Because the characters were not themselves the subject of reliable sources independent of the subject, this article was actually not notable on its own. In this case, it took a featured article candidacy, and not a deletion discussion, to figure this out. This is an example of where text was "fluffed" in order to give the appearance of a full article's value, but there was not due weight to warrant an article on its own. The right decision was made that the more appropriate way to cover the subject was as part of the longer list of characters from the series as a whole.

Isn't this just a fancy argument for deletion?
Not at all. Wikipedia articles should be focused on quality over quantity if we want to be helpful to our readers. That being said, there are plenty of alternatives to deletion. Deleting an article that does not have enough weight in reliable sources to warrant a full article should only be a last resort, if there is nowhere to merge or redirect the article or if there are other significant issues, such as a blatant conflict of interest or copyright violation, where the best thing to do is to blow it up and start over. In cases where there is a more appropriate location for the information, even at the expense of some text, then the information can be merged over into another article. If nothing is useful at the article location, the article can be redirected in order to preserve its editing history should new sources come to light.

A merge or redirect is not the end of the world. All it signifies is that the material is best covered in a different fashion. If it is suggested that your article be merged or redirected during a discussion and you don't agree, there's no reason to give up entirely. Simply reconsider the due weight that reliable sources provide and consider improving the merge or redirect target instead.