User:Siroxo/Narrowtability

Often in an articles for deletion discussion, a participating editor, including the nominator, will make an evaluation of whether sources contribute to notability with regards to sigcov.

Occasionally, these evaluations can end up being overly narrow. This is often done in good faith, though it can also happen when an editor has a vested interest in seeing an article deleted for one reason or another. Here are some ways in which that can happen.
 * 1) Separation of notability. The evaluation can separate the subject from the effects the subject has had in the world. However, as a tertiary source we are primarily interested in the effects a subject has had. An article about how a filmmaker made a film is generally sigcov of the filmmaker. A report about the effect an organization has had on the surrounding community is generally sigcov of the organization.
 * 2) *This can be even tougher in a discussion about a fictional element. For example, an analysis that discusses how a specific character impacts the audience or relates to characters in other media is sigcov of the character.
 * 3) Compartmentalization of notability. When going through multiple sources, pointing out one by one that each only cover limited aspects of the subject, and thus claiming that none contribute to the notability of the subject.
 * 4) Pigeon-holing sources. Within a single source, focusing on a single narrow topic and claiming that it doesn't demonstrate notability, while ignoring the broader coverage.
 * 5) Focus on the narrow. Perhaps a bit of a catch-all category. Sometimes a breadth of coverage across sources is dismissed, with a focus on a few narrow sources, and the focus on the narrow sources leads to a dismissal of the subject as non-notable.