User:Mrfoogles/Suitability

On Wikipedia, suitability 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, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of suitability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be suitable, or "worthy of notice". Determining suitability does 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:

1. It meets either the general suitability guideline (GSG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific suitability guideline (SSG); and
2. 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, though suitability is commonly used as an inclusion criterion for lists (for example for listing out a school's alumni). 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 suitability guideline

A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

• "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. 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.
• "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 does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
  • The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
  • Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
• "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of suitability, 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 suitability.
• "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of suitability. 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 or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing suitability.
• "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.

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

Subject-specific suitability guidelines

For a full list of subject-specific notability guidelines, see Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines.

In some topic areas, subject-specific suitability guidelines (SSGs) have been written to help clarify when a standalone article can or should be written. The currently accepted subject guidelines are listed in the box at the top of this page and at Category:Wikipedia suitability guidelines. Wikipedia articles are generally written based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing with some subject-specific exceptions. The subject-specific suitability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SSG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SSG or the GSG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia.

SSGs also serve additional and varying purposes depending on the topic. Some SSGs, for example the ones in the topic areas of films, biographies, and politicians, provide topic-related guidance when articles should not be created. SSGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining suitability, such as the treatment of book reviews for our literature guidelines and the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SSG for organizations and companies. Some SSGs have specialized functions: for example, the SSG for academics and professors and the SSG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GSG.

Some WikiProjects have provided additional guidance on suitability of topics within their field. Editors are cautioned that these WikiProject suitability guidance pages should be treated as essays and do not establish new suitability standards, lacking the weight of broad consensus of the general and subject-specific suitability guidelines in various discussions (such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion).

Suitability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists

The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The suitability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles. It also does not apply to the contents of stand-alone lists, unless editors agree to use suitability as part of the list selection criteria. Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies. For additional information about list articles, see Suitability of lists and List selection criteria.

Article content does not determine suitability

Suitability 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 improvement to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject suitable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's suitability.

Suitability requires verifiable evidence

The common theme in the suitability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of suitability.

No subject is automatically or inherently suitable 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.

Suitability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article

The absence of sources or citations in a Wikipedia article (as distinct from the non-existence of independent, published reliable sources online or offline) does not indicate that a subject is not suitable. Suitability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating suitability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of suitability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on suitability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any.

Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be suitable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of suitability is inappropriate. However, once an article's suitability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.

The current state of the article does not determine suitability

Current state of the article	Sources available in the real world	Result
No or few suitable sources cited	N No or few suitable sources that could be cited	N Likely not notable
Multiple suitable sources cited	Y Multiple suitable sources that could be cited	Y Likely notable
No or few suitable sources cited	Y Multiple suitable sources that could be cited	Y Likely notable

Suitability is not temporary

Suitability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general suitability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.

While suitability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of suitability or 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, 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.

Suitable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time

See also: Wikipedia:Notability § Events, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Subjects notable only for one event

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 "suitable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it". Once established, suitability is not temporary. Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate suitability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of suitability, as described by suitability of events. New organizations and future events might pass WP:GSG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and these must still also satisfy WP:NOTPROMOTION.

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

Whether to create standalone pages

Further information: Wikipedia:Summary style, Wikipedia:Content forking, Wikipedia:Article size, and Wikipedia:Merging

For the guideline on red-linked articles in hatnotes, see WP:NOARTICLE.

When creating new content about a suitable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a suitable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages 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 suitable 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 2012 presidential campaign § Other initiatives and Mitt Romney 2012 presidential campaign § International trip, 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 suitable, 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 suitable 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, 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 Wikipedia:Every snowflake is unique and Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill). Sometimes, when information about a future event is scarce, coverage may instead be better suited to a larger encompassing article (see also Wikipedia:CRYSTAL). Other times, a future event may clearly be suitable for a standalone page before it happens (such as the next upcoming Summer Olympics). However, before creating such an article, make sure that the likelihood of the future event occurring is reasonably assured. For example, the WikiProject Film strongly recommends that a standalone article for a new film be created only if reliable sources confirm that principal photography for the film has commenced, as completion of the film is generally seen out to the end from this point on.

Subject-specific suitability 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 suitable 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 Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap).

Why we have these requirements

Editors apply suitability 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 to ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization. See Wikipedia:Autobiography for discussion of neutrality concerns of self-published sources.
• We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 suitability criteria. They do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g. all disambiguation pages and some lists).

Common circumstances

Self-promotion and publicity

Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of suitability. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement, press releases, branding campaigns, advertisements, and paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of suitability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, company, or vendor) have actually considered the topic worth writing and publishing 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 neutral article can be written. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of suitability as they are not a measure of the attention a subject has received.

Events

Main page: Wikipedia:Notability (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 may cover topics of present news coverage. In some cases, suitability of a controversial entity (such as a book) could arise either because the entity itself was suitable, or because the controversy was suitable as an event—both need considering.

Stand-alone lists

Further information: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Selection criteria; and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates § Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative

See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists § Adding individual items to a list

Suitability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Suitability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered suitable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for suitability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is suitable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently suitable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently suitable items or those with Wikipedia articles.

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

Fringe topics

This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia:Fringe theories.[edit]

In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.

There are numerous reasons for these requirements. Wikipedia is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant subjects, and it is not a forum for original research. For writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality.

The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies: Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence.

Fringe theories and related articles have been the subject of several arbitration cases. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases.

Articles not satisfying the suitability guidelines

Topics that do not meet this criterion are not retained as separate articles. Non-suitable topics with closely related suitable articles or lists are often merged into those pages, while non-suitable topics without such merge targets are generally deleted.

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the suitability 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 {{expert-subject}} 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 Wikipedia: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 articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for seven days.

For articles on subjects that are clearly not suitable, then deletion is usually the most appropriate response, although other options may help the community to preserve any useful material. Since deletion of an article is often heavily contested, editors are advised to thoroughly follow several recommended steps prior to nomination.

See also

• An extensive set of subject-specific guideline pages for different aspects of suitability can be found at Category:Wikipedia suitability guidelines, with subject specific essays and proposed guidelines at Category:Wikipedia suitability.
• Wikipedia's article on Suitability in the English Wikipedia.
• For commentary and discussion of this guideline, see Wikipedia:Essays in a nutshell/Suitability and Category:Wikipedia essays about suitability.
• Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent, an essay on the difference between first-person, first-party, and primary sources.
• Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources
• Wikipedia:Viability of lists
• Wikipedia:Search engine test [cf. Google (verb) ?]
• Wikipedia:Recentism
• Wikipedia:Relevance of content
• Wikipedia:Categorization § Defining
• No amount of editing can overcome a lack of suitability
• {{assess table}} and {{source assess}}, two templates used to present an assessment of the sources present in an article
• MOS:NOTE: Manual of Style on "Instructional and presumptuous language"