Wikipedia:Too soon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with WP:Not now.

While there are topics that might arguably merit an article, sometimes it is simply too soon. Generally speaking, the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles, require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered.

Actors and actresses[edit]

Shortcuts:

An actor or actress might merit an article in Wikipedia if they meet any of the various notability criteria as set out by guidelines at WP:Notability and/or the various applicable topic-specific notability sub-sections. The guidelines do not mandate that all or even that most of these criteria have to be met... but if an actor cannot meet at least one of them, it is pretty much TOO SOON for an article to be considered.

A good example of this is Paris Jackson, as seen at this Articles for Deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Katherine Jackson. At the time of the discussion, she had been announced as the star of a film that would be released a year after - however, the film had not actually been released yet. If or when the film is released, and if Jackson is the star of the film, she likely will merit an article, but not until then.

Meeting criteria[edit]

The meeting of any of the various criteria as set out in WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC, or WP:ENT must always be verifiable in reliable sources. (See WP:NRVE)

WP:GNG[edit]

Inclusion criteria might be met through an individual meeting the "general notability guideline" and his having significant coverage in "reliable sources" (not editorials, not Facebook, not Twitter, not Myspace). It should be remembered that even in cases where an actor might not meet the GNG, the GNG itself is not the final word. Editors are encouraged to also consider the topic-specific notability sub-criteria as set out in WP:Notability (people)

(shortcuts: WP:BIO or WP:PEOPLE)

WP:BIO[edit]

WP:BASIC[edit]

WP:BASIC acts to remind editors of the caveats at WP:GNG, in its restating that an individual is presumed to be notable "if they have been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject", and expands that "if depth-of-coverage is not substantial, then multiple less-than-substantial independent sources may be needed to prove notability". It re-states that coverage "must be more than trivial and must be reliable".

WP:BASIC explains that primary sources may be used to support the content of an article, as they are not against the rules. However, and even when used, primary sources do not contribute toward notability and may only support other content.

WP:ANYBIO[edit]

WP:ANYBIO describes attributes that may be considered toward establishing notability... as long as the attributes are themselves supported by reliable sources in their allowing then the presumption that additional sources are likely to exist.

WP:ANYBIO allows that ANY individual, actors included, may be presumed notable if

  1. "the person has received a notable award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times", OR
  2. "the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field".

Meeting these "attributes" allows editors to accept a presumption in good faith that other sources are likely to exist without also demanding that these "other sources" be immediately found and offered. Remember... WP:ANYBIO allows for the reasonable presumption and makes no other demand.

WP:ENTERTAINER[edit]

WP:ENTERTAINER expands on consideration of entertainment-specific criteria for actors who, even if failing the GNG, might still be reasonably presumed as notable if having

  1. "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", OR
  2. "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following", OR
  3. "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment"

To summarize on actors[edit]

If an actor cannot meet at least one of the inclusion criteria, it is pretty much TOO SOON for an article to be considered.

Verify[edit]

Meeting any of the criteria set out in WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC, or WP:ENT must always be verifiable in reliable sources, as most importantly, notability requires verifiable evidence.... and even though all of these criteria need not be met, they are not mutually exclusive.

Films[edit]

Shortcuts:

A film could merit an article in Wikipedia if it meets any of the various notability criteria as set out by guidelines at WP:Notability and/or its various applicable topic-specific notability sub-sections. Guideline does not mandate that all or even that most of these criteria have to be met... but if a film cannot meet at least one of them, it is pretty much TOO SOON for an article to be considered.

Meeting criteria[edit]

The meeting any of the various subject-specific criteria as set out in WP:N, WP:GNG, and WP:NF must be always be verifiable in reliable sources. (See WP:NRVE) and even though all of these criteria need not be met, they are not mutually exclusive.

WP:GNG[edit]

Inclusion criteria might be met through a film meeting the "general notability guideline" and having significant coverage in "reliable sources" (not blogs, not facebook, not twitter, not myspace). Begun or not, completed or not, distributed or not... a film might meet inclusion criteria through meeting the General notability guideline and having significant coverage in reliable sources. The further away a film is from release, the greater the amount of coverage needs to be in order for the topic to be seen as "worthy of note".

It is to be remembered that even in cases where a film might not meet the WP:GNG, the GNG itself is not the final word... for even if it is not met, editors are encouraged to look to the topic-specific notability sub-criteria as set out in WP:Notability (film).

(shortcuts: WP:NOTFILM, WP:NF, WP:FILMNOT)

WP:NF[edit]

General principles[edit]

WP:NF's "general principles" remind editors of the caveats at WP:GNG and stress that the sources used toward notability specifically exclude media reprints of press releases, trailers, and advertising for the film, and trivial coverage, such as simple newspaper listings of screening times and venues, capsule reviews, plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides. While some of the latter might be used to support the content of an article, they do not contribute toward notability.

The general principles expand with attributes that generally indicate, when the attribute assertion is supported with a reliable source, that the required additional and not-yet-present sources are likely to exist. This is in the section's encouragement to editors that they be

A) diligent in their searches and
B) accepting of the presumption that the required sources may exist somewhere even if not immediately found.
Attributes to consider[edit]

These listed "attributes" do not all need be met, and it is understood that many are completely inapplicable to either very new films or very old films. With the many different types of film released in so many different places in the world, common sense must be used in their application.

Generally, additional attributes that editors may consider are

  1. "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics".
    Common sense indicates that wide distribution for a film does not mean only distribution in or limited to the United States. For example, a non-English-speaking country's wide distribution only within itself or to other non-English-speaking countries can be a wide enough distribution. A film distributed only in Asia or Europe, or only within India or Argentina... can have "wide" enough distribution for consideration without the film being heard of or written of in English language sources.
    Common sense indicates that being a "nationally known critic" does not limit just which nation where a critic may have their renown. Other countries have their own hierarchies of film critics that may be "nationally known" to that nation, even if unheard of in the United States. Further, film critics need not be "known" only for their being critics who limit their reviews to highly touted blockbuster films. Different genres of film create different hierarchies of "known critics" within those various genre.
  2. "The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:"
  3. " The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking".
    • (Standards have not yet been established to define a "major award". Many major festivals should be expected fit our standard as well) [1]
  4. " The film was selected for preservation in a national archive".[2]
  5. "The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program".

Again, these "attributes", when themselves supported by a reliable source verifying the existence of the asserted attribute, allow editors a reasonable presumption that the additional required sources are likely to exist somewhere... even if not immediately available or presented. And again, these attributes do not all need be met... and they are not all applicable to every film that was ever made. Common sense must to be used in their application.

Other evidence of notability[edit]

The WP:GNG and/or the attributes to consider as listed in general principles are not the last word. Additional criteria are offered that must be evaluated on their own merits. Notability might exist if

  1. The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with the assertions being verifiable.
  2. The film features significant involvement by a notable person and is a major part of their career.
  3. The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited.[3]

Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films[edit]

Main page: WP:Future Films

Generally speaking, and due to the vagaries of film production, films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should usually not have their own articles.

Generally speaking, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been released, should not have their own articles unless the production itself has the coverage showing notable per the notability guidelines.

Generally speaking, films that were produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their "failure" has the coverage to be notable per the guidelines.

We are advised by Policy:

"All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced."

We are advised by WP:Notability:

"A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below and is not excluded by WP:NOT."

We are advised by the General notability guideline:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

So, there are circumstances where reliable sources discuss an anticipated event, such as a proposed film, with enough depth and persistence so that discussion of the topic itself might meet notability through the WP:GNG, even without there actually being a film (yet). In such cases the article should not use film article templates, but instead be treated as "film projects" and be presented then as non-film but film-related articles.

For examples of articles on topics whose persistent and enduring in-depth coverage has allowed them to be among the few rare but common sense exceptions to WP:NFF, see The Dark Knight Rises, The Hobbit (2012 film), The Avengers (2012 film), and X-Men: First Class, all being early film articles allowed under considerations of WP:FFCLARIFY.

To summarize on films[edit]

If a film cannot meet at least one of the inclusion criteria, it is pretty much TOO SOON for an article to be considered.

Verify[edit]

Meeting any of the criteria set out in WP:N, WP:GNG, and WP:NF must be always be verifiable in reliable sources, as most importantly, notability requires verifiable evidence... and even though all of these criteria need not be met, they are not mutually exclusive.

Related essays[edit]

Footnotes[edit]

  1. ^ From WP:NF: "This criterion is secondary. Most films that satisfy this criterion already satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete. Standards have not yet been established to define a major award, but it's not to be doubted that an Academy Award, or Palme D'or, Camera D'or, or Grand Prix from Cannes would certainly be included. Many major festivals such as Venice or Berlin should be expected fit our standard as well."
  2. ^ From WP:NF: See The United States National Film Registry for one example. Any nation with a comparable archive would equally meet our standards.
  3. ^ From WP:NF: This criterion ensures that our coverage of important films in small markets will be complete, particularly in the case of countries which do not have widespread internet connectivity (or do not have online archives of important film-related publications) and whose libraries and journals are not readily available to most editors of the English Wikipedia. In this case "major film producing country" can be roughly approximated as any country producing 20 or more films in a year, according to the report by UNESCO. Defining a "major studio" is highly dependent on the country in question.