Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 66

Archive 60

←

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

→

Archive 70

Is there a guideline for individual works of art?

Hi all. Do we have a guideline for creative works like paintings, sculptures, etc.? I am wondering if we consider in a museum notable or if they must show more significant coverage per WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I think there is only GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

"In a museum" definitely doesn't constitute notability on its own. (Museum collections are huge and can number into the millions of items.) You need to demonstrate that the specific work has been the subject of independent commentary in its own right for it to warrant a stand-alone article. (If the independent commentary doesn't exist, it's unlikely one would be able to write an article in the first place, so the situation should rarely arise.) ‑ Iridescent 17:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

There's also this section of the visual arts MOS page, which includes guidance about separate pages, but doesn't have a lot to say about what makes something notable. WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's start with asking, who's the artist? postdlf (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Audience section should be moved here since it is relevant to broad notability not just NORG

From WP:AUD: "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." I think this consideration is relevant to more than just organizations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Would you like to expand on any view you have? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC).

Expand how? It seems to me that this qualification is applicable to all topics and should be mentioned here, as an argument against keeping articles sourced to in-depth coverage in local church newsletter or such... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd fully support that (or at least duplicating it here, it is far more serious for NORG but should apply); I've mentioned that coverage of elements only from local sources or from very niche media would not be sufficient to support notability. But in the past there's been resistance against adding something like this. --Masem (t) 05:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. To the contrary, WP:AUD is a mistake even in its narrow application to organizations. Extending it encyclopedia wide would be a disaster. The same proposal was made by Piotr late last year and was rejected overwhelmingly. See: Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 64#Local sources, again. Cbl62 (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose local media is stretched by editors seeking deletion to include regional coverage such as Chicago Tribune and so forth, reliability is what is important not geographical reach, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. If the problem is that businesses and businesspeople are buying coverage by placing stories into the media, then raising the bar for everyone will worsen the problem, not ameliorate it, because then we will still have the same number of spammy articles on businesses and businesspeople (they will just pay for more media) but fewer of everything else. A better solution would be to use subject-specific criteria that recognize significance and are less purchasable. In the meantime, without a believable rationale for what this change would accomplish, it is a solution in search of a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• I think the real issue here is that we rely on primary sources such as news reports for many articles, and such sources are only accepted if they are freely available on the World Wide Web. This leads to our acceptance of articles where an article subject, or its PR, is good at getting online coverage. If we had more objective criteria than the usual interpretation of the general notability guideline then we could take care of this. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

How notable does a comic book character got to be

I recently created this section which I am not done with. Apparently this character is "not notable" or "significant" enough for Wikipedia. So I am just wondering if the criteria of the character getting coverage can be a bit clearer. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

You need "significant coverage" from a source, "more than a trivial mention." The exact meaning of that can be debated, but I'd say unequivocally that the sources you're using are trivial mentions. Proper weight needs to be given to sources. You're taking articles where the character is mentioned in a passing sentence and putting them in the article as if they're major opinions. You're taking cookie cutter Top X lists and giving them more weight than they deserve. You're lacking sources with any actual meat. They don't need to be articles directly about the character, but it should at least have some focus. TTN (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

To show my point about Top X articles, you use Screen Rant, which today alone has posted 23 Top X lists. These are cookie cutter, pump-them-out-for-clicks articles. They hold little weight, and they should be avoided unless they provide some kind of weight (i.e. top 5 of a broad top 100 characters list from a source that doesn't frequently do lists). TTN (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

You mean a headline? There is no movies to talk about her to do that. She is a major SUPPORTING VILLIAN like Dormammu and Baron Mordo. It’s obvious that she won’t be headlined is sources unless she appears in movies. That’s just how sources of comic book character work. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Also regarding the source. As an one time wise administrator who knew of GNG very well said their never enough sources to not establish notability. I agree. Now we are establishing there is too many sources to place on an article to help prove it. Ridiculous! Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, so there are many, many comic characters that are not notable via Wikipedia's standards. You want things like critical analysis (professional paper or book talking about the core of the character), true reception (maybe a review of a comic series in which she appears, giving a solid paragraph talking about the character, from which you can take a select quote to properly bolster the article), or otherwise major usage in popular culture covered in a third party source. These clickbait articles do not have any of that weight. Wikipedia's "notable" is different than "notable within the space of Marvel Comics."

Do you really think a website that puts out 20+ lists in a single day has any real editorial merit? Do you not see that it means they're constantly scraping the bottom of the pop culture barrel looking for random topics to get people addicted with lists to click their lists instead of another site's lists? TTN (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe true. I voted merge on articles that I agreed you with. But you picked on an article I agreed to disagree on. Also your argument sounds a little bit like you have hate nitpicking on the related articles. Also how do you keep getting the same votes of users starting out. That's a bit odd and suspicious. Also one of them needs to quit saying per nom. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

No I don’t think I was scraping the bottom of the barrel by working on the article. I think you and others had a deletion agenda to get rid of half of comic book character articles. You call it scraping because you might not get your way with some of what you want being deleted. Yes it’s true there is too many of them but you should be picking on the D-list instead of the C-list and B-list for now. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• For my part, I am sick and frigging tired of the lame shibboleth of "deletion agendas" that boil down to "Those mean bastards are trying to get rid of MY ARTICLE!" Strange though it may seem to some, there are many editors on Wikipedia whose "agenda" is seeing that articles meet notability guidelines, and who do not believe that subjects that don't meet them merit articles. In this specific case (and let's leave aside that for all the subject's alleged status as one of Dr. Strange's "most iconic villains, her name doesn't appear in Strange's article), my question is three-fold: which in the blizzard of sources are sources giving the "significant coverage" to the subject required by the GNG, which of those sources meet the requirements of WP:V as "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," and how does Jhenderson777 claim that they do? (For instance, I'm not sold on the reliability of Screen Rant and CBR, both owned by the same Internet mill.) Ravenswing 06:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• • That isn't my article. That article has no affiliation to me. I didn't even create it. It apparently must be a nuisance to you though. My apologies. Have editors like you realize this is a stupid thing to get upset about anyway? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 06:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    • You certainly haven't, anyway, unless your barrage of ad hominem attacks is your normal way of argument. (Never mind that after making nine comments here and thirty-one (!!!) at the AfD, you have a damn peculiar way of demonstrating a lack of investment and anger over this article.) That being said, you didn't answer my question. Would you care to try? Ravenswing 21:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• For my mind, none trivial third party out of universe mentions. So "In Super Spankers(tm) the movie the character of Captain underpants was played by..." published in The Times is not enough. Nor would 15 pages in the "encyclopedia of Super Spankers(tm)" published by Super Spanker(tm) comics Ltd.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok silly guy. This is helpful to my question how? Also I am pretty sure the article has more than that. None of those things were even my doing lol. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 10:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

OK let me put it like this, which of the sources in the article in an in depth analysis of the character that was not published by marvel or any person associated with them, the character or the film?Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I want to say none. The sources vary. Unless I am misunderstanding you? I understand if English isn't your main language though.Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 11:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Then there is your answer, it is not at this time notable, and until at least two sources that meet the above criteria are met it remaind non notable.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

No that is not my answer because I didn't understand your question lol. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 11:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

"So I am just wondering if the criteria of the character getting coverage can be a bit clearer." the answer is "better sources" to wit independent third part sources that cover the subject in some depth.Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• My advice to the OP... look at the articles we have on more established comic book characters. Examine the sources used, and what types of statements they are used for. You will see that there is usually at least one source that discusses the character in depth, how the character was created, the characters history “in universe” and its impact on the franchise (ie the character’s real world history and development)... that is the sort of source you will need to look for when writing the articles you are working on. A top ten YouTube video isn’t enough. Blueboar (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Notability standards for software and apps

There are quite a few software pages about software made by a small time developers. I came across this Wikipedia:Notability_(software) essay which looks much more lenient than the WP:GNG that is generally applicable and the more robust guidelines applicable to organizations/companies/products WP:NORG to minimize promotional pages. The software essay is only an essay. Are software articles expected to meet the GNG and product guidelines? Graywalls (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why there should be any difference between notability standards for software products and those for any other type of product. I rather suspect that the existence of that essay is an artifact of the systemic bias created here due to the fact that geeks are very over-representated in our editing community. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

That plus there is likely much more RSes out there in the software and other tech product field compared with, say, clothes, groceries, and whatnot. NORG is definitely appropriate notability advice to follow to avoid any software product being overly self-promoted and the like, and guidelines for content of such articles should focus not on the software nitty gritty (as some tend to ) but the importance of the software, what niche it fills, etc. --Masem (t) 20:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I have an ongoing AfD on an article that is about a website that I found to not satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NORG. The creator intervened and and changed the title and moved it to "software" Special:Diff/926480105 which left me to wonder if different standards. I haven't experienced anything quite like it when the requirement switches mid AfD from one category to another, if there even is a change at all in notability category. I am seeking to clarify if that essay has any meaning. Graywalls (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Where would I ask about the "Education Investor Awards"?

I found them added here[1] and they are used in a few other articles. I just removed it from Sovereign Capital which seems to have a couple of industry awards, possibly just promotional. Too many awards are either trivial or promotional, often given only in situations where the awardee has paid someone to take part. Doug Weller talk 15:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Using local news media to establish notability -- some questions

Two English local politicians have recently been nominated for deletion -- Martin Hill (councillor) and Rob Parker (councillor). Before you switch off, I'm not asking for us to change WP:NPOL so that all councillors are inherently notable. I'm using them as examples to highlight what I feel is an arbitrary distinction being made with regard to sources and establishing notability. A number of those !voting to delete pointed out that Hill and Parker fail WP:NPOL, which is true. NPOL outlines which political offices we consider confer inherent notability on their holders, and we don't state that local politicians are among them. However, it is worth pointing out that that omission doesn't preclude other politicians from being notable, it just means that we have to assess notability on a "case by case basis", as WP:POLOUTCOMES says. I contended that Hill and Parker are notable because they meet WP:GNG: they have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Because the Parker AfD is ongoing, I will focus on Hill, whose article has now been deleted. I am not an administrator so I cannot show you what the article looked like before it was deleted; I have requeted that it be userfied by the deleting admit. But I have an earlier draft which, in the meantime, you can assess for yourselves. To summarise, there is coverage in the Local Government Chronicle (a national magazine) and less substantial coverage in the BBC and the Telegraph (also national outlets); he gave an interview with the Guardian, a national newspaper. But most of the coverage, predictably, was in local newspapers -- there was a lot, such that, on the face of it, I believed he would easily meet GNG.

But when these articles were taken to AfD, a number of !votes for delete argued that coverage in local news media does not count towards establishing notability -- no matter how significant, sustained, substantial, non-trivial and non-routine that coverage is. It was repeatedly asserted that this is "the consensus" even though I have never found or been pointed towards a policy, guideline or even an essay to that effect. The reasons for this seemingly arbitrary distinction between national and local media with regards to the GNG, it seems, are (1) that people just don't like the idea of including local politicians; and (2) that allowing local media to count towards meeting GNG would open the floodgates for thousands -- perhaps millions -- of badly formed, barely notable articles about the most minor local politicians and perhaps many other people or organisaitons; every local politician, it was argued, receives enough coverage in their local papers to meet GNG.

Now, (1) is of course not a valid reason to !vote for delete so, in good faith, I shall assume that no one voting there did so for that reason. (2) posits what appears to be a pragmatic corrective to the idealistic nature of GNG, which is the logical expression in policy form of Wikipedia's core mission to be a "sum of human knowledge". But is this unspoken rule something which has been adequately discussed? If so, why is not enshrined in policy? Regardess is it right to make the distinction between local and national media coverage? It strikes me as arbitrary and against the basic principles of what Wikipedia is about. It also seems founded in a fear -- as one person has repeatedly claimed in one of those AfD's -- "that significant, sustained, non-trivial and non-routine coverage in local news is, by definition, a thing that every single municipal and county councillor and school board trustee on earth always has and can always show." But I don't think this is true; in my country and, I am sure, in many parts of the world most local politicians don't receive much coverage other than in election time or in a PR capacity, but those are either routine or trivial and not useful for establishing notability. On the other hand, when someone (like Hill) is the subject of in-depth coverage on a monthly basis, and sets the billion-pound budget and strategies for an authority which serves 1 million people, it seems arbitrary to automatically exclude local media sources in notability discussions, regardless of the depth of coverage. Regardless, even if people do receive sustained coverage in their local media, I don't see why that's an issue. Sure, it will introduce problems; but by that logic, we might as well just have no articles at all, and then all our content-related problems will disappear. We're not working towards a deadline; the project will never be complete; and, above all, we should be aiming to summarise human knowledge, not exclude it based on some fear that we will have too much content.

But even if you don't agree with my last point, for those pragmatists out there I have another question: what do we do when we are faced with articles, like Hill's and Parker's, which are not trash; which are well-sourced, neutral, balanced, and, above, extremely useful for anyone interested in their careers and work (i.e. potentially anyone of those million people they have served). If the issue at stake here comes down to drawing a line so that we can keep out the trash, then why are we allowing article's like Hill's to be deleted when they're not trash? I'm making a case at Parker's AfD that we should invoke WP:IAR, which says that "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." At the end of the day, Parker's article is (and Hill's article was) clearly an improvement to the project; there is no harm in it being here; it's useful and well put together. Removing it does far more harm to our readership and our mission than letting it stay. Surely, even those approaching the issue pragmatically can agree with that? And yet we're voting to delete them, which seems hypocritical for people arguing from a pragmatic point of view; it actually seems needlessly dogmatic, rather like they just don't like them after all. Apologies for the length of this post, but I think it is worth it in capturing the nuances of what is often seen as a straight-forward issue. --Noswall59 (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC).

• Helpful links: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Hill (councillor) (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Parker (councillor). --Masem (t) 16:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
• The problem with the argument is that it doesn't strictly apply to Important People. In like fashion, local daily newspapers provide ongoing coverage to the high school sports star de jour, to secondary school principals, to small town councilors, to the director of the local county agricultural fair, to the defendant in a drug distribution trial ... so on and so forth. (I can give you examples from the two small county daily newspapers I read.) No doubt creators of those articles would argue just as passionately over their importance and inclusion, and likewise cite the "harm" done to those areas. Ravenswing 16:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Some interesting points. I feel like this is partly where cultural differences emerge, because in the UK school sports are very rarely reported in newspapers, for instance. I also feel like a lot of these things (crime, passing mentions to local administrators, election results) could also be considered routine and, even if not, would probably be disbarred under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Very brief bios of school principals would almost certainly be better catered for in lists on the school's own page. That's distinct from the situation with Hill and Parker in that they have received in-depth coverage over a long time as a product of being "Important People". I think it's that which really captures the distinction I'm trying to articulate. —Noswall59 (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC).

And, in like fashion, the examples I gave are quite often the recipients of significant coverage -- of course no one's advocating giving credence to trivial mentions. Cultural differences are irrelevant: I'm sure in many localities in many cultures, the local sports stars get a fair bit more coverage than local politicians. Ravenswing 19:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Is some of the difference here confusion over the word "county"? Lincoln County, Missouri is 50,000 people. Lincolnshire, the council under question here, is over a million (and is regarded as sparsely populated). The leader of local government and provision of services for a million people should be seen as notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Surely English counties count as "sub-national" for the purposes of WP:NPOL and therefore leadership at this level would count as notable? US counties generally don't, because they're one level lower (although the one I live in has 4x the population of Lincolnshire) but we should go by level in the hierarchy not by the name of the type of subdivision. I don't think it makes sense in this case to restrict "sub-national" to mean only the separate countries of the UK. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

No, but here's the rub. As has been accurately pointed out above, there are differences between the way things work in the US and the UK. So ... who's the poor bastard who has to draft notability criteria that accurately apply to not only both nations, but every other as well? Because the question at hand is not "what's subnational level in the UK in terms of NPOL?" but whether strictly local media counts towards meeting the GNG, generally. Ravenswing 05:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• These were both not only councillors, they'd been the leaders of their county councils. No way should either be deleted.

I've also seen UK local news being decried as "tabloid", thus not WP:RS under the Daily Mail RfC (which, of course, doesn't say that). But "tabloid journalism" means more than the size of the paper. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• There is nothing in policy as far as I am aware (and I've looked) that discounts local sources for determining notability. Something like a school newspaper is different, because it is an amateur publication, generally written by people who are not experts, who do not write professionally, and are not overseen by those who exercise editorial oversight professionally. It is not merely local.

I do remember there was an AfD once upon a time where people were arguing that the Knoxville News Sentinel didn't contribute to notability because it was a "local paper" ... noting for record that this is a 120+ year publication with substantial full-time staff and daily circulation of 100k+. The Sentinel is a professional news organization, and covering a circumscribed geographic area of a smallish-to-middle-sized city doesn't have anything to do with whether we can use it to write neutral well-sourced content.

Those types of people are using GNG as a measure of importance and not a measure of whether a well-sourced neutral encyclopedia article can be written. The former is wrong. The latter is correct, and the former should be discounted by any closer worth their salt. GNG is not a measure of importance; it is a measure of write-ability. GMG^talk 22:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

GMG, WP:CORP specifies that businesses should not be considered notable unless they have managed to get coverage in at least one (1) non-local reliable source. These local (regional?) politicians, if they were isntead local businesses, would apparently have no trouble passing CORP's requirements, which I'll paraphrase here as "a minimum of two reliable sources, at least one of which is run by someone who is unlikely to live next door to anyone involved in the business". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Yes, well, there is hardly any broad consensus that what CORP says actually means anything. GMG^talk 20:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• It looks like in this instance, there is plenty of material from which to write an article, and it isn't all a spate of routine coverage mentioning the candidate around election time or the like. I would certainly say this individual passes GNG. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
• There's another one (at least) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Fox (Welsh politician) which'll need to go to DRV. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Andy Dingley: You wouldn't mind if I do that now, no? ミラP 18:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps there is something to be said for possible addition to NBIO for political positions like mayors, council members, and the like - the key rule-making authority for the type of government in question - where the number of people their decisions serve and influence exceeds some number N, where I think N needs to be no less than 100k, and probably closer to 250k or 500k. We are trying to avoid every small town mayor or council from being considered notable by default, but the cases presented here where they may serve at the "lowest" level of governance but have significant sway is a good sign that GNG-type sourcing can be available, whether this is local only or not. But that would have to be discussed WT:NBIO if that's a way to approach this distinction. --Masem (t) 19:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Lincoln is around a million, Monmouthshire around 100k. Both are "counties", at comparable levels of organisational structure. We shouldn't codify a rule which made Lincolnshire's leader notable, but excluded Monmouthshire, because one was above this threshold and one below. If we decide "counties" are enough for their leaders to be implicitly notable, then that should be across all the siblings. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hrm, just trying to brainstorm here: if I understand the UK structure right, the next level below counties are the districts. (counties are one level below the UK national gov't as I understand it). If this is right, would you assume district leaders to be notable simple due to being district leaders? The reason I'm posing this like this is that if we go to the US, where states are the next immediate level under the federal gov't, and under that would be the US version of counties (equivalent to UK districts), then I would argue that at this second-level or lower off the national gov't that we cannot presume notability by some NBIO guidance, but those at the first-level can be. Does that make sense? --Masem (t) 21:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Every once in a while, someone suggests that WP:GNG be amended to include a prohibition on use of local sources to establish notability. There is a vocal group that has long advocated such a change. However, every time it has been submitted to a broad audience, it been rejected. E.g., Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 64#Local sources, again. Accordingly, there is no such prohibition under current policy; the exception being WP:CORP where a limitation was adopted to address specific concerns about local media being used as a vehicle to promote local companies. My view has always been that there should not be a prohibition on use of such sources in establishing notability but that common sense dictates that there is a spectrum of local sources with coverage in major metropolitan dailies being entitled to greater weight than coverage in small town papers. Cbl62 (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
• Unfortunately Mr Parker should have been deleted as well. I want to come right out and say that local sources are not in and of themselves the issue. There's nothing suggesting the local sources are unreliable, for instance. However, when a person has only been covered in local sources, they must be only locally notable. And while there's nothing wrong with being locally notable, if you're only locally notable, you have to determine whether the person has actually gained a level of notability, or is in fact in a position that will receive a base level of routine local coverage just by the very fact the position exists. (I may have a possible conflict of interest here as I'm involved in a local council in some capacity - not in the UK - and while all of the people in the council would have received press coverage, I don't think any of the people involved in the council would be Wikipedia-notable.) The reason why I think Mr Parker should be deleted (I missed the AfD) is there's nothing suggesting he's especially notable even as a local councillor - looking through the sources I can access, none of them cover him significantly, just name drops (with the possible exception of [2], though that seems to be a fairly routine announcement) and the sources I can't access don't reference him by name at all in the headlines. I concur with Bondezgou's assessment at the AfD, and none of the keep !votes discuss the sources at all, so I would not necessarily assume Hill would pass a new AfD if he were better sourced. SportingFlyer T·C 04:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• Part of the problem with discussions like this is that we have no objective criteria to determine whether a certain publication is "local", "regional" or "national". I know a fair amount about the best known national newspapers in the UK but I am unfamiliar with most of the regional and local publications there. As a Californian, I have sometimes seen other editors describe the San Francisco Chronicle as a local paper. I've been a reader of that paper for 47 years, and I know that it circulates in a far larger geographical area and serves a far larger population than the San Francisco city limits, and that it has won several Pulitzer prizes in its 150 year history, so I conclude that it is "regional". I can make that argument with confidence but it is also true that almost all newspapers are suffering from declining subscriptions these days, and some other editor might conclude in good faith that it is just a local paper. As for the matter of expanding the notability guideline for politicians, I am inclined to oppose that idea. The SNGs should be reliable shortcuts for determining whether or not a politician is highly likely to pass the GNG threshold, and borderline cases should not be decided based on a newly expansive SNG, but on the quality of coverage of those people in reliable sources. How "local" those sources are allowed to be is something that has not yet been decided, but I favor more discussion of that matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it in the USA (not sure about this country) some "national" newspapers (such as the NYT) function as well as local newspapers. I think the idea that we should not use "minor" new organs that just print local news or regurgitate agency wires is a good idea. But "local" is a bit to imprecise.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Notability policies are failing noticeably on the Italian Wikipedia

I've seen on the Italian Wikipedia that all the characters of almost every TV show (that I've heard of) - and in particular Japanese anime series - seem to have pages of their own, even if they're not notable enough for one on the English Wikipedia. I've seen on the main page an article for an anime character, and I've seen articles on minor characters of western TV shows that don't even have sources and are nothing more than stubs. Even all (including the minor) of the characters of Crayon Shin-chan had articles before a sock IP redirected them (despite having his edits undone first but following a discussion were reverted back to redirects). Even most of them just have Italian as the sole language! As per WP:OTHERLANGUAGEEXISTS; just because another language Wikipedia project has an article on a subject isn't a reason for that subject to have an article, especially if that subject isn't notable. However, the Italian Wikipedia (and likely all Wikipedias) have the same general notability policies as the English Wikipedia (WP:GNG). 103.38.21.38 (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

We can't do anything here about problems on other-language Wikipedias; they are all run by independent sets of editors. You will have to raise the issue there or, if you think it is significant enough for higher-level attention (and it doesn't sound like it is) on meta. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Beyond that, just for your information, the other Wikipedias do not necessarily have the same notability guidelines as the English Wikipedia. Since they're all self-governing, they have the same consensus-, cultural- and precedent-driven modus operandi as we do, and that's naturally led to divergence over the years. Likely you complaining on the Italian Wikipedia that their standards are looser than ours will go about as far as when people complain here "but this sort of article's allowed on X Wiki!" Ravenswing 17:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Your other two respondents are correct. We set notability policies for the English Wikipedia alone. Other language projects are free to have their own policies, either stricter or looser than ours, and their own interpretations of how to enforce them. We have no authority over what people do on projects in other languages. You could, of course, always try to convince editors of the Italian project to change those policies, but if they disagree and want things to stay the way they are, that's none of our business. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: @Ravenswing: @Seraphimblade: You are right about our notability policies being set for the English Wikipedia alone. But the reason why I think those articles were created in the first place regardless of whether they pass or fail their Wikipedia's notability policies is because people who speak that Wikipedia's language just like those cartoons or they are very popular in the countries where that Wikipedia is used. An Italian google search for Crayon Shin-chan gives 7,870,000 results. I've also seen Catalan and Spanish-dubbed clips of the show, implying that it's probably very successful in the Mediterranean region. Also, there's a TV show (which I don't want to name) that I haven't heard of until now due to someone from my country informing me about it, and when I went on the article about the show on the Wikipedia of my country's native language, there they were - character articles with no reliable sources! 106.246.239.90 (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

A key feature of en.wiki's notability guideline is that it is NOT based on popularity. We anticipate something popular should lead to coverage in sources, but we need to see those sources first and not just assume it's there because there's so many Google Hits. --Masem (t) 03:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

chemicals

The discussion about notability doesn't mention chemistry at all. It seems that elements are notable. Is there any guideline on how notable a chemical should be to have an article? Say, for example, that it was a very important part of a large consumer product industry? Gah4 (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• WP:GNG would apply, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Correct, there's no special allowances for any chemical. You'd need to show the relevancy and importance of the chemical through secondary sources, likely academic. --Masem (t) 01:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Village deities / local religious customs

Hey all,

while doing some unrelated cleanup work I came across the article Guru Narasimha, whose notability I can't really judge. It looks at first glance like a badly sourced puff piece overflowing with trivia, but I'm not game to definitively judge it. Is there a relevant guideline or precedent covering village deities and/or local religious customs? Also pinging @Sitush:. who is full of knowledge and good judgment on India matters. Cheers, Reyk _YO! 07:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The article is a bit all over the place, but it seems like it might be comfortably moved to Guru Narasimha Temple, as it appears to be most notable as a temple. I also sort of think that all deities should indeed be notable, but in this case it seems most practical to reconceive of this as a temple article.--Pharos (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The GNG would apply with possibly a touch a WP:AUD if we're talking a religion that is practiced strictly by a small group or town. --Masem (t) 14:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:AUD only applies to companies and organisations, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Narasimha, the lion-headed form of Vishnu, is pretty major in Hinduism, and our article mentions a "Guru Narasimha" form. Saligrama, Udupi has an article (not yet linked) which mentions the temple. Our article on Narasimha is relatively good as these things go, whereas this is pretty ropey, but if it goes anywhere it should probably be there. Guru Narasimha isn't I think exclusively related to Saligrama at all; there are outcrops of focus on Narasimha in many places, mostly around the Deccan - Ahobilam is one big one. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually on 2nd thoughts, much of the article is local, so I'll move it to a temple one. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I've also set up Category:Narasimha temples, which is probably pretty incomplete at only 19 articles. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that this article is better as an article about the temple than as about the guru. However, it's still hopelessly sourced and still full of trivia. If this were, say, a Christianity related article would we want unsourced content such as "Pleasant Heights Lutheran Church has an interesting custom where blue flowers are placed on the altar on the first Sunday of the month and orange flowers otherwise"? Because that's the sort of trivia that's in there now. And I'm not sold on the idea of inherent notability for village deities in any case. The only metric is reliable secondary sources. Reyk _YO! 00:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

As I say, Narasimha is not at all a village or local deity. Have you seen some of our Philipino Catholic articles? Just asking. I agree the article is poorly written & referenced, and has some other issues, but I would be cautious about assigning levels of triviality within an unfamiliar religion. I can't see any bit that approaches your flowers example. Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding guidance related to stubby articles that just meet GNG/SNG

This is coming from a discussion currently at WP:RS/N related to the possible notability of restaurants with at least one Michelin star. There's general consensus there that this is a reasonable presumption of notability, given the infrequently awarding of Michelin stars, but there is concern that, as NSPORT had allowed years before, the creation of one-two sentence articles that just establish the sourcing to demonstrate the SNG notability, but nothing else, and in the case of the NSPORT ones, stubs that persist today that are nearly difficult to put to AFD because

We already make clear that there is no requirement that a topic that meets the GNG or SNG need a standalone article; meeting the GNG or SNG only creates the reasonable presumption of notability so that we would allow a standalone article to be created for expansion later.

However, I think we want to add additional language to WP:N in general that, even if a topic does meet presumption of notability for a standalone, we expect that standalone to have more fleshed out in it than just a sentence or two affirming the presumed notability criteria. That is, we do not want people creating articles that simply say "Joe's Fancy Diner is a restaurant in Queens, NYC. It earned a Michelin star." and that's it. Expansion of content here can come from primary sources, non-independent sources, or other things that do not meet the type of sourcing expected for GNG, but otherwise provide more context and details though avoiding excessive promotional details. If, from my example above, the article can be expanded with an additional paragraph based on a very local entertainment scene magazine (one that would otherwise fail WP:AUD for WP:NORG) to add to what I already gave, "Joe's was started by Chef Joe Smith, who had studied under Famous Chef with a specialty in French cuisine. He opened Joe's in 1989 in the heart of Queens hoping to attract a variety of customers there." etc. then this is TONS better than just the stubby 2 sentence version.

So basically, we want to encourage editors to not create articles just after finding they meet the GNG or SNG criteria, but armed at least with sufficient material to give something weighter than a few sentences. We can't force editors to created more expanded pages without a significant broader change across WP (we'd need New Page Patrol on board, possibly a new CSD, etc.) But we can certain advise against creating such short articles. We definitely want to say that editors should not use mass-creation tools (automatic or semi or otherwise) to make pages just because they meet the GNG/SNG. (Eg someone could make articles on every restaurant in the Michelin guide with a star, we don't want to encourage that at all)

Also, I would stress we're looking at the state after some period of work. If I created a two-sentence stub with no details but then came back to it 24hr later to expand to this better state, that's fine; we don't want people jumping to delete the stub state 5 minutes after it was created. --Masem (t) 16:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

This look like forum shopping by someone who doesn't understand what a Michelin Star is. It isn't the equivalent of a sportsperson making a couple of appearances in EFL League Two or a professor who gets some minor local award, but that of winning an Olympic gold or a Nobel Prize. And that goes for one star, let alone two or three. It is absolutely inconceivable that any restaurant could gain this accolade without having attracted significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, starting from a stub is a perfectly respectable way of creating an article, and the notability of the topic does not depend on how stubby its writeup is. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Starting out as one maybe, but if it is a stub after months or years maybe it because the subject is not in fact notable except because of a set of criteria that mean you can be notable winning the one race you run your whole career. It can be argue this violates wp:notnews, and the concept that notability should also also be lasting (as well as significant coverage).Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to say this, but that idea is bollocks when it comes to gaining a Michelin Star. It's an award that is given for continuing greatness, rather than "winning one race". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Some Michelin stared restaurants have lasted only a tear after being awarded one, others lose them (do they suddenly become non notable?). The point is that all those specific notability guidelines are only a presumption of notability, not a guarantee of inclusion. They still have to obey the wider Notability guidelines.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not the issue, the point is that there is little value of a 1-2 sentence article that has one source that states and affirms the SNG is met. That tiny stub may pass SNG and we'd allow that article and would be near impossible to delete without proof that nearly no source exists. But how much value to the encyclopedia is that article? In contrast, a 2-3 paragraph that includes the SNG criteria proof, but some basic primary info or pulled from non-independent sources or like, still would be a stub but presents much more value as an article to WP.

My idea is not to 100% disallow 1-2 sentence short stub articles or make these delete-able. It is advice editors to simply on finding a topic to meet a SNG to rush to create 1-2 sentence stub, but try to do a bit more legwork to add a few more sources and expand beyond 2 sentences. There's no "penalty" for any 1-2 sentence stub that is created should this advice be added, but this asks editors to consider a more expanded article before creation. --Masem (t) 22:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

If it's merely advice to editors on how to make their articles more useful and informative, and not about allowing or disallowing certain topics, then it is off-topic for a notability guideline and should not be included in the guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

No its not, given that we give the advice in WP:N that a topic presumed notable does not require a standalone article. This advice follows right along: if all you can on a topic is how it meets the SNG, perhaps hold off on an article until you can get more information, though we're not going to stop you otherwise. (However, someone mass creating stub articles based on meeting an SNG at a rapid rate and without seeking community consensus may see behavioral concerns). And I will stress: the restaurant/Michelin star thing is not the issue; I'm in total agreement that should be an SNG criteria. This applies to numerous SNG that can lead to quick and easy article creation. NSPORT's standard "played one pro game" is a common cause of short stubby articles on athletes. But in most cases with those, one can add career box scores - even from primary sources to at least give that weight. --Masem (t) 23:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CREEP and WP:TLDR. The longer you make pages, the less likely they are to be read. Brevity is good and it has nothing to do with notabilty which is a property of the topic, not its Wikipedia entry. There are many notable topics which have no entry at all; they are still notable. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: The way to cater to readers who want to read the whole thing and those who only want to get a brief rundown is to write good articles and even better leads. That way we don't need to compromise either. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

We're talking about short topics, not long ones here. There's a tendency to compile these into long lists in which each section is like a stub article. Such listicles are impossible to summarise in the way you suggest and so are best kept as separate stubs. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It does depend on the type of topic you are talking about. For example, as a practical example we used to, years ago, have separate article for each Pokemon, but that ended up establishing the WP:Pokémon test test; now, only those specific Pokemon that are notable have articles, the others are all collapsed into a handful of tables which are easy to compare against eg List of generation V Pokémon (not saying these are perfect, just that this is definitely a good case of folding up stubs into a table). Something like Michelin Star-earning restaurants are not, even if you did it by nation and state/province/etc. within that. It would just become a list of restaurants and their location and that would violate NOT#TRAVELGUIDE among other things. So no, I would not expect stub-articles on Michelin star restaurants to be merged up into a list. I though still stand that there should be the type of caution (unenforceable) for editors that creating a 1-2 sentence stub about such a restaurant that basically only identifies the restaurant and that it won a Michelin star is not the type of article you want to create and then walk away from hoping others will improve it, and that it is better not to create this type of article without some additional content. --Masem (t) 16:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Most of the comments at RSN are saying the he same thing... that a Michelin star is a good indication that additional reliable sources will exist to establish notability... but that a star - on its own - is not enough to “prove” it. Blueboar (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for justification beyond existing content

Could those arguing in favor of additional guidance in the notability guideline, please state their belief why the content already present in sections #General notability guideline and #Whether to create standalone pages is insufficient to handle stubby Michelin-awarded restaurant articles already? The way it looks to me currently, the needed recommendations are already there, they only need to be cited, and applied. Am I missing something? Mathglot (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I actually see point #3 in that section is basically around this, and the only explicit thing that I would say is missing is specific caution against 1-2 sentence stubs that simply affirm an SNG is met and do nothing else. The idea is there and I would agree it may not be necessary to add more, but given the concerns of the discussion at WP:RS/N on a potential plethora of these type of stubby articles, it may need to be more explicitly said. --Masem (t) 01:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

It does not need to be said. It is incorrect. There is nothing wrong with having 1-2 sentence stub articles, either as placeholders for expandable topics or in cases where the topic is notable (e.g. a species, a member of a national legislature, or a Michelin-starred restaurant) but little more can be added. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

There is clearly part of the community that take issue with 1-2 sentence stub articles. And WP:STUB also further cautions against that. Without caution against short articles, you create a potential drive to mass create articles from databases. This is what happened several years ago related to some sports where 10,000+ articles were created by semi-automated tools from databases. Article creation must be curated, and 1-2 sentence stubs are not curation. --Masem (t) 01:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, your presence here demonstrates that there is at least one editor that thinks this way. That isn't evidence for the correctness of your position, though. And I do not think "curation" means what you think it means: like notability, it is not something that can be measured by the length of the Wikipedia article on a topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Is there a draft wording somewhere in the forest above? Johnbod (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Lists of fictional animals and WP:LISTN

Should Category:Lists of fictional animals by type and all the member lists be deleted? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional badgers. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I've commented there, but BOLDly added to here diff that regardless of notability, WP:V still is required on standalone lists like the one in question at AFD. This is reiterating advice from other pages, but it should be clear here too. --Masem (t) 14:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• It needs discussion first, as there is a principle adhered to by many editors that provided the inclusion is verified in the linked article it does not need to be replicated in the list article particularly when the list is very large. For example List of Youtubers had a reference for every entry but @SoWhy: removed all the references on the basis that the page was very large affecting loading times and that the verification was available in the linked articles (only blue linked articles are included), imv Atlantic306 (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I purposely did not add that the verifyability be through a citation, as I do know many lists where "blue-linked standalone" is all that is required on the presumption the required source is on the blue-linked target. I know several valid lists that have problems running into the template limit due to sourcing each item. But WP:V still must be there. --Masem (t) 15:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree, but the wording needs more clarification as the reader would assume verification refers to referencing on the list, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• As I said in the AFD mentiond You can verify something in the source material without problems. You don't need a reference for everything. This [3] revert is ridiculous since the title of one of the books the character is featured in is titled "Digger the Badger Decides to Stay", so you have no reason to doubt that a badger is in those books. The rule against primary sources is for people talking about themselves who might lie, nothing to do with media being used to verify things like this. The point of source is if there is anything that cause reasonable doubt, but some just get out of hand with it. Dream Focus 20:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

More fiction

Is there a guideline for notability of fictional whatevers? If not, should we try to make one? Consider articles like

• Captain America
• Steve Rogers (Marvel Cinematic Universe)
• Captain America (Ultimate Marvel character)
• Alternative versions of Captain America
• Captain America's shield - Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no specialized notability guideline. That is, fictional characters or elements are expected to show notability per the WP:GNG through significant coverage in independent secondary sources. There is further factors list in WP:WAF which is more content related but a founding principle being that we don't take articles consisting principle of only plot summary. I just peaked at the first link and the first two main sections at least help on the GNG but the rest is not good and needs massive trimming. --Masem (t) 20:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

And to add: Steve Rogers is a perfectly good article from notability (lots of GNG sourcing there), but the other three flat out fail GNG and NOT#PLOT. --Masem (t) 20:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Mmm. It's not surprising MCU has good coverage, people spent a lot of money on that (and it was frickin great for the most part). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

That is, unfortunately to a degree, how these things often fall. Some of the more likely influential characters of the Golden Age of comics get little, but because there's a rather dashing Chris Evans playing him in a big-budget production, the current version gets all the attention. But that said, at least the last two articles are typical of comic fan fluff we get often, we can't document every element of a comic universe if it hasn't received any attention at all. --Masem (t) 21:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Someone should go a little Thanos on those articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding a 4th bullet to WP:NOPAGE

I was about to start writing an article on a new bill in the US senate that's drawn attention, but as I started thinking about it, realized its probably too soon - in that while the draft language has made some free speech groups in a panic (that is, I can clearly pass GNG with sourcing for it), there's no indication yet how far the bill will get. I've been able to write about the bill elsewhere, but in piecing this thought pattern together, realized there may be something we could add to here under the advice of when to create a new standalone page, and that's related to ideas like RECENTISM. (It is not quite WP:NEVENTs realm).

For comparison, the WP:FILM project has a rather good piece of advice for any new film: unless there's really good sourcing available to back it up a long complex development history (Akira (planned film)), one should not create the article on the film until production has been confirmed to have been started. You may have lots of cast and crew news before production, but because in modern film production these can go south in an instant, the WP:FILM project has felt it better to wait for production to have started - not quite a point of no return - before the article can be created. Details prior to production can go to articles otherwise where possible.

So I'm wondering about a fourth bullet in the NOPAGE section, something that when the topic reflects some type of process - the making of a film, the passage of a bill, etc. - that one should make sure the process goes along along far enough to a point where more than likely the process will go through to completion before making a standalone article on the topic. In that it is generally inappropriate to jump the gun to make articles when companies announced plans to make something without demonstrating any progress on that something (this is very common in the video game arena too). This doesn't mean these announcements and projects can't be mentioned elsewhere, redirects made for searching, and all other factors, but just to help editors to consider waiting until there is some assured nature a project would go forward before making a standalone about it, even though it is often easy to meet the GNG at the point of these announcements.

I don't know what language I'd use yet, but I wanted to see if this made send to include first. --Masem (t) 15:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

As there was already something leading to this in the 3rd bullet, I appended language and referencing the Film project's WP:NFF. [4]. --Masem (t) 00:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

General information about companies is not promotion

I see on the Help Desk and the Teahouse that people given advice are often told something that I interpret as meaning that if they only provide general information about the company, that is promotion.

I come to Wikipedia for general information about companies. People are advised to use their web site for this information but what many companies do on their own web sites is promotional gibberish that has nothing to do with what I am looking for.

Sometimes (but not lately) I create articles about the companies I am looking for after I have to go in search of the real information. I may not be in agreement with the community on what makes a company notable but if I want to research the company and not have to go all over the place to do it, it seems notable enough to me.

I don't know if this is in the wrong place, but I just had to say it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You probably will get better input at WP:NCORP. --Masem (t) 18:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) This all depends on where the information about the company comes from. If some of it's from significant coverage in independent reliable sources, then the company is notable, and uncontroversial information can be sourced from the company web site, particularly if the information published by a company is regulated by a reliable stock market or other reliable institution. This really depends on specific cases, so it would be helpful if you could provide some specific diffs where this has not been happening. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem there is, when most new editors say they want to "provide general information on a company", they often mean their company and the general information they want to provide is that they "are an award winning and fast growing presence in the industry, providing a range of services to small businesses and Fortune 500 companies alike." GMG^talk 19:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Wow, where did you find that? I've never met a company that says anything like that, so must do some business with them immediately! Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Notability during Splitting

Hello! Can anyone help me out: When a subtopic of an article has to be split off due to article size, are there any guidelines what the spinout article should to conform to with regard to notability? Thank you very much! Daranios (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

There are really not any guidelines here; spinout articles should not have to meet notability guidelines if you have a size issue with any otherwise GNG-meeting topic. But, that said, some pointers:

• Before spinning out, ask if the size can be reduced. Sometime a careful review will find material that is excessive and beyond the scope of an encyclopedia and you can avoid the spinout that way.
• If the spinout still needs to happen, look around at other similar topics and see what common spinouts happen. If you name the article, I can see what exists, but for example, for actors, its common to spinout their filmography or their lists of accolades. For a fictional series, a list of their characters, etc.
• Moreso, the advice of Summary Style should be followed first: find the information that is of the least general interest and that is likely the material that is best suited to be spun out.
• Ideally you still want to show GNG-type sourcing in the spinout. If you spin out a list of character in a fictional series and can only use primary sources to support it, its probably a bad spinout, but it all depends.

But this is basically the type of stuff LISTN "covers", in that we really have no hard rules here. Its not a hard science here compared to a primary topic notability. --Masem (t) 22:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)