Wikipedia talk:Too soon

Essay

This is my essay on how sometimes it's just too soon for an actor or a film to have its own article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I added two links. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that this could easily be expanded beyond just actors and films, but any article that is prematurely created before there is a critical mass of reliable sourcing out there. Heck, I just invoked this essay in an AfD regarding a niche software program that's only been out for four months. -- RoninBK _{T C} 06:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• What's the point though, if all it does is say to check the other guidelines? Dream Focus 10:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a guideline or policy

Users sometimes refer to this page as though it's a guideline or policy, but it's not. It's an opinion essay. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It is, however, a useful Essay. I often use it at AFD as polite and gentle way to let fans of new or wannabe actors, magazines, politicians, etc. know that Wikipedia welcomes new users, but cannot permit articles on subjects of any sort until they establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Broaden

User:MichaelQSchmidt, I wonder if you would consider adding language to broaden this, make it clear that this concept can apply to many kinds of careers (politican, author, athlete) and entities (political parties, NGOs, magazines, things (neologisms. theories).E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I had thought the same. Will broaden. Y Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I have just done a bold broadening of the format and scope. I think it might benefit from a few more subsections, perhaps reducing/generalising some detail in the Films section. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Too Late

And sometimes it's Too Late. A character has ceased to be popularly notable, even though historians and septuagenarians might disagree, good references exist online (maybe in the deep web) but are not included in Google (or are down at #1,000,001 because the site is no longer popular), the books are only to be found in the Library of Congress / Bodleian / NRC Library etc., etc. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Expand to apply at articles ?

For some topics, I have repeatedly said that there really should be a 48 hour waiting period before whatever came up in someone’s morning feed is too casually posted to ‘hey how about (link)’ sets off a Chinese fire drill of a time sink before facts of any reactions or significance and WEIGHT can appear. I am particularly looking at Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump and how the flap du jour or internet viral thing goes off into debates with little to examine. Would this article be something to expand on viral items du jour, or is there another WP guide/essay that fits ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

User:MichaelQSchmidt - what do you think? NOTNEWS does not seem that applicable for viral outbreaks. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Expand to apply to institutes, universities, colleges, hospitals

I am requesting the original editors to expand this article, to make the guidelines clear regarding the upcoming public or private institutes, such as universities, colleges, hospitals, etc. Though many exist in the reputed secondary media sources, the question becomes at what stages it warrants their inclusion as wikipedia article, this leave a lot of subjectivity: (in the increasing order of stricter criteria)

1. Announcement: When it is announced by the government/authorities responsible, but no formal "procedural" approvals have been granted.

2. Committee or Cabinet approval: When it is approved by the "cabinet committee of ministers" or other such "competent committee", e.g. by the relevant state or union/federal govt cabinet, not no laws/acts/ordinances have been passed. For example, the long existing article on Indian National Defence University (INDU) has the India Government's "Union Cabinet" Approval, but the draft bill is yet to be passed by the parliament, it is supported by the reputed secondary sources (multiple national newspapers).

3. Introduction of the legal bill in the parliament/senate: The proposal has been introduced in the senate/parliament, but awaiting approval.

4. Legal bill passed, which becomes an ACT of law: Once the legal bill is passed by the parliament it becomes the "act of law".

5. Act passed and notified in the gazette, but no infrastructure/students/patients yet: An Act fo law or ordinance becomes legally enforceable only after it has bene notified in the gazette, after the notification the act legally comes into force/existence. This is irregardless of if the institute has any physical infrastructure, students, patients or not, but legally it has become "extant" (legally exists presently). For example, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rewari was rejected even though this definitively "legally exists" as reported by the reputed secondary sources (multiple national newspapers), this "rejected" draft passes much "higher legal/factual criteria" than the "approved" article mentioned in the item-2 above, both cite the same/similar secondary sources (multiple national newspapers).

6. Legally Notified in Gazette, but low infrastructure: It may have one or more of the following: classes/hospital in temporary location while permanent campus is still being built or planned. For example, in case of a teaching medical hospital-cum-medical college,
(a) only OPD and no teaching,
(b) only teaching classes, no OPD or hospital services yet,
(c) teaching classes from temporary location, and
(d) and numerous other similar but distinct scenarios.

7. Fully functional with own permanent campus: This is the last stage, most institutes take several years to get to this stage even after they have initially become operational.

'8. Use the past convention/precedence to decide: Allow the creation once it has been passed by the competent "committee" (item-2 above), I base my rationale on the fact that the INDU article has been reviewed, approved and survived for many years, this becomes a convention to base our collective decision on.

Thanks. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear MichaelQSchmidt and Markbassett, Sorry to bother you guys. Going by the previous discussions on this talkpage, I presume you two are the primary editors/creator of this. Please address the above. Also, tag anyone here who you think could help address this. Thanks. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

TOOSOON and application to List of (topic) in (future year)

For annual articles, when is it appropriate to accept drafts of List of (topic) in 2023, 2024, etc.? Editors are wanting to push Draft:List of American films of 2023 and Draft:List of American films of 2024. The 2022 list was accepted on January 1, 2021, which implies "current year" and "immediate next year".

I also would like to know if the same approach is appropriate for other events, such as sports seasons and political elections, or whether it uses the tighter requirement of current season only, create next season only when current season championship is complete. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

IMHO, the shorter time frame, the better. I can understand people are eager to populate these articles with 2 or 3 blurbs, but they would be much better served with a full document of the time period in question. I am a firm believer in WP:CRYSTAL. Especially for things such as films, that can end up in development hell: our standard here has always been: "You can add it when principal photography commences" and I think that's still a good rule of thumb, but not the only rule of thumb that should be applied.

Also, let's observe WP:DOYCITE and WP:V and cite these entries from here on out. Elizium23 (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Add WP:What's the rush?

I suggest adding a (new) shortcut "WP:Whats the rush" at the top (and/or redurect), plus a mention that WP is a not a leading indicator but a conservative lagging indicator, and a little wordsmithing. I think this may help clarify for some, and to me the term "Whats the rush" has a bit more punch than just "Too soon". It is particularly relevant when editor(s) acknowledge that something will probably be notable sometime in the future, but there is not enough evidence yet so lets be patient. To me saying "lets not rush" is a bit gentler/more tactful than "too soon". (Of course some will be irate at both, nothing we can do about that...) Ldm1954 (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

How many years away counts as too soon?

The one thing I am confused about is how many years away counts as too soon. Abhiramakella (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)