Wikipedia:Too soon

This is an essay on notability. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcuts WP:TOOSOON WP:NOTJUSTYET

This page in a nutshell: Sometimes it's simply just too soon for a topic to have an article.

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. It is an encyclopedia that needs to be reliable. If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered.

If an article is deemed TOOSOON, you may consider writing a draft. Please note that drafts can be automatically deleted after a period of inactivity, after which they may be requested for undeletion.

For an article to be created, its subject should be verifiably notable due to its discussion in sufficient independent secondary reliable sources. Sometimes, a topic may appear obviously notable to you, but there may not be enough independent coverage of it to confirm that. In such cases, it may simply be too soon to create the article.

This applies to recent events, people, new products and any other topics about which facts have only recently emerged or are still emerging. Even the rediscovery of old artefacts, such as archaeological finds or declassified documents, needs to be independently verified.

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)

Inclusion criteria might be met through an individual meeting the "general notability guideline" and their having significant coverage in "reliable sources" (not editorials, not Facebook, nor Twitter). It should be remembered that even in cases where a person 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:BASIC acts to remind editors of the caveats at the general notability guideline, 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 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 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.

Meeting any of the criteria set out in notability, general notability guideline, biography notability guideline, WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC, or entertainer notability guideline 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.

An actor 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, as explained above. Actors are grouped in with Entertainers, as detailed in WP:NACTOR. 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 from 2012: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Katherine Jackson. At the time of the discussion, she had been announced as the star of a film (Lundon's Bridge and the Three Keys) that would be released a year after – however, the film had not actually been released yet. Thus the article was deleted (redirected to her father's page). The article was reinstated in August 2013. As of 2024^[update], the movie remains unreleased.

Another example is Raegan Revord. At the time of this writing, she has been part of a big mainstream TV series (Young Sheldon) for almost six years. Yet, Wikipedia did not have a Raegan Revord page as of November 2022^[update] (the preceding link was red at that time). This is because while she easily meets the general guidelines, the article cannot establish significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. This is not because the draft is poorly written or researched. It is instead for the simple reason she hasn't had more than the one such role - there just isn't any second such role to find references for.

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

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

3 "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment"^[1]

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.

The meeting any of the various subject-specific criteria as set out in notability, general notability guideline, and notability for films must be always be verifiable in reliable sources. (See notability requires verifiable evidence) and even though all of these criteria need not be met, they are not mutually exclusive.

Inclusion criteria might be met through a film meeting the "general notability guideline" and having significant coverage in "reliable sources" (not blogs, Facebook, Twitter, etc.). 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 general notability guideline, it 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).

Notability for films "general principles" remind editors of the caveats at the general notability guideline 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.

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:"
   • "Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release".
     • (This criterion is totally inapplicable to any film that is less than 5 years old.)
   • "The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release".
     • (This criterion is totally inapplicable to any film that is less than 5 years old.)
   • "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release".
     • (This criterion is totally inapplicable to any film that is less than 5 years old.)
   • "The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema".
     • (This criterion is usually inapplicable to a film that is less than 5 years old... but documentaries, programs, or retrospectives sometimes do include more recent works in comparisons when covering past works as part of an inclusive program.)
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 to fit our standards as well) ^[2]
4. " The film was selected for preservation in a national archive".^[3]
   • (While this criterion is rarely applicable to a film that is less than 5 years old, it is much more likely for films that are much older)
5. "The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program".
   • (While this criterion is rarely applicable to a film that is less than 5 years old, it is much more likely for films that are much older)

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.

The general notability guideline 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.^[4]

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 general notability guideline, 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 exceptions to the future films guideline.

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

Meeting any of the criteria set out in notability, general notability guideline, and Notability for films 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.

• Wikipedia:Usual caveats – an essay dealing with how a topic might become notable in the future, even if not quite yet.
• WP:HAMMER – an essay about unnamed albums
• Wikipedia:OEN – an essay that explains how to apply WP:Notability (film)'s "Other evidence of notability" section.
• Wikipedia:There is no deadline
• WP:NOPE – an essay on notability
• Wikipedia:Improve the junk – an essay on improving the improvable
• Wikipedia:GNGACTOR – an essay on actors and the general notability guide
• Wikipedia:PRIMER – an essay to help newcomers get a grip.
• Wikipedia:Up and coming next big thing – on up-and-coming next big things which may never up and come or be big things
• Wikipedia:When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork