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 some topics to have an article.

While there are topics that might arguably merit an article, sometimes it is simply too soon. Generally speaking, the various

, 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

.

For an article to be created, its subject should be

. 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.

Meeting the criteria

The meeting of any of the various criteria as set out in

)

General notability guideline

Inclusion criteria might be met through an individual meeting the "

(shortcuts:

WP:PEOPLE

)

Notability for biographies

Biography notability basics

must be more than trivial and must be reliable

".

do not contribute toward notability

and may only support other content.

WP:ANYBIO

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

reasonable presumption

and makes no other demand.

Verify

Meeting any of the criteria set out in

notability requires verifiable evidence

.... and even though all of these criteria need not be met, they are not mutually exclusive.

Actors

An actor might merit an article in Wikipedia if they meet any of the various notability criteria as set out by guidelines at

. 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.

Entertainers

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]

Films

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

The meeting any of the various subject-specific criteria as set out in

) and even though all of these criteria need not be met, they are not mutually exclusive.

General notability guideline

Inclusion criteria might be met through a film meeting the "

".

It is to be remembered that even in cases where a film might not meet the

.

(shortcuts:

)

Notability for films

General principles

.

The

, 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

These listed "attributes" do not all need be met, and

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
     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
     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

Common sense

must to be used in their application.

Other evidence of notability

The

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]

Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed 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

.

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

.

We are advised by

:

"

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:

"

WP:NOT

."

We are advised by the

:

"

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

, 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

.

To summarize on films

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

Meeting any of the criteria set out in

... 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
• "Other evidence of notability"
  section.
• Wikipedia:There is no deadline
• WP:NOPE
  – an essay on notability
• 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