|Policies of Halopedia|
|Canon • Notability • Spoilers|
|Blocking • Signature • Voting|
Bots • Copyright • Deleting • Images
Protected Page • What Halopedia is not
| Manual of Style • Layout Guide • Referencing|
About Vandalism • Dealing Vandalism
This policy details Halopedia's policies on notability, which is loosely based off Wikipedia's notability policy.
Notability determines whether a topic merits its own article. Article topics are required to be notable, or "worthy of notice." It is important to note that a notability determination does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below:
Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and mere description of the information by official sources are not sufficient toy establish notability; they may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria:
- The information has all the necessary quality that can be included in articles and that it has significant coverage to such extent that it is more than a trivial mention.[note 1] Furthermore, the information has reliable and reputable sources that are independent of the subject.[note 2]
- The information has all the necessary quality of having its own article. There is a foreseeable certainty that the information will see sufficient and future growth. If otherwise, the information must be capable of presenting itself concisely in a section of an article than in its own article. If the information is essentially a copy of a Wikipedia entry, a simple interwiki link to that Wikipedia will suffice and that information should be kept in a form of a summary.[note 3]
- ^ A perfect example of this would be List of food and drinks.
- ^ Here, reliable and reputable sources would typically refer to established parties that contribute to the development of the Halo franchise and its community. Such examples would be like halo.bungie.org, Ascendant Justice (blog) and Rooster Teeth Productions. The best example of a non-reputable/reliable source is Youtube, specifically Youtube commentators.
- ^ This is also to ensure that the wiki complies with Wikipedia's own attribution policy.