Wikipedia:A creator is not their work
 | 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. |
Summary
[edit]A creative professional or studio is not the same topic as the work they create. Articles about creators of works need reliable and in-depth coverage about the creator themselves to be notable. Information about the works made by the creator are relevant, but not sufficient alone to substantiate that the creator is a notable topic, even if their works are independently notable.
A creator is not their work
[edit]Biographies of creative professionals or studios on Wikipedia often focus their content on the works they have created. This is obvious, as many creators are only notable by reference to coverage about their creative contributions. However, a common issue is that articles may fail to meet general notability if their writing and sources only focus on these works. It is a general principle that the notability of a topic is not inherited by its relationship to topics affiliated with it. A broadly similar principle applies to biographies. This is because a creator is not their work and reliable sourcing is needed to provide sufficient background information about the person or group. An article written largely only to detail a creator's work is not really about the creator, and therefore does not demonstrate the creator's notability.
What to avoid
[edit]Articles about creators that are likely to fail general notability tend to provide only perfunctory information about the creator. Instead, they often list or overview the works of the creator, making the page function as little more than a page to bring together the creator's work. Although this may be practically desirable for accessibility, it is not good evidence of notability. Articles that lack reliable secondary coverage about the person or group also indicate that the page is merely functioning as a way to tie together the works that person has made. It is not particularly relevant that the works of the creator are or aren't independently notable, although if none are notable nor have articles of their own, this might indicate the creator isn't either.
What to include
[edit]When assessing notability, the exercise at hand is to consider whether the coverage provided independently provides enough reliable and in-depth information about the creator to warrant an article. General notability is a flexible concept, and there is no specific standard on what coverage makes a topic notable, although WikiProject guides like WP:NM, [[WP:NVG] or WP:NF may assist. However, information of value when assessing notability about a creator may include the presence of coverage about:
- the creator's background
- the creator's career beyond their contributions
- the creator's affiliation with other creators, partnerships or institutions
- the creator's style, techniques or themes
- commentary or analysis of the creator's work as a whole body of work
Primary sources, such as the creator's own site or content, and interviews with the creator, are useful and integral tools to develop detail beyond their works, but alone may not be a strong indicator of notability depending on the subject matter and sourcing in the article. It is important to note that the principles of general notability still apply, including that coverage include reliable, secondary and in-depth sources.