|
===Sfera di cristallo===
[[WP:Cristallo|Wikipedia non è una sfera di cristallo]]. Di questo si deve tener conto non solo al momento di scrivere una nuova voce, ma anche nel commentarla in sede di procedura di cancellazione. Le previsioni riguardo alla notorietà degli eventi (sportivi, sociali, culturali ecc.) sono per forza di cose estremamente soggettive ed arbitrarie: di conseguenza non ci si può appellare ad esse per decidere se cancellare o meno una voce.
===Enciclopedicità ereditata===
Se uno o più membri di un gruppo sono enciclopedici, non necessariamente devono esserlo anche gli altri. Le considerazioni sull'importanza devono riguardare sempre il singolo soggetto della voce. Naturalmente esistono delle eccezioni, contemplate dalle linee guida dei diversi progetti (ad esempio [[Progetto:Musica|Musica]], [[Progetto:Cinema|Cinema]], [[Progetto:Calcio|Calcio]], ecc). A volte si dedica una voce indipendente ad un sottoargomento specifico di una voce solo per questioni di leggibilità, per alleggerire la voce principale e facilitare la navigazione, ma in questo caso la voce "minore" è accettata solo perché contestualizzata grazie alla voce principale.
Allo stesso modo, se un prodotto è molto noto non è detto che debbano esserlo anche i produttori, o se una persona considerata enciclopedica appartiene ad un'associazione, non per questo l'associazione risulterà anch'essa enciclopedica. Anche i familiari di personaggi famosi, per essere degni di una voce, devono rientrare a loro volta nei criteri di enciclopedicità. Ovviamente ciò non vale in determinati casi, come quello delle [[first lady]], che devono la loro notorietà al fatto di essere mogli di capi di Stato.
<!--
==Notability fallacies==
==Subjective importance===
===Crystal ball===
===Notability is inherited===
{{shortcut|WP:ITSA|WP:INHERITED|WP:NOTINHERITED}}
{{ATA shortcut notice}}
''Examples:''
* '''Keep''' She once worked with someone famous – <span style="color:red">Keeper</span> 14:15, 03 March 2009 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' All examples of ''foo'' are inherently notable. – <span style="color:red">Classifier</span> 01:15, 03 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' All examples of ''faah'' are useless cruft. – <span style="color:red">Class Warfare</span> 11:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' It is a radio program on a notable radio station therefore the program is automatically notable. – <span style="color:red">Wheredoesitend</span> 15:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' his brother is a notable athlete. – <span style="color:red">Family Tree</span> 19:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' – there are lots of famous people on this list, so it's notable. <span style="color:red">Adrian Listmaker</span> 18:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Notability of one or more members of some group or class of subjects may or may not apply to other possible members of that group. Discuss based upon the individual subject, not the subject's overarching classification or type. If a subject under discussion is independently notable, provide the evidence to show that.
In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not ''always'' imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case (three of the notability guidelines, for [[WP:BK|books]], [[WP:NF|films]] and [[WP:MUSIC|music]], ''do'' allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" ''per se'', but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums.
Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable.
Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative. Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the ''parent'', not the child.
Note, however, that this does ''not'' apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently ''defines'' a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national [[First Lady]].
''See also [[WP:NRVE|Wikipedia: Notability]] and [[WP:AVOIDSPLIT|Wikipedia:Summary Style]].''
===Lots of sources===
| 