Imagine you just covered a breaking news story that made local headlines. You want to document it on Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia where articles must meet strict notability standards based on reliable secondary sources. But before you hit publish, you need to know if the event actually qualifies. It’s not enough for something to be big locally or viral on social media. The community relies on specific rules to decide what deserves a standalone page versus what should just be mentioned in an existing article.
This guide breaks down how editors determine if an event is notable enough to stand alone. We will look at the difference between general notability rules and specific event guidelines, helping you avoid common pitfalls like relying on press releases or self-published blogs.
Key Takeaways
- General notability requires significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.
- Specific event guidelines add extra criteria for things like natural disasters, awards, and sports matches.
- Sources must be independent of the subject; press releases and official websites rarely count.
- If an event lacks a dedicated article, consider adding it to a broader topic instead of forcing a new page.
Understanding the Core Principle: Reliable Secondary Sources
At the heart of every notability debate on Wikipedia is the concept of Reliable Secondary Source is an authoritative publication that analyzes or interprets a subject rather than reporting original facts. For an event to be notable, it needs to be discussed by these sources in a way that shows its significance beyond the immediate moment.
Think of it this way: A local charity gala might get mentioned in a newspaper’s society section. That is primary coverage-it reports that the event happened. But if a major national outlet writes an analysis piece about how that gala changed fundraising strategies in the region, that is secondary coverage. It interprets the event’s impact. Wikipedia prefers the latter because it indicates the event has a lasting place in history or culture.
The key word here is independence. If the source is owned by the people involved in the event, it is not independent. This is why official press releases, corporate blogs, and fan sites are generally poor evidence for notability. You need third-party observers who have no stake in the outcome.
General Notability vs. Specific Event Guidelines
Wikipedia uses a two-tiered system for events. First, there is the General Notability Guideline (GNG) is the baseline rule requiring multiple independent reliable sources to cover a topic significantly. Second, there are specific guidelines for certain types of events that lower or modify the threshold.
Most random incidents-like a minor car accident or a small protest-must pass the GNG. They need substantial coverage from reputable outlets. However, some events have their own shortcuts. For example, any hurricane named by the National Hurricane Center is automatically notable, regardless of whether it caused damage. Similarly, winners of major international awards like the Nobel Prize are inherently notable.
| Feature | General Notability (GNG) | Specific Event Guidelines |
|---|---|---|
| Requirement | Multiple independent reliable sources | Meets specific criteria (e.g., named storm, major award) |
| Source Quality | Must be high-quality secondary sources | Often accepts primary sources (e.g., official logs) |
| Scope | Applies to all topics without specific rules | Applies only to defined categories (sports, disasters, etc.) |
| Risk of Deletion | High if sources are weak or biased | Low if criteria are clearly met |
Navigating Common Pitfalls in Sourcing
Many new editors make the mistake of treating any mention as sufficient proof. If three different newspapers report that a building burned down, does that make the fire notable? Not necessarily. Those reports are likely describing the same primary fact. To prove notability, you need sources that discuss the significance of the fire-perhaps its impact on city planning or its role in a larger historical context.
Another trap is recency bias. Just because an event is trending today doesn’t mean it will remain notable next month. Editors often wait a few weeks after an event to see if sustained coverage continues. If the interest fades quickly, the event might be better suited for a brief mention in a related article rather than its own page.
Always check the independence of your sources. If a tech startup launches a product and covers it on its own blog, then a local business journal mentions it, that second source might still be too close to the subject. Look for coverage from industry analysts or major national tech publications to establish true independence.
When to Create a Page vs. When to Merge
Not every notable event needs its own standalone article. Sometimes, the best home for information is within a broader context. For instance, a single day of protests might be notable, but if it was part of a year-long movement, it makes more sense to include it in the main article about that movement.
Consider the reader’s intent. Would someone search specifically for “The 2024 River Flood” or would they look up “Natural Disasters in 2024”? If the former, a standalone page works. If the latter, a section within the broader article is more useful. This approach keeps the encyclopedia organized and prevents fragmentation of related information.
Before creating a new page, search Wikipedia thoroughly. Often, the event is already covered in a list article or a timeline. Adding a sentence there is often more valuable than starting a thin, potentially deletable new page.
Practical Steps for Verifying Notability
To ensure your event meets the bar, follow this simple checklist:
- Identify the type of event. Does it fall under a specific guideline (e.g., sports match, natural disaster)? If yes, check those specific criteria first.
- Gather independent sources. Find at least two to three reliable secondary sources that discuss the event’s significance, not just its occurrence.
- Check for independence. Ensure the sources are not affiliated with the subjects of the event.
- Assess depth of coverage. Is the event analyzed or interpreted? Or is it just reported as a fact?
- Search existing articles. See if the event fits better into a broader topic or list.
If you can answer “yes” to most of these questions, you are likely on solid ground. If not, it might be worth waiting or choosing a different angle for your contribution.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does viral social media coverage count toward notability?
Generally, no. Social media posts are considered self-published or primary sources unless they are from a recognized journalist or organization acting as a secondary source. Viral trends show popularity, not necessarily encyclopedic significance.
How many sources do I need to prove an event is notable?
There is no fixed number, but two to three high-quality, independent secondary sources are usually sufficient. One exceptional source might work in rare cases, but multiple sources provide stronger protection against deletion.
Can I use a press release as a source?
Only if a reliable secondary source cites the press release and adds their own analysis. Using the press release directly as proof of notability is risky because it is not independent.
What happens if my new article gets deleted?
If an article is deleted for lack of notability, you can usually restore it later once you have gathered better sources. Keep a copy of your work and continue searching for reliable secondary coverage before recreating the page.
Is local news coverage enough for a local event?
Yes, provided the local news outlet is considered reliable in its region. A well-regarded local newspaper can serve as a reliable secondary source for events that are significant within that locality.
