One of the questions I get on a daily basis is about Wikipedia notability guidelines and how to know if you qualify for a page. What qualifies someone to have a Wikipedia page?
Notability is the criteria used by Wikipedia to determine if a topic should be included in the world’s largest encyclopedia. After all, without this requirement, everyone would have a Wikipedia article.
First, I must tell you that I do not work for, nor am I affiliated with, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). The WMF is the non-profit group that runs Wikipedia and its sister sites. I work as a professional Wikipedia editor to help you navigate the policies and guidelines that the Wikipedia community implemented.
This guide will help you navigate the specific rules on notability.
Bottom Line: To be notable for Wikipedia, you need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. This must be more than passing mentions and must come from trusted news sources. If you have news sources (multiple) that talk about you in-depth, you likely qualify for a Wikipedia page.
Wikipedia notability is the standard Wikipedia uses to determine if a topic deserves to be included on the site. A topic is notable when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
In This Guide:
- What Makes Something Notable for Wikipedia?
- What Is Significant Coverage?
- What Sources Does Wikipedia Consider Reliable?
- What Does “Independent of the Topic” Mean?
- Are There Different Notability Rules for Different Topics?
- Common Sourcing Mistakes That Get Wikipedia Pages Deleted
- Frequently Asked Questions About Wikipedia Notability
What Makes Something Notable for Wikipedia?
Well, notability generally comes from references. As a rule of thumb, you established notability when the topic has “significant coverage” in “reliable sources” that are “independent” of the topic. Editors sometimes call this Wikipedia’s “Golden Rule.”
The three requirements for Wikipedia notability are:
- Significant coverage – Sources must discuss the topic in-depth, not just mention it in passing
- Reliable sources – Coverage must come from trusted publications with editorial oversight
- Independence – Sources cannot be controlled by or affiliated with the topic
There is no magic number, but most successful Wikipedia articles have at least 3-5 in-depth articles from reliable sources. Focus on quality over quantity—one featured article in The Wall Street Journal carries more weight than 10 articles on local blogs.
The statement above is all you need to remember. Once you understand what each term means in regards to Wikipedia, you will easily be able to tell if a topic is notable enough.
I put this guide together as notability is commonly misunderstood, both by newbie and experienced editors. Wikipedia’s guidelines on notability are long and hard to follow. This guide breaks things down in plain English. After all, you just want to create a Wikipedia article, not create a flux capacitor. And yes, I aged myself with the Back to the Future reference.
However, if you are a bookworm and like to read volumes of rules and guidelines, I have included all Wikipedia guidelines on notability at the end of this guide. Read them if you want, but I sum most of them up throughout various articles posted to this blog.
What Is Significant Coverage for Wikipedia Notability?
Significant coverage means that numerous sources cover the topic and those sources cover the topic “in-depth.”
Here’s an example:
Let’s assume we are checking for in-depth coverage of the company “The Honest Kitchen,” an organic dog food supplier. There are plenty of references out there which means it has received significant coverage, but which ones can actually be used for notability (as they cover the company “in-depth”)?
There are two articles that I looked at to demonstrate Wikipedia’s definition of in-depth.
The first is a June 15, 2015 article in the Daily Herald. The article name is “Culver’s, Pet Supplies Plus host 4th ‘Pets-a-Palooza’ fundraiser, adoption event.” If you look at the image from the article below, you will see that The Honest Kitchen is talked about; however, it is only a mention of their participation. Wikipedia editors call this a “brief mention.”
While it can be used as a reference to show they participated in the event, it cannot be taken into account for notability.
If all the sources you find on The Honest Kitchen are brief mentions such as the above, they won’t meet the definition of “significant coverage.” You need sources that discuss the topic in-depth.
Note: These examples are from 2015 but the principles still apply. The distinction between “passing mention” and “in-depth coverage” hasn’t changed.
However, let’s take a look at the second example:
This article is from Forbes. The article title is “Does Your Dog Eat Organic? Meet The ‘Human Grade’ Pet Food Startup.” This article talks in depth about organic dog food (which coincidentally is what The Honest Kitchen does. Good chance this one will talk about them).
In fact, you can see below that not only does it mention them, the majority of the article is a feature about the company itself. It details who they are, what they do, and lays out some of the company’s history.
This is the type of article that shows notability. Now, there is no set number of articles needed to show notability. As such, I would advise finding as many as you can. Obviously, the more articles you have that talk about the topic in-depth, the more you can show that the topic is notable.
Key Point: A passing mention doesn’t count. The source must focus on the topic in detail and not just provide a brief mention or routine coverage.
What Sources Does Wikipedia Consider Reliable?
Wikipedians debate reliable sources on a daily basis. Wikipedia considers a source reliable if it comes from a trusted publication. This means that the publication must have editorial control over its content (e.g., fact checkers) and it must be known as being reliable.
For a deeper dive, see my guide on how to determine what constitutes a reliable source for Wikipedia.
As a general rule, simply familiarize yourself with sources used in other articles. Examples of reliable sources include:
- The New York Times
- The Wall Street Journal
- Time Magazine
- The USA Today
Topics can also dictate what is considered reliable. For instance, medical articles generally do not allow for references from anything other than peer reviewed medical journals. This means that although The New York Times may talk about a new breakthrough medical treatment, the Wikipedia article about the treatment will generally only use published studies on the treatment, not The New York Times Article.
If you are unsure if a source is reliable, Wikipedia has a noticeboard where you can pose questions. Simply follow this link, create a new topic, and ask if a specific link is reliable. You will receive numerous responses from editors who patrol that page on a regular basis.
There is a general checklist that Wikipedia has put together to help you determine if a source is reliable.
So, familiarize yourself with the sources generally used in Wikipedia, use the checklist here, and consult the noticeboard with any questions about a specific source that you located.
Key Point: Wikipedia maintains a list of sources editors consider reliable. When in doubt, check their perennial sources list before citing anything.
What Does “Independent of the Topic” Mean?
Being “independent” is difficult to understand, especially for those new to Wikipedia. However, it is at the core of Wikipedia and must be followed in order to maintain its integrity. Simply put, a self-published source is not to be used for notability. You can use a self-published source in some cases (such as using a company website to source where the headquarters are located), but never for purpose of notability.
Self-published sources can include the following:
- Official websites
- Social media
- Official blog
- Press releases
- Interviews
If you want to establish notability with a press release, you are barking up the wrong tree. Wikipedia editors will quickly delete the article you create because they do not consider press releases independent of the topic.
As with many other Wikipedia guidelines, “independence” can vary depending on the topic. Wikipedia provides the following examples:
Here is why it is difficult for newbies to understand. They see self-published sources used all the time in Wikipedia which gives a false perception that they are acceptable. In fact, self-published sources ARE acceptable in Wikipedia, but not for establishing notability.
So, you will find social media profiles, press releases, and company websites cited everywhere on Wikipedia, but if they are being used for notability purposes, chances are the topic isn’t notable enough for Wikipedia and is likely to be deleted.
Now what about interviews in major newspapers?
Many people think that these are acceptable since they appear in a major publication. Unfortunately, they would be wrong. The source itself may be significant and in-depth, but the words come from the subject of the topic. As such, Wikipedia considers it a self-published source.
Takeaway: Press releases, interviews, and the official website of the topic can be used in a Wikipedia article, but in very limited circumstances. They also CANNOT be used to prove a topic is notable.
Are There Different Notability Rules for Different Topics?
Now that you understand the “general notability guidelines,” we need to go through the various notability guidelines specific to each topic. Thought we were done didn’t you?
These additional guidelines are set up to help editors choose which topics are notable for specific fields. For instance, a different set of notability guidelines apply to “schools” than do “musicians.” In fact, Wikipedia considers most higher education institutions (high school and up) de-facto notable as long as you can find a reference to prove it exists. This is a large contrast to guidelines for biographies, which are the most stringent notability guidelines on Wikipedia.
I would advise you to consult with the specific guideline on the topic you are writing about before you attempt to publish your article. Here are links for quick reference:
- Academics
- Astronomical objects
- Books
- Events
- Films
- Geographic features
- Music
- Numbers
- Organizations and companies
- People — Also see our guide to creating Wikipedia biographies
- Sports and athletics
- Web content
Common Sourcing Mistakes That Get Wikipedia Pages Deleted
Over the last decade, I continue to see people making the same mistakes which contributes to their Wikipedia page being deleted. Here are the most common when it comes to notability:
- Press releases — People will use press releases and primary sources thinking they established notability. They do not. The sources are not independent and do not equate to notability, regardless of how many of them exist.
- Interviews — A subject’s own words are not independent of the topic. You may as well use a press release (for the record, again, do NOT use a press release).
- Industry publications — Trade magazines and industry publications exist to promote the specific industry they represent. As such, Wikipedia assumes bias and lack of fact checking. These references can often be used to verify facts, but rarely have I seen them accepted to show notability.
- Quantity and not quality — I cannot reiterate this enough. One quality reference is better than 10 mediocre references. Notability is not about how many sources are available. It is about the quality of the sources available.
- Contributor content — Sources with contributor platforms are rarely acceptable for notability. For instance, while Forbes is considered a reliable source, anything written on its contributor platform is not. This includes sites such as HuffPost and Medium.
Warning: If your page is deleted for lack of notability, it may be “salted” which is a fancy way of saying it will be protected so that no one can create the page. We can still get it created, but it takes a lot of work to convince an administrator to allow it to happen. And of course, more cost to you.
Frequently Asked Questions About Wikipedia Notability
How many references do I need to be notable?
There is no magic number, but you need at least 2-3 in-depth articles from reliable sources. Focus on quality over quantity, keeping in mind that one featured article in The Wall Street Journal is better than 10 articles on local blogs.
Can I use press releases to prove notability?
No. Press releases are not independent of the topic as the information is supplied by the person controlling the topic. They are essentially self-published content and cannot establish notability, even if distributed through major wire services.
Does being interviewed count as coverage?
Coverage? Yes. For notability? Never. Interviews are considered self-published because the words come from the subject. Some things published in the interview can be used to verify facts, but verification of facts does not equate to notability of the topic.
I’m famous in my industry but can’t find articles. Am I notable?
You are unlikely notable for Wikipedia. Being well-known in real life doesn’t equate to notability on Wikipedia. It is all about the sources. If the coverage doesn’t exist, you may need to focus on building your media presence first.
What if my Wikipedia page was deleted for notability?
If your page was deleted, editors may place it on a watch list. Creating it again without significantly more coverage could result in your account being blocked and the page protected from creation. Focus on getting more press coverage, then consider resubmitting through the Articles for Creation process.
Are there different notability rules for different topics?
Yes. Wikipedia has subject-specific notability guidelines for people, companies, musicians, athletes, academics, and more. Some topics have lower thresholds such as people involved in academics, while others have stricter guidelines such as companies.
Related Articles
Want more information on how to create Wikipedia pages? Here are a few more guides to assist:
