Wikipedia:Notability (news events)/draft for keepers

Whether Wikipedia should have articles detailing particular news events or incidents is a perennial and contentious question. Generally, a topic is presumed to be notable and thus worthy of inclusion within Wikipedia if it has received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. This is the general notability guideline.

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover or the total amount of content. However, it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service. Editors wishing to document a current news event can write for Wikinews. Not every incident that gains news coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. Reporting should be in sources that have a national or global scope, and a rule of thumb on whether an article should be written is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, bearing in mind the question of recentism.

Inclusion guidelines

Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article.

Policies and guidelines that editors often use as a guide on whether to have an article about a single event include WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NTEMP, WP:BIO1E, WP:BLP1E, and WP:N/CA. This guideline clarifies the application of these rules to articles about events.

Editors should evaluate various aspects of the coverage: the depth, persistence, geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage, as well whether the coverage is routine and the impact of the event. There is a category, Category:Events, which may be a guide to the kind of articles about events considered acceptable by the community.

Depth of coverage

The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In depth coverage that includes analysis and which puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, and The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 minutes or CNN Presents), is a much better indication of notability than is news coverage that merely narrates recent events such as do many daily newspaper, wire services, and nightly TV news stories. Such reporting with little thematic connection or contextual information, or lacking insight or critique, is often considered to be routine reporting. Some editors consider narrative news reports to be primary rather than secondary sources.

Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight the old event.

Persistence of coverage

The persistence or duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance. Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Editors should not speculate on whether an event will receive further coverage. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article.

If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance.

Geographical scope

See also: Wikipedia:Notability (local interests)

An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region is generally not notable as it is only of local interest. Such coverage does not justify a separate article regardless of the number of reliable sources that can be provided. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally is generally required for inclusion, though it does not grant automatic notability to the event.

In the case where a television or radio channel has several regional outlets, such as Fox News, one regional station counts as local coverage. Repeating this over multiple stations belonging to the same network that covers an entire country is considered to be a single instance of coverage with national or global scope.

Diversity of sources

Per Wikipedia's general notability guideline, multiple sources are required, not just multiple references from a single source. A series of news reports by a single newspaper or news channel would not be sufficient basis for an article.

Similarly, where a single news wire story or press release has been used (often word-for-word) by several news publications, this should only be counted as a single source for the purpose of determining notability (see Wikipedia:Bombardment). Likewise, when reporters base their information on other news coverage (for example, "AP reported that ..."), the coverage is only a single source. Such derivative reports are not independent of each other and so cannot be used to verify each other. However, if multiple mainstream news outlets report on a single event separately and without being substantially based upon others, these constitute multiple sources.

Routine coverage

Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine. Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. Run-of-the-mill events — common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out — are probably not notable. HOWEVER, SOME EVENTS, LIKE WEDDINGS, MAY BE APPROPRIATE AS PART OF A BIOGRAPHICAL ARTICLE.

Reliability and bias

See also: WP:NOTSCANDAL

Tabloid or yellow journalism is usually considered a poor basis for an encyclopedia article, due to the lack of fact checking inherent in sensationalist and scandal mongering news reporting. Per policy, Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering or gossip. Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous "silly season" reporting. Some editors take into account perceived media bias, such as Missing white woman syndrome, when assessing notability.

Lasting effects

Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation. For example, the Murder of Adam Walsh ultimately led to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, among other notable subjects. The murder of Matthew Shepard has led to reform of hate crime legislation at local, state and federal levels, such as the Matthew Shepard Act.

Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect are notable. This includes, for example, natural disasters that result in widespread destruction, since they lead to rebuilding, population shifts, and possible impact on elections. For example, Hurricane Katrina or the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake are notable by these standards. A minor earthquake or storm with little or no impact on human populations is probably not notable.

A lasting effect may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs.

Breaking news

See also: Category:Current events and Portal:Current events

If an event is still being widely covered in the press, editors may place the {{currentevent}} template on it to inform readers of the changing nature of the article.

It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer as early coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors. Writing about breaking news may be recentism, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is recommended that editors start a section about the event within an article on a related topic, which may later be split into its own article if the coverage suggests that the event is independently notable.

Many articles on events are created in anticipation of their notability. Anticipation is the creation of an article on a recent event with the expectation that it will meet inclusion guidelines, before the persistence of coverage or any lasting effect is certain. For example, 2009 Washington Metro train collision was started just 60 minutes after the crash occurred. The rescue operation was still ongoing, an investigation was yet to begin, and the final death toll was unknown.

Anticipation of notability will often be mistaken. Many events portrayed by the media as major on the day they occur quickly become only a footnote. For example, it was reported in January 2009 that a man was planning to travel to Washington to assassinate George W. Bush. It was reported several days later that he had no such plans and this event was shown to be nothing more than a routine arrest. However, articles about widely reported major unexpected or unprecedented events such as the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto or the Death of Michael Jackson will almost certainly gain consensus to be kept even when created on the same day as the event occurred.

Articles about breaking news events —particularly biographies of participants— are often rapidly nominated for deletion. Consider delaying the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target. There may be alternatives to deletion such as merging or reworking the article so that it conforms with policy, such as rewriting an article about a person known only for one event to be about the event. Other alternatives to deletion while the story develops are userfying or moving the article into the Article Incubator.

Wikinews

Main page: Wikipedia:Wikinews

Editors are encouraged to write about breaking news events in Wikinews instead of in Wikipedia.

Moving a page to Wikinews is not possible as this would re-license it under the CC-BY license, which is incompatible with CC-BY-SA and GFDL, but the content could be reworked from the original sources for Wikinews with a soft redirect from Wikipedia.

Participants

Main pages: WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E

Someone known only for one event should generally not have an article written about them, but if the event they were part of is notable an article should be written about the event instead. See WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. Biographical information about participants should be limited to that which can be linked to the event; material that establishes the notablility of the event, or which is reasonably required to explain some aspect of the event.

Alternatives to deletion

Main page: WP:ATD

If the notability of an event is in question but it is primarily associated with a particular person, company or organization, or can be covered as part of a wider topic, it may preferable to describe the event within a preexisting article, by merging content. Care should be taken to not not give the event undue weight or violate our policy on biographies of living persons.

If there is no suitable target for merging, a solution may be to rework the article to widen its context beyond a single event.

Criminal acts

Main page: Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)

There is a specific notability guideline for criminal acts. A "criminal act" includes a matter in which a crime has been established, or a matter has been deemed a likely crime by the relevant law enforcement agency or judicial authority. For example, the disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged. If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred (e.g., the Runaway bride case) since that would not make the matter less notable. Intense media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on reliable sources.

Examples

ALTHOUGH EXAMPLES MAY CHANGE OVER TIME, THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES WERE DEEMED AS NOTABLE: .....

AND NOT NOTABLE: ....

(this would give the readers a sense of what is acceptable and stop the "other crap exists" versus unfair/unequal treatment of similar articles)

See also

• Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#It's in the news
• User:Dlugar/WP:NOTANTINEWS
• Wikipedia:Big events make key participants notable
• Wikipedia:Future event
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper
• Wikipedia:News articles
• Don't create an article on a news story covered in 109 newspapers
• Wikipedia:AIRCRASH, a proposal for notability of aircraft disasters.
• Wikipedia:In the news