At pages like Teahouse and the AFC help desk, I regularly see people told "Interviews don't count towards notability; they are not independent". When and where did we decide this?
It seems to me that there is a vast difference between, at one end of the spectrum, the kind of churnalistic article that is simply a string of quotes from the subject, in a Q&A format (which certainly is not independent) and, at the other extreme, an in-depth profile of the kind published by more serious journalists and publications, which is made up of an in-depth analysis in the journalist's words, supplemented by quotes from the subject explaining their beliefs or motivations.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits11:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are different types of interviews and that should be context dependent. In some interviews much "third party" or "independent" information is even in the questions themselves. Also, its silly to say in a serous outlet interview, that an independent party has not taken notice, obviously they have or there would be no interview.Alanscottwalker (talk)12:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An interview alone should not be able to confer notability, but if there are other appropriate sources that provide some significant coverage, and the interview (particularly based on the weight of importance and independence of the interviewing source) helps lend more weight to that, the interview should not be discounted from notability.
The problem that I think some are concerned about is that there are business trade magazines that one can pay to be interviewed, which makes the interview there non-independent.Masem (t)14:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the dividing line is utterly subjective. For my part, I'm quite comfortable with interviews not conferring notability; if a subject is genuinely notable, there will be significant coverage in third-party sources that aren't interviews. Ravenswing14:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many of our criteria for sources and notability are utterly subjective. We seem to manage.
Most interviews that are worth anything start with at least an introduction, a bit about "GMG is big and strong and very handsome" before it goes into the transcript. That bit is presumably vetted for accuracy based on the reputability of the source. Also, again, based on the quality of the source, they presumably wouldn't let someone outright lie. Responsible journalism is supposed to entail keeping your subject within the realm of the real world.This is different than low quality pieces, especially industry, where interviews are often treated as a way to produce content without much work, the subject can say whatever they want because it's just an avenue for advertising, and the bio itself may just be pulled from the subject's website.GMGtalk17:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In reality, the real answer must be it depends, as interviews lie on a spectrum (from a quote [or serious of quotes] on a topic that the subject is familiar with to a piece where the subject themself is the topic). But the real challenge is that, correctly, we do not define how many sources (or type of sources) is sufficient to create a stand-alone article. We define notability as something "worthy of notice" (and that being worthy is receiving "significant coverage in reliable sources"). Importance is not a criteria. Because we have this fuzzy concept of notability, we run into this question of whether an interview "counts" only when the subject is of borderline notability (and in that case, perhaps it is better to err towardsWP:NOPAGE). --Enos733 (talk)17:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"we run into this question of whether an interview 'counts' only when ..."—But we don't. We make blanket statements such as that paraphrased in my OP, even when we don't know the intended subject.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits17:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect thatthis nutshell edit by @Bearcat ("a person does not pass GNG if interviews are the only kind of sourcing they have") has added to the confusion. The situation is more complicated than just "Nope, non-notable".
One of the structural problems is that editors (especially us old hands) are more interested in plain old print. It needs to be text, and it needs to be something I can search with ⌘F. An interview transcript might get printed in a magazine, but back in the day, that was a novelty or a single column in a publication that was filled with everything else.
Interviews are the form used by default for radio, television, podcast, and video formats. If we say "Nope, a huge number of interviews is just not notable", we're saying that the format of the source determines whether it 'counts'. That's not what we want to do.WhatamIdoing (talk)19:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I meanMadonna is not notable because of an interview that she gave. There are plenty of GNG sources about her. The only time we have concerns about whether an interview should be considered for notability is when the subject is of borderline notability. -Enos733 (talk)21:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that disputes only arise in the more difficult cases. After all, editors are usually trying to find out "notable or not?", and when we can do that with sources that are easy to evaluate, then it'd be inefficient to spend time and energy evaluating and classifying the other sources.
However, in principle, a source should count the same regardless of whether there are other sources, and that matters for the policy writing aspect. I don't think thatMadonna's most famous interview demonstrates notability (for her, or anything else), but that's because of the contents of the interview. I'd hold that view no matter what other sources did/didn't exist.WhatamIdoing (talk)04:37, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the interview material does not count for notability, but in more reputable outlets they often give an extended 'introduction' to the interview background independent from the interview. If that is long enough, I would count it for notability, but not the interview part.PARAKANYAA (talk)20:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA, please look at the first row of the table below. Then consider:
If the history professor writes a one-page article in a history journal about the battle, then that's evidence that the battle is notable.
If the history professor writes a one-page article in a magazine about the battle, then that's evidence that the battle is notable.
But if the history professor says the same things on a radio show, then that'snot evidence that the battle is notable?
I feel like radio shows are a poor example because you cannot go back and fact check that like you can with writings. I wouldn't think that to be as reliable. With a documentary you get multiple takes and edits so that would be another thing. But the medium of radio does not really lend itself to fact checking, it is more off the cuff, no?PARAKANYAA (talk)21:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. You've raised three points, so I'll address them separately:
Most radio shows (i.e., in the present century) are recorded and archived. The recordings can be used to check the contents for WP:V purposes. If it wasn't (or if the recording was kept private), then the source would fail ourWP:Published#Accessible requirement, but that's unrelated to it being an interview.
Not all radio shows are live broadcasts, and even for 100% live broadcasts, there are frequently semi-prepared bits. For example, if I were interviewing you live, I'd want to ask about your experience and comfort with this, and give you some idea of what to expect (for example, maybe I'd tell you: "I'll introduce you and say you're a Wikipedia editor. We'll start easy: I'll ask you about how you got started editing and whether you think Wikipedia is important to the world. After that, I'll ask about what Jimmy Wales said last week, and whether Elon Musk really hates Wikipedia, and we'll see where it goes from there. If we run out of things to talk about, I'll ask if you have a favorite story about Wikipedia, so come prepared to tell one if we need to. When you hear the background music start, we've got 30 seconds left."
Fact-checking (i.e., by the source, not by Wikipedia editors, who have no business doing that) is a desirable thing in (most) sources, but it's not a requirement for notability, or even for reliability. Additionally, particularly withGotcha journalism, fact-checking does sometimes happen in live radio and television interviews. Some interviews are a long series of "Do you deny that you ever said this?" "Yes! Of course I deny saying that!" "Here's a video of you saying this. Now, do you still deny that you ever said this?" But most fact checking is both more mundane (how to spell the interviewee's name) and unnecessary for recorded interviews (whether they actually said that thing).
Yes, if the secondary independent content provided alongside the interview is itself SIGCOV, then that (and only that) may contribute to GNG. Everything else is excluded.JoelleJay (talk)20:57, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've wondered occasionally whether some examples like this might help editors reach a shared understanding:
Examples of some interviews
Source
Interviewee
Topic of discussion
Notability?
10-minute segment on a radio show
A history professor from Little University
100th anniversary of a battle in the broadcast area
Y Yes for the battle – equal to a newspaper article saying the same thing in prose
I do not think the source column makes sense - as the topic of discussion is the most important aspect to determine what is notable. Certainly, there is a difference between an interview on 60 Minutes versus a segment on a radio show or quotes in a Wall Street Journal article, but for clarity to editors, the question needs to be why the person was interviewed. Was the person interviewed to talk about how they use AI, or about their company's marketing strategy, or was the person interviewed to talk about their life experiences? And secondly, what is the depth of the published interview (is the subject the feature of the published piece, an example, or an anecdote). -Enos733 (talk)20:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TheWP:SOURCE (which includes both the publication/interviewer and the interviewee – the first two columns here) determines whether the interview could be a reliable source at all. "Teenager interviews friend for school project" is never going to demonstrate notability, nor is a reporter doing random man-on-the-street interviews.
I agree with you that the topic of discussion is the key point, because you could interview Alice Expert about Alice herself (notability points to the BLP on Alice) or you could interview Alice about her area of expertise (notability points to the area of expertise, but not to Alice herself). As a real-world example of that, tech analystRob Enderle was famous for getting quoted in tech news, largely because he was very quick to return calls from reporters who were working on short deadlines. The resulting articles demonstrated notability for whatever he was talking about, not for himself. (The reason we're stuck with an article on him is because theThe Mercury News wrote a whole article about him, not because it'd be possible to fill pages with "On <date> he was quoted in the <publication> as saying thatApple might fail".)
I think the content itself is also relevant. For example, both Madonna and Betsy Ford were interviewed on television, but I think only the Ford interview could contribute towards notability. The Madonna interview didn't have any useful substance.WhatamIdoing (talk)22:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point is largely that if we do add a table to WP:INTERVIEWS, we should try to hold the source column consistent, as editors are generally better about evaluating the general appropriateness of a source. But, if we have source "60 Minutes" and an topic of discussion a in-depth interview, I don't want a table to leave the impression that the quality of the source is the defining feature ("if it was in 60 Minutes it must contribute to notability"). Some of the segments in 60 Minutes that include a clip of an interview are more akin to interviewing a history professor (subject matter expert) and would not contribute to notability of the interviewee. -Enos733 (talk)22:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors feel "interview" refers only to the content coming directly from the interviewee, while others see it as including the material accompanying that content. If the accompanying material is independent, secondary, and SIGCOV it may count toward GNG. But nothing that simply repeats or rephrases what the interviewee said is independent of the interviewee (or secondary), and material by the interviewer that just remarks on the present conditions of the interview (e.g. the interviewee's outfit, the weather, or any other first-hand impressions) is not secondary, which rules out the vast majority of interviews that come into question here.JoelleJay (talk)21:07, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion below around secondary sources comes here that interviews can be primary or secondary, it all depends on context. If one interviewed a movie star about a movie that just cane out, for all purposes that's likely primary. On the other hand, asking the star about a film from 20 years and asking for their retrospective would likely be secondary because now we're talking about transformative information (the star doing more analysis and commentary from from something long ago)Masem (t)21:35, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“whatever the CEO wants to say about the company” is not necessarily “all primary” source material. If the CEO talks about how good the company is, and why it is so good, subjective analysis even if conceited, that is secondary source material.SmokeyJoe (talk)22:33, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:WhatamIdoing’s “Examples of some interviews” table is scattered with wrong and arguable points about whether something is evidence of Wikipedia-notability. Mostly, it is ignoring the requirement for independence.SmokeyJoe (talk)22:45, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sinceyou've silently changed them, I agree that there are scattered wrong and arguable points in the table now.
For example, the famous Madonna interview might not be all non-independent (because she talked about some things unrelated to herself), but it is allWP:PRIMARY (it was all her unfiltered opinions).
I think thatBetty Ford "getting attention from the world at large" in a major TV interview by a reporting show with a reputation for being prepared and doing their research in advance is equivalent to having a major newspaper article with similar background research and similar content. We don't look at a long news piece and say "Oh, that's all independent, except for the bits that the independent reporter and his independent editors and their independent newspaper independently decided to quote".WhatamIdoing (talk)23:40, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the contents of the table are wrong, in my firm opinion. Unfortunately, wiki-tables are very hard to work with.
Some of the sever problems with the table are oversimplification, to the point of being wrong. As always, source typing depends on what is being used, and how, but I am not prepared to accept that it is to be accepted that in a lengthy interview, Madonna never made a non-objective comment on herself or her product. Any non-object comment means that some transformative creation of secondary source information occurred.
In the end, I think source typing interviews is a waste of time, redundant to evaluating whether the interview material is independent, because the interview-proper is almost never independent, because that is the point of an interview, to go to the source. The interviewee going off-topic to produce incidental independent comment on something else is a distraction.SmokeyJoe (talk)04:13, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the edits to your table, since it is part of your signed comment, IfUser:SmokeyJoe wishes to propose an alternative they should do so in a separate comment (or, better, given the size, on a subpage of their user page, with a link posted here).Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits12:56, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Andy. I thought I’d find a way to mark my edits, but I didn’t come up with a good way. I’ll note here, that in my opion, multiple parts of the table, which appear as uncontesable truth, are disputable or wrong.SmokeyJoe (talk)13:41, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone talking about themself, is never independent, and never is evidence of Wikipedia-notability. If it is non-independent, don’t confuse people be engaging in the esoteric source typing of someone talking about themself.SmokeyJoe (talk)22:48, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More often, you are going to have material outside of the actual interview that will be summaries and commentary of a person's life, which would be secondary, while the interview portions may be primary or secondary depending on how it's asked (asking one to recount from an event decades prior would likely be secondary). But still, even with such a dedicated program I'd expect that means it should be easy to find more sourcing. A good but undocumentable indicator of notability.Masem (t)13:28, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Requiring independence is a core aspect of how we judge notability. Nearly all topics likely have dependent sources that would support its own notability, we want people not tied to the topic to explain to us why the topic is actual notable. Certainly asking for independence of sources is not a circular argument.Masem (t)19:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The issue at hand is whether an invited interview, where a notable organisation (such as the BBC or The Times, for example) invites someone to discuss in a high-profile programme or article their work or other achievements is or is not "independent".Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits19:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Andy's raising a question that I don't think has been explored enough.
One way of formulating this question might be to separate "the source" from "the contents". For example:
A magazine decided to publish an article about Joe Film. This decision was made in the ordinary way, i.e., an editor looked through the information they had had and decided that they could sell magazines by having an article about Joe Film, so they assigned Rae Reporter to collect information about the actor and write an article.
Thearticle is an independent source, using the definition of "source" inWP:SOURCE, "The work itself (the article, book).
Theauthor of the source is an independent source, using the definition of "source" in WP:SOURCE. "The creator of the work (the writer, journalist: "What do we know about that source's reputation?").
Themagazine is an independent source, using the definition of "source" in WP:SOURCE, "The publication (for example, the newspaper, journal, magazine: "That source covers the arts.").
Thecorporation that owns the magazine is an independent source, using the definition of "source" in WP:SOURCE, "The publisher of the work (for example,Cambridge University Press: "That source publishes reference works.").
Inside the magazine article, Rae Reporter quoted Joe Film a couple of times ("I grew up in a very small Hollywood mansion") and repeated some information that he got from Joe's publicity agent ("The new film will be released next Saturday").
Do the contents of the work itself cause the work itself/creator/publication/publisher ("the WP:SOURCE") tobecome non-independent? For example, if Rae quotes Joe, does that turn Joe into a non-independent co-author?
Here are three thoughts that I have, which you might agree or disagree with:
I think that the contents of an article might sometimes make us re-assess some claims to independence. To give an extreme example, if [we somehow knew that] Joe Film's publicity agent had ghostwritten the article, then we would say that the author of the source was the publicity agent rather than Rae. The publicity agent isn't independent; therefore, the article written by the publicity agent isn't independent.
In a live/unscripted interview (i.e., "the work itself" is the interview), we might decide that the interviewer and the interviewee were building something together, thus making the interviewee a co-author. In such a scenario, we might assess independence against both the interviewer's and the interviewee's connection to the subject of the interview: Rae Reporter is independent of almost everything, butSteve Martin isn't independent of his own books and films, so if the interview is about Martin's career, then what Martin says about himself is non-independent. However, the comedian is also very knowledgeable about fine art, and if their interview is about paintings, then the interview is still independent (of the subject of fine artwork).
I don't think that the independent decision by an independent author to incorporate some facts received from the subject into an independently written article in an independent publication makes the article non-independent. There might be a temptation here to say "If x% of the article is information from the subject, then the whole thing is non-independent", or "Only count the percentage of the article that is definitely not from the subject", but I don't think that holds up under scrutiny. (Try applying that to ordinary news articles and see how silly it sounds: "Here's a huge article inThe Daily News about Paul Politician's big campaign speech" – "Nope, you can't use that. It contains information about him, directly from his speech! You can use the bit about what his crazy neighbor said, though.That's independent.")
What Andy is arguing is that the mere fact that someone was given an interview (and wrote/said SIGCOV about themselves) should itself be contributory toward GNG. This has a straightforward answer: no.JoelleJay (talk)23:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The invitation per se of an interview from a notable, even highly reputed, organisation is sometimes, by some, argued to be evidence of notability. My opinion is that it is an indicator that there might be further sources out there that will demonstrate notability, but if interviews are all there are, the subject is not notable.SmokeyJoe (talk)01:26, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The goal of WP:N generally, including the GNG, is to identify "notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large". Being the subject of an interview in an independent publication sounds like "attention from the world at large".WhatamIdoing (talk)02:40, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and consequently, this is what people expect, people including Wikipedia editors, and surreptitious promoters. If theonly sources attesting to Wikipedia-notability are interviews, one should be very cautious about ascribing the qualification “independent” to that interview.SmokeyJoe (talk)02:57, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But in this comment chain we are talking about GNG specifically. Which requires that thecoverage be independent etc. Beyond being RS and not SPS, where and why the coverage appears is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether it can count toward GNG.JoelleJay (talk)20:10, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I said "The issue at hand is whether an invited interview ... is or is not 'independent'."
But in what possible way could content about the interviewee, coming directly from the interviewee, ever be independent coverage of them? If you're instead talking about staff-written secondary background SIGCOV on the interviewee accompanying the interview, then it should be irrelevant to meeting GNG whether the publication is high profile or "invited": such coverage automatically counts toward GNG.JoelleJay (talk)20:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The issue at hand is whether an invited interview, where a notable organisation (such as the BBC or The Times, for example) invites someone to discuss in a high-profile programme or article their work or other achievements is or is not "independent". Are you not arguing that the invitation itself is sufficient to count toward GNG?JoelleJay (talk)20:07, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I said you said...? If you're disputing the implication in my comment thatall invited interviews would be contributory instead of just the high profile ones, well, that's rather missing the point as it's entirely irrelevant to the fact thatan invitation is not secondary independentcoverage, and by definition what the subject says about themselves is not independent or secondary.JoelleJay (talk)20:41, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is what the subjects says about themselves independent? No. It doesn't matter where their words are repeated, it is not independent.JoelleJay (talk)23:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. For what the subjects say about themselves to become independent, it requires others, independent others, to say it again in more detail, or differently, or with explicit verification that the what was said is correct. A mere quote is not close to good enough.SmokeyJoe (talk)01:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that "what was said is correct" is something that independent sources can verify.
If an artist tells the culture reporter that the theme of her exhibition is the place of humans in the world, how exactly could the reporter determine whether "what was said is correct"? Or if a company tells the business reporter that they have 600 employees, or that the CEO is feeling optimistic about the effects of the trade negotiations on their industry, how is the reporter supposed to determine whether "what was said is correct"?
I suggest to you that quoting someone, or repeating information taken from someone (i.e., not from the author of the source) is exactly the circumstance of "say it again", and that saying it again in the context of an ordinary source/article is saying it "differently".WhatamIdoing (talk)02:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Bloggs is a beautiful man. An independent other can agree, Joe Bloggs is indeed a beautiful man. Subjective, even puffery, but the independent other has proven the people write “Joe Bloggs is a beautiful man”.SmokeyJoe (talk)03:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary on art is a most difficult thing to verify, but one can verify that an opinion is shared.
For company employee stats, ask a union official.
Looking for the same information, but stated differently, gives confidence that the information is accepted by multiple people, as opposed to the occurrence of churnalism.SmokeyJoe (talk)03:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Using super-famous people for examples of GNG-compliant sources is not helpful. The GNG only comes into play for borderline topics. Interviews of the super-famous are not very illustrative of the problems of interviews for the borderline Wikipedia-notable.SmokeyJoe (talk)22:51, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using notable sources is helpful because everyone has an equal chance of being about to read about the source, or at least to hover over it and get a sentence or two of information, instead of breezing past it with "Sure, whatever, I haven't got time to click on those and actually read the sources she's talking about right now".WhatamIdoing (talk)23:42, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not think interviews (alone) can establish notability (as we see above, an interview of the man on the street establishes their notability). A lot depends on the depth (and frequency) of coverage (and it must be about them, not about something else).Slatersteven (talk)12:54, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree this is a common point of confusion, and I tend to agree with others that it depends on the interview but an interviewcan/should contribute to notability where it's a reputable outlet, clearly not a promotional piece, based on interest in the person/their work, etc. But yes it gets messy with borderline stuff. Is an interview in some third tier entertainment site that barely passes RS (but does pass RS) with just a sentence or two of material leading into the interview sufficient? I don't know. Yes, a table like WAID's above would be helpful, but each row would probably need some discussion. —Rhododendritestalk \\03:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Andy wrote “… regularly see people told "Interviews don't count towards notability; they are not independent". When and where did we decide this?
“It seems to me that there is a vast difference between … one end … and … the other extreme…”
I think that’s exactly right. And it is strongly bimodal. Super-notable people get interviewed because they are super-notable, and non-notable people get interviewed because they are being promoted.
In the first case, there is no serious notability question. There is no serious question of “contributing to notability”, as it is already established. In the second case, the interview will surely not be independent.
Should we write “Interviews don't count towards notability” as alie to children? Or write: “Be very cautious in assuming that an interview is independent, if the subject is otherwise non-notable”? And this is talking about the interview preamble.
Circular? I think I wrote that interviews are not useful for demonstrating notability.
You asked “When and where did we decide this?” Answer: It is not categorical, but comes from consideration of all types of interviews:
The interviewee is interviewedbecause they are notable. The interviewee was already notable and so the interview doesn’t answer any notability question.
The interviewee was not notable before the interview. Be very cautious about assuming that the interview decision is independent. Interviews require very close contact with the interviewee, interviews of budding-notable people are classic promotion, the content generated from close contact is likely biased. Out of caution, do not use interviews as evidence of notability for an otherwise non-notable person.
Person-on-the-street interview? There is no claim of notability, the person was chosen because they are ordinary.
Ask-an-expert interview? Probably the content is not about the interviewee.
other types of interviews?
I don’t think this is circularly, just unsatisfying if you want a categorical answer.
We, Wikipedians, could make it a rule, “don’t use interviews as evidence of Wikipedia-notability”. I support this, without pretending that it is based on proof. I think it is de facto in practice, and is frustrating to article writers when they are rebuffed by a rule that is written.SmokeyJoe (talk)21:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See, I don't thinkit's a reputable outlet, clearly not a promotional piece, based on interest in the person/their work, etc shouldever be relevant to considering GNG if the interview is not accompanied by secondary independent SIGCOV. The fact that an interview is in a high-profile publication might be anindicator that the subject may be notable, and could be a deciding factor in NOPAGE situations where the subject already meets GNG (Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a topic that meets the guidelines explained below.), but can't by itself be contributory toward GNG. If it was, then all the actualcoverage of the subject that we could use in their article would be things they said about themselves and thus not NPOV.JoelleJay (talk)20:26, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a mistake trying to say that there is a categorical answer just based on one criteria....that it is an interview. Other factors that affect the decision are the prominence,independence and reliability of the source, the depth of the coverage.North8000 (talk)19:53, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - Criteria needed for articles with family or families in title
My interest stems from thisAfD discussionBefore going to pump, I am seeking feedback from here and on AfD.
The currentWP:GNG (general notability) andWP:NOTGENEALOGY don't specifically tackle "family" as a collective entity. Requiring explicit criteria (e.g., demonstrated collective significance via secondary sources treating the family as a unit, not just individuals) could prevent cruft (Family appears in thet itle of12,000 articles and22000 AfDs)while allowing well-sourced ones (e.g.,Kennedy family orRockefeller family) or biological and other uses,
A valid list article if it has enough notable entries in it. Lists articles can exist if the group has gotten significant coverage in reliable sources, or if enough things on the list have their own articles.DreamFocus02:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts Yes, a single AfD proves nothing, but with 22,000+ deletion discussions containing "family" in the title, patterns matter.
My focus includes editor retention: many editors quit after an AfD, (see it as conflict, disagree with the result, don't understand the guidelines, or weren't aware of them when creating the article).
Would a proposal to add family-specific notability examples/criteria gain better consensus if backed by data on "family"-titled AfDs showing: high delete or no-consensus rates, long/relisted/repeated discussions, sockpuppetry or canvassing/lobbying. unusually high speedy or AfD nomination frequency?
The Oracle of Deletion (thanksUser:JPxG !) makes this data pull doable I think. with manual tagging of false postives (family guys episodes)
I think the problem is the article in question isn't a list, but a genealogy mostly based on primary sources. The subject is likely notable, but the article is in bad shape. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°15:17, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Question posed at Teahouse[1] brings me here regardingDavid Thomas Roberts. Before I either 1. Place the article up for AfD or 2. Bring it up to "good article" WP standards with a hard scrub; I wanted to get further impressions on whether it passes notability. I did find these 2 articles:[2],[3] and this mention:[4]. Thanks.Maineartists (talk)14:34, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reviewingDraft:Haro v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals for notability. This article cites two judicial memoranda written by judges in US District Court, which refer to the case. The essayWikipedia:RSLAW says that court opinions are primary sources, however, prior discussion seems mixed. Are these memoranda acceptable for notability? Other related discussions below.
This isn't really an issue for RSN since it's a question of notability, but no, court opinions are primary sources that do not contribute to notability. For a court case to be notable, it generally needs in-depth secondary coverage in sources such as law reviews, not just passing mentions or bare citations. The draft you've linked to is almost certainly not notable. It might've gotten some press coverage when the settlement was announced, but that's not enough to meet GNG or NOTNEWS.voorts (talk/contributions)22:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can I note that, even if we were to accept that a court opinion could be.a reliable source regarding a separate case, there's the issue of depth of coverage. A quick look at the documents in question makes it seem that the coverage in each is one to two paragraphs within a much longer document. We wouldn't consider that length in aNew York Times article to be sufficient for advancing notability. One could argue, I suppose, that this is a sign that it has impact no matter how long it takes to express it, but two cases out of the vast array of court cases seems borderline at best. (For the general discussion of citations of such things, I should note that a court ruling is a self-published source, and while a judge may be considered enough of a topic expert to avoid generalWP:SPS concerns, if this were being used on a case about an individual (rather than the class action versus a corporation that it is), that wouldn't conquerWP:BLPSPS.) --Nat Gertler (talk)22:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that court opinions are SPSes. They are primary source documents issued by a government official. I also disagree that we can rely on court's opinions for sourcing claims about other court's opinions. We should pretty much always attribute legal analysis to a secondary source, usually a law review article, book, or treatise.voorts (talk/contributions)22:31, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We can certainly report what one court opinion states about another courts opinion (attributed), since the court opinion is reliable for the opinion of the court (hence it's namesake). DUEness is separate.Katzrockso (talk)23:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
since the court opinion is reliable for the opinion of the court. No, it's not, because individuals can and do read courts' opinions differently. One big part of being a lawyer is reading precedent and trying to explain why it's relevant or distinguishable to your case, which involves emphasizing different facts or points of law. Editors should not be engaging in legal analysis when writing articles. Even a "straightforward" holding can be nuanced.voorts (talk/contributions)00:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The court affirmed the lower court's decision is an uncontroversial unambiguous reading of a court opinion. Are you suggesting that we could not cite that statement to a court opinion that statesThe District Court denied the motions to dismiss, but it granted the motions to disqualify Habba from the prosecutions. The Government appeals. We will affirm.? (recent court opinion[7]).
We could certainly stated "In the opinion in United States vs. Giraud, the court stated that according to United States v. Whittaker courts generally lack jurisdiction over appeals from pre-trial orders in criminal proceedings", citing page 11-12 of the already linked court opinion. This is completely policy-compliant and involves no original legal analysis. Whether or not such a statement is DUE is a completely different matter.
In this case, the use of the court opinions is definitely primary. Not all uses of court opinions (CO) is necessarily primary, there are certainly statements that you could use a court opinion as the source for that would qualify the CO as a secondary source in that context.Katzrockso (talk)23:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to accept the draft to merge content. You can just do that and then redirect the draft. In any event, this is largely OR, so it should not be merged.voorts (talk/contributions)02:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Start a discussion about my draft by claiming that judicial memoranda written by federal judges aren't reliable sourcesand then
not notify me for 90 mins (there's some sort of rule that breaks?, right),and yet
not note that I was asking youCan you back your opinion that Wikipedia does not consider judicial memoranda and court rulings to be contributing sources for notabilitywith a citation from policy, rather than an opinion essay or template text? Reason and common sense dictate a presumption that judicial memoranda and court rulings are reliable sources. I don't see any reason per policy for the article to be considered un-encyclopedic. Opinions not grounded in policy are not a valid basis for a rejection... Hard to differentiate fromWikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT... or link/direct folks to the talk page where I'd asked it. @PacificDepths If you had, perhaps some of the replies here would be better backedwith citation from policy. But insteadCan you back your opinion that Wikipedia does not consider judicial memoranda and court rulings to be contributing sources for notabilitywith a citation from policy, remains unanswered - by anyone. Well, except by me in the negative - I cited policy extensively in my comments on the draft page - with arguments closely tied to the wording of our policies on notability, reliable sources, independent sources, tertiary sources,WP:V,WP:NOR,WP:DUE. They stand largely un-rebutted.
Thanks for the heads up, @Voorts. What specifically are you saying is OR or "definitionally OR" exactly? You lost me there entirely. Can you point to a single sentence that is OR in the draft under the definition atWP:OR, which states: "On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." ?
Also, if you think just judges write their decisions, think again, folks. Several comments imply they do. Based on general practices in the federal court system, the decisions in Dressen v. AstraZeneca and Redd v. Amazon were surely largely drafted by law clerks (under the close supervision and direction of the judges themselves.) It is typical in federal courts for 90-95% of opinions to be drafted by clerks, overseen by the judge. So the work is more akin to a news article that has been fact checked or a journal article that has passed peer review than a SPS.https://abovethelaw.com/2016/04/should-judges-write-their-own-opinions-or-leave-drafting-to-their-law-clerks/#:~:text=Share%20Options,with%20varying%20degrees%20of%20intensity.
@NatGertler your look at the documents was cursory if you didn't see any in depth discussion of Haro.
All/voorts if you merge it into the KP article without accepting it and delete it, I believe the attribution gets lost? Please don't steal my attribution of my contribution, anyone.
Attribution is why I suggested accepting/moving to the mainspace and then redirecting. If the redirect is left in the Draft: space, it'll probably get deleted, and then we'll lose attribution.WhatamIdoing (talk)04:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If the redirect is left in the Draft: space, it'll probably get deleted, and then we'll lose attribution. No. Redirects from draft space do not get deleted, particularly if they contain substantive page history.voorts (talk/contributions)05:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to come in here guns blazing. Pleaseassume good faith and treat otherscivilly. Remember there's another person at the other end of the keyboard.Regarding the substantive issues here, my view is that you cannot use judicial decisions to satisfy GNG, nor should editors cite to the law to describe or explain the law (including particular judicial decisions) on Wikipedia. Judicial decisions areprimary sources because they are drafted by a participant in the litigation (the judge) based upon the record before the court (which, on a motion to dismiss for example, generally doesn't even include evidence, just the assertions in the complaint and argument of counsel). The role of clerks is to write what their judges instruct them to write (unless they're providing a recommendation to their judge based on their views). That is the opposite of a reporter or academic using their professional judgment to evaluate facts and make their own determinations.In describing the law, editors should rely upon secondary sources, such as treatises, law reviews/journals, and books. They should notsynthesize their own reading of statutes and precedent. If it were easy to determine what the law is, lawyers would not exist and I would be out of a job.voorts (talk/contributions)00:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree here, and we often have editors trying to build court case articles directly from opinions or even worse, the case filings from the parties themselves. We are not legal experts by definition of being a WP editor (even if you are one in real life), and we need to rely on the third-party sources, outside of plain fact (such as for SCOTUS cases, the holding, who wrote want, and in terms of joining dissents or concurrances)Masem (t)03:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Having worked as a law clerk at both the federal trial court and appellate court levels, I would disagree with the statement that "The role of clerks is to write what their judges instruct them to write (unless they're providing a recommendation to their judge based on their views)". While it is true that the judge decides the outcome of the dispute before them, law clerks have tremendous responsibility for getting the details of the written opinion, including the cases cited, correct. I would not deem a case notable basedsolely on the existence of judicial memoranda citing it, but neither would I exclude that from the collected body of evidence supporting notability.BD2412T03:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you regarding the role of clerks. I was using "instruct" in the sense of a solicitor instructing a barrister, rather than in the sense of micromanaging the drafting process.voorts (talk/contributions)04:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, the judge is signing their name to the writing, and if the judge disagrees with the clerk's reading of the law, the clerk is nonetheless required to produce the best version of the judge's view.voorts (talk/contributions)04:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The outcome of any decision will certainly reflect the judge's opinion on the matter, and if the judge prefers to see different cases cited or different constructions of the facts stated, that is what will go into the opinion. However, in practice, law clerks are law clerks in the first place because they are intelligent and well-written and understand the task before them.BD2412T02:59, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule that any/every editor be notified if you ask a relevant question elsewhere. Individual notifications are only required at certain (not all)Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
The "citation from policy" comes in two pieces: First,WP:PRIMARY says that court rulings are primary sources (in the footnote: "trial/litigation in any country"). Second, theWP:GNG (but not other notability guidelines) rejects primary sources.
@RememberOrwell You're right that it would be better to link directly back to ourprior conversation. I apologize for that. That said, I don't think a 90-minute delay has materially harmed you or your case.
Regarding your AFC comments, the change was inadvertent. The AFC tool for reviewers expects an AFC comment format that your comments didn't follow (some of them being unsigned). You are welcome to re-construct the discussion (and please sign the comments when you do). Discussions are much more easily managed at thedraft talk page.
Lastly: I created this thread to find answer for your questions. I felt attacked when I read your comments. I think you could phrase your statements to get your point across in less inflammatory manner.—🌊PacificDepths (talk)22:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe NCORP needs a slight change to adjust for the new "Wikipedia Notability" promoting PR firm
The Notability Company works with companies, nonprofits, and institutions of all sizes, along with the executives and leaders connected to them. For organizations without a Wikipedia presence, the firm leads targeted media outreach to establish notability.
So we may need to beef up NCORP to give less weigh to company PR effort driven artificial notability or revise COI guidelines to require disclosure of media coverage they try to generate for the purpose of meeting NCORP. Currently, NCORP requires a minimum of one source to meet WP:AUD. Maybe revise this to require it to be a certain age to avoid company-driven media coverage effort. Another idea would be to completely make trivial coverage not count for notability. For example, hosting small charitable event like donating the use of facility and inviting local celebrities to gain media coverage. I think such coverage is rather artificial and should be properly discounted in notability evaluation.Graywalls (talk)09:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We need speedier and clearer responds to PR fluffs. I sometimes find it difficult to differenciate between genuine contributors from COI / paid editors, and to revert all of their edits once I found them (which typically involves putting the company's name and other keywords into the searchbox).
I wish we can have a easier way to set up domain name filtering / monitoring - e.g., the ability for rollbackers to set up keyword filtering, or make it easier to add to a temporary edit filter; the idea being that by monitoring for / temporarily blocklisting specific org's URL, it would make the NCORP's work less effective.海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk09:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that NCORP is well in position to handle the type of sourcing this company purports ready to use to push notability.Masem (t)14:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the exact details of how that PR firm do their thing, but seems like what they do is incubate coverage with specific aims in reliable independent sources specifically so that those sources can be then used to anchor notability on Wikipedia. I see such coverage as unnatural and there's some room for improvement to how to address it. One of those is to require companies to disclose if they used notability incubation tactic. Another would be to add local affirs clause toWP:AUD. For example, treating Boston Globe covering Boston stuff, LA Times covering LA times as local matters especially if they're in local central sections of those papers. You may have noticed a proliferation of articles about all those restaurants, hole in the wall bars/taverns in various locales.Graywalls (talk)16:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this already covered byWP:INDEPENDENT? If there's reason to believe that coverage is not independent (ie. it was created by a firm paid by the corporation) then it's useless for notability purposes. That said, perhaps we should create aWP:GAMING sort of rule (or at least an essay, if INDEPENDENT already covers it) for notability guidelines. Notability guidelines are usually written under the presumption of regularity - "in a normal situation, if a subject of type X has organic coverage of type Y, that would indicate notability." If the coverage is inorganic and not genuinely independent, then the guideline may not apply; and if there's evidence a subject is trying to game the notability guidelines, that's a reason to be cautious and look at broader indicators. That said, there's a final caveat - there are things an article subject canlegitimately do to produce coverage that would bring them above our notability threshold. If they do a book tour and that attracts a bunch of legitimate / genuine coverage, the fact that they did so just to get a Wikipedia article doesn't invalidate it. So it's worth thinking about what makes coverage inorganic (and I think it would probably overlap a lot with INDEPENDENT.) --Aquillion (talk)19:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's gonna take 10 minutes or so to digest this but. . .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAeobQL-EdU&t=869s the exact hows are not explained but they do say it's a PR effort in order to generate the type of coverage desired for meeting WP:N and presumably the resulting coverage would then be used by a Wikipedia focused public relations firm to submit an AfC, citing those "massaged" sources.Graywalls (talk)20:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly worried about this firm for our purposes, but I do feel bad for the clients (probably mostly small businesses) that are probably going to end up paying for crappy advertorials.voorts (talk/contributions)20:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One comment that combines several of the above considerations. The norm that occurs on topics where a Wikipedia presence isn't going to profit someone is to rely on naturally occurring independent coverage and where the editors haven't scoured the world for notability-related coverage and so what's in the article might be just the tip of the iceberg of what exists. When someone is going to make money by being listed, both of those things no longer exist. More so when they have deep pockets. The stricter NCORP standard is a good response to this. Folks trying to work the system for corporations are nothing new. Someone blatantly doing it takes it another step. I think ways to better analyze/enforce Ncorp would be a good thing, but I don't see where changing Ncorp would be a good thing or needed.North8000 (talk)19:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I thinkGoodhart's law is relevant here. When Wikipedia was establishing itself, there was a natural ecology of publicity and publicity-based coverage that we could use to judge the significance of a topic. But now that people have long since started turning that around and worked to generate coverage for themselves that could be parlayed into a Wikipedia article, maybe we should rethink whether there is some other measure of significance that we could use that cannot be so easily bought and sold. —David Eppstein (talk)23:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The additional sourcing requirements at NCORP do a very good job of both the quality of the publishing source and of the articles published to weed out promotion coverage of a commercial venture, without hampering how sources are used for other topics, with perhaps the only weak area being for exec level business people (as arguably BLP or NBIO is used instead of NCORP).Masem (t)23:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Media coverage has been mediated through public relations firms since long before the internet existed. Whenever you read a profile of a company or an interview with a CEO in a mainstream newspaper, it's probably because a PR person reached out to the reporter and pitched them on why writing about their client would make for a good story.voorts (talk/contributions)23:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that many organizations and individuals achieve fame through self-promotion. Are there many businesses that avoided advertisng and marketing or elected officials who never campaigned for office?
A better approach might be to be more rigorous in enforcing notability. I have seen many articles survive AfDs despite being supported by only a few passing mentions in reliable sources.TFD (talk)23:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes wish that Wikipedia's WP:N-focused editors knew more about how news coverage works. As several older editors have noted already, there has never been some pure world in which businesses sit on their fingers, and then exclaim "An article about my business? What a delightful surprise! But you shouldn't have, really; you'll make me blush. Why didn't you write about someone more deserving than little ol' me?"
Many businesses and non-profit organizations court media coverage every day of the week – literally every day of the week sometimes, with quarterly goals, scheduled projects, thematic campaigns, and so forth. It's not really usual for a very small, strictly local business (e.g., a local, independent coffee shop) to do this, but it is absolutely normal for most employers. Have a look at the print version of your local newspaper some time. Most of the local news started off as a press release, or the social media equivalent. How else did you think the reporters found out all this information? They aren't hanging out on street corners to see if a car wreck will happen in front of them. They're managing a flood of e-mail messages and social media DMs telling them about fundraising and club events(Girl Scouts are selling cookies this month, and they sent us such a cute photo), the weekly press release from each of the area schools (and the hospital and the library and the senior center), the youth sports teams(girls' basketball at East High won their first game, boys' team is playing out of town this weekend), the endless messages about local government meetings and annual reports and announcements (better get this thing about thesobriety checkpoints on page 2), thepolice blotter(you know, if you folks would read your newspaper, you'd have known that they were setting up sobriety checkpoints, and maybe you'd have had the sense to not drive drunk on the holiday weekend), plus that one store that keeps spamming the reporters instead of just paying for an ad. And couldn't you send that photographer to take a picture of the dress rehearsal for the community theater production, and run it the next morning, so we can sell some tickets?
Wikipedia editors decided many years ago that the editor of the newspaper/magazine/whatever was the gatekeeper we would respect. If the PR firms convince the newspaper that their client is newsworthy, then we'll accept the newspaper's decision that the subject was newsworthy. It hasalways been true that the results of a successful PR campaign increases the likelihood that Wikipedia editors would believe the subject is notable. The only thing that's changed here is apparently another PR firm said that out loud.
"You have to have a critical mass of media attention. It has to be in-depth. It can't be like passing mentions or you got mentioned a little here and quoted there, add it up and now you're notable. It's really got to be like multiple professional journalists need to have written about you or your brand – why you're interesting, why you're changing the game, and why you are of sufficient public interest that this encyclopedia should – Does it have a you-shaped hole, where...Wikipedia is not doing its readers a service if they don't have you in there.... We turn away 85, 90% of inquiries because they don't [meet WP:N requirements]."
The one thing to consider is that the more we generally trust a source to be reliable, the less likely that source will published material they were paid to publish without any disclaimers, or at least isolate those stories to a specific section of their paper/website. You are likely not going to be able to buy into a review by the NYTimes beyond their local section, for example. So the more narrow a geographic region the publication as a whole serves the more likely they are the type that support paid attention, but that's again where NCORP's AUDiance guidance works. I also think most experienced editors that interact in the space involving commercial aspects (companies, products, etc.) can eyeball an article that was written from a purely promotional angle from one that is actually providing independent coverage. That's not to say these sources can't be used, they just need to be discarded in evaluating notability. EG: a local restaurant may get significant, truly independent coverage about their success that alone meets WP:N, while a local paper covers the history of the restaurant, in which case that's fine.Masem (t)05:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What's being talking aboutisn't buyingspace in a news outlet. You pay the PR company to tell news outlets about your business, but the PR company doesn't pay the news outlets. There is no difference between big/little newspapers in this regard. Tiny local newspapers in most of the world would find your accusations rather insulting.
@Masem, if you made that statement about a specific publication, it could even be construed as libel against the business, because you're alleging that news outlets break the laws of most countries (Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914#Deception §5 in the US, and most countries have something similar). Please try to remember this time: It's a bad idea to issue sweeping, unfounded accusations that businesses routinely break the law.
And, in this case, it's irrelevant. The reasonWP:AUD exists is because a small local newspaper is likely to beindiscriminate (covering everything in the small town), not because they're corrupt. If a gas station opens in a big city, it may or may not appear in the city's newspaper. On the other hand, if a gas station ever opens inMulberry, Kansas (home to the newspaper with the smallest certified circulation in the middle of the US), it'd be front-page news – butnot because the gas station owner paid the newspaper to write about them. It'd be front-page news because (a) the newspaper doesn't have very many pages and (b) that would be a big deal for a community that's accustomed to driving at least 7 miles/12 km to the nearest gas station. The problem isn't corrupt small-town newspaper editors. Nobody's getting paid (except the PR consultants). The problem is that a small business, in a small setting, can end up being a big fish in a little pond. Even with strictly neutral, scrupulously independent news outlets, adding gas station #209 to a big city is boring, and adding gas station #1 to Smallville is Big News.WhatamIdoing (talk)07:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are these mostly newer editors? If not, then it's possible that community support for the NCORP approach is slowly fading. Using the analogy of "more Catholic than the pope", the community's guidelines cannot be more stringent than the community in the long run.WhatamIdoing (talk)18:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Y Yes for the battle – equal to a newspaper article saying the same thing in prose
N Not for Madonna – all primary
You are invited to join the discussion atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renaud Joannes-Boyau. Looking for input from editors experienced in evaluating the notability of academics.Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk)08:20, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Moved fromWikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Use of judicial memoranda for notability in a case article
