User:SportingFlyer/On local notability

A common argument at Articles for Deletion is that local sources don't count towards WP:GNG or don't demonstrate notability.

This argument isn't literally true. Local sources count just as much as any other source towards demonstrating notability. Here, "local" means that the source comes from the same place as the person or organisation being written about. For instance, if I am from Ljubljana, and the Ljubljana paper writes about me, that would be considered a "local" source.

We tend to struggle at AfD with articles about people who only received local coverage, since it's a bit more difficult to determine their notability. While we use WP:GNG as a proxy, many local articles may not be sufficiently independent of the subject, or sufficiently secondary, or they may just be covering routine local news.

When you see an argument "local sources don't count towards WP:GNG," the user arguing this point is more likely trying to say "this person has only local notability, and I don't think it's enough for a standalone Wikipedia article."

Types of notability
I like to think of notability of having three different categories: international, regional, and local. If a person gets international coverage, they will almost certainly be notable. If a person gets regional coverage, they will likely be notable (a lower standard, but not by much). If a person gets only local coverage, we must take care to ensure that person's notability. Whether coverage is local or regional may be a judgment call, especially depending on why the person claims notability and where the person is. I have used "regional" instead of "national" due to the large discrepancies in geography across the world. Someone nationally known, but only in Canada, would be regionally notable by this definition. I would think someone who receives coverage in both Ontario and Quebec, but not in the rest of Canada, would be regionally notable, unless they are from Ottawa and have only received coverage from in and around Ottawa, which is in Ontario and borders Quebec.

People can be locally notable in multiple jurisdictions. For instance, a baseball player may be notable in his hometown for being a great youth athlete, and be notable in the city he plays minor league baseball in, but not otherwise notable - this player probably won't be notable enough for the encyclopaedia. Also, getting published in a regional newspaper can still be local coverage. Someone from Los Angeles who gets written up in the Los Angeles Times will have a broader reach than someone from Visalia who gets written up in the Visalia Times, but both of these people are only locally notable.

Local notability doesn't mean not notable
Just because someone is only locally notable doesn't mean they're not notable at all. What it DOES mean is we need to consider the coverage they have received carefully. If anyone in their position would receive similar coverage, for instance local city councillors or prep sports stars, then that coverage fails WP:ROUTINE even if the coverage is significant. The WP:ROUTINE problem does not exist with regionally or internationally notable people.