Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability

Introduction to newspaper criteria

 * Thanks for doing this @Peteforsyth! Guidlines makes sense to me and provide a nice guideline for what to cover. I don't have any suggestions but wanted to thank you for your work on this. Hstaffo77 (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Always nice to know when stuff like this is noticed. Mike has made some excellent additions and refinements today, I think it's coming together pretty nicely. As I see it, beyond continuing to refine the substance, the next steps would be:
 * Review some of the information at WikiProject_Council/Guide and some essays/guidelines ad Category:WikiProject notability advice, to vet whether there are ways to improve a page like this that we might not have considered;
 * Bring it up at WikiProject Journalism to get a bit more input
 * Advertise it a little more prominently on our WikiProject page and maybe elsewhere, so it becomes more accessible to discussions about the notability of specific newspapers.
 * -Pete Forsyth (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Difference from GNG
The general notability guideline is the default expectation of notability. Special notability criteria like this one often describe the usual ways in which a topic meets GNG, then go beyond and propose some special criteria for that topic.

Here are the currently proposed criteria which I see as an application of GNG:
 * It is referred to in a reliable source as the "paper of record" or "newspaper of record" for a certain locale
 * Its leadership is repeatedly quoted in other reliable sources, with reference to their leadership title and their expertise on the publication's topic (e.g., the culture or economic makeup of a town for a local paper)
 * The paper has won state, province, or national level awards for reporting, feature-writing, editorial, or photography.
 * A history of news media (e.g. a book or an article in an academic journal) discusses the newspaper
 * The paper's role in a historical event is covered as central in histories of the event
 * Changes in ownership or leadership are covered by other newspapers in its region or covering a similar topic
 * Its launch or demise is covered in other newspapers in its region or covering a similar topic
 * General media publications with national or international distribution, like Editor and Publisher or The Fourth Estate, cover the newspaper
 * Publications that cover the evolving nature of journalism, such as Poynter, Nieman Lab, or Columbia Journalism Review highlight something about the newspaper (e.g., a new business or distribution model, serving an underserved demographic, significant changes in circulation, novel editorial policies...)

Here are the currently proposed criteria which I see as newly proposed notability criteria:
 * Its content is or has been frequently syndicated or republished in other reliable sources
 * Its articles are repeatedly cited (or its scoops frequently credited) by other reliable sources
 * The paper itself, and/or its leadership, have held leadership or administrative roles in a journalism society
 * The paper is collected by multiple academic libraries or state archives
 * It frequently features exclusive quotes from government leaders or leaders of prominent institutions or movements. These could include candidate forums for political races, if they attract participation of the main candidates.

Criteria matching GNG are more likely to get approval. Criteria on a basis further removed from GNG take discussion and are more controversial. For more controversial criteria the Wiki community expects to see some published development of the idea including talking through how to determine it and showing examples of where it applies. Other people could have other opinions about this. With just the GNG-related criteria we still offer excellent options for establishing notability.

I will also share the opinion that I think all of these criteria are useful. Wikipedia was established in a time before popular use of consumer databases. Nowadays we can pull a lot of information from consumer databases. Much of this information is vetted as well as what Wikipedia counts as reliable sources, yet Wiki tradition discounts databases as sources. We have some challenges to navigate but publishing this and talking it through is a great idea.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  15:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review, and it's very useful to see your take on which ones are clarifications based on GNG vs. which ones are new and specific. Please feel free to edit the main page to more clearly establish that distinction.
 * I'd note a couple examples where well established notability guidelines exceed GNG:
 * WP:POLITICIAN states that "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature" are presumed to be notable. I've worked on a great many articles about past and present Oregon legislators, and can state with certainty that there are a great many state legislators who have received no press coverage whatsoever of the kind that would satisfy GNG. And Oregon is not even an unusual case; a state rep in Oregon represents nearly 70,000 people. A member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives represents, on average, fewer than 3,500 people.
 * WP:ATHLETE Likewise, I think there are a great many baseball players who have appeared in one or two MLB games, but have received almost no press coverage. I've done less work in this area, so my confidence is a bit less than with state legislators, but I'm pretty sure that's the case.
 * At this stage, I'm not eager to pursue making this a formal guideline; I'd rather continue to have discussion among those who pay attention to newspapers, and refine a proposal, before (if ever) seeking to make it more official through deliberation by a wider Wikipedian audience. Apart from having project participants review and tweak the list, another task I think is important is seeking out what the academic literature about newspapers has to say about what signifies importance. I put a few quotes on the page, but I'm sure there's a wealth of information out there...I'll continue researching that point as well. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * One proposal that failed that we might look at as an anti-pattern is one to make all public schools notable. Not sure where it is, or why people were against it, but it didn't make the case well enough, and there's some parallels here Michaelacaulfield (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * High schools - most people pass high schools and school districts. I think every fails lower level schools which do not meet WP:GNG.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  12:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Baseline criteria outside of GNG
Suppose we wanted to make a special argument for newspapers to be notable when they failed to meet GNG. Already discussed are special non-traditional criteria, like "The paper is collected by multiple academic libraries or state archives". I think we are getting ready to argue that meeting multiple special criteria can make a case for notability.

I would like to propose some more mundane baseline criteria which we should expect also from the already discussed data model for the infobox. The infobox in discussion has fields for lots of information but some is almost essential and other parts are nice to have. For newspapers which fail to meet GNG, if they are to be considered for special notability criteria, then we have to have the following information backed to a reputable data source:
 * 1) Name of the paper
 * 2) catalog identifier from reputable catalog
 * 3) year of establishment
 * 4) place of establishment
 * 5) in print?
 * 6) if not some info
 * 7) if so contact info

All of this baseline information is what Wikidata wants. I have mixed feelings about whether we should put this kind of information in Wikidata, and also export it to an infobox in English Wikipedia, and also convert the data into human friendly prose. At the same time I think that many people would agree that the general readers and editors need better access to regional news sources and the most natural way to provide that is through a Wikipedia article.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  13:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "I think we are getting ready to argue..." Speaking for myself, I disagree with this. I'd say that's on the horizon of things it might be worth considering, but my intention in creating this page has a lot more to do with collecting the wisdom of this group and letting it inform our work, than about getting a guideline approved. As far as we know, we don't have a significant problem with newspaper articles getting deleted. I'd be concerned that forging ahead might create a problem where currently we have none. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I think I left out a significant piece of my reasoning. I think there are tons of these papers that do pass GNG, and in the near term, I believe those are the ones we should prioritize. So, I don't know that there's a pressing need for a more liberal guideline; I just think it's something worth considering, while we're doing the (IMO more pressing) work of writing up articles on the ones that are notable under GNG. With that in mind, I think your categorization of the list we've started is especially helpful, as it lets us distinguish between considerations that are definitely relevant now (to adherence to GNG) vs. ones that we may want to consider in a possible future topic-specific guideline. Personally, I feel I'm in the midst of a learning process about what constitutes an important newspaper, and I'd be much happier to put together a more formal proposal after I've learned a bit more, from the process of writing these articles and the associated reading. If others are more confident, there's no reason they couldn't forge ahead sooner...but it does seem to me it might be better to advance a proposal only after several of us have formed a bit of consensus about what matters in considering a newspaper's importance.
 * Does that make sense? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * p.s. Here's an example of where I started working on an article (on Oregon Deutsche Zeitung) and then determined it's probably not notable by itself. Instead, I wrote a more general stub about German language newspapers of Oregon, which does have a fair amount of coverage as a general topic. Conceivably, down the road, a much more liberal guideline might render the Zeitung notable on its own...but that's a judgment that, IMO, nobody's in a hurry to make. I don't think there'a any problem in the meantime with simply redirecting it to a slightly more general topic. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Instead of planning to have only one phase of this project create all newspaper articles, let's plan for multiple phases. In the first phase let's make articles for the easiest cases, in the second phase let's address more complicated cases, and on until we address all cases.
 * I am curious if we could ever find an encyclopedia or reference work with summary descriptions of many regional newspapers. If we had such a work then that plus a modern database would be a great case for making lots of articles in compliance with GNG.
 * Works which describe categories of newspapers, like regional newspapers for a minority group, might also be easier to find. We have lots of options.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  01:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a pairing of an older/print book with a newer/digital database does seem to strengthen a case for notability. Just today found a good one for West Virginia, and has used it as a basis for creating a bunch of stubs. I've found a number of regional ones, like this, and there are definitely some national ones, often aimed at helping businesses find the papers they want to advertise in. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Notability of reliable sources - new essay
I drafted
 * Notability (reliable sources).

In this documentation I raise the issue of conferring notability to a source to have its own Wikipedia article based on its popularity as a citation in Wikipedia article reference sections. I would appreciate any comments on the talk page.

We were discussing this here in WikiProject Newspapers, but I think that this is becoming an issue to discuss for academic journals, databases, and in other contexts.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  15:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions for the guideline
Hi, Peteforsyth, thanks for taking the time to put this together! I think this is a really great start and I'd like to make a couple of suggestions after having gone through and assessed several dozen (hundred? They all blended together) unassessed articles.

First, I think we should divide the criteria for notability into two categories, a category for a single criteria that establishes notability, and a category for multiple criteria that establishes notability. So based on the current list, it might look something like this:

Second, I'd like to suggest adding this criteria to the list of multiple criteria:
 * It was published regularly for a minimum of 5 years consecutively or non-consecutively

After reviewing dozens and dozens of stubs for newspapers, I noticed a lot of partisan papers in the list that existed for only a few years (2-3, usually) with low readership, and often published intermittently (2-month run, then nothing for 6 months, followed 3 issues in 3 weeks, then nothing for 4 months, things like that). That does not strike me as being particularly impactful on the world nor particularly notable, so I'd propose we delete those articles if they do not meet the other criteria if this guideline is formally adopted. This wouldn't impact solely the partisan press (though admittedly, articles about partisan papers would probably be the most affected proportionately), and of course, if a paper meets two of the other criteria on the list, then this point is moot.

Third, I think the criteria I listed give the most concrete guidelines for any editor to follow, and so would suggest removing the others from the proposal. It takes away having to discuss things like who is considered a prominent media commentator or what counts as "frequently" syndicated. I'd love to hear your thoughts! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry to take so long, I had somehow missed the notification. I very much appreciate your taking the time and putting the thought into this. What you propose above seems perfectly reasonable to me. I may have some more detailed comments once I compare it closely to the earlier version (which I probably won't get to this week), but my sense is that our thinking aligns pretty strongly. It would be great to put together a version we can nudge forward for more formal adoption. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we are pretty aligned too! All I tried to do was condense the original draft down to its most concrete criteria (though we will forever argue what consitutes "signficant coverage" on Wikipedia, I think) so that it's harder to argue points if it is adopted. Thanks for doing all the legwork on this! Looking forward to your detailed comments and I hope we can get some more people involved too. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I think these two proposed criteria overlap with WP:GNG. If they do, then I recommend excluding them. These criteria are suppose to be additional points to verify for newspapers which do not pass WP:GNG, and if something passes GNG, then it is much simpler to confirm that.
 * It has received significant coverage in a media trade publication, such as Editor & Publisher
 * It has received significant coverage in academic journalistic media, such as by the Poynter Institute, Nieman Lab, or Columbia Journalism Review
 * Special criteria like this elevate underrepresented topics which fail to pass GNG.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  16:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying! My thought with those guidelines, and I should have specified it, was that a publciation was notable if it received consideration in one of those outlets only one time, superceding WP:THREE, which I've seen cited a fair bit in AfC. However, I really like what Pete Forsyth did with these suggestions and am totally willing to toss those two criteria! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, I've compared them more closely. There are a few items from the earlier list I would like to discuss in more depth, but I have no disagreement with what you propose,. Here, I've made some slight edits to your version. (I've bolded my changes.) I moved the items called out into a new section, with language that I hope is clearly "advisory" rather than "criteria." I tried to reduce the US-centrism (with some arbitrary substitutions of places). I made a few things more specific. Below, I'll mention the other items I think should be added back in (but maybe with some improvements).

-Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I love what you did with this! I left several comments below about the criteria left out. I think we're really close to agreeing on this! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments on some specific items that have been removed in the above proposal
My comments on each in italics:

''This seems potentially useful in some cases, but I can see how it would be problematic under governments that are not supportive of a free press, and that there would be hazy lines. I'm happy to leave this one out. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)''
 * It is included in a list of newspaper published by its state government (for instance, here).


 * This is the one I struggled with the most, actually. I could go either way on it. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

''This one seems important. If the editor of the Springfield Gazette is frequently quoted, noting her position, in larger, unaffiliated regional papers about matters relating to Springfield, that is a tacit but significant endorsement of the paper's editorial acuity when it comes to Springfield. Maybe this can be reworded? I think it should be kept as a criterion. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)''
 * Its leadership is repeatedly quoted in other reliable sources, with reference to their leadership title and their expertise on the publication's topic (e.g., the culture or economic makeup of a town for a local paper)


 * I'd argue that this is actually establishing notablity for the particular journalist/editor/publisher, rather than the newspaper itself. It also runs into the issue of what counts as "repeatedly." I also think it runs into the issue of original research. Unless it is stated explicitly that a journalist/editor/publisher is frequently quoted about a topic, I'd be reluctant to allow a handful of random sources that say "Jane Doe, editor of the Springfield Gazette" to be used as sources for a sentence that says "The Springfield Gazette is considered an expert source on the economy of Springfield." However, that could be a good argument for a source's reliability for use on Wikipedia. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

''I notice this one was shortened to "reporting." Is there a reason for that? It seems that a newspaper's significance can derive from any of these areas. Reporting is only one aspect of what newspapers do, and that's reflected in the diversity of awards. By specifying, my intention was merely to rule out advertising awards, but it seems to me that all awards relating to content should be considered relevant. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)''
 * The paper has won state, province, or national level awards for reporting, feature-writing, editorial, or photography.


 * I completely agree! I'd consider all of those categories "reporting" but specifying them makes it clear what the acceptable criteria are. I think that is a great addition. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

''I'm fine with leaving this out, on reflection seems redundant of GNG. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)'' ''Seems relevant, though I'd imagine if this criterion is met, probably a lot of others that are easier to assess objectively have been met too. Fine with leaving this out. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)''
 * The paper's role in a historical event is covered as central in histories of the event
 * Its party affiliation or bias is a subject of discussion by prominent media commentator(s).


 * Yeah, I felt like this one left a lot of room for interpretation and argument and that it would be simpler to leave it out. Glad we agree! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The following are worth considering, but may not directly contribute to the criteria of the GNG. One way to think about these is that if they pertain, it might be worth some extra effort to find evidence that contributes to the GNG. ''This one seems important, but it would need to be much more specific to be useful, and I'm not really sure how to rewrite it. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)''
 * Its content is or has been frequently syndicated or republished in other reliable sources


 * My main issue with this criteria is a) how does one quantify "frequently"? Is it five times per month? Ten? Per year? and b) syndication may help lend credence to a publication's reliability, but if it isn't explicitly stated that a publication is frequently syndicated, that sounds like it would be getting into original research territory. If an independent publication says, "Articles from the Johnsonville Gazette are frequently reprinted in X, Y, and Z paper," I think that's fine and lends itself to notability, but something like that would seem to fit in with the GNG rather needing to be its own criteria. Maybe the Its launch, demise, and/or changes in leadership or ownership are covered by other independent outlets criteria can be modified to include something like, "Its launch, demise, reporting, and/or changes in leadership or ownership are covered by other independent outlets." M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

''Same as above. Among other things, "frequently" should be a more specific measurement, and the independence of other outlets should be mentioned. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)''
 * Its articles are repeatedly cited (or its scoops frequently credited) by other reliable sources


 * Here again I think we run into an issue of bordering on original research territory. I'm not sure that passing mentions like "as first reported in the Johnsonville Gazette" really qualify as notable. If it were mentioned explicitly in a publication that the Gazette frequently had the story first, I think that would qualify, but that also seems like something that would be part of a broader story that would automatically qualify a publication under these guidelines. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

''Seems relevant. If a newspaper's editor serves on the board of the state newspaper association, that is an indication of the respect held for the publication in the field. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)''
 * The paper itself, and/or its leadership, have held leadership or administrative roles in a journalism society


 * I'd be okay with adding this one in with an addendum: "society, and that role was reported by an independent publication." Leaving it open like this could potentially lead editors to say, "John Doe is listed as the treasurer of Wyoming SPJ on their website, that makes X paper notable." That seems to potentially invite the use of primary sources. The addendum would fix that potential issue. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

''Seems relevant. Indicates that multiple libraries consider the paper important. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)''
 * The paper is collected by multiple academic libraries or state archives


 * On the flip side, these libraries/archives usually hold records of all these sorts of things because they have to. Many papers also turn over their individual archives to be digitized by state archivists. It would also seem to potentially invite original research. I'd argue this could be included if an addendum was made to note that the collection was reported in independent sources. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

''Seems relevant, but "frequently" should be more specific. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)''
 * It frequently features exclusive quotes from government leaders or leaders of prominent institutions or movements. These could include candidate forums for political races, if they attract participation of the main candidates.


 * This seems to be the same as the "scoops" criteria. I think we'd run into the issue of original research most of all on this one. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

''Seems relevant. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)''
 * It is part of a news reporting network, such as ProPublica's Local Reporting Network or the Oregonian's Oregonian News Network.


 * I could see adding this with an addendum that the membership be reported in independent sources. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

''Given the separation into "one or more" and "two or more", proposed by Maverick, I now think maybe the last list above should be preserved, but rolled into either the "two or more" or a new "three or more" category. I do like the improved specificity, it will make this list much more useful. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)''


 * Thanks for all the thought and work you put into this response! I left a few responses with my concerns on a few of the points that were left out, namely that they could open the door for original research, and I think we'd get shut down if we put it up for a proposal as a result. To summarize, I would suport adding to the "Two or more" criteria (or "Three or more" -- I like that better, but didn't want to get greedy :D) the following (with wording changes in bold, as suggested by either of us):
 * It is included in a list of newspaper published by its state government (for instance, here).
 * The paper has won state, province, or national level awards for reporting, feature-writing, editorial, or photography.
 * Its launch, demise, reporting, and/or changes in leadership or ownership are covered by other independent outlets
 * It is part of a news reporting network, such as ProPublica's Local Reporting Network or the Oregonian's Oregonian News Network, and its membership was reported in independent sources
 * I'd love to know what you think! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)