Wikipedia notability guidelines for a person

A person is notable on Wikipedia when independent, reliable sources have given them significant coverage. Fame, a job title, a large audience or a long career do not decide it. Documented attention from writers who have no stake in you does.

That test comes from Wikipedia's notability guideline for people, and it is more mechanical than most people expect. This guide walks through what the guideline says, which sources count and which do not, how to run an honest check on your own case, and what tends to go wrong. It describes community guidelines as they stood on the pages read for this guide. Wikipedia's rules are written and revised by volunteers, so read the current text before you act on any point here.

Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guideline decides who may write about you and how. It has its own detailed treatment elsewhere in the Journal, so it appears below only as a headline.

Three facts frame everything below.

Seven daysthe stated wait for proposed deletion and the stated length of a deletion discussion

Threestandards listed for any biography: an award, a lasting contribution, a national dictionary entry

Zeroweight given to a famous relative, search hit counts or photo counts

All three come from the Wikipedia notability guideline for people, as read for this guide.

Notability means worthy of notice, not famous

Wikipedia uses notability as a test that editors apply to decide whether a topic warrants its own article. For a person, the guideline asks whether they are "worthy of notice", and it states that being famous or popular is secondary.

The consequence is practical. A Wikipedia biography summarizes what independent writers have already published about someone. It reflects documented standing and does not confer it. That is why an executive with a large company or a creator with a large audience can fail the test while a person with three serious profiles in independent outlets passes it.

Related readAuthor bio page and Person schema: what to build

On that page, being notable is not the same as being famous, and the rest of this guide follows from that distinction.

The basic test is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources

A person is presumed notable under the guideline when they have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of them. The four ideas inside it are coverage, significance, reliability and independence, and each one can fail on its own.

Significant means more than a mention

Significant coverage means non-trivial depth. The guideline gives a simple directory entry and a mention in passing as examples of trivial coverage, adds a birth certificate and a one-line listing on an election ballot form, and says trivial coverage is not usually sufficient to establish notability. A sentence that names you in a list of attendees is coverage in the loosest sense. It is not significant coverage.

Reliable means a source with a record to protect

The guideline requires reliable sources, and Wikipedia's separate reliable-sources page defines the term. That page could not be read for this guide, so its detail is not restated here. In plain terms, a reliable source is usually a publication with editorial oversight, not a page anyone can publish without review. Check the policy before you rely on a borderline outlet.

Independent means no stake in you

An independent source is one with no stake in you: the guideline says web pages about an organization's own staff or members do not count, and neither do entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations. It adds a second layer it calls intellectual independence. A published work must not be wholly derived from another work, although partial derivation is acceptable. Several outlets that reprint the same transcript do not count separately, and a summary of a biography with no original contribution does not count.

Related readVerification Badges: Do They Help Your Reputation?

Several modest sources can be combined

If the depth of coverage in any single source is not substantial, the guideline allows multiple independent sources to be combined to demonstrate notability. It helps people whose coverage is real but spread thin, but not people whose mentions are all trivial. The passages read for this guide set no fixed number of sources.

Which sources count toward notability and which do not

The guideline is specific about what does not count, which makes it the most useful part for a self-check. The table sorts the common source types by what the guideline says about each.

The own-site row trips up the most people. A strong personal website is valuable for how you appear in search engines and AI answers, and it can support facts inside an article, but it carries no weight toward whether you deserve one.

Profession standards make notability likely, and sources still decide

Beyond the basic test, the guideline lists additional standards under the heading Additional criteria. As read for this guide, it introduces them by saying that people are likely to be notable if they meet any of them. The wording of the sentence that follows, on what failing or meeting them settles, came through the fetch tool garbled, so this guide does not rely on it. Two other passages show how far the standards go. The sports standard says outright that one cited source, by itself, does not establish notability. And the deletion section sends a person who fails the basic criteria but meets an additional standard toward a merge into a broader article, not toward a page of their own. Read the standards as a strong signal about where good sources probably exist, with sources still deciding.

Related readCrunchbase profile for a founder: claim, fix, limits

Any biography

Three standards apply to anyone. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record of their field. Or the person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary. A footnote explains the second standard: people in the enduring record are usually written about in depth, independently, in multiple history books by historians. The words well-known and significant matter. A prize you can only find on the organizer's own website is unlikely to be the kind of award the standard describes.

Creative professionals

For authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects and similar figures, the guideline lists four routes. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person originated a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person created, or co-created, a significant or well-known work that was the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent notable work such as a book or film. Or the person's work became a significant monument, formed a substantial part of a significant exhibition, won significant critical attention, or is held in the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Entertainers

For actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers and similar celebrities, the guideline names two routes. The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances or other productions. Or the person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Related readIMDb Profile Reputation: What Actors Can Fix

Politicians and judges

Politicians and judges are presumed notable if they held international, national, or, in federal systems, state or province-wide office, or served in legislatures at those levels. The guideline also covers major local political figures who received significant press coverage. It states that elected local officials and unelected candidates are not automatically notable, although they may still meet the general coverage test.

Sports personalities and academics

A sportsperson is presumed notable if they have won a significant honor. Sports biographies must cite at least one source giving significant coverage of the subject, and the page adds that this alone does not establish notability. For academics, the section on the people guideline page is short and sets out no list. It notes that scholars can be influential in the world of ideas without being the subject of secondary sources about their lives. A dedicated academic-notability page could not be read for this guide, so an academic should read the current text there before assuming either way.

What does not make a person notable

The guideline names several things that feel like proof of importance and are not. Fame and popularity are secondary to the coverage test. Being related to a well-known person confers no notability, and the relative may be mentioned in the related article instead. Search engine statistics and the number of online photos are not valid measures, and the guideline tells editors to weigh the quality of search results, not their quantity.

That last point answers a common misunderstanding. A name with a huge result count, or a profile with thousands of photographs, shows presence on the web. It does not show that independent writers examined the person's work. Depth and independence are what editors count, not volume.

Related readKnowledge panel for athletes: sources, claims, limits

Being a Wikipedia editor has no effect on a person's notability, before or after an article exists. A person who edits Wikipedia is judged by the same coverage test as anyone else.

People known for one event and low-profile people are treated differently

The guideline's general rule for a person known for one event is to cover the event, not the person. If the person's role is minor, the name may redirect to the article on the event. A separate biography may still be justified when the event is highly significant, or when the person is better known than the event.

The criminal-event section is stricter. A person known only in connection with a criminal event should not normally have a separate article. Victims and wrongly accused or convicted people qualify if they had a large role in a well-documented historic event, shown by persistent coverage in reliable secondary sources. Perpetrators qualify if the victim was a renowned national or international figure, or if the motive or execution was unusual and the event has sustained coverage beyond initial news reports.

The page adds two differences between its own one-event section and the separate living-persons rule. That rule applies only to living people and people who have only just died, and only to biographies of low-profile individuals. It is Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, whose page could not be read for this guide, so its detail is not summarized here. The conflict-of-interest guideline points to the noticeboard for biographies of living persons as a place to ask for help. If you are a private person worried about an article or a mention, read the policy page directly before you act.

Related readKnowledge panel for authors: fix book data

How to judge honestly whether you qualify

The honest check starts from the sources, not from your career.

1. List every piece about youCollect each article, interview, profile, listing and mention that names you, with the publisher and the date.
2. Strike what you wrote or suppliedRemove your own site, your autobiography, your staff or member pages, and self-nominated directory entries. The guideline gives them no weight.
3. Strike the trivialRemove passing mentions, directory entries and list appearances. Keep only pieces where you are a real subject.
4. Strike the derivativeCollapse reprints of one transcript or one profile into a single source, and remove summaries that add nothing original.
5. Check each remaining outletAsk whether it is reliable, whether it has a stake in you, and whether the writer chose you as a subject on their own.
6. Check the profession standardsNote whether you meet an additional standard, such as a well-known award or a work in notable collections. Treat that as a signal, not a pass.

A worked scenario

The scenario is invented, with generic parties. A regional hospital executive finds 14 online mentions. Assume that 3 are in-depth profiles by separate, independent outlets, 5 are passing mentions in lists of attendees or award finalists, 3 are the executive's own company materials, 2 are speaker bios on conference sites, and 1 is a reprint of one of the profiles on a second site.

Passing mentions5

In-depth independent profiles3

Own company materials3

Speaker bios2

Reprint of a profile1

Assumed figures for illustration only. Only the three in-depth profiles count toward notability, and the reprint adds nothing to them.

Of 14 mentions, three count. That is a plausible case and not a safe one. Three serious profiles in separate outlets is the kind of coverage the guideline describes, but the passages read for this guide set no fixed count, and an editor can reasonably ask whether the three outlets are reliable and whether the profiles are really independent of the person's employer. The verdict is "possible, check the outlets", and the right next move is more independent coverage before anything else.

What happens to an article that fails the test

An article about a person who does not meet the guideline can be deleted, merged or redirected. The guideline lists three deletion routes for a subject that meets no criterion and where improvement has not worked or cannot reasonably be tried, plus a merge route for a middle case. The page for each route, including the speedy deletion criteria, could not be read for this guide, so only what the people page says about each is stated.

Where a person fails the basic criteria but meets an additional one, the guideline advises merging the article into a broader article that gives context, and tagging the page with the merge target.

Related readKnowledge panel for musicians: claim, fix, limits

One rule matters most for anyone hoping to keep a page. The article text itself should include enough information to explain why the person is notable, and the page says that promises made on a talk page or in a deletion debate do not count. Its suggested fixes for a thin article are a template asking for more information, a rewrite, or asking the article's editors for advice. The practical lesson is that the best independent sources have to be in the article from the first day.

A public discussion about whether you are notable can draw attention to a gap in your coverage. That is a reason to run the honest check before an article exists, not after.

What not to do when you want a Wikipedia page

The conflict-of-interest guideline is the rulebook for who may write about you. It is a guideline, and it says accounts may be blocked if conflicted editing causes disruption. In short:

• Do not write your own article. The guideline says you should not create articles about yourself, your family or your friends, and that if you or they are notable enough, someone else will create the article.
• Do not hire someone to do it quietly. Paid editing has to be disclosed, and the guideline says paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from editing the article directly.
• Do not run extra accounts or recruit friends. The guideline sends concerns about sockpuppets and meatpuppets to a formal investigation process.
• Do not expect control. Once an article exists, you have no right to control its content or to delete it outside normal channels.

If you do not qualify yet, build the coverage and your own pages

If the check shows thin coverage, the honest answer is not to push for a page. Notability follows coverage, and coverage is earned by doing work that independent writers want to cover. Several things are in your hands: the quality of the work itself, awards that are well known and significant, and being easy and accurate for journalists to quote. None can be forced or faked. Fake profiles, planted pieces and paid placements dressed as editorial would fail the independence test and create a second problem.

A realistic sequence runs over months, and often years, because the coverage has to exist before the test can be passed: first gather what already exists, then earn one or two substantial independent pieces, then wait for others to write about you in their own time.

Related readLinkedIn Profile Ranking for Your Name: Setup and Limits

Meanwhile, a Wikipedia article is one asset among several. Your own name results can be shaped by owned pages that need no one's approval, such as a well-built personal site, which does not depend on any encyclopedia. Building an owned page one is the work of personal brand.

The next step is an inventory, not a draft

Start with the list from the self-assessment above, before anyone drafts a page, hires anyone or opens an account. If it shows few in-depth independent pieces, the right project is coverage, not an article. If it shows a strong case, the right route runs through the conflict-of-interest rules and through someone other than you.

For reference, the two Wikipedia pages used throughout this guide are the Wikipedia notability guideline for people and the Wikipedia conflict-of-interest guideline.

Questions people ask

Does an IMDb or similar database page count toward notability?

No. The guideline says databases such as IMDb are not considered credible for notability because they are mass-edited and have low inclusion standards. A listing there does not show that anyone independent wrote about you, so it should not appear in your list of qualifying sources.

Does being related to someone notable make me notable?

No. The guideline says a relationship to a well-known person, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article about the relative unless significant coverage of that relative can be found. It states plainly that relationships do not confer notability, so the test stays the same: coverage of you.

Is a local councilor or a candidate notable?

Not automatically. The guideline says being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate, does not by itself make someone notable, although such a person can still be notable under the general coverage test. Office at the national level, or at state or province-wide level in federal systems, is treated differently.

Can I fix a mistake in an article about me?

The conflict-of-interest guideline says you may correct defamation or a serious error quickly, then follow up by email or by asking for help at the noticeboard for biographies of living persons. For anything else, it advises proposing changes on the article's talk page with a request-edit template and full disclosure of your connection.

Is a sports player notable with a single good source?

Not on that basis alone. The guideline says a sportsperson is presumed notable if they have won a significant honor, and that sports biographies must cite at least one source with significant coverage. It adds that this one source alone does not establish notability, although enough sources likely exist to meet the general test.

Do I get any control once an article exists?

No. The conflict-of-interest guideline says that once an article exists you have no right to control its content or to delete it outside normal channels. You can raise concerns through the talk page, a disclosed edit request, or the noticeboard route for biographies of living persons.