What does it take to get a Wikipedia page?
I have written on this extensively. But, I can sum it up by just saying you need reliable sources that talk about the subject in-depth.
Seems simple, but as you already know, Wikipedia is a little more complicated than that. After having a draft declined by Wikipedia for not having enough sources, a common question that arises is:
“How many references do I need?”
This seems like a reasonable question. However, it is really difficult to answer due to the complexity of Wikipedia.
So, let me dive a little deeper so you can truly understand what you will need to get your Wikipedia page approved.
It takes the knowledge of several guidelines in order to understand the quantity of references issue. Let’s start by taking a look at what the general notability guidelines say about references.
Basic Notability Guidelines and References
For those not familiar with how you qualify for Wikipedia, notability guidelines are the place to start. A page cannot be created if it is not notable and no amount of editing you do will help the cause unless there are reliable sources to support it.
Basically, notability is all about the media.
Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Do a Google search and see what comes up.
- What do media outlets say about the topic?
- Do they they talk about the topic in-depth, or just mention it in passing?
- Was the media paid to talk about the subject (e.g., “sponsored content”)?
“If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.” – Wikipedia general notability guidelines
Wikipedia notability guidelines also say that “multiple” sources are needed.
How many is multiple?
After more than a decade of creating Wikipedia pages, I have come to the conclusion that this means more than one and less than infinity.
“Multiple” has been determined differently by different editors. It can even be confusing at times for experienced Wikipedia editors who fight back and forth in deletion discussions. I have seen editors delete some pages for having only two in-depth reliable sources while others deleted for having a half dozen or more.
Confusing right?
By this I mean that an article in The Wall Street Journal accompanied by one in The New York Times can do more for you than several articles in publications such as Salon, The Atlantic, and Entrepreneur. I am not knocking any of these publications. Just telling you how Wikipedia editors see it.
On a side note, remember there are multiple guidelines to notability on Wikipedia. Here is a guide to Wikipedia notability guidelines that dives deeper.
Now let’s move on to determine what sources are considered reliable for Wikipedia.
What Determines a Reliable Source for Wikipedia?
Wikipedia can be confusing when it talks about what sources are considered reliable. You need to look at the type of source (whether it is a book, magazine, newspaper, blog, etc.), the writer, and the actual publisher.
Here is why it matters.
A book is generally considered a good source, but if it is self-published, it will not be considered reliable enough to establish notability.
A publication such as Entrepreneur is considered reliable, but if the writer is a contributor where there is no editorial control, it will not be considered reliable enough to establish notability.
You need to have coverage in the type of news media that most of the general public feels is reliable. While this is not a hard-and-fast rule for Wikipedia, it does give you an idea of what you look for.
Do most people see shows like 60 Minutes reliable?
Then you have likely found a good source.
How about The Los Angeles Times?
While we may not always agree with the stories it runs, most people find it reliable.
If you want to check if a source is reliable, Wikipedia maintains a list of sources and current consensus on whether editors consider each source reliable or not. Keep in mind this list always changes so do not rely on the image below. Also, if a references is not listed here, that doesn’t mean it isn’t reliable. It only means there has not been enough discussion about it on Wikipedia to make the list.
Once you determine a source is reliable, you will then need to review it to see if the coverage is considered “in-depth.”
In-depth?
Yes, we need to show that the coverage in these sources is more than just a passing mention.
Passing Mentions Versus In-Depth Coverage
I cover this a little more in my guide to Wikipedia notability, but in order to have a reference that qualifies you for Wikipedia, it must focus on the topic and not just mention it in passing.
That doesn’t mean that the article focuses on the topic 100%, but it does need to talk about it in detail. When it comes to companies qualifying for Wikipedia pages, this is one of the most difficult things to show.
What can be confusing here is that references that do not qualify for notability can still be used for referencing content on Wikipedia.
Wait, what?
That’s right. There are sources that may talk about the subject with a passing mention. While that source may not qualify to show notability, it can still be used within a Wikipedia page.
This confuses some people as they see these references in an article and think that having a ton of these would qualify them for a Wikipedia page. This is not necessarily so.
So, let’s assume that the topic you want to create a Wikipedia page for has the significant coverage in reliable sources. Does that mean you can create the page and it won’t be deleted? Not exactly. As I said, Wikipedia can be complex.
It’s All Subjective and Based on the Topic
Different topics seem to require a different number of references. For instance, a company with two in-depth references in reliable sources may be dismissed as not being notable, while a person with two lesser in-depth news articles could pass guidelines with flying colors.
When looking to answer the question about the number of references needed for notability, you need to check individual topic guidelines.
Here is an example:
Schools have a very low threshold for notability. Having a single reference from a reliable source that shows the school exists will establish notability. This doesn’t apply to all schools though.
Another example is creating biographies of living people. If you are a musician, having a charted single and reference to support it would likely be enough to qualify you for Wikipedia. Being a professor with a chair named after you would also qualify you, even if the sources are not in-depth as I stated above.
Wikipedia editors go even further into the source to determine if it is likely an editorial piece or native advertising. So while a professor would qualify with a single source verifying they have a named chair, a company may require a half dozen or more in-depth sources.
This is what I mean when I say there are no set rules in Wikipedia. It is simply guidelines and policies, and the interpretation of them becomes subjective to individual editors involved in policy or deletion discussions.
Basically, even if you have the right “number” of sources according to guidelines, it still may not keep your page from being deleted. It comes down to individual editors and how they decide to interpret those guidelines.
Why Others Are On Wikipedia Despite Not Qualifying
After reading everything above, the first thing that pops in your mind is the Wikipedia page of your competitor. After all, they have very little coverage yet they have had a Wikipedia page for years.
So why don’t you qualify?
Very simple, the page you see is likely violating guidelines but no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. This rule is referred to as “other stuff exists.”
Also, remember that the interpretation of the guidelines are subjective based on editors who vote in deletion discussions. Some interpret them one way while the rest interpret them the opposite. This means that similar pages may wind up with different results when recommended for deletion.
I have seen some pages with few in-depth references that have passed numerous attempts at deletion. I have also seen others with many in-depth sources that have been deleted. This is the very reason why I never offer a guarantee about Wikipedia. Any Wikipedia content writer offering such is clueless and probably shouldn’t be hired in the first place.
Final Word on Wikipedia References
Focus on quality over quantity. You can get a Wikipedia page with a few quality in-depth sources but have a page deleted with 100 low-quality sources.
At this point I have either cleared things up for you or made you even more confused. Either way, I am more than happy to evaluate if your topic qualifies for a Wikipedia page. Simply give me the details about your project and myself and my team will let you know if you qualify.