Revision as of 03:48, 18 September 2011 edit WhatamIdoing (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 128,605 edits Mostly undid revision 451080853 by Will Beback (talk) See talk: The actual, scholarly definition of primary source really does include old newspaper articles ← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:49, 18 September 2011 edit undo WhatamIdoing (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 128,605 edits →Secondary sources for notability: Also, phone books are often defined as tertiary sources Next edit →
Line 97: ==Secondary sources for notability== Just because topics are covered in primary sources does not mean that they are notable. ~~Appearing~~Information inabout ~~the~~an ~~phone~~author ~~book~~from isthe ~~not~~book ajacket ~~sign~~copy of the author's own book does not demonstrate notability, for example. Secondary sources are needed to establish notability for the purposes of deciding which articles to keep. However topics that are only covered briefly or in poor quality secondary sources may not meet the [[WP:GNG\|general notability guideline]]. One rough rule of thumb for identifying primary sources is this: if the source is noticeably closer to the event than you are, then it's a primary source. For example, if an event occurred on January 1, 1800, and a newspaper article appeared about it the next day, then Wikipedia (and all historians) considers the newspaper article a primary source.

Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions