Wikipedia:In the news story significance is independent of the surrounding news cycle
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: The fact that the news cycle might be rather slow is not a reason to post a story that is not otherwise notable. |
Occasionally on the
In the news candidates page
, arguments like the following are advanced in support of posting a story:
| “ | Support the oldest blurb is more than a month old. | ” |
Or:
| “ | Support nothing has been happening the past couple of weeks, we need to freshen up the Main Page. | ” |
These arguments are fallacious. All stories proposed for In the news are to be held to the same standard of significance and notability. Especially in times of an overarching crisis such as the
Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy to pretend that a story is more important or notable than it really is. Simply put, if not enough men are biting dogs
, we shouldn't start covering dogs biting men. Let us not stoop to the level of the 24-hour news media.
A too fast news cycle
The converse is also true. Arguments such as the following, admittedly less common:
| “ | Oppose the oldest blurb is only a week old; we can't post this story or else it'll bump the oldest blurb off the Main Page. | ” |
are also fallacious. Assuming that no accommodations such as the Ongoing section can be made for this situation, it is unfortunate that a blurb is short-lived, but it is ultimately likewise an NPOV violation to pretend that a story is less important or notable than it really is.
None of this essay applies to the
Recent Deaths
section of In the news, which makes no provision for the "significance" of the deceased.