A client’s name filled every outlet for a week: a viral clip, a public apology, wall-to-wall coverage. The volume was real, and so was the question that followed. With this much written, why not an entry?
The count is not the test. Wikipedia treats coverage of an event separately from coverage of a person, and someone who appears only because of one event is, more often than not, a detail in that event’s article rather than the subject of a biography.
A single event, however widely reported, does not by itself make a biography.
This catches sustained stories as often as viral ones. Months of coverage of a trial, a scandal, a rescue can still be coverage of the event, not of the person, if nothing independent is written about them once the story ends. Duration is not the question; range is.
Our advice is to wait for the record to widen past the event: a role sought afterward, work reviewed on its own terms, a second story unconnected to the first. Absent that, the honest outcome, if any entry is warranted at all, is one about the event, not about the person inside it.
