Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Archive 0

Criteria based on extent of published works

I think this guideline might be a little generous:

Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more.

Academics also potentially slip through the cracks of the guideslines as currently written. --Robert Merkel 01:01, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not paper, the only relevant criterion (of those listed on the page) is verifiability.We need nothing more. -- Toby Bartels 21:27, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't like this guideline. The guideline needs to be a more vague "noteworthiness," which needs to be judged more on a case-by-case basis. There are quite a few mathematicians who have written important books that have seen print runs of maybe 500 (or even sometimes 50-100 for more specialist fields). Even some important academic journals are periodicals with circulations of less than 5,000. --Delirium 21:30, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps the best compromise is to maintain the standard as written as a yardstick. There are sure to be obscure individuals whose contribution is nonetheless beyond question; surely, exceptions can be made. A standard is still valuable in demonstrating that, say, Shelly, who wrote the chuch cookbook that saw a press run of 300 copies so does not merit an article.

If it is just a yardstick, it needs clarification. People need to be able get a non-misleading idea of what a policy really means when they read the first sentence of it, without being expected to look at a discussion of qualifications elsewhere. It is simply inappropriate to use the same "audience number" for serious books and journals as for television programs, so different numbers should be used instead. Philip 12:58, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Books popularity

A side test for books to get a rough measure for "popularity" when print-run is unavailable,

Search for the book at,

Any mainstream book should appear on at least 3-4 of them. Virtually all books published by a professional (read non-vanity) press should appear in at least one of them. --Imran 20:42, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The capitalists cometh

Recording musicians who have sold more than 5,000 albums, CDs, or similar recordings

All this emphasis on selling stuff is very disturbing. Martin

Nod. I thought of adding here the insight of another wikipedia. Differences of approach are interesting.

  • for authors of books and such, are accepted
    • those who have published at least 2 books, at editor account
    • or cited in at least one relevant (understand recognised) reference book (encyclopedia, dictionary...)
  • Paint artists and such
    • with at least 2 personal expositions
    • or be represented in the expositions of a recognised museum
  • Musicians and singers
    • at least 2 musical records (editor, not personal)
    • or at least having received a prize for a first CD or equivalent

I hope the translation is understandable. What I mostly meant is that none of us has based what "fame" is, on financial success. But rather by personal work and recognition by peers (ie, good enough to receive a prize, good enough to interest a museum or a music editor).

I think the sale aspect can not be worth on the net. Is also little worth for non-occidental artists.

Why? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:25, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Measuring fame and validity of inclusion in encyclopedia by *money* is bad.

In many professional circles, such as the science circle, a bunch of professors write books. They basically do not make money on them. They usually loose some. Because not only do they don't have a broad audience, but they *offer* their books to their peers. It does not bring them any money, but in their small circle, the book may become a reference, and this will bring them more than would a bunch of bills; being invited in congress, more contracts, respect. Ideally, contacting a person or two, experts on the topic, is best.

Anthère

(But it was ignored by many when it came to the Daniel C. Boyer article on French Wikipedia, who still argued for its exclusion despite the fact that I had then had five personal exhibitions (I have now had six) and my work had been shown at the Swedish American Museum, the Portland Museum of Art, the Museo Filatelica de Oaxaca, the Zoologische Institut und Zoologische Museum and the Fundacîo Pedro Ferrándiz International Center for the Documentation of and Research on Basketball. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:25, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC))
Small note: I've now had seven. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

100 year test

I really question the 100-year test as it presupposes a degree of clairvoyance to which we cannot truly claim to aspire. Super-obscure or somewhat obscure figures of the past (read Melville's obituary sometime) have been transformed into giants in public assessment after their death's, and some of the famous have been, a century on, all but forgotten. I think this criterion should be junked. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:08, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

People rarely disappear out of history, they may become more obscure, but once famous people rarely vanish from modern scholarship.

Wikipedia is a work in progress, and can change as the situation warrants. Many significant public figures do not achieve a standing that merits the attention of biographers until later in life. It is for this reason that one major biographical dictionary only publishes an entry for people who have been dead for over twenty years. Kat 01:48, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Let me clarify what I mean by the 100 year test, I mean that based on current knowledge does it seem probable that in a hundred years people will be interested in this individual as an individual (as opposed to some Joe Random who is part of a group). Otherwise we might as well have articles on everybody on the off-chance that they might become famous in the future. --Imran 20:42, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure this will work for artists, Van Gogh only sold one painting during his lifetime so presumably would have failed the 100 year test when he was alive. But obviously now we view him differently. I'm not saying that I think that in 100 years Boyer's works will be selling for millions of pounds, just that its hard to say what people will view as great art in 100 years time. -- Ams80 11:08, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Yes and during Van Gogh's lifetime he wouldn't have warranted an article. After he gained prominence would be an appropriate time to write an article, not before. --Imran
But if wikipedia did have an article about that obscure artist during his/her lifetime, there would be much more information about the artist once he/she became famous. So I don't think that "After he gained prominence would be an appropriate time to write an article, not before." is the right perspective on this. -- till we *) 21:34, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)
How ?, assuming verifiability, it seems unlikely these previous sources would "disappear" ? --Imran
If an individual is the source of these facts (e.g "During his university days he ate solely cheese for 3 weeks"), then verifiability may sometimes only be gained while the subject is still alive. Were an individual to post a fact about a given person, then an interviewer researching that person prior to meeting them may find source for a question that could then verify something (e.g."I have read that you only ate cheese for 3 weeks at university" - "Oh yes, that is true"). This would not be possible if this were only posted following their death.

Quite apart from the fact that it's impossible to divine how famous somebody will be in 100 years time - who cares how famous somebody will be in 100 years time? If somebody is interesting now that's all that matters.

I didn't mean to exclude people who are important now, rather to include people who are not important now but can be reasonably be assumed to gain prominence in the future (for instance children of royal families, who may upto now have not done anything important, but probabity undoubtly suggests that they will).
That's not how I read it, and I don't think my interpretation would be unusual. This strikes me as an attempt at a severe exclusionary test, even it wasn't meant as such, so the wording needs to be revisted. As for the substantive issue, if you'd meant what I thought you meant, it would be way over the top. Given the size Wikipedia has reached, people will expect to find entries on all sorts of people who will probably be forgotten in a hundred years. In a hundred years, people will be using the 2104 version of Wikipedia; the 2004 version should focus on people who are around now. If they want to find an article on a person, and the reason that they have heard of that person is not direct or indirect personal contact, they should be able to do so.

Even if you accept the rule, people research history in all sorts of obscure areas: if in one hundred years time somebody is writing a book on surrealism in late 20th century Michigan, all sorts of articles that might seem useless to us will be interesting to them.

I think that's a case of being interested in person because they're part of a group rather than as an individual. You might as well say we should have articles on everybody for that same reason.
What difference does it make why somebody is interested in them if the article will be useful? --Camembert
Becuase then the article should not be an article in it's own right rather a part of a greater article on people in that area.
But if there's enough info on the person to give them an article of their own, then why not? --Camembert

Verifiability

This also makes the "deceased persons" part of the page nonsense. "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field" is also ridiculous - there are virtually no living artists who would get an article under this critereon! I agree with Toby above that all we need is verifiability. --Camembert

Again I think this is pretty much the same as saying we should have articles on everybody. -- Imran
I wouldn't go that far - I think the requirement of verifiability actually rules out a lot of people from having articles (or at least makes the required research so onerous that nobody will bother). If we can verify the information and write a non-stub article about somebody, why shouldn't we have an article about them? The thing is, I might agree that some sort of guidelines as to who and what should and shouldn't get an article would be useful, but in my opinion, these particular guidelines are not good ones. --Camembert

verifiability has the advantage of being general, objective, and reasonably easy to determine. If Janice thinks that some fact isn't verifiable, and Nathan thinks that it it, then Nathan just has to verify the fact, and the problem is resolved. Verifiability is a good criteria, and we should certainly keep that as a minimum standard.

One could add all kinds of additional criteria... but I'm not sure that anyone has shown a need for that. The main argument seems to be that by including obscure subjects we mislead people into thinking that they're more important than they are. As a project to create a complete and accurate encyclopedia, this is certainly something we should consider.

No matter what criteria we might select, coverage is always going to be patchy, so I've added something to our content disclaimer - hopefully that's non-controversial. Martin 15:53, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, and like what you've added to Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. On making obscure topics seem more important than they are: I certainly agree this is a worry, but it seems to me that merely having an article on something doesn't do this: suppose there's some terribly obscure 18th century composer (call him Johann Geschwitz) who hardly anybody has heard of, but who I happen to know a lot about - I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with me writing an article about him so long as everything in it is verifiable. The problem comes if I write in Classical music era "composers of the classical era include Joseph Haydn, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Johann Geshwitz" and in piano "Johann Geschwitz wrote 17 sonata for the piano". In my view, it's inappropriate links like these, not the articles themselves, that are the problem. --Camembert
Right! -- till we *) 21:34, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

Verifiability

A number of people have suggested verifiability, could someone give a specific definition of what they mean by the term as the page on it appears some what vague. For instance can everyone listed in the phone directory have an article because its evidence for their existence ? --Imran 21:47, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure, what others say, but I'd say, everyone listed in the phone book could have an article -- if it has the following content, and nothing else: "(This Person) is listed in the telephone book of (City)." -- till we *) 21:57, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)
And then we could possibly delete it on the grounds that it would never be more than a stub. --Camembert 00:13, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
See wikipedia:verifiability. Martin 22:04, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Verifiability And Relevance

I believe that the twin tests of verifiability and relevance must both be met for an article (biographical or otherwise) to be suitable for the project.

Verifiability becomes particularly important in controversial articles, as the recent unpleasantness has shown. To fact check with care and thoroughness an article of any length is a substantial undertaking, not likely to be approached casually. Instead, most articles are instead, over time, 'vetted' by people knowledgeable about the subject matter. For example, over at Frog or benzene or cattle the articles have been edited by several people with some degree of expertise in the subject matter. This is far more efficient than laborious fact-checking by someone looking up each assertion in an authoritative reference, and it is the great gift of the Wiki and of open source in general.

With obscure subjects, it is unlikely that a subject matter expert (SME) will happen along, making it all the more important that the article is verifiable, and ideally, well-referenced.

But verifiability alone is not enough to determine whether an article is encyclopedic. Traditional tests used to determine encyclopedic nature include:

Whether the article is of general interest; that is, whether it can be written in terms that are comprehensible to a lay person. Some topics simply cannot be articulated to someone who does not already have specialized knowledge or training. For example, an article on the conjugation of irregular Spanish verbs would not be general interest because it is simply not meaningful to someone who does not have a background in that language. Other examples might include some of the finer points of integral calculus and matrix algebra, or perhaps a detailed anatomical discussion of disorders of joints of the human foot.

Whether an encyclopedia is a suitable reference. An encyclopedia is one of many reference tools available, and there are cases where it is not a suitable model. As has been pointed out, we do not want an entry for each person whose name appears in the telephone book in the city where they live. The telephone book, or an on-line equivalent of it, is a more suitable reference. The same can be said to be true of such voluminous and transient data as stock quotes and other financial data best portrayed in tabular form, primary source materials such as court documents and public laws, and directory information such as that carried in the Thomas Register. Likewise, there is a depth beyond which an encyclopedia article should not continue; beyond a certain point, a book is the more appropriate form.

By way of example, I have at hand a copy of a book titled Feeds and Feeding covering the finer points of applied animal nutrition. It runs to 500 some pages. Even if it were released under the GFDL, and even though it is general interest, we would not want it here, because an encyclopedia is not a suitable reference to which to turn for such information. We similarly would not want a thousand pages on applied plumbing, even though the topic can be carried to that extreme.

Relevance is another important test. Many Wikipedians have weighed in with opinions counter to this; their argument is that even the most obscure fact, person, or place deserves space here; Wikipedia is not paper. Despite this, there are two reasons why relevance is an important test. Firstly, the Wiki process breaks down because of a lack of SMEs. As noted above, we rely to a much greater extent on proofreading by SMEs who happen upon articles within their specialties than we do on deliberate, laborious fact-checking. SMEs are unlikely to happen along for obscure subjects. This is particularly a problem for subjects that date quickly. It is less a problem for such things as Rambot entries where the nature of the means of article creation makes factual errors unlikely.

The second problem posed by less relevant articles is that they have the potential to overstate the relative importance of the topics they address. I find this particularly troubling for biographical articles, articles on aspects of fictional worlds, and articles (or portions of them) that describe views or concepts that are not widely held.

Much of this problem can be resolved by proper merging/redirecting of articles with their parent article, and (as has been pointed out) by avoiding gratuitous links. Witness the fact that we have a single article on Peter, Paul and Mary, and rightly so, rather than separate articles on Noel Paul Stookey, Peter Yarrow, and Mary Travers.

But even so, there is nothing to be gained by granting an article, or even a portion of an article, to people, places, or topics that are too narrow to be relevant. Shall we have a detailed article for each restaurant and pub in every town, giving the history of ownership, the year built, a full menu, a table count, summary of the décor, inside photos, outside photos, aerial view, etc etc? Arguably it is verifiable information, as these are public establishments where anyone can walk in and see for themselves what the place is like, and the history of ownership can be had for the asking at the county recorder’s office. Instead, we might perhaps at most give a few lines of information as part of an article about the town where the establishment is located.

It is likewise with biographical matters. Surely no one will argue that it does not serve the project to have an article for any person who has even the least measure of achievement. Too many of us have won a foot ball game, or had a thoughtful opinion piece published in a newspaper, or had their name on a press release, or played in a band, or made a painting, for us to include the names and achievements of all who have.

I have created a range of articles to try to highlight these issues, each a biographical essay on subjects of varying obscurity. Some are still stubby, and I will expand these in the coming days. The complete list is at User:Kat/Obscure_artists. All are genuine, factual articles and suitable for the encyclopedia, except perhaps for one or two which may not pass the tests of relevance. Since they are articles I created, I believe I can criticize them without starting any disagreements:

Consider Webb Wilder. To me, Wilder is right on the edge of relevance. The facts are verifiable, to be sure. He’s made films, and you can order copies from him, or a motivated person could find back copies of the programs at the film festivals where they’ve been shown. His CDs are still in print, and some have been issued on reasonably well-known labels (Island, BMG). But he remains, chiefly, a regional phenomenon, has never had a hit, and was not much of an influence for anyone else.

Chris Faust is a step more obscure. He hasn’t published, no CDs, no books; though some of his photos have appeared in books authored by others. He too has had, chiefly, regional influence. But his work has achieved critical acclaim, having been shown at some of the finest venues in the Minneapolis area. This is verifiable.

Juli Wood takes it another level. She is talented and has appeared on recordings (and this is verifiable), but hasn’t received much critical acclaim and certainly hasn’t had much influence on the jazz scene despite her talent as a performer.

Which belong here? Read them and decide for yourself.

Kat 23:21, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Interesting argumentation; maybe one could say there is a "SME-margin" that is growing the more people become Wikipedians. If there are enough (say, 100) Wikipedians from Chicago, the chance that 5 or 6 of them are SME on jazz who have an interest in Juli Wood is fairly good. So, the more people attend Wikipedia, the obscurer the articles can become without breaching the SME rule. From my point of view, the best thing about an encyclopedia is the obscure (That there is reliable content about mainstream knowledge is basics, but if there are obscure facts about obscure things, that are true/NPOV, one can sink into an encyclopedia and read and follow the links for hours. Don't you do that?). So, as long as the what links here to Juli Wood looks like this,
Juli Wood
(List of links)
The following pages link to here:
  • Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies,
I don't know why we shouldn't have articles on her and other persons of similiar obscurity/interest. If there was a link from Famous Jazzers (or whatever that list is called) to Juli Wood, I'd say that's wrong. So maybe we should write down something like: "Verifiable, and placed in the wikipedia link network according to relevance" as a rule? -- till we *) 00:45, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)
You make some excellent points. Though I did not mention it above, some of my discomfort stems from the fact that we do not have an article for, e.g., Mel Rhynes, who was an influential Hammond B player at the apogee of the jazz era, and it disturbes my sense of proportion to have an article on (e.g.) Juli Wood before we have one on Melvin Rhynes, or, for that matter, any of a number of other influential jazz musicians (I'm not an SME on jazz or I'd rattle off some names). Now, I realize the fallacy inherent in this, we *do* write on what we know, and we have to start somewhere, and ultimately the gaps will fill in.
But in any case, your point about link placement is germane. And yes, it's fun to page through an encyclopedia or dictionary once in a while, particularly if the writing is good and the articles have that sense of boundless detail just below the surface that comes when the author is an SME, or the article is researched uncommonly well. Kat 02:08, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A Biography test

Another suggest test the "Biography test", as has been said before we're not here to do primary research. So how about for people who are not obviously famous/important, only include them if an independent biography (including Obituaries, etc) of them had been published in the mainstream media (newspapers, TV, in books, encyclopedia, who's who, genre guides, etc.) This will allow us to include many specialists or people who are only locally famous as they will often have been bioed by their specialist/local media outlets, without opening the floodgates for everybody ? --Imran 21:59, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion. We should bear in mind that some "who's who" type publications will place an entry for a fee; also, newspapers will generally print an obituary of any person (supplied by the surviving family members) for a fee. Kat 22:39, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Some newspapers (particularly in small areas) print obituaries of everyone who dies who has some connection to the area for free, or sometimes for a fee; the degree of involvement of the family members, funeral home, and the paper's reporters in these varies. But my point is that an obituary in, say, The Daily Mining Gazette of Houghton, Michigan really doesn't prove anything, as anyone who has some connexion to its four-county area of circulation who dies, will, with almost no exception, have an obituary in it. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:51, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Perhaps rephrasing the requirement to cover only those publications which publish bios/obits selectively based upon the merits of the person involved. Or perhaps only those where the bio/obit hasn't been commisioned by someone who is close to the individual ? User:Imran
Well, this thread began as a worry about primary research. If a biography has been published elsewhere, then the "primary research" objection has been dealt with, regardless of the reason for the biography being published elsewhere. Whether or not people need to have "merits" to be included here is a separate issue altogether. And I think it's a bit of a dubious criterion, to be honest. Since we're being NPOV, we shouldn't need to concern ourselves about whether someone has "merits" or not. If we just report the facts, the reader can make up their own mind about the merits of the individual involved. -- Oliver P. 17:42, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Examples from Article page

It is unclear to me what the examples from the articles page are examples of. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:12, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You may also find relevant discussion at Talk:Daniel C. Boyer and Talk:Luke Pebody.

A discussion of the biographies of fictional characters can be found at wikipedia talk:check your fiction first.

a good library?

(to Martin) I have thought a lot about some of your points on these topics. I can appreciate your concern about the subjectivity of relevance tests, and agree that the emphasis on commercial sales may be misplaced.

I wonder if one of the criteria for an article to be present (biographical or otherwise) should be that the content of the article can be verified using the resources present in a good library. An encyclopedic work should not contain primary source materials, and I believe we've been over that ground already. And any bit of knowledge not already present in the collection of an appropriate library is probably obscure enoguh that an article about it constitutes original research or reportage.

Not sure what a "good library" would mean. In some cases a specialist library might be most relevant, such as the music library at a college, or a medical library, or an engineering library.

--Kat 18:14, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Professor Test

This may be a bit US-centric, as the title professor is often given at a lower level of significance in the USA and Canada than in other English-speaking countries. A lecturer or senior lecturer in these countries would be called professor in the USA. Conversely, the 'average college professor' from the USA would not be considered of 'professorial rank' in most of the English-speaking world. Andrewa 20:10, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I would tend to agree about the US-centrism of the term. What is an "average college professor" actually expected to have done? How much is he or she expected to have published? / Uppland 11:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm a little unclear on the application of this test - when I see average, I think median, which leads me to suppose that half of all professors (the top half, in terms of productivity, accomplishment, etc.) should have articles. Is this a wrong interpretation? -- BD2412 talk June 29, 2005 21:37 (UTC)

I really like the criteria laid out in this set of rules. I wish that I'd found them months ago while the discussion was still hot. My only thought is that the 5000 unit threshold seems too low in too many cases. The rule lays out a number of criteria that can be used to justify inclusion. If the only criteria the article meets is mass-appeal, then it should be mass-appeal. Rossami 21:32, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

People still alive

This was a list of categories of people with absolutely no explanation as to what the list represents. I added an explanation, which was my guess as to what we are saying:

Biographies on the following people should be included in Wikipedia. This list is not all-inclusive. There are numerous biographies on Wikipedia on people who do not fall under any of these categories, and no intention to delete them all.

I was reverted, 01:23, 2 Oct 2004 Rossami m (I think Anthony's edit overstates the current consensus. Articles on people in these classes may be allowed but are not necessarily actively sought).

Now, besides the fact that this page has no consensus in the first place, Rossami's problem seemed to be extremely minor - my edit suggested that we are actively seeking these articles (which I think it true), but Rossami believes they are merely allowed. But, in any case, the simple changing of the word "should" to "may" addresses that point, so I re-added the paragraph again:

Biographies on the following people may be included in Wikipedia. This list is not all-inclusive. There are numerous biographies on Wikipedia on people who do not fall under any of these categories, and no intention to delete them all.

anthony (see warning) 18:57, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This might be dumb, but ...

...shouldn't the rule be "If a person with access to the Internet might go looking for information on a person (or other topic) for non-personal reasons (like a blind date), there should be a Wikipedia entry on the person (or topic)."—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:28, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Google monopoly

I have added "other search engines" to the Google search. We must not promote a particular website in Wiki. Also implies Google is the best or most reliable search engine, not appropriate here.--Squiquifox 14:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Defeated politicians

EggplantWizard recently proposed the following criteria for politicians who failed to win the election in a VfD discussion. The specific example was for a US House of Representatives election. Should it be included here? Rossami (talk) 22:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Is the election itself particularly historic? (For example, almost all defeated candidates who were even marginally significant in the Iraqi election should probably have a stub as it was the first. In contract, the California recall of 2003 probably only merits page creation for relatively major defeated candidates.)
  • Did the candidate do anything groundbreaking as part of the campaign? (For example, Howard Dean revolutionized fund raising methods.)
  • Does the fact that this person was a candidate push them over the threshold for notability when you look at all merits as a package? (For example, semi-notable business leaders who run for office.)

If none of the above apply, they may deserve mention on another relevant page, but not their own article.

Status of this page

I demoted this page to "proposed" for several reasons.

  • It conflicts with Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Policy_consensus/Conclusions, which says there is no consensus on the inclusion of local politicians.
  • The page doesn't really come up with an agreed-upon set of rules of thumb; instead, it presents a bunch of "alternatives". If this is a consensus guideline, then what has been agreed upon, exactly?
  • I'm not sure it really got all that much attention.
  • Wikipedia:Importance explicitly has no consensus, and this "guideline" seems to be in a similar state.

I would suggest putting this question to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus, which will definitely determine whether or not there is consensus support. I would recommend putting the result on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Policy_consensus/Conclusions when finished. VFD is where this guideline, whatever it may turn out to be, would have to be enforced, and so it should be closely associated so that this will actually happen. -- Beland 04:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)