Suggestion: WP:CREATIVE additional notability guidelines should include the sufficient criterion, "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following" just like WP:ENTERTAINER. Franciscrot (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I would accept that, except for one potentially fatal problem--the meaning of "large". How is the equivalent wording on entertainer handled in practice--I work very little in that area. DGG (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I second Franciscrot's suggestion. I agree with DGG that "large" and "significant" are necessarily subjective...but I think that's OK: the same could be said about most of Wikipedia's notability criteria. Cazort (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
It depends what's going to be done with the "family" page on Wikipedia. In most cases, a disambig page might be all that's needed. If there are sources that cover the family as a group (such as a royal family), a separate article on the family may be appropriate. Otherwise, it might be best to include a family "section" in one of the articles of a key family member, and then if the section grows enough, split it out to its own article. --Elonka20:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Politics is a delicate matter--- many people become notable long before acheiving political office, and use their notability as a springboard for election. In my opinion, any national level viable political candidate, or even local level leader, could be covered automatically, so as to ensure that Wikipedia does not bias elections. The incumbent is always covered.
But when the election is over, should the losing candidates' articles still be kept? Since this is an electronic encyclopedia, and space is not an issue, I believe the answer is yes, and should be yes. It does no harm that I can think of, and might do a great deal of good, providing a convenient summary on figures who acheived local notability in various regions. I would like to know if this is a reasonable position.
I don't think that Wikipedia articles should be seen as a great honor--- they are just verifiable information. The details about politicians are easiest to verify, because they spend money to get the information out. So perhaps every single politician everywhere who had significant media presence should have an article.
This issue arose when I saw that the article about Cincinnatti congressional candidate David Krikorian was deleted, on notability grounds, because he lost the election. It seems strange to delete the useful information on Krikorian, since he was a major viable candidate and might run again, and probably ran thousands of dollars of TV and radio ads. I don't live in Cincinatti, I had never heard of Krikorian before chancing on his article's deletion review debate, so this has nothing to do with personal interest.Likebox (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
One of the basic policies of Wikipedia is that once a subject is notable, they are always notable - so you shouldn't see candidates articles being removed after the fact. Whether this is followed in practice in probably impossible to tell, since sometimes we simply don't get around to deleting a non-notable candidate's article until after the election. However, I would suggest that we do follow the principle the vast majority of the time.
As to the point on electoral fairness isn't an issue we are concerned about here - some candidates are notable or become notable, some don't. As an encyclopedia we only cover those that do become notable. There is a systematic bias in favor of incumbents, but that is unavoidable.
Finally, as you say, many candidates become notable before - or during - their run for office. Those we have articles on. See, for example, Christopher Reed. Some we simply haven't gotten around to creating articles for. See, for example, George Eichhorn who isn't notable for his primary run for Congress, but has notability as a former member of the Iowa House of Representatives.
Ok, then ordinary policy covers this already. Still, I was upset to see that Krikorian's article was deleted, and I recreated it as a stub. But the stub was speedy deleted, because it was already deleted and the deletion passed review. I was hoping the previous content would be restored, because I don't see any reason for the delete. The deletion debate focused on the fact that most of Krikorian's notability came from coverage of the 2008 election, and then they said he's a person whos notability only stems from news relating to one event (the 2008 election). This is a disingenuous excuse in my opinion. I was hoping an administrator could restore the deleted text.Likebox (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Krikorian's information should have been merged into the article about the election: United States House of Representatives elections in Ohio, 2008. If the District 2 election was notable enough, it could have an article of its own. Getting 17.8% of the vote (as I see in the article) might be fairly notable for swinging the election to the Republican (or not). I don't know the circumstances, but it's possible. Sometimes the reason for notability changes during and after an election and we should allow for that. Flatterworld (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I think it's time we slightly changed the policy., There are only a few hundred people a year who are losing major party candidates in 2 party systems for national office, and have not otherwise been covered. they've always multiple sources from regional papers if enough checking is done to find them, and they'll almost always have some previous career that is also reported. It would be simplest just to accept their notability and avoid these discussions. For the US, obviously there is no need to extend this beyond the two significant parties --third party candidates would have to be especially notable & certainly not routinely so. In other countries, i'd leave it to the people there if this should be extended. DGG (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
But it is the independent candidate that is my concern. The reason that Krikorian was deleted and the other two weren't is that Krikorian was third party. This is not a sensible criterion, in my opinion. Notability is established by media presence and percentage of vote, not by party affiliation. If Krikorian won 2% of the vote, or 5%, then I can understand why he would not be notable--- his support could be background noise. But he won a respectable 17%, so there was a base for his policies. This deletion sets a dangerous precedent, since it opens up third party candidates' pages to politically motivated deletion.Likebox (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The issue wasn't that he was the independent, it was that he did nothing else but run for an office and fail. The other two candidates Jean Schmidt and Victoria Wells Wulsin had other notability prior to the 2008 election. Schmidt was already holding office and had a handful of covered controversies. Wulsin, even though she never held office, started an international AIDS program and had a controversy. These two candidates had prior notability on top of running. Just running, as the policy says, doesn't constitute notability. If Krikorian had a covered controversy or started a foundation and these were covered then his article would have been kept. It wasn't a party-issue that got the article deleted. §hep • ¡Talk to me!20:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this is a marginal case, but it is the marginal cases where we should be most careful, and I think it is best to err on the side of inclusion. Although it wasn't a lack of party affiliation that got him deleted, it is possible me that he has a higher hurdle than the other two candidates because he doesn't have party affiliated defenders looking out for his interest. He didn't do too badly--- sort of a local Ross Perot--- and it seems he has a good media presence in the district. It is a shame in my opinion to not cover a person who was notable enough to have a legitimate shot at a congressional seat. This material will certainly be interesting to people who are politics or history buffs, since viable independent runs are rare.Likebox (talk) 07:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I think erring on the side of inclusion is certainly best, since the easiest way to make sure we do not bias elections. This has happend in the past, such as with Ole Savior--a politician who has run for the Democratic nomination in my state, Minnesota, several times, never getting more than a token vote in the primaries-- has an article (or did, last I checked), though he may not be, strictly speaking, notable. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
victims, cops
I think we need a special discussion of crime victims, military personel or policemen mentioned in the news. These infallibly tend to get their own bio articles, especially if they die, and people are then outraged and insulted if WP:NOTE is brought forward as if not getting a Wikipedia article was somehow an insult to the deceased. This happened historically (in the early days of the project) with the 9/11 victims, which gave us WP:NOTMEMORIAL. We can observe a recent iteration of the effect in Category:Victims of the 2008 Mumbai attacks, and I suppose other areas of Category:Terrorism victims, Category:Police officers killed in the line of duty, Category:United States Army personnel stubs and similar places.
I wish we had an explicit consensus on how to deal with these. Is it enough for a terrorism victim bio article to be the subject of a couple of articles in the flurry of press coverage following a terrorist attack? If not, what do we understand by "substantial depth of coverage" of the subject as opposed the incident in which they died? --dab(𒁳)16:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it comes across as cold and insensitive when editors argue aggressively to delete such articles. At the same time, I think part of the responsibility for preventing such results rests on the shoulders of the people creating the pages in the first place. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and I think restraint in the inclusion of current events is the best way to insure against these sorts of occurrences. After significant time has elapsed, it's much clearer which victims are notable or not. Cazort (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it is pretty straight forward. If notability is derived solely from the event, then a separate bio article is not necessary. If, on the other hand, there is some notability independent of the event, a separate bio article becomes necessary. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 22:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree -- I am just saying an explicit mention of such cases here on the guideline page may be useful, because people involved will often be very emotional, and it will be useful to be able to point them to a guideline, if only to make clear that their personal hero isn't unfairly singled out. --dab(𒁳)08:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Although the criteria suggest mayors qualify, I wonder if this is based on the US idea of an executive mayor. With very few exceptions, British mayors are not directly elected and the post is entirely honorific, having little or no political impact. I raise this because my suggestion to delete Bennie Abrahams, a complete non-entity who was however for one newsless year a mayor of a British city, has been contested on the basis of WP:POLITICIAN. Yet on the basis of these criteria I could put up an article on my lady wife (mayor of a large London borough) who despite her immense qualities is in no way, any more so that Mr. Abrahams, worthy of an article in Wikipedia on that account. I think for the UK, as far as modern mayors are concerned, the criterion should be limited to directly elected mayors and the Lord Mayor of London, wehere mayoralty is the only factor. I would appreciate other people's opinions.--Smerus (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
It is probably based on an American mayor. However, I don't know what - if any - change should be made here, considering that some American mayors are elected and some are simply elected from the city council (like a chairman). A change to "executive mayor" would probably be close to accurate, but could confuse those Americans who don't know of any other type of mayor. Do you perhaps have other suggestions? --PhilosopherLet us reason together.09:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
In the AfD for Bob Conley, an issue was raised about the notability of unelected politicians who have been signifigantly covered by reliable sources. Is a politician, nominated by a major party and who has recieved signifigant press coverage, notably under WP:BIO? If so, could something be mentioned on the page to clarify this? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I would tend to agree that we need some clarification on this matter. WP:BIO says the following on the matter:
"Just being...an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
It was noted in the Afd that some confusion seemed to exist over whether the phrase "independant of the subject" meant third-party sources (interpretation #1), or sources discussing some subject other than the "merely being" subject excluded by the sentence (interpretation #2). Examples:
Candidate A runs for office and loses. He is a former war hero, a current federal elected official, a former major league baseball player, and has been covered in multiple, reliable, third party sources about all those matters, in addition to coverage for the election itself.
Candidate B runs for office and loses. He is a political novice who makes a number of major mistakes, including vomiting during a debate. He has a great deal of media coverage from multiple, reliable, third party sources regarding the election, but nothing else.
Candidate C runs for office and loses. She ran for office as the first female candidate, and recieved a great deal of press coverage from multiple, reliable, third party sources due to that fact, but is also a political novice. Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Candidate D runs for office and loses. She is a political novice who recieves heavy coverage due to the political leanings of the local media (which are all multiple, reliable, third party sources) but for no other purpose.
Based solely on sources, under Interpretation #2, only A would be notable as I read it. Under Interpretation #1, all would be notable as I read it. See the issue? Based on the context of WP:BIO, I read it as meaning third-party sources, but people are not uniformly seeing it that way. Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it's best to exercise restraint in the use of wikipedia for news and current events. In my opinion, the news/current event issue trumps the notability issue in a case like this, since time can be a good judge of notability. It's hard to tell on the basis of present news coverage alone how important a given event or candidate will be 5-10 years down the road, or even 6 months after the election. On the other hand, I would tend to say that, given sufficient discussion in reliable sources, all four candidates ought to be included in wikipedia, even if it is only as a sentence or paragraph in the page about their political opponent or the election in question. Cazort (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
That is generally my opinion as well. The measuring factor should be the amount of coverage overall, regardless of topic, and should not be constrained by the coverage being limited to an election. That is to say, an individual should not lose notability because the sources that proved notability during the election period only covered the individual due to the election. A notable candidate should remain notable after the election, win or lose. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
That would help. Also, does the current "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." mean that coverage must be independant of the election or that simply the sources should not be associated with the person in question? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I think "subject" in this case - and indeed all over wikispace - refers to the subject of the article, i.e. the person. There certainly isn't widespread agreement on what the various notability sub-guidelines mean in relation to WP:N, but there appears to be widespread consensus that the buck stops at WP:N. If a politician, elected or not, has received significant coverage in reliable third party sources, that politician is notable (unless WP:BLP1E says otherwise). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Would a single campaign be "one event"? If so, does that mean that people who run for office and lose twice are more encyclopedic then those who only lose once? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
No. One event means one relatively unimportant event, not indicating anything except accidental notability to the individual. Being a key figure in a political election. is not the sort of thing intended. Running in one election is as notable as running in two; If there is sourcing, it's sufficient. DGG (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad to see some much-needed reform of WP:ATHLETE is going on, though I'm somewhat distressed to see it going in a more permissive (allowing more amateur athletes) than a more restrictive (culling perhaps thousands of athletes of dubious notability) direction. If we are to do that, I think a corollary is badly needed, something like:
"Merely having competed at the fully professional level or the highest amateur level of a sport is not evidence of inherent notability. To satisfy criteria for inclusion, an athlete must be the subject of multiple, non-trivial, independent, published secondary sources."
While this clause may seem repetitive, I think it's vital too. Currently, we're suffocatinginworthless, moronicstubslikethese: can we all agree it's a Good Thing to try and get rid of them? That mounds of "X is a football player on Y team" "articles" are not helpful to the project? Right now, trying to delete any of this dreck at AfD will get you a dozen maroons (pardon the expression) repeating "Keep - passes WP:ATHLETE." with no further thought. Well, clearly WP:ATHLETE is the problem then, and it needs reform. I think a proposal on these lines would go a long way.
(And please, let's not hear the "systemic bias" or "some day someone will come along and expand these" arguments. As for the first: we have decent articles on players from Cameroon, Nigeria and Ghana. If a player deserves a well-developed article, he'll get one regardless of national origin. For the second: this has been sitting there since July 2007 and believe me, there's loads more like that. Realistically, it's going to continue sitting there unchanged until and unless we take action.) -- BiruitorulTalk18:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's a perfectly valid position to take, if somewhat undercut by the rather unfortunate characterizations - really, were "worthless", "moronic", and "maroons" necessary to make the argument? In fact, the result shouldn't end up being more amateur athletes; rather it should help enforce the same limits for which you're asking. Amateur athletes who meet the basic notability criteria should make the cut; otherwise, no. But it's a fair question whether all professional athletes should be considered notable - it cuts right to the heart of the value (or not) of stubs, whether an online encyclopedia needs different standards than a paper-based one, etc.
That being said, if you want to open the debate on removing inherent notability from professional athletes or those who've competed at the highest amateur level, go wild. If that's your intention, I'd say you should also be looking at all the other specific criteria outlined in this section - politicians, diplomats, creative professionals, entertainers, and adult film actors. That's a much broader community discussion, though, and I suspect that there will be many lining up to provide rationales for why those specific criteria are necessary. I'll take part in the debate, but I'm not going to be the one to kick it off - I just don't think that dog will hunt, even if it were strictly looking for athletes. Mlaffs (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I think we should start out from three premises:
"Inherent notability" is a useful concept, but harmful if extended too broadly. For instance, I (and probably most anyone) take it as a given that, say, heads of state are notable. Thus Francisco Ferrera can stay indefinitely: even though we only have two lines on him, even though material on him is likely scarce, and even though his country was never particularly important, nonetheless he was a head of state and that qualifies him for a place in an encyclopedia. I would submit that is not the case for people who kick around a football or dribble a basketball for a couple of seasons. (Of course there's going to be some subjectivity in this, but the point should be to narrow the scope of inherent notability in the absence of multiple sources, which we currently, and wrongly in my view, presume for too many athletes.)
When in comes to biographies, the problem of these worthless foolish stubs seems to me most acute when it comes to athletes. (We're not, for instance, getting thousands of one-liners on state/provincial legislators, though if we did, that might be cause to revisit the politician notability criteria.) Is it only athletes? Ofcoursenot. Maybe it isn't the most acute, even. But I contend that piecemeal reform is better than no reform (contrary to what Mr Dithers once said). If we can tackle WP:ATHLETE, why not?
Something like this proposed raising of the bar has been done already, and done quite well: WP:PROF. That policy allows for legitimately notable academics to have pages and excludes others. It doesn't say "all professors at accredited colleges and universities, and excellent ones at non-accredited ones, are automatically notable" -- which is sort of where WP:ATHLETE is right now. I think moving to a WP:PROF model is, overall, a workable and sound idea. -- BiruitorulTalk20:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should dismiss the "systemic basis/someone will come along and improve the article someday" arguments. I've quickly improved the Kenan Ragipović article that Biruitorul seemed to think was such a problem. It still needs work, but surely is useful enough to keep at this point. I don't read Serbian, Romanian or Malay but was able to find a few sources. I think the same is true for most of the worst footballer articles (at least the ones that play in fully professional leagues). Jogurney (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I commend you for doing that. Nevertheless, there are two points to be made. First, countless one-line articles remain: do we let them sit in perpetuity (because, your action notwithstanding, that is the likely outcome)*? Or do we delete now, with no great loss to the project, and recreate if and only if multiple reliable sources emerge? Second, I don't mean to dismiss systemic bias concerns out of hand: ceteris paribus, English players will be better covered than Namibian ones. However, even from some of the most poorly-covered countries, some players have half-decent articles: Joseph Kamwendo (Malawi), Eric Mouloungui (Gabon). That's very encouraging. But just because a player is from, say, Gabon, doesn't mean our notability concerns should go out the window and let a tiny stub sit for ages lest we be promoting systemic bias. At the end of the day, standards for Gabon or England should be the same: multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources. Anything less and we compromise our standards.
*There's actually a real-life basis for this assumption: Radu Sardescu. It survived an AfD I initiated, but even after two Romanians (myself included) scoured the Web for any scraps of information on him, we were still left with a silly "Radu Sardescu is a player for team Y" "article". -- BiruitorulTalk00:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
In my view, that's a poor example. The article failed WP:ATHLETE because he never played in a fully professional league, and I voted delete on that AfD. For some reason, it was closed with no consensus, but should have been deleted. The root of the problem is a few prolific editors that created hundreds of sub-stub quality, unsourced articles for players that fail WP:ATHLETE. I've tried to cull or improve many of them and I think that is the better approach than a global change to WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, so let's take a full professional: Florian Dan Lăcustă. Is he inherently notable? To me at least, in the absence of multiple, non-trivial, independent and reliable sources, the answer is no. Simply because he exists and plays on FC Argeş Piteşti should not entitle him to an article.
I would say Lăcustă is certainly notable. He's appeared in a FIFA World Cup qualifier, UEFA Champions League qualifiers and over 150 Romanian top tier matches in a 15+ year career. Surely, someone who follows Romanian football would be aware of him. The article had no references, but it was simple to add several and flesh it out a bit. Jogurney (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing on the man, either in English or in Romanian, that indicates more than the fact that he exists and has had some sort of a football career. If that equals inherent notability for you, fine, but I still believe the subjects of our athlete biographies should have more meaningful coverage devoted to them in third-party sources. We require rather high standards for professors; why not set minimal ones for athletes? -- BiruitorulTalk07:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think all those sources represent trivial coverage (anyone playing 90 minutes in a FIFA WC qualifying match for Romania has a degree of notoriety) but I added two other sources that are more substantial using Google to translate from the original Romanian. I can't see Lăcustă failing WP:N, but maybe I misunderstand how WP:N works. Jogurney (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Not discussing whether Lăcustă's appearance in one or two international friendlies makes him notable (though I have to say this too seems to stretch the meaning of the word), but let me point out a couple of issues about sourcing: this is, at best, a soccer version of wikipedia where the contributors are fans (they are doing a good job in their field, but almost all of what they write is trivia for the fans, not encyclopedic, and most likely not authoritative per WP:RS; this sympathetic newspaper article confirms that the editor laudably follows his passion, but does not mention journalistic credentials of any kind); this may make the cut (it may be inferred that it has professional editors; this is an absolutely useless regional portal set up by anonymous internet users in Argeş County (also, the name it is cited under in the article is non-grammatical - which once more highlights the perils of copy-paste); now, I realize that this is being used on countless pages, but it is high time it went through a WP:RS check - it also looks self-published, even if wikipedians have not bothered to check. The one evidently valid source that the article now uses is this, which simply mentions his appearance in one game. Furthermore, the leading newspaper Gazeta Sporturilor apparently only mentions him once (and in passing) in its entire 2007-2008 archive (there is a problem with brackets in the links and the wiki script, but use http://www.gsp.ro/?section=cautare&search[tag_id]=11739 to verify me. It's a similar situation at the Realitatea TV site, with only one article mentioning that he was once injured. There is one local newspaper article that reviews his entire career within one paragraph. That's the level of notoriety the man enjoys, for better or worse. Dahn (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed response. That said, I disagree that using one season's archive for a player with a 15-year career is really representative of his notability. Incidentally, I used the 2007-08 archive search at GSP.RO and found 14 hits for Lăcustă, although some of them just focused on his injury. I think there is enough information on him to pass notability, and certainly would be more if materials older than 2007 were readily available. Jogurney (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Let's say for argument's sake that Lăcustă is notable. How about Marin Traian? Same team as Lăcustă, so a professional -- but he played around 1960, hence no online sources on him. Assuming we somehow found out his years on the team (say 1959-63), our "article" would forever* be "Marin Traian played football for Dinamo Piteşti from 1959 to 1963". Kind of dubious in its value, wouldn't you say? -- BiruitorulTalk17:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
*Unless someone went through the archives of Sportul to find mention of him, which is, shall we say, somewhat unlikely.
Good question. I know nothing about Traian other than he is mentioned on the FC Argeş website. Since he played in 1959, the first question I have is whether the Romanian Liga I was fully professional at that time. If it was, I think it's reasonable to allow an article for such a player even with minimal sources in order to avoid systemic bias. However, keep in mind that Lăcustă has played for the Romania national football team which it appears Traian has not. Even if the Romanian Liga I is not fully professional today, he would gain notability from his international play (while Traian would not). I think this article Eladio Rosabal Cordero passes WP:N even though it relates to a sportsperson who lived long before the internet period and there are a limited number of sources on the topic. Jogurney (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
See, that's a point on which we seem to disagree fundamentally. Avoiding systemic bias is a worthy cause, one I have sought to promote. But I think one should do so only through well-sourced material, not by having permastubs that really don't help us very much. As it happens, Traian is mentioned in the (really very badly written) history of FC Argeş Piteşti, and personally, I'm content to leave him at that, without splitting off a rather pointless stub telling us little more than that he existed.
Incidentally, we could go even farther back: in Ancient Rome and later Byzantium, charioteers were divided into red, white, blue and green teams, each with their passionate followers. (If not full professionals, these were certainly high-class amateurs.) A few, like Porphyrius the Charioteer, we even know fairly well. But let's say a stone tablet from 58 AD exists recording the names of a dozen champion charioteers: do we, in the name of avoiding systemic bias, create one article for each of that dozen ("X won the Roman charioteer races of 58 AD"), or do we try and work that information into our broader article on Chariot racing? I would certainly hope we don't miss the forest for the trees, and opt for the latter. -- BiruitorulTalk19:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the work you've done culling those who fail the current policy. However, the line dividing a Sardescu from a Lăcustă is quite fine indeed. I fail to see how the latter (in its current form at least) improves the project. -- BiruitorulTalk02:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I hardly see what the problem of having stub articles is. Stubs are acceptable. They certainly aren't ideal, but if they put the information we happen to have in one spot, then they are still useful. If I looked up one of those players, and didn't know who he played for, then it's still useful to me. Sure, it would be great if we had more substantial articles on people, but I think the existence of stubs is hardly reason for a massive reduction of the applicability of WP:ATHLETE to professional athletes. And if that happens, it will largely turn into keeping players from the wealthier countries with higher internet penetration, which just brings about a whole host of systemic bias concerns. matt91486 (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
First, see WP:USEFUL, second, WP:NOTDIR, and third, perhaps consider using Google for lookups of athletes who lack multiple, non-trivial sources. Now, I think you've hit on something important. You seem to imply professional athletes are notable simply for having played on a team, without having done anything else, and without coverage in reliable sources. But why? Like I said, heads of state I can see. Saints, ambassadors, supreme court justices: sure. Maybe Olympians I can see. But random athletes? Why?
Two points regarding systemic bias. First, it'll always be there to some extent. Second, the way to counter it is not to write one-liners on random tennis players from Sierra Leone and congratulate ourselves that we're doing something about the problem. That's bean-counting or quota-filling of the worst sort. The way to combat it is to write quality articles about those places, and we do ourselves a disservice by keeping sub-standard material of the sort I'm pointing out. -- BiruitorulTalk02:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I dread the thought of becoming too involved in such an intricate and prolonged debate, and perhaps this is not the best place to address this (then again, it probably is). I have always been puzzled by a paradox: if you are nothing other than a professional architect, artist, musician, historian, anthropologist, physician, let alone bus driver or dental technician, you don't get an automatic wikipedia entry. If you are in sports, you get one just for being a professional and you may get one even if you are not a professional. Could nobody come up with a more decent criterion for these articles? And while I fully agree with Biruitorul's thoughts on wishful thinking regarding the potential expansion of articles as a criterion for survival, the core problem is even more clear-cut§: if you're an athlete who does not play in a notable if professional competition and have never done so, who has never won any notable award etc., if we do have an article on you, that article is trivia. If you are such an athlete, you rank below in importance to just about any politician in the Seychelles, below any mayor of a Kalmyk town, and below any military vessel captain in Mozambique. Meaning that wikipedia would tend to delete articles on people in the said categories, but for some reason keep around articles on athletic non-entities. Since wikipedia is not trivia, and since the area of sports is the only one on wikipedia where trivia wasn't yet firmly ruled out, we have a huge problem of consistency and bias on our hands. Dahn (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The difference between professional architects, historians, anthropologists, physicians, dental techinicians, etc, and sportsmen is that thousands of people don't pay every weekend to go watch them do their job. Peanut4 (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so that makes Florian Dan Lăcustă notable as opposed to the head of a hospital or chairman of a law faculty? Even without multiple, non-trivial reliable sources? I fail to see the logic. By that thinking, why not include circus performers, parish priests or stripteasers as well? -- BiruitorulTalk00:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
§I've reread Biruitorul's posts and it seems we agree on all counts, although we don't place our emphasis on the same issues. So I'm gonna need to nuance this earlier statement of mine. Dahn (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
To Peanut: that strikes me as very subjective and populist. In short: and?
Presuming that they do, why does that make any such player worthy of an encyclopedic entry? Moreover, I find it highly questionable that: even most top-ranking team players in most national championships do have a public that would amount to "thousands"; that, in most team sports, the public is necessarily attracted by the performance of one player (bear in mind it is bio articles we are discussing); and that, in most individual sports, a significant number of athletes could even begin to claim that they attract a large number of fans at any point in their career, let alone on a regular basis. Also: university professors and doctors, even those who do not make the cut here, may have a large following that is measured in salaries, students, transparent and often grueling professional standards, and even copies of books purchased. Hope you're not gonna reply "yeah, but they don't do it every Sunday morning", because then we'd be comparing apples and oranges and opening the floodgates to fandom. Dahn (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
And please allow me to point out another quite serious issue. As an editor living in one of those "wrong side of the systemic bias" countries (i.e. Romania), I know for a fact that many of the players whom wikipedia considers notable are largely ignored at home. Sadly, this goes even for people of unquestionable notoriety within that context - when I edited Ovidiu Toniţa, I made use of virtually every reliable source on offer at the time, and the man is a national rugby team star (in fact, the foreign sources I used give way more detail and provide pundit insight - the local ones do very little to cover such basic info). You can imagine what the hopes are on finding adequate and intelligent info on a professional player from a second-rate Romanian rugby team, who would currently be considered notable because he was born. Romania is by not an underdeveloped country where the media takes it first steps, and yet even notorious athletes are not covered by many sources. The "we will get there" standard is therefore not only ambitious in scope, it is obtuse in expectations.
In fact, I have to wonder if all that talk about "avoiding the systemic bias" is not actually avoiding the real problem. You see, in the Anglo-Saxon world, every other physical activity turns professional, and for some reason the athletes involved have become notable by default. It's either that this had an unexpected trickle-down effect (when the solution was in questioning that "notable by default" assumption at its source) or that, dare I say it, the "systemic bias" argument was specifically designed so as to protect articles on American/British/Canadian etc. athletes that we should simply not have. In short: it is not more articles on Romanian (or Gabonese, or Croatian, or Nepali) players we need, as much as fewer articles on Anglo- ones. Dahn (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Realistically, this is long overdue. There's far too much "X is a player for Y" in the realm of sports. To answer the point above, improvable stubs are absolutely acceptable, where sufficient source material exists to make a decent article even though no one's gotten around to it yet. On the other hand, permastubs are unacceptable, where the source material doesn't even exist. Those articles are not notable and should be removed, merged, or redirected to articles which are notable, as appropriate. SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that if we were to change standards on WP:ATHLETE to just allow articles based solely on citations, what would happen is we'd end up with tens of thousands more American and British athletes at lower levels than we currently permit, and lose many articles on more international players. It might not seem as like that it's the most likely result, but there are tons of sources for minor league teams, lower league teams, etc. that can make athletes meet notability, so WP:ATHLETE actually restricts these players. matt91486 (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
No: think of WP:ATHLETE as having two gates: one restricting non-professionals, the other uncited articles. The first one is mostly shut and everyone intends to keep it that way (ie, exclude minor leaguers). It's the second that is currently wide open, but should be shut quite a ways. Moreover, as I've said above: "just because a player is from, say, Gabon, doesn't mean our notability concerns should go out the window and let a tiny stub sit for ages lest we be promoting systemic bias. At the end of the day, standards for Gabon or England should be the same: multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources. Anything less and we compromise our standards". Right? -- BiruitorulTalk00:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
You shouldn't use the fact they are "stubs" as a reason to get rid of thousands of biographies. We have countless more thousands of articles on villages which have little notability except they exist on a map, sometimes with no more than one or two houses. Will they ever grow to more than stubs? No. Do you deserve a stub? Maybe; maybe not. Peanut4 (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Nobody is saying to delete them just because they are stubs. The point here is that those stubs are on people who only WP:ATHLETE considers notable, and does so based on faulty criteria. Dahn (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Now, adding to what Biruitorul said above (excellent points), I would like to add a couple of comments on the larger issue.
For starters, developing on what I have said earlier, there is yet no proof that we should even have articles on people playing in minor leagues etc. from countries like England or the US. Yes, they may have more exposure, but if that exposure means "sites that list their stats", then we might as well have no sources at all - I propose that this minimal criterion is no criterion at all. If no other sources take them into account, then it is as if they don't exist in wikipedia's eyes, no matter where they are from. Now, one may be able to find only sources that list stats for, say, footballers from the Gabon national squad, but they would be inherently notable for having played in that squad, and so such articles would not be threatened. In short: if you have only played in a minor league and no "more than trivial" sources discuss you, you don't meet the notability criteria. It gets more complicated than that (as Biruitorul pointed out), but at least agreeing on this notion would get us somewhere. Consider that such minimal distinctions work for artists, actors, politicians etc., no matter how inconsistently they may be applied.
Let me also add a more "philosophical" point in this discussion, because it strikes me that no one notices what I consider to be yet another manifest paradox. Here: it is not wikipedia that has a systemic bias when it comes to sports, as much as it is sport that has a systemic bias. It's what comes with competition. It is not wikipedia that will tell you a soccer team in the Romanian second division is less relevant than an English team at the same level: UEFA will do that. It is not wikipedia that will tell you American football is not quite as notable outside the North American continent (plus, if we're being generous, Germany and some other countries): the NFL will do that. It is not wikipedia that will let you know not all Alaskan soccer players are notable: it is the national rankings of what is, on all grounds, a secondary sport in America itself. It is not wikipedia that will judge whether a javelin thrower from Trinidad who once almost qualified for the Olympics squad is notable: it is the very rankings endorsed by the national Olympic committee. Every sport in every country has its own "natural" levels of notability, and, while complicated, it is quite possible to codify these into a relevant set. Dahn (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I have tried to make at least a first step in tightening this. I agree that it can be debated whether an article like Collins (1809 Surrey cricketer) is useful or wanted. No first name, no dates of birth or death, only the info that he played three games... Should we really have such permastubs? Fram (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I do believe this question was answered above by Biruitorul. Furthermore, the problem in other areas is not that the criteria don't exist (look them up, they are quite detailed), but that they are not applied consistently. Lots of articles will always slip through the net, but at least the net exists and can be invoked in AfD debates and the likes. In what concerns WP:ATHLETE, an anomaly has become the norm. But, even if that were not the case, then the answer to your question would still be "one has to start somewhere". Dahn (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
It seems that the main argument against WP:ATHLETE is that sportspeople playing in a fully professional league do not necessarily have multiple reliable third party published sources that could be found for them. I am dubious of this claim except in the pre-internet area. It is certainly difficult to gather the necessary sources for accomplished sportspeople from many decades ago, but for ones from the last decade or so, it is really not difficult. The example of a Romanian international footballer was a poor one as sources were rather easily found (even by someone who doesn't read the language). I think the issue is that too many stubs are created for sportspeople that do not pass WP:ATHLETE or WP:N and the solution is simply to enforce both and cull those articles. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
If you're referring to Lăcustă, the problem there was, as I pointed out, that the sources (in both languages) are not not-trivial: ie, they are trivial, and Wikipedia is not a place for trivia. Too many stubs are indeed created, but as Dahn eloquently noted, WP:ATHLETE is an anomaly within the WP:N criteria, allowing people to slip by who would have no chance at surviving were they in other fields. I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation why we should carve out that sort of exception for sportsmen. We demand fairly stringent requirements, which in my view work quite well, for academics, musicians and the like. Why not extend customary practice to athletes as well? Surely one can't be against something as reasonable as demanding high-calibre sources and, failing their appearance, the exclusion of such material from the encyclopedia? -- BiruitorulTalk02:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I added more reasons why the sourcing on Lăcustă is questionable in a message I posted above, just as Biruitorul was writing the above. I think the article has accidentally become a good study case for what we are discussing here, in general and in particular. Dahn (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Not really wanting to wade into this discussion again as its one of the perpetual arguments on here and there has been a very large number of proposals for more stringent guidelines and consensus is always that they do need to be more stringent. The problem that always arises is that there are so many sports with individual complexities that all the sports editors of various sports can't seem to agree on a set standard that encompases all sports because what works for one doesn't work for another. One example being Wikipedia:Notability (sports). -Djsasso (talk) 02:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
You make quite a valid point that each sport has its own nuances and complexities. At some level, that should be taken into account. However, what we're trying to do here is set a baseline, and I believe that is possible: it's possible for politicians despite the many political systems extant, for creative professionals despite their many professions, and for entertainers despite the wide variety of fields they work in. There's really no reason athletes should be that different, and I believe the call for reliable sources shouldn't be too controversial (especially at the relatively mature stage Wikipedia has reached (ideally at least), 5-6 years in). To be honest, I'm a bit surprised at the opposition this has generated. -- BiruitorulTalk03:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
As mentioned above, if WP:ATHLETE is being targetted for reform, can I assume that other "profession-specific" guidelines will be subject to the same treatment, such as WP:BAND or the ridiculous WP:PORNBIO? I'd actually find it quite insulting to my intelligence as a WP editor and a sports fan to think that we would want to potentially ditch articles on people who had long-running and successful careers as highly skilled professional athletes yet continue to allow the project to include hundreds and hundreds of articles on women whose only claim to "notability" is that someone paid them to be filmed having sex...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I certainly second that. Usually the areas filled with unimprovable permastubs are also the ones where there's a subguideline of notability, where in those areas without it articles tend to be well-sourced (or at least possible to source well) or be removed. I think a major part of the problem is that "X passes Y subguideline, so even though we can only write a 2-line blurb from the available sources we must maintain it as a standalone article." I think a good broader solution would be "Every standalone article requires significant independent sourcing, full stop. If the following is true about a(n) (athlete|professor|school|band|porn star|company|village|road|train station|foo|bar|baz), it is more likely that such sourcing will be available. However, such sourcing is still required regardless of whether the subject passes these secondary criteria. Subjects which pass these criteria but do not have significant independent sourcing available may be suitable for brief mention in a parent article if such an article exists and they are verifiable." SeraphimbladeTalk to me08:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude, no one is trying to insult your intelligence by demanding reliable sources for articles on athletes. If you think other areas are a problem (and I agree with you there), by all means open up a discussion on them: but as I said early on, piecemeal steps are better than no steps at all. Seraphimblade: I quite agree that, ideally, there shouldn't be a need to amplify on WP:ATHLETE, as the basic criteria of WP:BIO clearly call for adequate sourcing on all biographies. However, that has been routinely ignored, resulting in loads of permanent stubs like Collins (1809 Surrey cricketer). Try to AfD that, and you'll find people telling you it meets WP:ATHLETE, so let's keep. Well, if we agree "articles" like that should in fact be deleted, the logical conclusion is either to eliminate all additional criteria for biographies, which would be major and have to overturn significant consensus behind them, or simply tighten the screws on WP:ATHLETE, which in my view is a more concrete, limited and effective step. -- BiruitorulTalk17:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Athlete keeps getting all the attention because it's by far the most glaringly lenient of the additional criteria. You're complaining about "hundreds and hundreds" of women getting articles under Pornbio. However, by category male, female, and transexual porn stars combine for about 1200 total articles. English premier league has 2655, American Football running backs has 1655. There were complaints back in June about soccer by itself having over 10,000 player articles , and more recently when it was noticed the growth rate would double that number by next year. That's just one sport, I'm sure some of the others are competetive for growth. Horrorshowj (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Athlete vs PornBio and I can't believe I have to point this out, no one tell my mother! The mainstream pornography industry really didn't emerge until about the 1970's (at least in the US). College Football has been around since 1869--and with over 100 Div I FBS schools, plus all the other divisions, I would expect a lot more linebackers than porn stars.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the number of sportspeople articles is the problem (although perhaps some people feel differently). It's the "permastubs" that cause the concern. I agree that poorly sourced articles are not helpful unless they are improved, but I think WP:ATHLETE clears out many, many permastubs already, and it's just difficult to keep up with the prolific article creation by several editors that are fans of sports. Jogurney (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Paul I would expect there to be more linebackers as well. I was responding to christhedude's complaint about the enormous number of porn performer articles by showing how big of a scale difference there actually is. Another comparison now that you mention the seventies is that the combined numbers for the Seattle Seahawks and Tampa Bay Buccaneers players are around 1160. The entire quantity of articles for pornbio amounts to at most 1% of the number under Athlete as far as I can tell. Horrorshowj (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
One of my main concerns is that reliance solely on the GNG provides for a huge systemic bias in favour of very minor players from the years since the internet was invented. A case in point would be Dean Bouzanis, who was saved at AfD back in March even though he'd never played a professional match. Is he really more notable for his sporting achievements than a player who played 300 or 400 professional matches but had the "misfortune" to do so before sports news websites came along.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Taking an example at random, I just had a look round for sources on Pedro Cea, but couldn't find any sources devoted solely to him, which presumably means that, in terms of WP:N, a footballer who won two Olympic gold medals and scored a goal in the World Cup final is apparently less notable than someone like Damien Reeves of Histon F.C. who isn't even a full-time professional player but has the good fortune to be playing in an era when the BBC website exists to publish pieces like this and this...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, let's not forget, not just modern day, but also especially footballers playing in English-speaking locales (especially Britain, given the sport's reduced popularity in Australia and the US). matt91486 (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Second, for players on whom we don't have that much data, I'd much rather see their names integrated into a coherent team history (if available) than existing as permastubs, solely to correct a perceived bias. For instance, see Ripensia Timişoara. POV issues aside, I'm quite content being told who their greatest players were; we would not really be well served by plucking out the name of (say) Silviu Bindea and starting an "article" that stated simply "Silviu Bindea played X position on Ripensia Timişoara from 1929 to 1932".
Third, we're not filling quotas here. Creating dozens of stubs on players who died fifty years ago, just to correct a perceived bias, is no more edifying than doing so on currently active ones. If they were indeed important players, and the sources are available, great. If not, team histories should suffice until sources do in fact emerge.
In conclusion: no rule will be able to cover every scenario, hence the fundamental principle of WP:IAR. But WP:V and WP:RS come pretty close, and by willfully continuing to allow for reams of athlete stubs, for whatever fanciful reason, we continue to debase the project as a whole. - BiruitorulTalk04:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
So only "great" athletes from past decades can have articles, but from the 21st century it's OK to have one on every two-bob no-mark who's had a few little write-ups on regional news websites? Sounds like the very definition of systemic bias to me. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll take the high road and ignore your sarcasm, which was unprovoked, uncalled for (my previous post having been polite and well-reasoned) and counterproductive. I have three points in reply:
Our current glut of articles on random contemporary athletes is not my fault. I fervently wish many of them were deleted. I wish people were more aware they're building an encyclopedia (with all that entails) and not a fan site. That they did indeed only write about great athletes and not, oh, Martellus Bennett. That they kept in mind that just because an article can exist by no mean implies it should exist. Alas, the status quo is far from that, and we can only take incremental steps toward higher quality. Right now that should indeed mean demanding multiple, non-trivial, independent sources for articles on athletes. Like I said, "great athletes from the past will still make it here", and the fact lesser ones won't is not the end of the world.
You failed to respond to my second and third points. Let me just repeat: cries of "systemic bias!" will do little to improve the project if they imply floods of "articles" of the "Silviu Bindea played X position on Ripensia Timişoara from 1929 to 1932" type. If reliable sources exist, great. If not, well, as I asked on 27 November: "We require rather high standards for professors; why not set minimal ones for athletes?"
As I also wrote that day (to someone else): "You seem to imply professional athletes are notable simply for having played on a team, without having done anything else, and without coverage in reliable sources. But why? Like I said, heads of state I can see. Saints, ambassadors, supreme court justices: sure. Maybe Olympians I can see. But random athletes? Why? ... the way to counter [systemic bias] is not to write one-liners on random tennis players from Sierra Leone 1950 and congratulate ourselves that we're doing something about the problem. That's bean-counting or quota-filling of the worst sort. The way to combat it is to write quality articles about those places, and we do ourselves a disservice by keeping sub-standard material of the sort I'm pointing out."
Oh, one can always argue! Here's a point on the Martellus Bennett article: It's well sourced and notability is very solid. Look at the article, look at the sources. Okay, so there are editors that don't think he's that great of an athlete--fine, but what about the sources? Okay, so there are editors that don't think any athletes should have an entry--fine, but what about the sources? Okay, so there are editors that think athletes of poor performance should not have an entry--fine, but what about the sources? It comes down to the sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I should've explained my point better. ChrisTheDude was saying we should have poorly-sourced articles on older athletes just so we can counter a "systemic bias" he perceives. I dismissed that notion, saying we already have articles on great athletes from earlier eras and can cover less important ones through other means than worthless permastubs created solely to fill a quota. I gave Bennett as an example of a modern, non-"great" athlete whom I wish people didn't write about, but whom we can't stop from doing. But if we can't keep him out of here (and I'm not trying to), the least we can do is demand multiple, non-trivial, independent sources for articles on athletes -- including ones from earlier eras. Have I made myself clearer? Would you like to continue arguing? - BiruitorulTalk03:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
AfD's
I didn't know about this debate, but I've nominated several high school and college football players for AFD. Since this discussion was ongoing, I thought I should notify you all of it.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon08:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
As just one example of the growing number of amateur sports articles, the Lorrenzo Wade article is about a collegiate basketball player in the United States. Per WP:ATHLETE, it fails the notability test because the athlete is neither professional nor at the highest amateur level in the sport of basketball. Yet, attempts to delete it via speedy delete and PROD have been overturned by Wikipedia editors. Something has to give. Either we change the rules and allow this type of article (by expanding the definition of notability) or we enforce the rules and delete these articles. I have no preference either way. What say the Wikicommunity? Truthanado (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'd argue that if he's playing U.S. college basketball, then he is competing at the highest amateur level of the sport — the Olympics and the world championships are, at least for U.S. athletes, professional competitions. Regardless, failing WP:ATHLETE shouldn't be enough if the article can pass the general notability requirements — WP:ATHLETE is subordinate to both WP:BIO and WP:N — so I think the speedy and prod removals were appropriate. I'd agree that the article in its current form doesn't establish notability, though. If you feel the same, and you've done a good faith look for sources, then I think it would be appropriate to take this article to Afd and see what happens. If adequate sourcing can't be found and added to the article, it'll likely get deleted, which will be the appropriate result. Mlaffs (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
And of course there is the otherside that doesn't believe its the highest level because Olympians aren't paid to play and there is no rule excluding full-time amateurs from playing. That being said, if they still pass WP:N then they are good to go. -Djsasso (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
But not directly for their time at the Olympics. They may get paid for sponsorships that result from their results at the olympics etc, and they may have sponsors pay for their training costs on the way to the Olympics. But they don't get paid for the actual games themselves. -Djsasso (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Fully professional
I've witnessed scores of AfD's on football (soccer) players, and I now feel that the wording of WP:ATHLETE is too strict. Under the current wording, footballers who play at a fully professional club and earn their living by playing football still wouldn't qualify for an article, for the simple reason that there might be clubs in their league that do not pay their players. It's safe to assume that not every club in the Belarusian Premier League or the Cypriot First Division is fully professional. I know that most S.V. Zulte Waregem players are amateurs. Under the current wording of WP:ATHLETE, even players of Anderlecht, Anorthosis Famagusta and BATE Barysaw wouldn't get an article (that is to say, playing for those clubs wouldn't earn them an article), even though these clubs have played in the UEFA Champions League. I'm not sure what the wording of WP:ATHLETE should be, but imo it should focus more on the individual circumstances and less on the league as a whole. Aecis·(away)talk12:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
There are problems with verifiability; is the specific player or the specific club fully professional etc. Other than that it's probably safe to say that the bar for sportspeople is way lower than for professionals in any other field. Punkmorten (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
You are interpreting WP:ATHLETE incorrectly (negatively). Meeting WP:ATHLETE means that you can have an article: not meeting Wp:ATHLETE however does not mean that can not have an article, but means that you have the pass the general WP:NOTE criteria. Every player who has played for Anderlecht in the past fifty years will pass this, since soccer gets lots of coverage in all Belgian newspapers and a few magazines (SportVoetbal Magazine or whatever its current name, anbd previously Sport70, Sport80, etcetera). People meeting WP:ATHLETE will (almost) certainly deserve an article, people not meeting WP:ATHLETE may very well still deserve an article. Fram (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
In that case WP:ATHLETE contradicts WP:N. WP:ATHLETE says that a player is notable if he or she has "competed at the fully professional level of a sport...", WP:N says that it's coverage that matters, not the professional status. WP:ATHLETE seems to restrict the notability criteria in a way that is not in line with WP:N. Aecis·(away)talk20:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
One size doesn't fit all
One size doesn't fit all. In the United States, college football and college basketball are on television as much or more than their pro counterparts. They are written about in the newspaper as much or more than their pro counterparts. Any proposed standard that excludes major well-known college players is a bad standard and flies in the face of our general notability criterion. --B (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
History Agreed! And don't forget the historical view! College football began in 1869, the first openly professional player was 23 years later in 1892; the NFL didn't start for 51 years in 1920; and it wasn't until the late 1950's to early 1970's that the NFL began to surpass college football in attendance. The NFL was a regional pro league in its early days, college football was nationwide and even had games played outside the US, such as the Bacardi Bowl in 1907!--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The standard does not prevent those notable athletes from getting an article. If a college football, baseball, or basketball player gets coverage in reliable sources, then they get in under standard notability requirements, seeColt McCoy, Mike Minor, and Stephen Curry. But not under WP:ATHLETE: that standard is limited to professional football, baseball, and basketball players. Many of them get an article although they do not meet the larger guidelines, seeKerry Cash, Jerry Browne, and Richard Rellford.
If we are going to have an exception to WP:N, then we need to draw a line somewhere. By and large, in the pros, most of the articles are good articles and there are fewer pro stubs like the last three players I listed. To open WP:ATHLETE to all college football and baseball players would flip that on its head: most of the articles would be stubs like the last three and there would be fewer good articles. So the good articles still get in this way under, but under WP:N, not WP:ATHLETE.--2008Olympianchitchat06:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate some feedback on the following: An article on yours truly was deleted without any discussion. Deletion of Steve Holt (Bodybuilder) I took a look at the WP guidelines for athletes, and offer the following for consideration: In amateur sports, bodybuilding - there are two distinct streams: Drug-tested (aka "natural") and non-tested. Within each stream there are various independent sanctioning bodies. In Canada, I am natural competitor and a member of the Canadian Federation of Bodybuilders (CBBF) - an affiliate of the IFBB. In terms of my history, I have twice competed and placed at the National level - the highest level for my country Canada. These are known as "World Qualifiers". In addition I have competed and placed in several provincial competitions.
My current titles include: Aug/06 CBBF World Qualifier, 2nd Place, Open Welterweight Aug/06 CBBF World Qualifier, 2nd Place, Grandmasters (age 50-59) Jun/06 OPA National Qualifier, 2nd Place, Grandmasters (age 50-59) Jul/04 CBBF World Qualifier, 3rd Place, Grandmasters (age 50-59) Jul/04 OPA National Qualifier, 3rd Place, Masters (age 40-49) Jul/04 OPA National Qualifier, 1st Place, Grandmasters (age 50-59) Apr/00 ANBC Lion County Classic, 5th Place, Masters (age 35-45) Mar/00 BAO Regional Championship, 3rd Place, Masters (age 40-49)--VegBB (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
For highest level of amateur competition, usually you have to be competing internationally. While you achievements are impressive, they aren't the highest level you can get to. -Djsasso (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Why no caveat?
WP:ACADEMIC contains the following caveat to its criteria:
It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Why isn't there a similar caveat for the 'Additional criteria' in this guideline? Failure to have something along these lines would appear to authorise retention of articles in violation of WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." It also appears to create a good chance of violating WP:NOT#NEWS as "routine news coverage of such things as ... sports" could easily allow an athlete to pass WP:ATHLETE (e.g. with bare mention of having competing at a single top level sporting event, in a news report of that event), when this is supposed to be "not sufficient basis for an article". HrafnTalkStalk(P)16:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
PORNBIO
Suggestion - Expand the definition on PORNBIO. It currently excludes quite a bit of pornographic history which may be unfortunate and unfair to future readers of the Wiki.
Porn is always changing and new Fetishes and demographics are added to the market consistently.
For instance the PORNBIO page has no inclusion for the new and increasingly popular BBW market. BBW means Big Beautiful Woman. I suggest having the definition expanded to included any adult star who has more than 5 adult videos available on the market. 12/21/08 - Vicki Nicole —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickinicole (talk • contribs) 16:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Good luck. Many editors wanted to set a threshold at 100 or more videos. It seems that many editors say that acting in these movies is not the same as acting in a 'real' movie. One thing they all seem to forget was that when movies first started out, actors would turn out huge numbers of films in a year. This is the same crime that they are charging is being committed by the porn stars. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Biggest issue with setting a threshold for porn isn't that they are lesser, it's the compilations and historically weak copyright protections of the industry. Scenes are pretty frequently recycled from one compilation to another, with or without the originating studios consent. If someone did 40 scenes, but appeared in 105 films due to recycling do they pass? If not, how do you verify that they failed to meet the threshold? Another issue which was pointed out on the project talk page, is that 100 films isn't that useful of a benchmark outside of US straight porn. Apparently, for gay performers or those in the Japanese industry, you pass into the realm of legend at around 50. Horrorshowj (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest an expansion and clarification for the PornBio category. Currently there is a bias toward 20th century media: Playboy, Penthouse and Playgirl, none of which has a significant readership anymore and none of which has been "significant" in the world of erotica or porn for decades, and the AVN awards which is fine for individuals who work in the video niche of the porn world, but that is only a niche which was significant 20 years ago, it is actually one of the smallest niches currently. The internet has changed the nature of porn to the extent that significant models doing online porn do mot meet the Wikipedia guidelines for "significance." Models who have enormous internet followings but have never won an AVN award or appeared in Playboy get snubbed in favour of models whose only achievement has been a transitory appearance as a playboy centrefold, after which they have done nothing as pornographic models. The difficulty is deciding what is a "significant" contribution in the online world since the usual award shows are as yet absent: there is no internet equivalent of the AVN awards. One of the problems also arises from the nature of so much of the internet porn world: The focus on group websites rather than individual models. MetArt, Hegre, Femjoy and a host of other sites produce an enormous amount of material but the models themselves are obscured by pseudonyms. This is the opposite of the video market in which the studio producing a video is far less important than the name of the actor. This makes it difficult to decide who is "significant" in the online porn world. I would like to suggest a criterion: chat room pages/posts. Sites like Freeones and Peachyforum create listings in which people can talk about and track appearances by their favourite models (even under their various pseudonyms). Some threshold of pages/total posts should be considered a significant criterion, perhaps something along the lines of 500+ posts on at least 2 such boards. This would allow for a reasonable measure of popularity and therefore measure of significance without overloading Wikipedia with obscure models who have only appeared once or twice and have a limited fan base (like the average playmate). If anyone can suggest another criterion for inclusion of internet models that should be considered as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeniKips (talk • contribs) 14:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you make some really good points here. Porn is a strange phenomenon in that it is extremely widespread, and yet is not openly discussed very often. I would like to see wikipedia move towards giving porn and all topics and people associated with it coverage that represents its actual significance--and not just its coverage in "mainstream" sources. The problem, as always, here, is finding enough reliable sources. Internet forums aren't acceptable as wikipedia sources. Are there reliable third-party sources that discuss and summarize internet forums, when it comes to porn? The problem with porn is that nearly all of the "publications" associated with it are (a) highly anonymous as to their authors, editors, etc. and (b) a moneymaking schemes, so they can't be trusted as sources. Cazort (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
According to my point above, I propose removing multiple times from "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.". Porn stars tend not to receive much attention in mainstream media, because of the secret nature of porn in our society. This means that anyone getting mention at all is probably going to be quite well-known, relative to actors outside of porn, because our society is so much more open about other actors. Cazort (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't personally think Wikipedia should be place for homepages of those that have fornicated to camera any more than it is for those who haven't. I think "globally known in mainstream media" would be an adequate criterion, and the whole bit about pornstars should be merged to the rest of entertainers section somehow more discretely. Come on, if somebody just pops in and reads wikipedia help texts, he/she'll get the picture that half of entertainers in Wikipedia are pornstars. That's internet, but not Wikipedia. --Sigmundur (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
"other actors"... sheesh... go say that to an "other actor", and see if s/he appreciates the comparison. I don't think just any camwhore from youtube deserves a Wikipedia page the way, say, a lifetime actor in a less known theater groupe, even if both are equally widely known --Sigmundur (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:ATHLETE revisited, again
I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Edward Miller, since I thought the subject was an athlete with very little notability and very little likelihood of ever achieving WP:N. However, I didn't read WP:ATHLETE very carefully, and a strict reading of the current policy, People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships. would appear to include ALL NCAA Division I (or FBS) football players. As it is, there are 12,000+ Division I college football players in any given year, which amounts to 2,000 to 3,000 new players each year meeting the criteria for notability. That doesn't seem awfully discriminate.
Anyway, as X96lee15 (talk·contribs) points out, "The fact that people are using WP:ATHLETE as reasons to keep and to delete this article makes me think it HAS to be rewritten.".
Now, I've read editors suggesting that we make exceptions to the amateur athlete criterion for college football and basketball players (who are de facto professional, even if they take pains to avoid the designation), but I have a much simpler suggestion. By simply moving one word, I think the policy would make a lot more sense.
Change the current criterion:
People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships.
To:
Amateur athletes who have competed at the highest level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships.
With my proposed change, WP:ATHLETE can include amateur athletes who are the best in their sports, while avoiding permanent stubs for the vast majority of college football players who don't do anything of note.
As pointed out in the earlier discussion, major award candidates and All America players receive plenty of coverage anyway, so they'll get in under general WP:N, so we won't have to worry about Tim Tebow ever going to Afd, even if we exclude college athletes from WP:ATHLETE. --Mosmof (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Other than changing People to Amateur Atheletes I don't see what you actually changed. Especially since People in this sense means Amateur Athletes. -Djsasso (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. Basically. instead of making the "highest amateur level" the qualifier, we make "highest level" the qualifier for all athletes, amateur or professional. For example, under the current policy, you could make a case for an amateur golfer who competes at the United States Amateur Championship (golf), because that's arguably the highest amateur level of the sport in the US. With my proposal, that's no longer the case. But if an amateur golfer makes the cut at the Masters, then you could make a case, since that's arguably the highest level of the sport, period.
Anyway, my point is, a simple, subtle change can make the policy more sensical by changing the point of emphasis. --Mosmof (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
As I read the current guideline wording, WP:ATHLETE should never be used as an AFD argument: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." I don't know if there's consensus for that statement though. The RFC on whether the specific notability guidelines should be able to override, only limit or only broaden WP:GNG (or be removed altogether) was pretty inconclusive, wasn't it? And even if WP:ATHLETE is read to include NCAA athletes, I don't think it's easier to pass than WP:GNG. Here's the conundrum really. I have placed, at best, 6th at a minor international competition, 18th at the national championships (small country). I have clearly not competed at the highest level, and I wouldn't dream of calling myself notable, so WP:ATHLETE works for me. And yet, there have been a couple of (small) articles primarily about me in (local) newspapers, so I might be on the verge of passing WP:GNG, if I'm not misreading it. (And this is in a sport which gets very little media attention! Seeing how big a deal college football is in the US, it would be absurd to think that a guy like Jimmy Miller hasn't had significant coverage in local news media.) So as I see it, WP:ATHLETE really needs to be limiting rather than broadening. —JAO • T • C16:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
When you say "it would be absurd to think that a guy like Jimmy Miller hasn't had significant coverage in local news media", I think the operative word is "local". My guess is that local news coverage amounts to "local boy makes good" stories, which in my mind, fails the "independent" test, since the coverage is limited to a community, of which Jimmy Miller is a member of. He wouldn't get the same coverage from non-local or non-campus newspaper. --Mosmof (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed! Perhaps it would be a good idea to change the basic WP:BIO criteria to disallow local news sources from the person's home area? I can see some problems of drawing the line (all newspapers in Luxembourg are probably both local and national), but if it can be done, it would rhyme much better with WP:ATHLETE—and with what we actually want. —JAO • T • C18:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiment. I've understood the "amateur section" of WP:ATHLETE to cover athletes that participate in a sport that has no professional leagues (e.g., swimming, diving, etc.) and not to sports like basketball, football (American or otherwise). As mentioned above, the notable US collegiate atheletes that play basketball or football can easily pass WP:N because of the substantial amount of media coverage in the US without the cover of WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
That is correct, the highest level of amateur sports clause does not include amateur sports for which there is a professional level, else the professional cl clause would be superfluous. So no college football players, amateur golfers, etc. That is what should be made clear if a change is going to made. Most editors get that correct, and it has been made clear on this board in the past numerous times, but the issue recurs.--2008Olympianchitchat17:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary — as it's currently written, the highest amateur level of a sport clause absolutely includes sports for which there is also a professional level. In practice, it's usually interpreted exactly the opposite to how it's written, which is the exact issue. As someone noted above, the problem is using WP:ATHLETE as an Afd argument, particularly with regard to delete !votes — it is possible to fail WP:ATHLETE, no matter how it's interpreted, and still satisfy WP:BIO or WP:N. I'm not personally in favour of opening the doors wide open to every college basketball, football, and baseball player, but it's a fallacy to assume that it's impossible for someone competing at that level to be notable just because a professional level of the sport exists, and that exact argument is often advanced in Afd discussions. This is particularly true for association football, where that project's messianic devotion to the idea that "football is a professional sport" installs blinders such that any argument in favour of maintaining an article on the (admittedly rare) notable U.S. college player meets with a hail of objection. Sports themselves are not usually inherently professional or amateur — it's the leagues, competitions, and competitors who identify as one or the other. Mlaffs (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Which is why I propose that "highest amateur level" be changed to "highest level" with no qualifier for the level of the athlete or the event. Mosmof (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Controversial view ahead - I can't see much point having WP:ATHLETE at all. All it seems to do is to expand those who are treated as notable way above the general notability guidelines. One appearance in a fourth-level English football league match, without significant independent coverage in reliable sources, being treated as an automatic keep, makes a mockery of the main pillars of notability. I say get rid, of this and all other sub-classes of WP:BIO. - fchd (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
My concern with eliminating WP:ATHLETE is that it would reinforce systemic bias against notable athletes from the pre-internet era and from nations which have limited internet penetration. As an example, World Cup winning-footballers from South America in the early 20th Century would likely fail WP:N (although not WP:V). Without WP:ATHLETE, there will be a tendency towards lower-level athletes (since there are more of them) who have competed in the recent past in English-speaking nations. WP:ATHLETE helps combat this dismaying trend. Jogurney (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
It states that the highest level of amateur sports is considered to be the Olympics and World Championships. If it also included college sports, it would mention that as well, but it does not. This has been discussed so many times that it just needs to be amended to state not "but college sports."--2008Olympianchitchat05:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
No, it states usually considered to be the Olympics and World Championships. I respect your good faith attempt at being bold — I made my own similar attempt in November — but the fact that this has come up so many times before without there being consensus on a change means that it would need a broader discussion with more visibility before going ahead. I've undone that added language in the meantime. Mlaffs (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Not to sound like a broken record, but would it be too much to simply change "highest amateur level" to simply "highest level"? For most sports, the definition doesn't change - the Olympics and World Championships would still be the very highest, but it does eliminate amateur championships in sports where there clearly are higher levels. --Mosmof (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Mosmof, I actually wouldn't have any problem with the language you've proposed at the beginning of this section. I raise only the following two comments:
I think that any attempt to clarify the intent (and thus the wording) of this section also needs to reiterate that this language is subordinate to WP:BIO and WP:N; failing WP:ATHLETE is not sufficient cause to delete if the subject satisfies one or the other of those
A change like this will be contentious enough that it needs broad discussion. That discussion can happen here, but it needs to be publicized in the widest forum possible; Village Pump, Community Portal, or something similar.
I think my change reflects the consensus that has evolved after several previous discussions on this topic, however, no one ever changed the wording. Mosmof, I have no problem with the change you suggest either.--2008Olympianchitchat18:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
With college football, I think we need to clarify the interplay of notability with merely playing at the highest level. If Steve Gatena manages to survive another AfD with "no consensus", I'll probably start creating articles on walk-ons at multiple programs. There's only 10,000+ college football players in D-IA. Why not start at the very bottom? I'm sure the rest of Wikipedia will support this enlargement of WP:Athlete beyond any what the actual college football media considers notable. If a kid can manage to survive the walk-on tryouts at Western Kentucky University (the newest D-IA school, the highest level in the sport), then they should be included. --Bobak (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I am thinking i must not be understand of the guideline and may be the guideline for notability should get revised so second sources are not needed any more. Basic notability is now, there is some reliable second sources about a person. In recent time i prod nominated some biographies like Julia Newton and I added some at Articles for Deletion, examples Malcolm Hooper and Patricia Fennell. People that comment about the prod and AFD i think interpret the second sources about part like it says a second source with the persons name in it or a quote from them. Also there is interpretation when a person is in primary sources enough they do not need seconery sources for notability.
ok so 2 questions,
How many primary sources that say about a person are enough to take out the second source guideline
Is a second source that is not about a person but it says like Area woman RetroS1mone said she had three feet of snow in her town last night or local researcher RetroS1mone found a link between hairy armpits and to many houseplants is that enough to make me notable or do i need some thing about me like me being the subject or two things or what??
The thing I would point out after reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Hooper is that, as someone pointed out there, there seems to be confusion on what a primary source is. A source like this one is most definitely not a primary source—see WP:PRIMARY—so the outcome of that AFD looks fine. As for your examples, your "area woman" is not notable of course (the amount of snow, if surprising enough, might be worth a mention somewhere, but it has nothing to do with the person; apart from the triviality there's also WP:BIO1E). Your "local researcher" is a judgement call. See the section above on whether merely local news sources are enough; that's a little tricky. But I don't really see anything that needs to be revised here. —JAO • T • C09:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The guideline says noe second sources about a person. The article is not about Malcolm Hooper. When about is, your name is in a newspaper, that is needing explanation in guideline bc that is how people are interpret it i think but i do not, am i wrong on what about means?? RetroS1monetalk15:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I think this enters a gray area, where WP:BIO doesn't give us cut and dry answers. RetroS1mone is correct that the article isn't about Hooper, and it doesn't constitute significant coverage. But what the article does is, not merely mention Hooper in passing, but establish him as a leading figure in the field. --Mosmof (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
That is right it says he is an activist, it is the most significant coverage for him in the second sources. OK but i am just wonder, can the guideline be worded more plain or is it always for a judgment? RetroS1monetalk16:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I think this page needs to be a bit more explicit when it comes to lists of people. There is a disagreement at the above article (about whether or not clergy-people who are otherwise not particularly notable should be on the list) and so far it's been unresolved by an RfC. Divamia (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
That is a good question. My understanding of the notability guidelines and WP:LIST suggests that a person would need to be notable to be included in a list of persons. Then again, I see a ton of situations where material that isn't notable enough for a standalone article gets shunted onto a list, such as when a non-notable book character is shifted from a standalone article to a list of characters. So the question is, does the list itself merely need to overall meet the requirement that "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others;" or do the constituent bits of information need to meet the various requirements individually, and thus need to be notable themselves. I would argue that an individual, especially a living individual, should need to be notable under the notability guidelines sufficient to have a standalone article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:CREATIVE Notability Proposal
I think a journalist who writes for a newspaper with a circulation of more than a million should be considered notable just from writing just for writing for such a large paper. Spinach Monster (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
No - there would be plenty such writers with literally no coverage by reliable third party sources (staff writers for the city pages, for example). And if you're including frequent freelancers, it becomes even more nuts. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't get how this is a good idea. I'm trying to wrap my head around why we need to include hundreds of thousands of people who will never receive significant third coverage. If I understand this correctly, a writer covering, say, the neighborhood council for the New York Times or an unemployed writer who successfully pitched a piece about cupcake shops on Second Life get articles? --Mosmof (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, works for me. Figured i'd give it a shot. For me, if something can be written well, I like trying to find a way to keep it if policy can dictate keeping it. Spinach Monster (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Just "writes" is certainly not enough. I think a case could be made for saying a major journalist who has been a principle contributor, but it would be hard to distinguish what's enough. This is one place where the GNG may actually be helpful. DGG (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that helps either - an obituary writer can be at a major paper for 20 years and not do anything notable. Out of curiosity, are there specific writers are article-worthy but wouldn't qualify under WP:GNG that you have in mind? --Mosmof (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I figured the longer the were at a paper, the more outside sources might be available. Then again, you're right, that's not always a guarantee of material. However, I think the obituary writer per your example, for say, the New York Times should be notable just because being a obituary writer for the New York Times would denote that they are one of the top obituary writers in the world due to the Times' status as one of the most notable papers in the world.
If there was a "best janitor in the world", that person should be included in Wikipedia due to the superlative nature of their achievements alone. That's the jist behind this proposal i'm presenting. After a certain level, a person is superlative enough to be notable. Spinach Monster (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
If you achieved something that had a momentum affect on people, good or bad, then you are notable. Most evil CEO ever, greatest scientist ever in that field do to his many inventions and/or discoveries, greatest skateboarder champion ever, most influential webcomic in the video games industry, etc. And if the super janitor went on to found a union, or inspire through his brave acts of rebellion against oppressor elitist who paid him little and treated him like dirt, which led to a massive march on the capital, and regulations for decency, then he'd be notable. Also if he slipped in some radioactive waste and gained super powers or something. The number of people you influenced or entertained, or achievements you made to the scientific world, would make you notable. Now then, being a food or theater critic for a large newspaper, who could hire anyone but choose you, might make you notable. Anyone could write the obituary list, if its just a guy getting a list of recently dead to put on it, plus date of birth and death. Would working for a major newspaper make you notable, it the same is winning a great award in your industry? I think the number of potential readers you have makes you notable, just like how many people watch a television show make it notable, etc. DreamFocus03:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I think we're conflating association with notability with actual achievement. I'm not sure what a "momentum effect" is, but if someone or their achievement is notable enough, they shouldn't have trouble receiving significant third party coverage. Truly notable people like Maureen Dowd or George F. Will or Roy Gutman don't have trouble getting third party coverage. Mosmof (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I know it's subjective, but if there were a journalist of Dowd or Will or Gutman's caliber that was ignored, would they not be notable only because they were anonymous? Spinach Monster (talk) 04:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
In a word, yes. WP:N doesn't really care about how awesome something is, only whether that awesomeness is recognized, either by third party coverage or a major, widely recognized award. To go back to your "best janitor" example, simply being a best janitor doesn't qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. But if that janitor won to win the Golden Mop Award and the Golden Mop was an award recognized by reliable sources to be the highest honor for janitors, then yes, there is sufficient notability. --Mosmof (talk) 05:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:POLITICIAN
Added:
Just being the spouse of a sub-national executive officers (i.e. Provincial/State/Regional Governors), does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Spouses of national-level executive officers (i.e. Prime Minister, President, etc) usually meet notability criteria, as might those of candidates for those offices.
Curious: what's the point of "although such people can still be ..." clause repeated here and there? Isn't it obvious? NVO (talk) 05:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I've undone the edit because the first part is already stated in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria and the second part (spouses of heads of states/government and candidates) is arguably untrue. It might hold for U.S. first ladies and a few other persons, but who has ever heard of, to take a random example, of the wife of the prime minister of Tonga? If she happens to be notable, fine, but we don't need a presumption of notability in such cases. Sandstein 07:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with removing the first part--it is quite unnecessary, as nobody thinks spouses of subnational executives are notable from merely that. This is instruction creep. At the national level, though, I think the distinction is made that the spouses of heads of state are notable intrinsically, but not heads of government. This seems easonable to me, as the head of state plays a ceremonial role, and the spouse is therefore more likely to be relevant/.DGG (talk) 08:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Criteria for inclusion in lists of people
Recently, a user added the entry "Joseph Michael Duckworth, Film maker" to the list "Notable Inhabitants" in the article Nuneaton. This was quickly removed by another editor, giving as a reason that this person does not have a WP article. This made me curious, so I checked the relevent section, Lists of people, which states "inclusion on the list should be determined by the criteria above." This seems to imply that "if they aren't sufficiently notable as to warrant an article of their own, they are not sufficiently notable to include on lists".
I am not advocating that the individual named should be included (I have never heard of him and Google wasn't helpful either, so he probably isn't notable), but it has raised a wider question. Surely there are many instances where an individual does not warrant an article, but has sufficient notability to warrant being on such a list. If this is true, then the section "Lists of people" needs to be re-written slightly.--FimusTauri (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The operative word there is "notable residents." That is, the list is inherently about notable individuals only. In theory, I imagine there are other types of lists that could list non-notable individuals for the sake of completeness. Strikehold (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
That misses my point. A resident can be notable, but not quite notable enough to warrant a whole WP article. Surely such a resident would still be notable enough for mention on a list?--FimusTauri (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I would not claim it does. It is not intended as a categorisation, merely a recognition of degree. David Beckham is more notable than, say, Adam Hammill, who is in turn more notable than Dave Jones, who plays for the local Sunday league team. Somewhere between Dave Jones and Adam Hammill a line is drawn to say "above this line a player is sufficiently notable as to warrant a WP article. Just below this line, they are almost notable enough to warrant an article". In a list of lower league squad players there will be many such players - almost notable enough for their own article; certainly notable enough to be listed on the team's page. By the current wording, such a list should be almost depopulated because few people on such a list are "notable enough" to warrant their own page.--FimusTauri (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Except that there are not two sets of notability, article notability and list notability. And notability is not a continuum as you suggest. Fame or recognizability certainly are, but not "notability" as wikipedia has come to define it. Strikehold (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
This is my point. The current wording is that list notability equates to article notability. Yet there are many instances where this is clearly not the case. By that logic, every sports team squad list should have a gap for every player that does not currently have a WP article; or, by reverse logic, every such list should be filled out with red-linked players who are notable enough but do not yet have an article. Incidentally, notability is a continuum, but as a criterion for WP articles, it has a cut-off point, rendering it a bipole for that purpose.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
"Notability," as a construct of wikipedia (which is what everyone is referring to when they use it here), isn't a continuum because an individual either is or is not notable—What you are saying is that you think notability should be a continuum. As it stands, they either meet the criteria or not (verifiability, reliable sources, coverage, etc.), it doesn't matter how many people know them, how important their contributions, etc. I see no reason why a list should be different. Some sports teams rosters include non-notable people because they are finite lists. These can include non-notable individuals for the sake of completeness. For lists of specifically notable individuals, as in notable inhabitants, it wouldn't make sense to put third-tier footballers or other people who are not recognized as being "notable". Look at it this way: If the Football Conference article had a list of "notable Football Conference players" it wouldn't include any players who are otherwise considered "non-notable". This despite the fact that FC players, as a rule, are not notable by virtue of simply being FC players. Strikehold (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
To clarify: I am not asking for a continuum. I am also not trying to say that there should be any difference between article lists and people lists. What I am doing is pointing out that there currently exists a discrepancy. You have just highlighted that discrepancy: in finite lists the notability criteria is not the same as for articles or for open-ended lists. All I am saying is that the current article does not highlight this difference and also does not, apparently, allow for it.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I ran into a similar situation when I set up Template:Notable Women Generals in the U.S. Military and there I decided to specifically define "Notable" as the person having a WP article meaning WP:PEOPLE applied. Trying to do anything else resulted in a slippery slope defining who is or is not "Notable" as far as that list went. People have spent a huge about of time thinking about and tweaking the WP guidelines. I wanted to leverage that rather than reinventing the wheel.
I see Nuneaton#Notable inhabitants as similar to the "Notable Women Generals" list. Nuneaton has over 70,000 people at the moment plus many others either born in the town, lived for some period in the town, died in this town, plus artists and authors who made paintings of the town or used it in a book, song, or play, etc. Don't forget about us as we are writing in a Wiki discussion page that references it! :-) What subset of those people or their references are "notable" enough for the list? You can either use WP:NOTE and related WP guidelines and policy to answer that question or spend a lot of time drawing an "is" or "is-not" notable line that's different than the lines drawn in WP:PEOPLE and related guidelines. --Marc Kupper|talk19:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
empirically, the standard to apply at lists is very simple
does the person have a Wikipedia article? If not, is the person obviously qualified for one (for example an elected legislator). If neither, it must go (though if possible a person encountering an obvious qualification should start a stub article). This puts the onus of whether or not an article can be written and maintained. If there is a person someone wants to add that doesn't have an article, they should try to write and if necessary to defend the article. If there is someone who an editor doubts is notable, the appropriate course is to ask for deletion of the article with the relevant deletion process. I think this applies not just to people but to companies, etc. If this is not in the list guidelines it ought to be.DGG (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see it as that clean cut. Most lists define their own criteria. For example, a list of players on a sports team that's part of an article about that team would have zero requirements for "notability" as individuals. In this case it's a list on the Nuneaton page and is defined as "Notable inhabitants" with no further comment on what's meant by "notable" and "inhabit". I suspect further discussion about the definitions of those two words should be on Talk:Nuneaton where people can hash out if it means WP:PEOPLE, is a WP:PEA, or is something else that people can agree on.
Getting back to the WP:PEOPLE article that this talk page is about; does the article need to be updated to explain that any time the word "notable" is used in an article when referring to a person is there a requirement that the person be notable per WP:PEOPLE? Better yet, should the guidelines be expanded so that if "notable" is used in any article that either it's deleted per WP:PEA or that that the subjects claimed "notable" must meet WP guidelines? FWIW, the word appears in 231,000 articles[1]. --Marc Kupper|talk22:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
How is "notable" a peacock term? I think it is fine, as it serves to establish the scale of the list (as you said). If it was just called "inhabitants", there would be no explicit requirement of notability for inclusion.
You hit the nail on the head with your first comment: lists in articles usually define their own scale (or at least should). The point the first poster was trying to make is that WP:PEOPLE does not allow for that, it simply says use the article notability guidelines. This is incorrect on its face, as demonstrated by the examples pointed out. If there is a list that is itself notable and of finite size, it doesn't necessarily include only notable individuals (examples: notable sports teams with some non-notable players or passengers on the Mayflower). Strikehold (talk) 05:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
"Notable" can be a peacock term when it's used to describe someone that's not genuinely notable and it can be redundant on WP. For example, "The author John Doe wrote blah blah." There's no need to peacock it with "notable" as the blue link serves to indicate that John Doe is notable.
I looked over WP:PEOPLE again and see what you and the OP mean. The present guidelines are about WP:STAND lists and do not address WP:EMBED style lists. From what I can see, the standalone list guidelines can also apply to embedded lists other than the one about that the list title should not use the word "Notable." The use of "Notable" in an embedded list title seems appropriate. Something else to fix is that WP:PEOPLE does not address lists that define their own criteria.
I do think, whenever possible, you want to avoid using the "notable" qualifier when you include people who are not notable by Wikipedia standards. Rather than try to find an arbitrary standard for notability of a town resident, could you find more independent criteria, say, people honored by the town? With a sports team, you can simply include players who hold records or have had their numbers retired - could you find a similar criterion for a town resident? --Mosmof (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
There are lists meant to be complete and inclusive,and lists meant to include only the important. The list of alumni from a university is not meant to include every one of them. When we need a criterion for how important a person (or other object in a list) should be, it should be the Wikipedia article. Notable is a peacock term as applied to an individual--but not a group like this. (
For lists meant to be inclusive of everyone, that's another mater. But we normally use such lists only when the people are in fact going to be qualified for individual Wikipedia articles. The members of a major league baseball team are individually notable, and should all be listed; the ones without individual articles should get them--red links such as those have a purpose. The members of a college team ordinarily are not individually notable, and the only ones listed should be the ones who are.
There are obviously special cases where all the people are relevant content but not notable--a prime example of this will be people in a band who are not notable except for being in the band. Listing them all is essential to the article.
My point only is when there is to be selection, that "qualification for a Wikipedia article" should normally be the standard unless there is some special justification otherwise. It is the only practical guard against spam. DGG (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
People notable only for one event
After reading and re-reading this section, I find it confusing and inferior to the coverage of the issue at WP:ONEEVENT. Although clearly not the case, I think that the current text almost suggests that we should not have an article on Rosa Parks, because she is notable only because of one event. In particular, the sentence "Coverage in Reliable sources may at times be extensive and may expand upon the person's background, but information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself, unless the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy or sources have written primarily about the person, and only secondarily about the event." is a poor one.
First of all, what exactly does "primarily about the person, and only secondarily about the event mean"? Most sources on Rosa Parks or Neil Armstrong focus largely on a single event (the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the moon landings respectively), how do we determine what these are "primarily" about. Similarly, how much information makes "the article unwieldy"? Both of these are very imprecise, open to misinterpretation, and seem to imply things that are not the case.
In contrast, the language at WP:ONEEVENT provides a much clearer standard "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." This standard is workable and makes more sense. While "low-profile individual" is obviously a subjective standard, it is much more clear. Rosa Parks was obviously not a low-profile individual and thus clearly meets this standard.
Because of these issues mentioned above, I would like to propose that we take the language found at WP:ONEEVENT and transfer it to WP:ONEVENT as well. Merging the two would also have the benefit of simplifying the annoying fact that there are two separate criteria covering much the same subject with almost identical shortcuts.
As this may prove contentious, I've posted here first before taking any action. If no one objects, I'll be bold and make the change myself in the next couple of days. Cool3 (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Jump in with the edit though you may end up editing both versions to align them as ONEVENT has useful things too. I've started to review and think about this page but am still early in organizing my thoughts. In the past there have been attempts to merge it into pages such as WP:BLP. My thinking at the moment is that this page has value but it should be more of a summary and pointer to other guidelines and policy rather than trying to define its own guidelines and policy. What you spotted with ONEEVENT and ONEVENT is an example of one of the shortcomings of this page.
I believe what made Rosa Parks or Neil Armstrong notable is that they became iconic because of one event. I just ran a quick test with a teenager. She nailed Rosa Parks so perfectly it would work as a history book summary and said Neil Armstrong was "the biker" meaning perhaps the other Armstrong is no longer iconic. Should I file an AfD based on that test? :-) ONEEVENT intends to exclude people that only had 15 minutes of fame but you are right in that there is an undefined scale of how long past "15 minutes" is "notable." For example, is Caylee worthy of an article at all much less in the long run? --Marc Kupper|talk00:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Alright, well I've been inspired by the above to attempt a full rewrite of the section, based on case studies of several relevant articles. This is my first major stab at writing policy, so please feel free to revert me if you think I went to far. I welcome discussion on the issue, and I hope that I've captured the standards that actually hold here on Wikipedia as that's what I've tried to do. Cool3 (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with your general direction though as a weakness in the old version was that it did not discuss the notability of the event vs. person and how it maybe better to make one a section of the other rather than separate articles and to redirect if needed.
I was really bothered by how you started with "A number of individuals are significant primarily for their role in a single event" and my instant thought was {{who?}} That got rewritten.
Overall, I like the old wording better as it was more concise. The main weakness in the current version is it seems to be overly laborious and I feel like I'm being talked to like I'm an idiot. The third sentence is an expansion of the second with no new information and the following three paragraphs are an expansion of the second sentence, again with no new information about the topic though they provide useful suggestions for how to organize things.
I like the summarized wording at WP:ONEEVENT] as it punches straight out with why you should not create one-event articles or bios. I believe this guideline will mainly be cited by WP editors trying rein in an enthusiastic newbie editor. Their uncle got in the news for something and so must have a WP article as “see, he's notable and I have RS so buzz off!!!”
An area that could use work is helping editors decide when a Rosa Parks or Rodney King is worthy of an article. The RK article is a good example as it mentions "A bystander, George Holliday, videotaped much of the incident." As the videographer, Mr. Holliday is someone that was a key person in making the event significant but is not notable.
It's getting late for me but it may be worthwhile to start hunting through the archives to see what peoples thoughts were about One Event. A quick scan finds
I agree that the section is now almost painfully long, and it was my initial instinct to just use the wording at WP:ONEEVENT. The problem with it, in my opinion, is that it only really says why not to create an article, and doesn't provide criteria for when you should. George Holliday is an excellent example of someone without their own article, and I must say I was racking my brain to think of a good one when I wrote the section. As for the new section being overly didactic, it quite possibly is, I was talking to myself like I was an idiot when I wrote it, I'm going to try to make some changes for both conciseness and to eliminate this problem. Cool3 (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
That said, I'd like to know what people think of the basic thrust of the new section, which is the idea that there are two factors to consider with people notable for only one event: How significant is the event? and How significant is the individual's role? Cool3 (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Just a point of note, Rosa Parks isn't notable for one event. She is notable for the events her event caused. That is usually the line you have to determine, what else happened because of the event. Was it just a one off news event, or did the event spark a series of events. Rosa Parks is also notable for awards named after her, things dedicated to her and on and on. Her initial notability came from a single event, but it then grew. -Djsasso (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
That's a good point, but I'd argue that what that really demonstrates is just how notable her one event was. Other cases, like Lee Harvey Oswald are more clear. He's really only notable for killing Kennedy, and no one is naming prizes for him. Cool3 (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
That is probably true, but then I could mention that he is also notable for the conspiracy that he is believed to have either been a part of or a patsy for. -Djsasso (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This is how one event works. If foo is notable for one event, but sources were written about the historical significance of the even years after, it's common sense. If faa ran-over (some minor celeb with a wikipedia bio) yesterday by accident and faa was just a common joe before the event, than BLP1E apply. Secretaccount16:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Whether guideline or essay, I think that this criterion is cannot reasonably be used for deletion, because it also says that person A can be included in an article about B. So unlike some of the other sections, this doesn't really describe what should be deleted altogether from Wikipedia (except by carelessness), but is a guideline requiring that certain articles be merged together. (This is also true for individuals "failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria", but the individuals targeted by NOTINHERITED should nearly always meet the basic criteria).
Proposed change
I would suggest that for clarity and to ensure that undesired deletions of useful content do not occur, all of the following should be deleted from this guideline:
Invalid criteria
That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being their spouse, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); see Relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander are included in the articles on David Beckham and Britney Spears, respectively, and the links, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander, are merely redirects to those articles.
Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria
If neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article, but the person meets one or more of the additional criteria:
Merge the article into a broader article providing context.
Place a {{Mergeto}} tag on the page, indicating the page where the article may be merged.
If no article currently exists into which the person can be merged, consider writing the article yourself or request the article be written.
When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified.
If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday who videotaped the Rodney King beating redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard Brennan.
Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident. For example, Steve Bartman redirects to Steve Bartman incident. In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved.
... and replace all that with:
Basic criteria
Add a third point:
Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. (see WP:IINFO)
Merge when appropriate
(New section)
Many people meet the basic criterion for notability solely due to their association with one famous person or event. Others may meet one of the additional criteria for notability described above, even though evidence of coverage sufficient to meet the basic criteria has not been found.
Whenever the entire article about an individual is derived from sources that are directly relevant to another article, it should be merged into that article, except when maintaining a separate section for the individual is useful for splitting a large article. This is also the case if the majority of sources are directly relevant to another article, if when they are excluded from consideration the remaining sources are not sufficient to meet the basic notability criterion.
See WP:MERGE for further information on merging articles. You may merge the articles yourself, or place a {{Mergeto}} tag on the article to suggest a merge. If the general topic is not yet covered by Wikipedia, you can move the article to a more general name and expand it to cover the topic in greater breadth.
My thoughts: I like the direction this is going, and in particular the way it combines notable for one event with notable for an association with one person. I disagree with a few of the specific points above, though.
First of all, a wording issue, I think "directly relevant to another article" should be change to "directly relevant to one other article" to emphasize the fact that there has to be one specific person/event. If someone is involved in several events, an independent article is justified.
Next, I think that "This is also the case if the majority of sources are directly relevant to another article, if when they are excluded from consideration the remaining sources are not sufficient to meet the basic notability criterion" is incorrect. For example, have a look at Yehoshua Cohen, an article I recently wrote. Cohen is really only notable for the assassination of Bernadotte, and if we exclude sources related to that, you'd have a hard time proving notability. However, there is enough RS material out there to assemble an interesting and independent article beyond anything that could go in the Bernadotte article. I could come up with other cases, but I think this makes the point that you can meet the notability criterion for only one event, but still need your own article for material that is not in and of itself notable. I also think this criterion could easily be misconstrued in a broad sense to argue for the deletion of just about anything. Take the article on Neil Armstrong. If I exclude any source that relates to Apollo 11, I'm not left with much. Obviously this isn't how the criterion is meant, but I see it being taken this way in some cases.
I'd like to add after "Whenever the entire article about an individual is derived from sources that are directly relevant to another article, it should be merged into that article, except when maintaining a separate section for the individual is useful for splitting a large article" in place of what's there right now. "A separate article about an individual should not be written if it is principally a duplication of material in the larger article. If, however, reliable sources provide significant information about the individual beyond the scope of the larger article, a separate article should be considered". Or something to that effect, I'm not set on the wording.
On consideration, you're right that my version was too restrictive. However, I think your version might be overly permissive, since the larger article may have less content simply because someone summarized the redundant portion. How about replacing the paragraph with:
"Whenever the entire article about an individual is derived primarily from sources that are directly relevant to a second article on some more noteworthy individual, event, or topic, it should be merged into that article when possible. The exception to this is if the consensus of editors of the recipient article opposes the merge, as might happen due to the need to split a large article, or because fully detailed coverage of the individual in that article would create undue weight for his position or role. Whenever editors have created a neutral, verifiable article about an individual who satisfies the basic or additional notability criteria, their work should not be deleted outright if a merge has not been accepted."
I like it, but I can see this being misused. I think the last sentence "Whenever editors have created a neutral, verifiable article about an individual who satisfies the basic or additional notability criteria, their work should not be deleted outright if a merge has not been accepted." could, in the wrong hands, negate the entire thing. Cool3 (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Game show contestants
I suspect that we want to stay away from criteria bloat, but I would like to propose the following addition to clarify notability standards for game show contestants based on some recent AFDs I've observed and by looking at the existing game show contestant articles that we appear to have consensus on them staying. This is based on the existing criteria for WP:ATHLETE, as I believe that makes the most sense. (This could be adapted for reality show contestants, but I am not making that assertion now.)
Game show contestants
People who have an achievement which is relevant across game shows as a class, for example achieving the highest total winnings or most consecutive appearances. As with athletes, winning individual tournaments does not make the competitor notable.
People that have received significant coverage in reliable sources for appearances in two or more unrelated game shows. Contestants with notability on only a single game should be limited to the game's relevant article or notable contestant list.
I don't believe that this change will eliminate any existing articles (it's not intended to), but I am interested in your feedback before I make this change. JRP (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I assume that this is motivated by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gail Trimble. If it's not, then you certainly have a look at that discussion. I have to say, I think a separate notability guideline for game show contestants is going a bit too far, we don't need a specific guideline just for one very small pool of people, we already have enough general policies and guidelines that apply, and whatever ambiguities exist can be resolved in individual AfD discussions. Cool3 (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
That second criterion seems like saying an athlete must have played on more than one team. I don;t see the point of it. DGG (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm with DGG on that second one. Just because the local papers ran articles saying, "look, local undertaker Seth Toombs, who was on Jeopardy in 1987, is on Who Wants to be a Millionaire this month!" doesn't make Seth notable. (Heck, I've won on Win Ben Stein's Money! and Whad Ya Know, and I'm sure not notable.) --Orange Mike | Talk17:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Notwithstanding WP:BLP1E, a participant on a radio or television gameshow is notable if:
he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material of a substantial biographical nature that is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject and of the gameshow's producers.
This seems utterly redundant of existing WP:BIO, but is apparently necessary.
This is exactly the type of situation that WP:BLP1E is meant to cover. The vast majority of people on game shows will not have adequate information available about them to write a comprehensive, well balance article about them because the media will only focus on this one event. FloNight♥♥♥19:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
That's why there is a requirement of substantial material. I have clarified the proposal to be "published secondary source material of a substantial biographical nature" -- I agree that mentions in the media that only cover the game-show aspect do not confer notability. However, if the contestant garners media attention that results in biographical human-interest stories being published, such that a comprehensive article is possible (a la the examples I provide above), BLP1E shouldn't be a bar to the article-creation. THF (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
This still does not entirely address the issue. The person might have a flurry of media coverage soon after the event, but unless the person does something else significant in their life then their article will grow stale. It will not be a complete reflection of the person life because no more coverage about the person will occurs. FloNight♥♥♥20:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Such people are never forgotten completely and journalists commonly follow-up with where are they now? pieces. In this case, please see the article in The Times: Is there life after quiz shows? in which numerous former winners are interviewed about their career since. In any case, we never report every detail of a person's life because we use a summary style in which we focus upon the notable aspects. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Let me make an amendment to the proposal here: and independent of the subject and of the game show's producers. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose this unnecessary and harmful broadening of notability standards. WP does not need oneshot gameshow winner bios. Marginally notable at best, no dead tree coverage, and in many cases the subjects do not want the publicity. ++Lar: t/c12:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
You should look at the language of the proposed standard, which doesn't confer notability without dead tree coverage. THF (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I looked at it before I commented, but thanks for assuming I didn't. I don't see dead tree in there, sorry. Dead tree doesn't just mean "coverage", it means coverage in an encyclopedia. Gameshow winners are not encyclopedic. Regardless of whether they get a blurb in next week's People or not. ++Lar: t/c13:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Utterly oppose. "Cover the event, not the person." If they have done something beyond being on a gameshow then they may be notable enough. Simply winning that game show is only remarkable to people interested in that show and they should be nothing more than a mention in an article on that show. This proposal paves the way for anyone who happens to have been on a follow-up show to be declared "notable" when in fact they often have just gone back to their ordinary lives and have had cameras trained on them for a couple of hours so that TV companies can make cheap programmes on the back of the game show success. If we do not restrict the articles on game show winners we will end up with a glut of articles on people who just happen to have some fleeting popularity.--FimusTauri (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Business people
I suggest that guidelines be established for notable business people. I suggest the following guidelines should apply:
A business person is notable if:
The person is the Chairman or Chief Executive Officer of a publicly traded corporation or other notable company.
Major local business people who have received significant press coverage.
Just being a director or other officer of a publicly traded corporation, or being the chairman, CEO or president of a a privately owned corporation or company does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Esasus (talk • contribs) Esasus (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I see no reason that existing WP:BIO standards aren't sufficient--though, de facto, the Esasus standard is what is used in AfD, regardless of whether WP:BIO is met, since I haven't seen any CEO articles deleted regardless of whether BIO is met. THF (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Unless wikipedia is running low on storage capacity, it should not matter how many notable companies or people have articles. To be the head of a publicly traded company is a VERY public and responsible position; far greater than that of most elected politicians. To be clear, when I say "publicly traded corporations" I mean those corporations that are traded on NYSE, NASDAQ, Toronto Stock Exchange, London Stock Exchange, and/or other equivalent major international stock exchanges. Esasus (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
true, arguments based on "too many" are a violation of NOT PAPER. But stock exchange listing is a little complicated as a standard for notability--many of the major companies are listed only on the over-the-counter markets; in the other direction, please check the actual rules for listing on the major exchanges to see the very wide range of importance they can represent. It seem logical to make the importance of the CEO and chairman as such as function of whether the company has a Wikipedia article as a minimum standard. DGG (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I still think you're vastly underestimating the sheer scale of what you're suggesting. To pick one example, the London Stock Exchange currently has over 3200 companies listed; there will be comparable figures for Paris, Frankfurt, New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong… Most of the companies themselves might well fail WP:N, let alone their staff and directors. – iridescent21:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not suggesting any such project, and I do not expect that 3200 articles must be created. I am simply proposing that when the question of a business person's notability is raised, that it might be helpful to the discussion if a guideline be established stating that such a person is de facto notable as a result of his pinnacled position in the corporate world. Esasus (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe if you cabined it a bit more to Fortune 100 or Fortune 500 companies, you might get more support, plus then such executives are much more likely to readily have biographical information available on various business news websites. "Publicly traded" includes companies that flunk WP:CORP. THF (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The idea of containing de facto notability to CEO's chairmen and/or president's of Fortune 500 companies is an excellent idea, and I support it. Esasus (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Now let's ask if the standard is needed. Has anyone suggested seriously that a Fortune 500 CEO is not notable? Good-faith question: I simply don't know the answer, and am trying to figure out if there's a problem. THF (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I did. A Fortune 500 CEO may be not wiki-notable, as there may be nil publications on the person outside of corporate releases and SEC filings. Not enough per RS, none per BLP. Especially today, when CEOs fall like ripe apples - new faces every day. Really, take a random pick at the bottom of F500, say, XTO Energy's Bob Simpson who spent 20+ years as its CEO, and try to expand it into something BLP-proof. On the other hand, I'm afraid the discussion (and its repercussions) is too biased in favor of listed companies (not to mention the US markets, but even there are industries dominated by family businesses). Public listing, surely, adds public exposure and simplifies referencing, but it's not the end of the world. NVO (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, any standard would be inclusive, rather than exclusive, since someone who doesn't meet the hypothetical WP:CEO standard would still have the backstop of WP:BIO. I agree that F-500 may be too inclusive. THF (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I do not in the least think it too exclusive. I think it's minimal. Being in control of such a company even for a short time is notability. DGG (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
What is mainstream media? Need a clear definition.
What counts as notable mainstream media? For the bio of porn stars, doesn't that include pornographic magazines? Or are they expected to be mentioned in other media sources? In Japan, pornography is far more mainstream than here, so do all magazines count there? Trying to get a clear definition for an AFD case. Not sure why they changed the old rules, they were much simpler then. DreamFocus01:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I was going to say the same thing. The World Championships is just a generalized name for the sports top championship, which might have a name specific to its sport. -Djsasso (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I may be missing something, but the Gaelic Games article is not discussing a top championship, but a number of sports grouped together under this term because of their origin / locus of most popularity. Competing in any of these games (or even in the top division of either) is a far cry from competing in Olympics or World Championships. Frankly, looking at e.g. Hurling and GAA Competitions, there is no comparable top competition for hurling, which means that competitors have to meet the general WP:N / WP:BIO guidelines instead of falling under the WP:ATHLETE exception. Fram (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
As I said, top level of hurling is inter-county - the NHL and the Championship itself. That would be the level required.Tameamseo (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
You're quite right that Gaelic Games is not discussing the top championship. However there is a "top" hurling level - inter-county matches, which include Irish teams and also teams like London GAA and New York GAA. They would be the level required by WP:ATHLETE. Tameamseo (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Surely when you say, as the current wording puts it, the highest amateur level of a sport, usually [my bolding] considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships that doesn't mean that the level required has in all cases to be the Olympics / WC? In a case where the highest level of a sport is clearly not the Olympics / WC, then the requirement would be for whatever the highest level actually is.
So for example, Colin Meads played amateur rugby, at a time when the highest level was not Olympics or World Championships. He would still meet the criteria, having played at the highest level of the sport (and merits inclusion having plenty of references too). The Christy Ring case would be similar.
And in any case, as others have said, "World Championships" would most likely refer generally to the 'top' championship anyway.Tameamseo (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
These players would need to meet general notability standards. The winners should have received press coverage that can be referenced and would meet WP:N.--2008Olympianchitchat16:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Because it's not written for the top level of every amateur event out there. That's why it restricts it to top-level competitions along the lines of the Olympics or World Championships: huge events that command world-wide audiences. It's not an exception for simple participation in the world championships of darts, chess, or strongman or body-builiding competitions. I am sure that the Gaelic Games are an enormous event, just like the College World Series and Mr. Olympia are. These events, although the highest level of their individual amateur sports, are not to what the guideline refers. Many of these players might be notable, like many world chess champions or college athletes have their own articles, but they met general notability standards.--2008Olympianchitchat18:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Then why are articles deleted as failing ATH when ATH doesn't apply to them .Surely the only article that should fail ATH are people not at the top of Olympics sports/"world wide events" such as Sking .While Gaelic games can't fail ATH as you claim ATH doesn't apply . Gnevin (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Also your not comparing like with like here ,your comparing amateur players who can go on to a pro league to players for who amateur is the top level , Gaelic games should have an exclusion as one of the last truly amateur sports in the world Gnevin (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
No article gets deleted for failing WP:ATHLETE. They get deleted of they fail WP:Nand do not meet the WP:ATHLETE exception to WP:N. If you think that the Gaelic Games is of the level of the Olympics, argue that. I think you are mistaken and a more fruitful argument would be that individual players meet WP:N rather than attempting to shoehorn in every competitor. --2008Olympianchitchat06:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
ATH break 1
Christy Ring is notable because he meets WP:N. He flunks WP:ATHLETE, but ATHLETE is an inclusive, not an exclusive standard. ATHLETE is a policy of convenience to sweep in the lineup of the 1927 Pittsburgh Pirates and the 1980 United States gold-medal hockey team, so that the encyclopedia can be complete in certain topic areas and we can avoid debates over whether a particular top-of-the-line athlete is notable. The "usually" for amateur athletes permits us to include All-American basketball players who are among the top athletes in the world, but those usually meet WP:N anyway. If anything, ATHLETE is too inclusive, because it means that we're granting notability to players from the PrvaLiga Telekom Slovenije, but that's an argument for another time. THF (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
So soccer players in a league where the top capacity is 15,000 are notable and would viewed as one of the worst in Europe but Gaelic games where 80,000 come to watch aren't ATHLETE's . And of course as soon as some gives a player 2p to player they are notable people like Derek_O'Brien_(footballer_born_1979). Gnevin (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that's a problem with WP:ATHLETE being too inclusive, yes. But that's not a reason in my mind to make it even softer. "He played three inter-county games in the second-most popular sport in Ireland," a keep argument I actually saw in an AFD, is a self-parody of our notability standards. THF (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
How is that a parody , it was an attempt too illustrate, that fact the player qualified for ATH as they have played at the top level more than once and that this sport wasn't just some local game played by 2 men and dog . This was before people started to attempt too redefine ATH to exclude Gaelic Games playersGnevin (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::It really is bad form to argue with every editor who opposes your opinion. You expressed your viewpoint, please refrain from arguing with everyone who thinks otherwise.--2008Olympianchitchat 06:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC) I apologize, this is a discussion, I don't know why I was snippy, this isn't an RfC. You are quite right to engage anyone you choose. Again I am sorry.--2008Olympianchitchat 20:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
NB that this is a discussion triggered by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Moran. THF (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The current wording appears to say person can be considered notable for competing at the highest amateur level of his/her sport, which is usually the Olympics or world championships. As far as I can see, nowhere does it say that that level must be the Olympics or world championships. There is also the argument made by the first couple of editors to reply.Tameamseo (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Once again 3 of your 4 examples include players who can go on too be pro and as such are not playing at the highest possible level where as Gaelic games doesn't have this extra level and is in fact the definition of ATH Gnevin (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Please stop arguing with everyone who disagrees with you.--2008Olympianchitchat 06:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC) I apologize, this is a discussion, I don't know why I was snippy, this isn't an RfC. You are quite right to engage anyone you choose. Again I am sorry.--2008Olympianchitchat20:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
A lot of American "athletes" are included here simply because they have played a "professional" sport (ie. they have been paid to play some bizarro made-for-cable-TV sport for some tax-break franchise) that is not played in any other country other than the US. A lot of MLB baseball players are also included here even if they played a few games in the major leagues which to me does not seem very notable. Albatross2147 (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Articles of major league baseball players, even the most insignificant ones, can be reliably sourced to comprehensive encyclopedic websites like http://www.baseball-reference.com, ensuring notability. Other than American football (which does have somewhat of a worldwide following, even if it isn't played worldwide), what American sport are you talking about with Wikipedia articles? THF (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
So WP:ATHLETE, despite the clarification after the last round of discussion, is still being misinterpreted because of the usually in it? Then it is time to either get rid of it completely, or to get rid of the amateur line completely, or to restrict it to the Olympics only, since the current line, strictly speaking, includes all competitors at the world championships of extreme ironing, barbecueing, and all other sportlike event with a fancy name.
Why does it ? Certain amatuer non-olympic sports should be notable. Dublin GAA for instance gets a higher average attendance (83,000) than most NFL teams. Hurling and Gaelic Football has TV coverage in Ireland, UK, USA, Australia etc etc. Half the sport sections in Irish newspapers is taken up by hurling and gaelic football. You can't compare both of these sports to the likes of Tiddlywinks just because both of these are amateur. Why for instance would a League of Ireland Soccer player be notable, whereas a hurler isn't eventhough the hurler plays in front of much larger crowds and gets far bigger coverage in the media in general. If it is just on the basis of professionalism then this is just plain wrong. This whole debate from what I can tell has been caused by your misreading of the wikipedia notability criteron for amateur athelets and now that you've realised your mistake, you don't like the look of it you want to go changing it. ManfromDelmonte (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
ATH break 2
Make it simple: pro's are accepted, Olympians are accepted, and for everyone else WP:BIO / WP:N applies. This will reduce the confusion without automatically excluding anyone. Fram (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
If it is the case (which doesn't seem to have been agreed on yet) that only professionals and Olympians qualify for the exception, the wording does need to be changed so that it actually says that. Tameamseo (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I nominated a bunch more amateur stubs today. User:Kerryman2 seems to be just throwing them out there. Since it is not a professional event, it really should be limited to the stars of the sport. --2008Olympianchitchat20:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The stars? Hmm how to define that in a objective WP:NPOV way, if only we had a policy that stated that players at the top of their choosen sport where excluded from WP:N ! What we do ! Great what is it called I hear you say ? It's called WP:ATHGnevin (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
No, we have one now: it's called WP:N. By stars, I mean those that are notable. WP:ATH is an exeption to general notability requirements for professional and Olympic-level athletes.--2008Olympianchitchat22:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
By reaching the top level of their sport ,like most other popular sports on Wiki they are included in WP:ATH. Define star in a WP:NPOV way please? Your exclusion makes no sense,these players are the definition of WP:ATH and of all your AFD's not one has a support yet Gnevin (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
An exeption needs to be made for certain amateur sports which are non-olympic. In fact, after reading the wording of WP:ATH all inter-county players in either Hurling or Gaelic Football should have notability confered on them as they have "competed at the highest amateur level of a sport". ManfromDelmonte (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Not a chance. What's next? How about we include gliders and pool players? You guys are trying to let in a bunch of non-notable players in through a limited exception for professional and Olympic-level athletes. If a hurler is famous, then he will meet general notability requirements and have his own article.--2008Olympianchitchat22:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The Notability criteria according to wikipedia simply states "competed at the highest amateur level of a sport". What is so hard to understand about this statement ? All hurlers and gaelic footballers who have articles on wikipedia have played at Senior inter-county level. This is the highest level of both sports. I get the feeling you are actually attempting to skew this citereon for some reason.ManfromDelmonte (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
But give Billy no body playing in league 300 of the UK soccer league a penny and he's a PRO with an automatic exclusion. No notable ? How are your AFD's fairing out ? Gnevin (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Er, 2009Olympian, wasn't ManfromDelmonte saying that there should be an exception only for "certain amateur sports which are non-olympic", i.e. not what the current wording says which is merely the highest amateur level of the sport - so you're actually agreeing that there needs to be some sort of limit more than just the highest amateur level. And yes, athletes who have competed at the Wrold Gliding Championships would most definitely qualify under the current wording of "highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships", especially if you interpret it the way the majority of people in this discussion have done so far. Tameamseo (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
2008 Olympian, you do realise that there are multiple "pool players" as you put it on wikipedia or "snooker players" as you have linked. Both are very notable just not that notable in the USA. I think your ignorance of the subject matter (Gaelic Games) may have something to do with the assumption you are coming to. ManfromDelmonte (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with Gealic football players, pool players, or whomever having articles. I just think they need to meet general notability standards. It seems many, many Gaelic games players do. What I am against is broadening WP:ATHLETE to include those that would otherwise be non-notable. I have taken the same position on many college football players as well, which also has huge crowds.--2008Olympianchitchat19:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The big difference between Collegic Football and Gaelic Games at Inter-county level is that Inter-county level is the very highest form of Gaelic Games. On the other hand, Collegic level of American Football is more of a development league with some players going on to play NFL, CFL, Arena Football etc. ManfromDelmonte (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
ATH break 3
How about we just include athletes who competed at the very highest level of the sport, and drop the amateur/professional thing, at least from the first sentence of the criterion, and let each sport project decide what the highest level is? I'm thinking something along the line of Athletes who have actively participated at the highest level of their sports are considered notable. "Highest level" usually means a world championship, the Olympics, and/or a fully professional top flight league. --Mosmof (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I like it but change to Athletes who have actively participated at the highest level of their sports are considered notable. Highest level usually means a world championship, the Olympics, and/or a fully professional top flight competition.Gnevin (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Athletes who have actively participated at the highest level of a spectator sport are considered notable.
Using the word spectator will exclude sports like wiffleball or Royal Shrovetide Football players who are not notable Gnevin (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
This is what the critereon states and all these AFD's are based on a misreading of that wikipedia critereon. Simple question. Is my reading of the critereon technically correct and are these AFD's then technically incorrect ? ManfromDelmonte (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The criterion currently includes professional athletes in fully professional leagues or amateurs at the highest amateur level. I believe the intent is the same, but because of the wording, I've seen AFDs for American college athletes of dubious notability, where the "keep" argument is "NCAA Division 1 is the highest amateur level of the sport, ergo, this athlete is notable". --Mosmof (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
This is an interesting situation. NCAA Division 1 isn't even the highest level of American Football, just the highest level of amateur American Football. In both Hurling and Gaelic Football, these players are playing at the very highest level in the world. TFH. A quick question for you. Does "wiffleball" get attendances of over 80,000 per match like Dublin gets for each championship game (higher average attendance than a lot of NFL teams btw)? Does wiffleball have TV deals with TV networks in Ireland, UK, USA, Australia, Canada, South Africa, all of Western Europe and New Zealand ? Does wiffleball get National press coverage in the USA ? Well, hurling and gaelic football does. ManfromDelmonte (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the assumption in "highest level" is that the competition itself is notable. If a World Series of Whiffleball satisfied WP:N, then I'd have no problem assuming notability for top whiffleballers who don't satisfy WP:BIO fully. --Mosmof (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Unlike the highest level of wiffleball, both the highest levels of both hurling and gaelic football are highly notable with large attendances, large scale and international tv and radio coverage and large scale newspaper coverage. ManfromDelmonte (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Then many players will meet general notability guidelines. There is no need to extend WP:ATHLETE to include otherwise non-notable players. All that would do is give even less incentive to properly source these athletes than already exists. As it is, the Gaelic-football-player articles on notable players are woefully undersourced and skirt WP:BLP requirements. If every player becomes notable under WP:ATHLETE, then all that would do is add a bunch of unsourced stubs.--2008Olympianchitchat19:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you that a lot of Gaelic Games player articles are under sourced with references, but that doesn't have anything to do with the actual notability of the player in question, more the need to have editors references their material when creating new and editing gaelic games players articles. As you might have seen, some of us over on Wikipedia:WikiProject Gaelic games are trying to get a drive going to reference GAA articles better. ManfromDelmonte (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
[Outdent for clarity]
I realise that I am late entering this discussion, but I have a few thoughts.
Firstly, there seems to me to be a problem with the way the whole article is worded. A casual reading might give the impression that the various criteria offered in the sub-sections are the primary criteria for inclusion of athletes, politicians etc. Surely the primary criteria are covered in WP:N. I believe that this article should be tweaked a little to reinforce this. In other words, rather than saying "These are the criteria for an athlete (politician etc) and if they fail to meet these they may qualify under WP:N" it should say "Any individual who qualifies under WP:N should be included, but those who fail under those guidelines, may still qualify under the following."
Secondly (and more specifically to this debate), it seems to me that the criteria under discussion here is not actually the athlete, but rather the highest level of competition/event in which they have competed. Therefore, we need to examine the criteria for the event, not the person. With that in mind, we must be careful not to limit ourselves to international events, because many sports are restricted in their appeal to a small number of countries, but nevertheless attract large audiences within those countries. It seems to me, therefore, that the criteria for an amateur event should be something along the lines of
Has achieved media coverage to at least national level
This would require a caveat to the effect that this coverage is of the event as a sporting event, rather than a curiosity (such as, for example, the annual cheeserolling in the UK).--FimusTauri (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
""Any individual who qualifies under WP:N should be included, but those who fail under those guidelines, may still qualify under the following."" This is, in my understanding, not the logic behind WP:ATH and so on: the idea is more something like: WP:N is the basic guideline, meeting this is sufficient (unless some specific guideline is more strict). However, previous discussions have made clear that all X (e.g. professional athletes) meet WP:N, so to avoid extra discussions and rehashing of previous debates, we make it clear from the start; a pro athlete meets WP:N and should not be discussed at AfD because it is a waste of time: all other athletes (except Y) should be judged by the WP:N criteria". The current (and countless previous ones) discussion is about the "(except Y)" in my statement: is Y only about Olympics? Olympics and World Championships (but then, for which sports)? Even more? Or should we just remove the except X?
I don't like the "media coverage at national level", because nations are wildly varying (Andorra vs. the US?), and it is hard to see what is national coverage and what is regional (e.g. Belgium, being bilingual, has no national newspapers or radio or TV stations: is being covered in the general edition of a Flemish or Walloon newspaper sufficient?). Fram (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Point taken: if they are professional they meet WP:N and therefore are extraneous to this discussion. Looking solely at the amateur level, then, we need to define what level of event qualifies an individual for notability. I suggested national media coverage because that would clearly include the Gaelic Games, whilst excluding, for example, the village cricket team. Perhaps two further caveats should be included: firstly, that only winners be included (winning teams treated as 'one individual'). Secondly, perhaps we should restrict the media to television coverage. Few of the "smaller" nations are going to provide nationwide (as opposed to national) television coverage to any but the genuinely important events.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Discussion: Should ambassadorial rank automatically warrant inclusion
BACKGROUND
At 11:19, 7 March 2009 user:Williamborg added →Diplomats: “Achieving ambassadorial rank is sufficient to warrant inclusion. (this might be slightly Wikipedia:Be bold, but not all that much - willing to discuss if anyone has reservations).”
AT 11:25, 7 March 2009 THF deleted the addition with the remark: “I disagree. The Vanuatu ambassador to Sri Lanka is not notable,” and courteously notified Williamborg on the talk page with the following comment: “Per WP:BRD, I have reverted your addition. Feel free to discuss on the talk page if you disagree with my edit summary reasoning. THF (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)”.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Wikipedias initial value for me was its wealth of obscure information in foreign language Wikis, that could be found nowhere else without hard labor. I value this. So when I originally edited, I was a fairly strong inclusionist, convinced that Wikipedia is not paper but is simply a relational database, so physically there is very little cost in including any given article.
However after being involved in several AfD debates and being puzzled by the exclusionist view, I spent a bit of time on recent changespatrol and newpagepatrol to figure out where some of the exclusionists were coming from. And I realized that there was so much crap out there that it became obvious that there is an administrative cost in keeping Wiki-entropy from destroying the Wikipedia. So I shifted to a more moderate position – there are things (quite a few things) that that just do not belong on Wikipedia.
That said, Wikipedia now includes an amazing number of articles - since I joined Wikipedia has over quintupled and continues to grow:
450,000 - 2005
750,000 articles - 2006
2,000,000 articles - 9 September 2007
2,780,875 articles - 7 March 2009 Rate of article creation.
During this period Wikipedia has moved from a place I’d occasionally check to see if there is anything interesting written there to the first place I check to get a feel for the lay of the land before doing more specific research through LexisNexis or Web of Science or Energy Citations Database or even Google.
Wikipedia has grown to be a pretty good source for obscure information – true, you need to independently verify entries, but it still is extremely usable. Material on obscure topics is a Wikipedia strength.
DISCUSSION SPECIFIC TO THIS REVISION
You indicate, “The Vanuatu ambassador to Sri Lanka is not notable…” Since Vanuatu does not currently have an ambassador to Sri Lanka your position is based on a hypothetical argument, which makes it hard to address. However let’s examine it:
When one establishes an ambassadorial rank position, I’d argue that this is inherently notable, because -
An ambassador is the highest ranking diplomat accredited to a foreign government, or to an international organization as the official representative of their country.
Ambassadorial rank is used only for significant relationships – otherwise establishing a Consulate suffices to take care of business and tourist protection interests. Most smaller countries rely on consulates (as I presume Vanuatu does with Sri Lanka if they have any relationship at all).
Maintaining an Embassy with associated ambassador, is inherently significant - it is not done without reason. As examples, Australia, Finland, Poland and Belgium do not maintain Ambassadors specifically to Sri Lanka since their inter-country relationships have not passed some minimum level of significance. If Vanatu chose to do so, there would be some economic, political or similar motive; this would make the position significant.
Wikipedia needs to avoid ethnocentricity and has made progress since the early days when only things from Europe or North America were notable. Even small countries play significant roles in international affairs.
Consider French-Vanatu relationships – Vanuatu was well known when they protested French nuclear weapons testing and hosted the Rainbow Warrior in successful efforts to publicize the testing.
An ambassador to Sri Lanka can be noteworthy on Wikipedia. Blake is the current United States Ambassador to Sri Lanka.
An ambassador from a “major” country to Vanuatu is also noteworthy. Blokhin is the current Russian Ambassador to Vanuatu. Michael Leir is the current Canadian Ambassador to Vanuatu. All the US ambassadors to any country (including Vanuatu) are considered worthy of Wikipedia.
Ambassadors from “smaller countries” to “smaller countries” also have made (and I’d maintain should make) the Wikipedia cut – for example Miguel Maria N'Zau Puna is ambassador of Angola to Canada. Offhand I’m not sure why their relationship is significant enough to warrant an ambassador, but it is interesting that it is.
Bottom line – use of ambassadorial rank is a simple criterion which includes an inherent determination of significance (both countries involved have concluded it is a significant enough role to warrant the cost and impact of an embassy). It is not trivial; the individuals, even from small countries, who achieve ambassadorial rank are worthy of note.
If you believe there is some alternate criterion to establish whether an ambassador is significant, please propose it.
I think the WP:BIO criteria is absolutely sufficient to determine if an ambassador is notable. Many ambassadorships are simply political favors; many nations' ambassadors simply aren't notable. I simply disagree that Andre Michel Rittie, the Ambassador of Vanuatu to Morocco, is notable, and any attempt to create an article for him (exactly 7 ghits and 0 google news hits, which will now increase dramatically because of my mention of him on this page) is destined to be a sentence long. While Wikipedia has certainly grown, its quality for these tail articles has gotten unforgivably low. A typical term for an ambassador is just a few years. Articles would quickly become out of date and editors would not update them--look at the dozens of Guantanamo habeas articles where editors have insisted that every single one of these cases was independently notable, and now we have over 100 out-of-date inaccurate articles making Wikipedia look bad. Suggesting the creation of 100,000 new articles about ambassadors throughout history when secondary reliable sources do not exist--when the vast majority of unquestionably notable federal judges remain red-linked or stubbed--seems a bad idea. The problem with our notability standards for living people is certainly not that it is too narrow. We have a long way to go before we have good articles about the people everyone agrees are notable. While WP:NOT#PAPER, let's not expand the circle when the gaps we already have are gigantic. THF (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree with THF. If the person fails upper-level rules for deletion, there is no need to invent loopholes to squeeze non-notables in. Why not? Because in the absence of WP:RS there is no article. Not even a decent stub. It's quite simple: if you cannot expand the bio to a nicely written, properly referenced (WP:BLP!) text - don't start it. If all the data can be pulled out from the Foreign Ministry site and it fits one paragraph (consider the case of Rein Oidekivi, Estonian ambassador to Bulgaria) - because it's the original RS on the person that is reused by all other sources - please don't. The rules are not made against contributors. They are here to ensure better (or, at least, acceptable) content. NVO (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. The top level of any profession is notable. It's as much the top level in that profession as federal judges are in their field. In both, some will be more notable than others, but all are notable. There are undoubtedly examples where there is no information for an article, but for the basic bio facts, primary official sources are adequate. There will usually be further printed sources in the appropriate country. The relevant policy is NOT PAPER. DGG (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The only measure of notability is significant coverage in reliable independent sources. We have a bit of wiggle room in certain cases, such as notable people from decades ago where we accept that the sources probably do exist but are hard to get to because they're likely to be in old newspaper archives or something, but this is not one of those cases. Current diplomats do not get a hand-wavy "all X are inherently notable" exemption; if, in this age of excruciating internet coverage of everything, these people haven't had anything written about them then they're just not notable and should not get an article. Full stop. ReykYO!00:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
"Top level" should not be diluted to "top level in any nation, no matter how small". An ambassador of a 30,000-strong atoll is not the top of diplomacy, just like being it's only dentist is not the top in medicine. NVO (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason to give diplomats of any kind a blanket exception. Lets' take one random example of someone I would expect to lack the notability for a blanket exception: the Belgian ambassador to Jordan, Johan Indekeu. He has three Google news hits[2], two by his employer, and one single mention (not indepth coverage) in a BBC article. Similar mentions can be found in other sources like the Jordan Times[3]. All in all, there are 50 distinct Google hits for the name[4], not all about this person. I know that Google is not the ultimate evidence of notability, but for a current ambassador, it gives a pretty good indicator of the coverage they have received in the mainstream press (he may of course have received a lengthy article in the Diplomatic Weekly or something similar). Some professions work rather discreetly and if everything goes well (in their job, and between the two countries involved), they will hardly ever get any attention. Which is perfectly allright, but indicates that a blanket exception for diplomats is not a good idea.
Oh, and DGG, NOTPAPER is never a reason to include articles, the only thing it means is that we should not exclude or delete articles for the reason that we will run out of space. But once there are other reasons not to include a subject, NOTPAPER becomes irrelevant. Fram (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
There are several pending AFD nominations (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Law) where some editors are claiming that an attorney's name on a filed brief or listed in a Westlaw opinion as one of several attorneys on record is the sort of verifiable reliable source that conveys notability. This would imply that nearly every litigator in the United States satisfies WP:N by virtue of their WP:PRIMARY sources, simply by looking up their docket sheets. If you have an opinion on this issue, you may wish to comment on these pending AFD discussions. THF (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
"been the subject of"
The basic criteria says nothing about what constitutes a person "being the subject of" a publication. My feeling is that one of the recurring WP:BLP problems is that a passing mention (eg of an author in a book review) is too often equated with "being the subject of" a publication in a way that doesn't make sense to me. Can we find a way to clarify this? For example, a footnote to say, eg, "Being the subject of a publication means either (a) all or most of a publication relates to the person; or (b) for a publication longer than a typical news article, a substantial amount of discussion of the person." IMO that clarifies but still leaves enough vagueness for WP policy (wiggle room always needed...) We might consider clarifying further with "relates to the person not their work", but that's probably more controversial/problematic. Rd232talk04:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
the suggest a/ has been made before, and been rejected, because of the variety of types of publication. A chapter in a book, for example, is normally sufficient evidence. "Substantial" is best measured in information content, not words. DGG (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Well thanks for your comment, but you might do me the courtesy of responding to my idea and not reading previous related ones into it. My first-attempt wording is clearly about "information content, not words": it's trying to cover both relative info content (% of a publication) and absolute (total info). To take your book chapter example, how is that not covered by b? And why not try to find a generic but more precise way of pointing to the information content expected. There are plenty of ways this could be refined, I'm sure, without necessarily becoming a useless mess. Rd232talk03:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Technically a baseball player in AA, A, or Rookie leagues is considered a "professional", but by all considerations is he really notable enough for inclusion? Minor leaguers barely warrant notice in towns that those leagues play in, or an aside when a move is made by the parent club. You won't see any AA games on ESPN or Fox Sports Net. Fantasy players don't have rosters of all the Rookie League players. These teams won't shock their way into the World Series. The letter of the law says they're professional. Common sense should say they're not notable enough. DarkAudit (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
We generally go by common sense on minor leaguers. I mean, having a short a or rookie league article is just silly. Wizardman22:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
CREATIVE is garbled
It reads in part:
The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
Note the last part, and try to figure how it's related to the rest.
I think what's meant is:
The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
Works by the person are in many significant libraries.
This makes sense, but it's unsatisfactory. For example, I know that a very humdrum photo that I took and posted on my website ended up (with my permission) on the front cover of one issue of an academic journal. I'm sure that this is in dozens if not hundreds of academic libraries. Evidence of notability, not. So I'd start by making the latter:
A book by the person is in many significant libraries.
"many libraries" has proven unworkable concept, because of the different sorts of books, and has not been accepted at WP:BOOK. for example, an English language US-published contemporary popular novel with fewer than 200 or 300 copies would not conceivably make the author notable. A book of experimental poetry might do it with 50. We furthermore have no way of measurement except for US/Canadian academic & public libraries, where the WorldCat count is normally somewhere between 20 and 80% the true value, depending again on the type of audience for the book. There are no comparable resources for anywhere else in the world. For a novel in , say, Italian, one can sport check major libraries, but there is no practical way of looking at overall holdings. For India, it isnt even possible to sport check adequately. And many sorts of books--pornographic fiction, for example, usually get into very few libraries. It's a factor to consider, certainly, but it could I think never be validly used as a single factor. DGG (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
How about adding designers to the list of creative professionals? They represent a broad adn significantly different sphere of practice from artists and architects, and are archetypal creative professionals. UnkleFester (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. is undeniably vague. This should have a quantifiable value to it. Suggestions:
Has a fan base or "cult" following of more than 1,000.
The word "OR" means one "OR" the other, as opposed to "AND", correct?
Wikipedia's article on Cult following states that these dedicated followings are usually relatively small, and often pertain to items that don't have broad mainstream appeal, so would it be 100 or more?
"Cult followers" being dedicated enough that many people of similar interest are familiar with one another due to convention gatherings, concerts, message boards, Internet chat rooms, word of mouth, or shops featuring related items -- is vague in that "many people" also does not state a quantifiable amount, as well as conflicting with "usually relatively small". CelticWonder (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: WP has a long tradition of avoiding placing these kinds of numeric thresholds for notability. Notability should be demonstrated through a combination of reliable sources and WP:CONSENSUS. The argument for avoiding a numeric threshold is particularly strong for this topic: I can just see hordes of fans descending on WP with as many sockpuppets as necessary... Or attempting to manipulate off-site sources to show a larger following, knowing what magic number they need to hit. WP should document the world, not change it. Rd232talk11:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: heh that already happens way too much, I'm sure (sockpuppets), but you may have misunderstood what I meant. Usually evidence of sockpuppetry is obvious. What I was getting at regards an entity or entertainer who has been around for ten years and has a forum with over 600 individual members. Keeping in mind that fans don't all sign up and participate on a dedicated forum, wouldn't a minimum measurable figure of 600 be considered a "large fan base" and at the very least also a "cult following"? ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 23:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)"
No; like I said, 600 is an arbitrary number. You can say "look how notable it is, it has 600 whole members" and someone else could say "it's so trivial, it only has 600 members," and there would be no way to gauge who was right. Arbitrary numbers don't really help with anything. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs23:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly the problem I'm suggesting should to be addressed. You could say the same thing about 100, 600, 6,000, 1 million, 10 million -- where is the line drawn that doesn't have such a differing view of whether "X is a large number / X is a small number"? The line seems to shift arbitrarily, even regarding the same subject. It's not that strange to ask for a list of guidelines (set first by general consensus, of course), is it not? That way, if multiple people who vote detrimentally on the notability of a subject who don't care for the existence of the article can't come along and say "well they only have 1 million followers", yet something that should be deleted but only has a 100-person following is kept because "100" is suddenly "enough" for a bunch of fanboys. The reason why I have such an issue with this is because I see so many articles that by all means should be in WP deleted solely citing WP:N taken to an unfair extreme by ignoring obvious, pertinent facts attesting to true notability. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 05:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)"
Or how about potentially allowing articles and subjects that are judged on their merits as opposed to guidelines that have to resort to strict numbers. Some editors are afraid of fixing stubs it looks like. If some notability can be verified even without meeting a magic number or guideline it should be fine. Obviously, some articles are not salvageable so don't take my comment the wrong way.Cptnono (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Actually, you see what my underlying point is. "If some notability can be verified even without meeting what is too often seen as a concrete guideline it should be fine", which is precisely what I was pointing to in the many circumstances where "WP:N is taken to an unfair extreme by ignoring obvious, pertinent facts attesting to true notability". See this deletion review for example, where major radio & print media interviewed a mainstay internet radio & presenter over the course of a ten year "on the air" career and somehow narrow-mindedly is still decided "not notable". I'm truly not actually suggesting an arbitrary number be set to something like this, but what I am really suggesting is a better wording that states these arejust guidelines, not set-in-stone rules. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 16:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)"
Oh wow, I stand corrected. The box at the top of the page explains my view succinctly. That would've been a perfect quote to refer to, but I didn't see it before. It should be known to everyone that sometimes it's okay to WP:Ignore all rules. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 16:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)"
I suspect that any high school band that played at a school night will easily claim 600 attendance... and hopelessly fail WP:N. Simple: it either passes general guideline, or it's out. No need to count anonimous forum users anymore. NVO (talk)
I usually do like quantitative criteria, but I cannot see how there is any reasonable number that is likely to apply to all genres DGG (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
BLP1E
I think the definition of WP:BLP1E needs expanding. For instance, for me, BLP1E should clearly cover situations like this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Waddle - but not everyone agrees, because the Event led to a book and a lecture career based on the event. More generally, I'd argue that One Event should be expanded to One Thing: if we can have an article on the thing and there is little other info on the person, why have a bio, rather than a redirect to the event or thing for which they are notable? Recent(ish) example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Shellenberger, on an author notable for one co-authored book (OK, and the essay which the book was based on... quibbling). More generally, I just don't think we should have bios on people who meet all three of these criteria: (a) if there is little or no bio material available and (b) the material on the notable stuff we want to include is better handled elsewhere and (c) they're not unambiguously notable. That's wider than BLP1E but IMO the underlying logic is very similar. Rd232talk13:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the meaning of WP:BLP1E is misunderstood. People will claim that the person does not fall under BLP1E because that there is significant media coverage of the person. That misses the point that BLP1E recognizes that these people have received significant media coverage per our usual standards. That is the reason that the specific policy clarification was needed. The reason that the person should not have an article is because they do not have significant life accomplishments to have ongoing interest in them. There are not any in depth reference works written about them that we can use as sources to write a comprehensive balance article about them. The event that caused the media coverage will pass and there will not be adequate information to cover the rest of the persons life. That is the reason that the person is best covered in an article about the event. If we follow BLP1E, then we don't try to overreach. If we don't follow it, then we end up presenting an one dimensional aspect of the persons life as a complete biographical profile of the person. That does not follow our WP:NPOV policy. FloNight♥♥♥15:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, well argued. Perhaps we should try to work on the BLP1E policy: clarify the rationale for it; or even discuss extending its meaning. Rd232talk15:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I think it is a gray area that requires some judgment on a case-by-case basis. An individual notable mostly for one event may garner significant media and historical coverage that provides enough information to warrant an article. To take one of the examples, I don't necessarily see Scott Waddle as violating BLP1E. Although the Waddle article needs a lot of clean up and expansion, looking at the long list of external links, it looks like it may be possible to develop into a decent article. A paper encyclopedia, even a specialized one, has to maintain rigorous limits for inclusion; Wikipedia has the leeway to be more inclusive. That isn't a detriment, it is an advantage. Someone researching an event can get a far deeper understanding if its major actors have substantive, well-written articles. An example: Gavrilo Princip, who assassinated Archduke Ferdinand. I think BLP1E should be reserved for individuals that clearly have a very limited depth of notability; an excellent example that has been given in the past is the passengers of the Mayflower. I think preventing articles on those kinds of individuals is the true intent of BLP1E. Strikehold (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Obviously your threshold for notability is lower than mine. I'm more interest in whether the article adds value compared to discussing the One Thing. Also I don't think referencing something like the Mayflower passengers is any use at all though - anything pre-internet struggles to have major BLP1E issues. NB The long list of refs in Scott Waddle all relate to the event or its aftermath. Rd232talk00:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
That is why I said quite clearly "may", regarding Waddle. In some instances, on a case-by-case basis, articles on people with limited notability can add value in discussing "the one thing", as you say. I gave the Mayflower merely as an example, obviously everyone realizes it does not related directly to BLP. My point is, what is "one thing" and who decides the extent of it? How is "one thing" better than "one event" (Which itself is rather hazy). If put in modern times, would Gavrilo Princip not meet BLP1E, because he is really notable only for one thing, despite that that "one thing" ultimately was responsible for significantly affecting hundreds of millions of people? How does the article on the captain of the Titanic, Edward Smith, "add value" (to use your words) to the Titanic incident (and pass BLP1E), whereas Waddle's article does not? Strikehold (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say that it did (Edward Smith bio adds value to Titanic story) and I'm not sure that it does - there's an awful lot of fairly pointless overlap and once there's gone there's little left that's actually notable or relevant. However at least any BLP of someone who lived long before the internet age almost necessarily relies much more heavily on WP:RS, and doesn't suffer from the WP:UNDUE issues of people ignoring WP:NOT#NEWS. Plus not actually being a Living Person any more lessens the BLP issues... Rd232talk23:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps "active" vs "passive" should come into play. That is, is the one event something you "did" or was it something "done to you"? If a guy climbs up into a tower with a high powered rifle and shoots a bunch of people, he's notable, even if that's the only thing notable he did in his life. If you're one of the people he shot, then that alone won't make you notable. Not that everybody who "did (BLP1E active) one notable thing" should have an article but it should make a stronger case then
"BLP1E passive". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
A Position to Consider
It is the position of this editor (me, William R. Buckley) that any person who is mentioned as a source in relation to any other article found within Wikipedia should also be listed within a biographical article. If a person is important enough to be mentioned within a Wikipedia article, then that same person is important enough to have a biographical article about them included within Wikipedia, as well. William R. Buckley (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
If I am understanding you correctly, that is certainly not feasible. A lot of newspaper journalists, etc., are certainly not notable or worthy of mention, even though an article with their name on it happens to be cited in a Wikipedia article somewhere. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs02:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I did not write what you read. For instance, I am the second director of the International Core War Society, and on that point alone, I am noteworthy. I have been interviewed by a good number of newspapers (owing to both my role with the ICWS, and owing to certain published papers of mine, which turned out to be quite controversial - see the publication Editor and Publisher ca. 1993, regarding a paper I wrote for the CalState Fullerton student newspaper, the Daily Titan, which became a national news story - and all that news about me, and my opinion, as published in the Daily Titan), as well as a few magazines, and television news services (KABC, KCBS, and FOX as I recall - Jim Giggins, Vicki Vargas are two names that come immediately to mind) and a live interview with former Los Angeles Police Chief Darryl Gates, on his KFI radio show. Then, there is the invitation extended to me by Christopher G. Langton, to be a guest speaker at the First International Workshop on Artificial Life (now known as ALife I, held September 1987 as Los Alamos National Laboratory), where I discussed some interesting experiments (collisions) between executing programs.
So, as a former director of the ICWS, where I am mentioned, it seems to me that a biographical article is appropriate.
There doesn't need to be any change in guidelines (as you suggested at the beginning) for this; if the things you list above are as important as you say, then you will meet Wikipedia's regular notability guidelines anyway. But please take a look at Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy, which you should keep in mind if you have any intentions to write an article about yourself. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs03:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I have looked over your talk page and contributions history, and right now I would discourage you from starting an article about yourself. First of all, International Core War Society does not even have an article on Wikipedia (it only redirects to a video game), so being its director does not establish notability as defined by our guidelines. Secondly, autobiographies on Wikipedia are almost never well-received, and to be able to write one properly you would have to cite reliable sources (preferably secondary or tertiary sources) that document what contribution you have made to your field—simply demonstrating that you have published papers and have been interviewed is not enough to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline, rather, you have to show other articles/books that have cited you and demonstrate that your work is notable. Finally... no offense intended, but requesting to have a Wikipedia guideline changed so that you can get an article written about yourself, does not really reflect well on you as an editor; it's more standard just to sit back and wait until some uninvolved person takes interest and writes an article about you. Someone else writing about you will be able to get away with a lot more than you would (because of the COI guidelines). rʨanaɢtalk/contribs03:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Core War is not a video game. Instead, it is the source of Tierra and Avida (both used in Artificial Life research, and about which many academic publications exist - see the works of Chris Adami, for instance, or Tom Ray). Core War is a programmers game, that is true, but generally in the fashion of the Game of Life (a cellular automata), as opposed to something like Halo. Also, it is not for the purpose of gaining an article about me. Rather, there are others who have equally obtained notoriety through their work about which I write to this talk page; you are being presumptuous. I don't presume your purpose, and you should not presume mine. Indeed, it is with regard to the article about Renato Nobili that I wrote my complaint. It is simply easier for me to give reasons based upon my history, as I am less familiar with the history of Renato, even if he is an old acquaintance. Renato's article has been flagged as BLP. I think his work is notable, and want to get the details so that his biography is not deleted. William R. Buckley (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Being "flagged as BLP" doesn't mean the article is going to deleted; the {{unreferenced blp}} tag there is just there to make sure editors pay extra-close attention to the article to prevent vandalism and libel, because protecting BLPs (biographies of living persons) is one of the top priorities on Wikipedia.
As for how to make sure his biography is not deleted, the best thing you can do is find journal articles or similar reliable sources that document and discuss this individual's contributions to the field. I am not familiar with your field so I don't really know where you would look, but for example in my field the TRENDS journals are always useful for literature reviews and info about the notability of a given person's work. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs03:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, the biography about John von Neumann is one for which I (and many others) have given a good deal of effort. One day, that article will get the recognition it deserves. William R. Buckley (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I do have a good question for you. Have you ever received a check from the Central Intelligence Agency? The ICWS did, when I was director, for the subscription price to the society newsletter (The Core War Newsletter, of which I am the founding editor and publisher). Interestingly enough, the check bears no ABA or Account number, even though it cashed without difficulty. I made a photocopy, and will be happy to send a scan of the photocopy. William R. Buckley (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
"People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships."
Maybe it's me, but I don't consider the Olympics or World Championships in any way an amateur level of sport. Was this line the result of two criteria being merged together? = Mgm|(talk)10:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
"Amateur" just means the athletes are not allowed to be paid to participate in the event. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether they are playing sport at a high or low level. The 1991 Rugby World Cup or Boxing at the Summer Olympics are examples of amateur athletes in the Olympics or World Championships. Tameamseo (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
If it is about getting paid, then the guidelines should mention it. I consider World Championships and Olympics to be about prestige and ability (since it's hard to even qualify). To the majority of people amateur has a totally different meaning, so this needs rewording either way. - Mgm|(talk)11:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
To quote our article, "By definition amateur sports require participants to participate without remuneration." What other meaning does it have? —JAO • T • C12:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Amateur sports are sometimes remunerated, at least in terms of a reimbursement fee (that is at least what happens in Italy). The distinctive feature is that amateur sportspeople are not contracted professionally for their sport activity; for instance, Paolo Maldini is a professional sportsman, because he is contracted as a footballer with a football club, whereas Valentina Vezzali (fencer and five-times gold medal at the Olympics) is not a professional sportswoman, since she actually works as a policewoman and receives a monthly salary from the Italian police corps. --Angelo (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, well it now (as of my sig timestamp) says "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." This is just plain gibberish. One does not have to compete in a "league sport", whatever that is supposed to mean, order to "compete at the fully professional level" of the game. I'm not sure what was intended, but it is obviously not what it actually says right now.
For starters, my proposal would be something more like the following, based loosely on material I've been developing for years (notably, without any complaint) with regard to cue sports, at WP:CUENOT: "Individuals who have a) competed at the fully professional (including Olympic) level of a sport; and/or b) won national or international amateur/collegiate championships, sanctioned by a major governing body in a sport. In sports in which teams may be notable, as distinct from the players who comprise it, teams may also qualify." (That later caveat would not qualify BCA/APA/VNEA pool teams, but would certainly qualify US college basketball teams). This is just a start. I think that the matter should probably be referred to WT:SPORT for further discussion. Exactly what does and does not constitute a notable sportsperson or team, outside of the basic PNC of WP:N, is and has always been (but arguably should no longer be) quite hazy. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›00:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Proposal to change the way we implement BIO1E
I've been doing some thinking, and I'd like to propose a change to BIO1E and perhaps BLP1E that I think would help reduce some confusion, which I outline below.
Let's say I arrive at Wikipedia and type in Auguste Pahl, I have no idea who that is (I saw the name referenced in a magazine and I want to know who it is). Suddenly, I'm redirected to Oldest people. I have no idea why Wikipedia took me to that page, I assume it's some kind of glitch (not being too familiar with the concept of redirects). Maybe, I do a "Find on this page" and eventually get what I'm looking for, but the whole process seems pointless. Next, I do the same thing with Stacy Ann Peterson (once again pretending I just saw a throwaway line the newspaper "the worst marriage since Stacy Peterson" or something like that). I'm redirected to Drew Peterson. Naturally, my first though is "Wow, so this was a woman with a marriage so bad she had a sex change and changed her name to Drew?" Next, I type in Bob Dent. I get redirected to Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995. I think, what on earth is wrong with this website, I type in a guy's name and it takes me to a totally unrelated page about a piece of legislation? Finally, let's say I'm trying to find out who George Holliday is. I type it in, and get sent to Rodney King. I say, no, not Rodney King, George Holliday. This one isn't too bad as Holliday is mentioned in the second sentence of the lead, but it's still confusing.
Anyway, I could keep going with the above, but my point is that it can be incredibly confusing if you type in someone's name and get redirected to a seemingly unrelated page. Thus, I think we should adopt the following possible remedies:
When redirecting, always redirect to the section on the person if possible. For example, Robert A. Hawkins is a good example of best practices in this regard.
When there is no section to redirect to, use a one sentence internal soft redirect of sorts. For example, Manuela Testolini has no section to redirect to. What would be the harm in creating a page with: "Manuela Testolini is the ex-wife of the musician Prince"? I'm not proposing that we put any other content there, just that little placeholder so I won't be entirely confused when I get redirected to Prince (musician).
In my opinion, the first of these two proposals is something consistent with existing policy that we should be doing already. It just requires a little extra effort on the part of an AfD-closing administrator. To make sure that this gets done, I propose writing it in to the guideline.
The second proposal, of course, is a departure from the way we do business now. In a sense, it requires the creation of a whole new class of pages, but in reality what I'm proposing would be something more like one item disambiguation pages. I don't see them as creating any problems either for BLP or regular bios. It is some sense content-forking perhaps, but such a small fork isn't a problem. If someone starts to expand one of these brief entries, they could get a polite warning and a notification that there's a reason the "article" is nothing more than a sentence redirecting you elsewhere. Thoughts?
The second proposal strikes me as a non-starter. A small fork is still a fork. Current system might not be perfect, but in my opinion, it works. (I say this having spent a fair amount of time discussing the Amanda Knox issue with other editors, to give you some idea where I'm coming from.) Townlake (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Less worrisome, but I'd still object in that case. We've had trouble in that article with the Knox section expanding to include personal info totally unrelated to the murder case. Setting up the redirect that way would confuse the message sent by not having a separate article for her. I have no problem with leaving these addressed on a case-by-case basis. (I do see the logic for using this A#B setup elsewhere.) Townlake (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
In the short term, encouraging redirects to go to appropriate subsections, where available, is clearly helpful. In the longer term, you seem really to be asking for a more sophisticated sort of redirect; perhaps a short message to go at the top of the target page, displayed only when coming from a particular redirect. That might require a software change - to take the appropriate text from the redirect page and display it on the top of the target page (or could a template do it?). This would prevent such minor explanation of the connection between the redirect and the target deteriorating into a content fork. This system would also improve on the "X redirects here" messages, which to many readers are an ugly distraction since they didn't follow that redirect. Rd232talk17:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Such a technical solution would be truly excellent, and as you point out would have other uses, but I honestly have no idea about how hard it would be to implement and the developers probably have other priorities. Cool3 (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject Pornography is proposing to amend PORNBIO to:
Has won a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards or Category:Film awards, or has received nominations in multiple years.
Is a Playboy Playmate.
Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent.
Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.
The proposal was agreed to from a discussion on the project's talk page. The purpose of the revisions are also discussed there. We wanted to align the first criteria to the general WP:BIO criteria. As for the second criteria, we agreed that Playmates should be presumed notable since all Playmates seem to be frequently covered by reliable mainstream sources but the presumption does not seem to apply to all Penthouse Pets. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment: - Skip the "multiple nominations" part, since that means two or more. If the person is being nominated so frequently that it becomes notable, it will be notable by itself. Also, skip the Playboy Playmate criterion, and add them only when they have managed to be covered by multiple reliable mainstream sources in the same way that we would expect any other notable person to be (i.e., they are a primary subject of the article, not just mentioned in passing). At this stage, we're talking literally thousands of women, most of whom would not meet notability criteria except for their Playboy pictorial. I also have no idea what "starting a trend in pornography" means, so a little non-graphic explanation would be appreciated. Risker (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Well the first criteria under the proposed PORNBIO is a clarification of the additional criteria for any biography, "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them" as to how it would apply to pornography. The project did not want to deviate from this even though I agree with you. I believe all Playmates of the Months are notable because of the basic threshold although finding available sources for the older ones are more difficult. It would be very contentious to remove the presumed notability of playmates.[5]. As for the "starting a trend" part, for someone that thinks he has seen everything there is to be seen in porn and is not surprised by anything anymore, that's really difficult to conceptualise or explain. ;) I think it just means that the performer is a pioneer of pornography. Like the first actress to be known to perform anal sex on video or the first person to start a genre like gonzo or POV (first person-point of view). It is very rarely triggered and as with the other criterias must be verifiable by a reliable source. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually we're talking 600-700 women that would qualify by virtue of being a Playmate. I'm not sure how many have been the centerfold more than once. That's well short of "literally thousands of women". Foreign edition playmates seem to only have the article when they are borderline or meet some other category.Horrorshowj (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment:I have a concern with how much this proposal limits content. The reasoning behind it is to clamp down subpar stubs it looks like from comments in other discussions. Realistically, the internet has spawned several actresses/models that have larger fan bases than a random Playmate from 1986. They are more noteworthy and relevant due to this relatively new medium. If sources can be found to verify it there should not be a concern. Unfortunately, some editors chose to not fix articles and flag for deletion in a knee-jerk fashion. My garbage attempt at an Alison Angel page when I had little knowledge of how to create a decent article is an example. I think one with possibly more merit was the Japanese porn Twins (forgot their names) that were automatically considered not notable because the current guidelines (and they are just guidelines not strict protocol) did not allow for it. The editor actually made a decent article considering. Tightening the guidelines more spits in the face of the spirit of Wikipedia.Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Re Playmates: I like Playboy and have edited several Playmate articles, but I'm not a fan of the "every Playmate is notable" standard.
It seems there are many past Playmates without any meaningful reliable source coverage, and there's few enough Playmates overall (<700) to differentiate the well-covered ones from the rest.
A list approach would be a perfectly reasonable compromise, with individual articles where notability requirements are actually met, and would reduce administrative overhead.
This requirement as it's written, as someone above mentioned, is possibly based on US-centric assumptions; is every Playmate in every monthly international edition (there's like a dozen) also notable? If not, why not?
Finally, in passing, getting this right is especially important given BLP requirements and the tendency of these articles to be vandalism targets. Removing this notability might be temporarily contentious, but BLP concerns trump that. Townlake (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment:I still have concerns with this. I have concerns with these guidelines for several reasons but my primary one has been our back and forth on the Alison Angel page. Alison Angel may or may not be OK but other actresses/models who are only internet based receive very little claim to notability per these new guidelines. This is surprising since internet only distribution changed the way many people view porn years ago. Some of these actresses/models use it to catapult into larger careers and some don't. Regardless, some of them have larger fanbases than a Playmate from almost any given year. I understand that we need to stop 1000s of stubs from being created but these guidelines are strict enough to limit wikipedia when the spirit is expansion when appropriate. If an article does not meet standards (verification to grammar to whatever guideline) than so be it but using notability guidelines as a way to reduce content is garbage.Cptnono (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: As a note, exclusively internet-based models had the same notability issues under the previous guidelines. Awards are now recognising internet-based work and I will assume that as time goes on exclusively web-based performers will trickle in. However, PORNBIO is simply an inclusive standard. The basic criteria of WP:BIO presumes notability for any performer who has had beyond trivial coverage in reliable sources. It is hard to prove and compare fanbases but looking up the amount of coverage and quality of the sources is still the basic way of determining notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I just want to point out one facet of the porn industry, and that there is a high churn factor in terms of females in the business. One knowledgeable observer (Sharon Mitchell, former porn star and current head of the Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation) has said "The average lifespan of a porn star now is anywhere from six months to three years, tops" ([6]). So what the folks at PORNBIO are trying is to set some form of bar which will establish some form of notability. Using award nominations as a basic criteria renders it an objective test. As Morbidthoughts pointed out, internet-only models were not covered by the current adult industry award structure until very recently - if I'm not mistaken, 2009 was the first year the AVN Awards (which the top dog for American porn awards) had categories for Internet models. Tabercil (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I see what you both are saying and honestly agree to some extent. Since the upper tier awards have only started looking at internet based just rececently and fanbases are so hard to calculate, it potentially trims a whole generation out of possible inclusion. The new standard of multiple nominations and the previous standard of what was an acceptable nomination are too limiting. I'm personally (along with a good chunk of people who commented on the 2nd and third deletion discussion) on the fence if Alison Angel is notbale enough but the standards as they are could limit plenty of others. If an artcle as a poorly written stub with zero verifibility I understand cutting it. Unfortunately, it looks to me that some editors are just sick of seeing crappy articles and notability standards are tightening to restrict that when other reasoning to do so is already available.Cptnono (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to state how amusing it is that author's are listed as "Creative Professionals" on the notability page yet porn actors get their own section.Mrathel (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Restricting WP:POLITICIAN?
At the moment, the first sentence of WP:POLITICIAN reads:
People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges.
This worries me. It may be reasonable for a large country like the US or Canada, but in the case of Norway, "first-level sub-national political office" translates to a county level, with population less than a New York city block. And the sub-national political office at this level, while it exists, is almost totally powerless, and it's rare indeed for an elected official at this level to get much coverage in the papers - even in Norway.
Is there a means of reformulating this guideline so that it's less overtly over-inclusive?
(The context is Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave famous people, where we're now in the phase of figuring out whether people mentioned on Find-A-Grave are likely to be notable or not - in many cases, WP:PEOPLE would include them, but it's reasonably obvious that it's unreasonable to expect an article to be written.) --Alvestrand (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Your argument is reasonable, but I don't see a need to change WP:POLITICIAN for this, for several reasons. Norway's population, according to its article, is 4.8 million; there are 19 counties; so an average of 200,000+ per county. Right? (Do NYC blocks really have that many people?) The existing POLITICIAN standard is perhaps over-inclusive in some localities, but I think in this case it's a minor over-extension at worst. And yes, apparently there's some debate over whether the county level should even exist in Norway, but it does. Wikipedia wouldn't appear very neutral if it declared a "Norway exception" from its notability standards. Townlake (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of applying a criterion such as "one should not assume the notability of all govermnent officials for sub-national administrative units of less than a million people, in the absence of documented sources". The 512 members of the Uttar Pradesh (190 million people) legislature are probably all notable; the county government of Finnmark (72.000 people) is probably not. (OK, the "New York city block" was an exaggeration; even the Kowloon Walled City wouldn't fit them all....) --Alvestrand (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I feel that for politicians other than the highest level, notability should be established based on whether or not reliable, independent, secundary sources are available or not. If there are enough sources, they meet WP:BIO. If not, they don't get included. Otherwise, we couldn't write more than a stub saying something like "John Smith is a member of the county council of Rural County" and such stubs should better be merged into a list ("List of Rural County Council Members"). --Crusio (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Proposed change
Captain Sully has an article. Many people want to read about him. He has a decent biography (something to write about) before the crash but if it weren't for the crash, nobody would be reading about him.
Sully actually fails the criteria because he's known for only one event. Yet, he has an article. This leads me to believe that the criteria is wrong.
I propose the following:
CURRENT TEXT
When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified.
If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday who videotaped the Rodney King beating redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard Brennan.
Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident. For example, Steve Bartman redirects to Steve Bartman incident. In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved.
NEW TEXT (BOLD IS WHAT IS NEW)
When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified.
If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday who videotaped the Rodney King beating redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard Brennan.
If there are reliable sources to confirm an individual's professional and career history and there is sufficient material to compose an article outside of the one event that led to his/her involvement in that one event, then an article could be written. Examples might include Captain Sully. Similarly, if a person were a murder victim, if there is a sufficent career or personal history to compose an article, then either a separate article about the person may be started instead of confining everything to the "Murder of --" article.
Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident. For example, Steve Bartman redirects to Steve Bartman incident. In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved.
This addition is not necessary, the general notability guideline already entails it. If a person originally became famous for one event but has milked that fame and continued to receive attention in reliable sources, they will usually meet the GNG. There was recently an AfD on a similar naval person (I don't remember the name anymore) and the article was kept for similar reasons—although he was only famous for one event, he went on to write some books and have a career that got more attention from various sources. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs22:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Rjanag covers people who "milked that fame and continue to receive attendtion in reliable sources". But there is no guideline on people with a documented career history who didn't milk their fame. Look at Timothy Maude. He has some career history but it was the one event (9-11) that made him Wikipedia material. Same goes for Betty Ong.
This discussion is to avoid future fights. It's reasonable if someone is in the news, people will want to know their history and life story. If they have some career information before, then an article is what they're looking for. User F203 (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments please. Also, wikipedia's WP:NOT policy clearly states that wikipedia is not a collection of everything that's existed, and I would assume that wording would have to be changed as well. Lastly, I believe this change in policy would undermine policies in effect to counteract any Media circus influences. If the person is only noticable for one event, it is more likely than not that said person will be forgotten in the near future. On the other hand, if said person is notable for more than one event/qualifies under other notability guidelienes, said person is already allowed under notability.ηoian‡orever ηew ‡rontiers01:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The only reason that I started this discussion was to avoid future misunderstands. I did not know about the Craiglist killer discussion. I also didn't know about the debate referenced immediately above. In view of this new information, I will willing to suspend discussion for the moment to allow clarity to form. User F203 (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Per this AfD, some are saying he's notable because he was drafted in the 2009 NFL Draft which I agree with but some are saying that he fails WP:ATHLETE because they claim you have to play. Which I disagree with I think that if you have been a member or been drafted by a top level league (i.e. NFL, NBA) that you are inherently notable. However the drafted part would exclude Major League Baseball since there's like 30 rounds and creating those articles would be meaningless. Also per this AfD who does in fact fail WP:ATHLETE because he hasn't played either but he is on the roster and has been since 2006. Now undrafted free agents unless they had prolific college careers are not notable since many get cut on the first day they show up, they must make the team before becoming notable.--Giants27T/C14:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is MISSING OUT on easy clicks from people at minor league ballparks, on their blackberries etc. With the current WP:ATHLETE guidelines as they are, minor leaguers can't have a sports stub with they're minor league statistics displayed, for both fans, athletes themselves, or pro team scouts. And Wikipedia just says, "no! Minor Leaguers don't meet criteria...that's because the current criteria is misguided. Minor League baseball players are under contract with pro teams, but of course can't be put on the 40-man roster, so are stored in they're farm system. They;re still a part of the team, just not on the team, but still professional ball players. Meeting current criteria, but unfortunately, some of your admins interpret the policy differently than how it should be interpreted. Re-write the policy or instruct your admins to allow professional minor league ball players have a sports stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjr rodriguez (talk • contribs) 15:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:ATHLETE certainly needs updating, but not in this direction. Athletes are the new Pokemon of Wikipedia. Now that the Pokemon people have cleaned up their act, athletes are replacing them and in many AfDs one can see disparaging comments like "this person does not meet WP:BIO, but if he had been on the field for 5 min during a baseball game, things would be different. The current criteria including any and every person who ever came onto a field lead to the creation of numerous stubs, 99.9% of which will never ever develop into anything resembling an encyclopedic article (nor could they be developed as such, as there simply are no sources on almost all of these athletes, except a listing in some sport statistics book). For example this article. I don't think anybody will be able to explain why somebody who played a single baseball game in 1939 should be in Wikipedia. Alternatively, I propose to create WP:ACCOUNTANT:
People who have worked at the fully professional level of accountancy
People who have worked at the highest amateur level of accountancy, such as filing income taxes independently
I am inclined to agree with Crusio, and in fact I have been dissatisifed with WP:ATHLETE for a long time. The problem is not necessarily whether non-notable athletes should all have articles—people on both sides have put forth convincing arguments, such as LinguistAtLarge's comment that these stubs don't really hurt the encyclopedia and we have plenty of server space—but rather, the problem is that there is massive inconsistency across the different types of bio guidelines. For example, if you compare WP:PROFESSOR to WP:ATHLETE, you will see that to get onto Wikipedia, an academic needs to make a much bigger contribution to the world than an athlete does. Maybe this is just a consequence of the fact that we've got an encyclopedia run by idle young people who mostly come from societies that idolize athletes, but still, it is a problem, and there should be a discussion across all the different Notability (people) guidelines to ensure that our standards are consistent for different kinds of people. Either guidelines such as WP:ATHLETE should be tightened, or guidelines such as WP:PROFESSOR should be loosened; right now, it's not very appropriate to have articles on people who played in two or three inconsequential ball games and then lived happily ever after, and exclude people who devote their lives to some academic pursuit and publish numerous articles but don't necessarily have the sort of "impact" that WP:PROFESSOR requires. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs16:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Clearly, there are many, many people who make immense or meaningful contributions to society. However, swell guys that these people may be, they are not necessarily "notable" in the context of an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia does not exist to recognize people's accomplishments. An encyclopedia's purpose is to document things and people who are of a public and historical interest. No sensible person will argue that heart surgeons, policemen, anthropology professors, and astrophysicists make less important contributions than, say, Allen Iverson. However, like it or not, athletes far less notable than him are of a public and historical interest to the general populace, and would be included in a sports almanac. Most professors who publish papers in scholarly journals and write technical books simply are not. The strawmen that Crusio knocks down, accountants and pokemon characters, clearly do not have this public interest either. I think everyone (outside of that particular profession) would be hard pressed to even name a single accountant and the comparisons are ridiculous on their face. Strikehold (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Where does it say that Wikipedia is only for things that are of "interest to the general populace"? Documenting that sort of information is a noble goal, but I don't think it's WP's goal; such a criterion would exclude many articles that are here (such as obscure math and science topics), and allow many articles that aren't (such as many kinds of Pokemon and other TV show fancruft; like it or not, there is a large part of the population that cares more about that stuff than about anything "academic"). I acknowledge that more people care about non-notable athletes than about, for example, linguistics scholars. But "how many people care about it" has never (as far as I know) been a major part of Wikipedia's notability guidelines (for example page views do not establish or take away notability). rʨanaɢtalk/contribs17:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I said that "An encyclopedia's purpose is to document things and people who are of a public and historical interest." You quoted me out of context. It is not simply about "popularity", it is about a historical interest, which I think the notability guidelines attempt to quantify. People are going to want to know about magnetohydrodynamics. People are going to want to know about Steiner's theorem. No one is going to care about most PSYCH 101 professors 200 years from now, but someone will want to know who pitched for the Senators in 1904, and that information would be included in an almanac. WP:Athlete is not nearly as indiscriminate as either of you are saying. Arbitrary? Sure, any objective measure would be, by necessity. But it is not indiscriminate. Take football for instance: every year thousands of college football players graduate and only a fraction of them make it to the NFL, even fewer actually play in a game to satisfy WP:ATH. Strikehold (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify; when I refer to WP:PROFESSOR, I just do that because that's the name of the sh ortcut, not because I'm only talking about 101 professors. We all agree that no one wants articles like "Mr. Klein is the bestest professor ever!" I'm talking about academics' research and contributions to their field, not about their teaching; if a professor's only claim to fame is teaching PSYC 101 then of course they should not meet any notability requirements. My quibble is with the requirements about academics' contributions to the field, not about non-notable teaching. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs18:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I was being snarky, but the large majority of professors, noble and beneficial as their contributions may be, do not attain a level of "notability" that I think merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. Can you name an academic you think notable that doesn't meet WP:Professor? I believe that WP:Professor nicely covers the criteria that it should, and am frankly confused as to how you would propose loosening it. Of course, I guess the point you are making is that it shouldn't be loosened, but WP:Athlete should be tightened. Honestly though, athletics and scholarship are such different animals that a direct analogy between the two seems a little silly to me. Essentially, WP:Professor attempts to include "the best" and most well-known scholars; WP:Athlete does the same. In all sports there are multiple tiers, and only a very select few play at the top-level, i.e. "the best". Drawing a cut-off line at the highest tier is an objective way of doing things. I believe that is the best way, because it reduces guesswork and hopefully unproductive AFDs and needless bureaucracy. Strikehold (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
You are correct that it's difficult to compare the two; they're both bios, but the importance of a person (not just Wikipedia "notability", but importance in the real world) is connected to the actual person in different ways. For an academic, what's really important is their work/research/theories; only in rather unusual cases does the person themself also become notable for something. For an athlete, on the other hand, there is not really a body of work, or theory, that you can detach from the person and write about—the article is much more about the person him/herself.... For example, I could write a decent article on "the work of Peter Hagoort" (a neurolinguist), whereas it would be pretty silly to write "the plays made by Will Venable" (totally random example, I just remember coming across it at DYK in the past). So it's hard to compare the two.
I still do think it's something we need to discuss and need to work on making more consistent across guidelines. But I take back some of my earlier comparisons, since you are correct that they're two pretty different topics. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs21:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the comparison with academics that Rjanag makes is, then, perhaps a better one than with the accountants. "All academics publish" is an argument often put forward at AfDs, to indicate that the sole fact that somone publishes is not enough to make that person notable. WP:PROF can roughly be summarized as "should be more notable than the average professor". The contrast with WP:ATHLETE is glaring: ANY athlete is notable. Nobody is arguing that we should not have articles on notable or even mildly notable athletes. But I think that having an article on every person who ever stood on the grass for even a split second during a professional ball game (which is what WP:ATHLETE currently says) is just as silly a including all accountants or all academics. As for the Pokemon characters, they had enough interest to generate hundreds of articles, becoming the ridicule of Wikipedia. As for the argument that those sport stubs don't hurt Wikipedia, I am not sure about that. If one clicks the "random article" link and finds stub after stub of unsourced (or poorly sourced) "articles" that basically only say "John Doe (1889-1946) played one baseball game in the 1913 season for the XYZ professional team", that may give a rather superficial impression of this here "encyclopedia". If that is notable, then why is my math teacher not in here, too? --Crusio (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, any professional athlete. There are, believe it or not, many amateur scientists (astronomers, botanists, zoologists), so in analogy to ATHLETE, should we make PROF say that any "professional academic" is notable? --Crusio (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
A lot of people (both here and in the AfD mentioned at the beginning of this thread) have brought up the point that we need objective notability criteria for bios. This is a good point, as it helps keep some order here (although I seriously doubt any criteria will ever be 100% objective; that's why we need editors who think critically and use their brains when evaluating articles, as we all are right now). So, since this discussion has basically become a comparison of two specific sets of guidelines (WP:ATHLETE and WP:PROF), here's my thought on a way to make the two consistent (which was my main concern above) while keeping guidelines "objective": if an athlete gets notability from one professional game, should an academic get notability from one citation in a major journal in their field? Both are objective and quantifiable (assuming we can identify which journals qualify as "major"), although I guess people could dispute how "big" of a citation it was (ie, how much the person's work being cited is actually an influence for the newer article, and how much it's just part of a list of citations.) (This is not a rhetorical question or a POINT or anything...it's an actual suggestion to consider informally.) rʨanaɢtalk/contribs18:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Yikes! even my undergraduate student would then be notable! Better make it analogous to Athlete: "anybody who has done science on a professional level".... --Crusio (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, my point is, whatever standard we have for one guideline set (whether it be WP:ATHLETE, WP:PROF, WP:CREATIVE, etc.), all the standards should be comparable. What I suggested above may well be ridiculous; if it is, though, then other notability guideline sets should not be equally ridiculous (and there are plenty of people, myself included, who would say the current WP:ATHLETE standard is). If lowering the PROF and some other standards to this would be unthinkable, then maybe it would be more appropriate to raise the bar on WP:ATHLETE to make it comparable to the others. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs19:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I feel that we have to think along those levels. As far as I am concerned, including any professional scientist is just as silly as including every professional athlete. We should only include those that stand out and for whom such things like independent reliable sources are available, to satisfy WP:V. --Crusio (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I thought we were due for another talk thread about the evils of WP:ATHLETE. It's a fair conversation to have, and I'll take this opportunity to point out that if there's going to be a serious effort to change or eliminate the specific notability standards associated with athletes, I think that effort ultimately needs to take place on a more widely-watched page than this one. Crusio, your comment above is interesting and, in fact, highlights the specific problem. As much as a stub page that says "Joe Highsocks played shortstop for one game with the New York Yankees in 1938" might be annoying, I can almost guarantee you that with only about 10 minutes of work, I could find you half a dozen reliable sources that could verify that fact was true.
I, in fact, would be perfectly happy to see WP:ATHLETE eliminated. If nothing else, it would stop all of the arguments like "association football/football/hockey is a professional sport" that pop up in the deletion arguments over articles on truly-notable amateur athletes.
I donno, WP:PROF sets the bar for academics at a far higher level than "verifiably demonstrated to have once drawn a paycheque as an academic", and WP:MUSIC draws the bar far higher than "verifiably got paid to strum a guitar on stage once". IMHO, AfDs around those criteria don't hinge upon WP:RS. I think the problem with WP:ATHLETE and RS is that the bar is so low that verifying the data required to pass it is problematic. If the bar were higher, I think RS would be less of a problem. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I recently reviewed WP BLP articles and found that our articles about athletes are some of the worst articles on Wikipedia. Many of these articles were started from a list of people on a roster and are outdated and poorly sourced now. The links are dead. They can not easily be updated because there are not easily available English language sources about them. They can not be expanded because no one has written a comprehensive book (biography) about them.
The entire point of our article inclusion criteria for people is to determine who is to have an article written about them. We need to narrow the number of people that have entries to the ones where people have significant accomplishments that cause independent reference works to be written about them. All people that compete as professional athletes do not have the type of accomplishments that spark enough interest in them that one or more people write a comprehensive work about them. Unless we have this type of reference work, the entry will not expand beyond a stub and the person does not need a separate article. The inclusion criteria, (Nobility guidelines) need to be re-written to assure that we are not keeping articles about people that will never expand beyond a stub or poorly sourced short articles.
Including the information about most professional athletes in articles about the team or the event will give us a better finished product and is the correct approach most of the time. I strongly support re-writing WP:Athlete so it only includes entries about people that can be well-referenced by several comprehensive independent references. FloNight♥♥♥21:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm all for that (as I have probably made abundantly clear right now). I just think that any change we make to WP:ATHLETE or another guideline should be done in conjunction with a discussion about all the guidelines, so that we are at least keeping the others in mind and trying to be consistent across them. I guess the best thing to do is try to measure more or less how high the other guidelines' bars are, and then brainstorm about how to approximate that height in WP:ATHLETE. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs22:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm in favor of re-writing all our inclusion criteria for people. But since we see an obvious problem, I think we should act on the Athlete guideline now. The rest of the guidelines can follow based on the a better way of evaluating which people will be able to have high quality articles. FloNight♥♥♥23:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I would support an altogether scrapping of all "additional criteria" to WP:BIO if it weren't for the fact that it would cause an explosion in needless bureaucracy and palaver. Case in point: An article I wrote on a college athlete, who many considered as in contention for the Heisman Trophy during the season, was prodded. I added five full featured articles on the individual, each one from a different newspaper of record in a major American city (combined daily circulation was about 1 million people). The original prodder declined to take it AFD, but still stubbornly expressed that he didn't think the guy was notable.
We are going to see an inordinate amount of this kind of petty haggling if we take an objective measurement of notability and replace it with a completely subjective one. It takes away from the encyclopedia; people who otherwise would be making meaningful contributions to it will be engaged instead in bureaucracy. On the other hand, the existence of articles on borderline notable individuals (be they academics, athletes, or whatever else) does no damage to the encyclopedia and provides information that some people will actually find useful. Individuals who are non-notable without a doubt, will be deleted anyway. Strikehold (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The existing system worked, I think. We (the community of contributors) never will have complete agreement on which individual meets any criteria because human judgment is involved. People will have different opinions. We ask that our contributors listen to other people's point of view, seek out more opinions if there is still disagreement, and then step back when the consensus is against them. Seems that there was a good resolution in your situation under the current guidelines.
Personally, I'm an avid American college sports fan, and follow news about high school recruiting, pro drafts, Heisman watch, March Madness... But, I'm not convinced that Wikipedia should have an individual article about every recruit or potential recipient of a major award. The content about these people is best presented in an article about the event, award, or organization. The information about these people quickly becomes outdated unless the person has continued achievement so individual articles grow stale, links go dead and the content can not be easily verified, and the articles are not of the quality I want for a living person.
Unfortunately, harm does come when we have articles about people that are underwatched. Many of these people are not "public" people and do not want loads of attention about the details of their life. As well, they are truly upset when their article is vandalized, or nonsensical or malicious content is added. Additionally, the reader is not well served when we host content that is outdated and never will be improved because there is not significant reliable sources to add about the person. People are not written about in a neutral way because we do not have adequate information to present their life in the proper context.
Instead if we put the content about people of minor notability in articles about the event that makes them notable, we have a manageable group of articles that can be improved to a good or FA level. Having a massive number of pre-stub, stub, or start level articles that can not be improved to be high quality does not make Wikipedia a reputable reference source. I hope that you will consider the approach of putting the material in a central article instead of an individual entry as I think that works best for many of these athletes. FloNight♥♥♥12:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how putting "material [on a specific athlete] in a central article" is an acceptable alternative. For one, someone searching for information on that individual will be significantly hampered in doing so if it is "centralized". Secondly, article length and quality are surmountable problems. I beg to differ with the editors who say that athletes are some of the worst articles. Many of the science and applied science articles are atrocious, and that is far more detrimental to the reputation of the encyclopedia than having a bunch of stubs on Uruguayan soccer players. As for the "not public people" remark that seems to me to be a hollow argument. Many people of note or who made significant contributions did not willfully accept fame and recognizability, and privacy concerns are not a reason to deprive the world of information on those people. Additionally, by the very nature of the encyclopedia and the tenets of WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:N, all the included information is available openly elsewhere. Strikehold (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah...while I am still of the opinion that WP:ATHLETE needs to be made stricter (although, as Strikehold points out, it would still need to be something objective and quantifiable...of course, a lot of the other bio guidelines are rather subjective, but that doesn't give us an excuse to make this one overly subjective too), I do not see how "centralizing" articles on "non-notable" athletes would be workable. (Note: when I say "non-notable athlete" I'm referring to stubs like Jim Schelle, which technically meet WP:ATHLETE but I personally don't think meet WP:N...since that's mainly what this whole discussion is about.) For a lot of these guys, I simply don't see where they would go, unless we wanted to create a List of former players of Team X article for every team. I suppose that might not be so bad. But listing all these guys in teh main articles on a given team, a given award, etc., would make those articles become pretty crappy. Is "list of former players from X" the kind of solution you're suggesting? rʨanaɢtalk/contribs12:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I want to make articles with list of former players. A redirect of the person's name to an article about the team or event as you suggest will send the reader to the correct place. Then a person on the list will include a link(s) to to articles about a particular year for the team. This approach will give the reader more information about the topic then they would find in many of these articles that are stubs with few links to them or from them. Since most of these people have little or no information available about them in the individual articles there is not a problem with writing one or two concise paragraphs about the person. If the person does have ongoing achievements that lead to substantial material created about them in independent reliable sources, then a separate entry can be created. I'm not opposed to any article on any topic that has the potential to be a good or FA. But I'm not in favor of Wikipedia editors continuing to create articles that grow stale, are subject to vandalism, hoaxes, and nonsensical or malicious content. To much work is involved in maintaining these low quality articles for it to be practical as the volume of articles has risen. FloNight♥♥♥14:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I actually like the idea in theory as a maintenance reducer, but in practice the lists would either be frightfully long or choppy and redundant. I can't imagine this being workable. Townlake (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree completely with the idea of listifying athlete articles or merging them into team articles. Team articles would become incredibly unwieldly with paragraph after paragraph about notable athletes (some of these clubs have been around more than 100 years and have hundreds of notable players). Maintaining lists of notable players for a club would pose a similar problem. Further, it would be rather confusing to search for a famous athlete (take Pele) if you must find all of the clubs they played for to learn about them. This would be a huge step backwards. Jogurney (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I also wanted to mention that I agree that WP:ATHLETE could be tightened a bit. Since the guideline uses a bright-line (playing professionally), there are the occasional articles about athletes that played 5 or 10 minutes of professional sport yet qualify. If there is a way to make the standard "one season" (or some logical equivalent) of professional play, I think it would eliminate some of the worst articles that narrowly pass the current guideline, yet would reduce the amount of AfD work for athlete article if there were no guideline other than WP:BIO. Jogurney (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Since I'm the one who closed the AFD used as an example in this thread, I'm going to give my thoughts on this. I consider myself a mild inclusionist so I don't share the concerns the original prodder has about "pokemonization". It doesn't bother me if we have a zillion articles on Pokemon, fictional characters, TV episodes, video game weapons, or what have you as long as such subjects are verifiable. However, many of the subjects covered under WP:ATHLETE are BLPs. Jim Schelle died in 1990 so he isn't one of them but should a contemporary little known minor league player who may have played in 1 major league game have an article, which would be one of the top (if not the first) google hits for his name? Articles on big time stars like Barry Bonds are on a 1000 or more watchlists but Joe 1game Shmoe's article would be subject to someone with a grudge against him (or some random huckleberry looking for lulz) inserting unsourced but credible sounding bullshit. So maybe we should expect a little bit more then "he played in one game" if for no other reason then to reduce the number of articles on living people we need to police. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the word professional is throwing things off. Somebody who plays AAA baseball (the level right below MLB) gets paid around $2,000 per month, compare that to the lowest of MLB players who recieve around $250,000 per year. While both are professionals, there's obviously there's a huge gap there. There are over 23,000 articles currently in WP:BASEBALL, most I would wager are player stubs. Adding minor league players would mean an article for players on all of these teams dating back to the 1910s, that's a lot of a lot of articles when the majority of those in the MLB still are very poor. blackngold2901:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I would disagree. There are players who have made significant contributions to their sport while only playing in the minor leagues. I think the hockey guidelines are appropriate. If you play in the minor leagues, you must have played a certain number of games before you're considered notable. Patken4 (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hockey is just one sport (in fact the one I'm least worried about), minor league baseball for example is much larger and has many more people who play much longer. If a minor league player has indeed made a significant contribution to their sport then they should already be notable under WP:N. But there are many more players who do not make such a contribution that play much longer, which is why I don't think they should be held notable. This is the reason why I feel each individual sport should have its own criteria. blackngold2916:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that each project should determine notability. Regarding baseball, it looks like their requirements are fairly similar similar to hockey's. A player needs to play an entire season at AAA (hockey's threshold hold is 5 years and 100 games at any minor league level, not just the AHL). Patken4 (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Baby steps here folks. Before we compared WP:ATHLETE to WP:PROF or other such guidelines, recognize that WP:ATHLETE is fundamentally flawed all on its own. The criteria that an athlete is notable if he/she is a professional is ludicrous. 99% of all minor league baseball players are not notable, but they are professional. Additionally, probably 50% of major league baseball players really are not notable either in the sense that anyone with baseball knowledge considers them to be special and/or unique to the sport. Yet strictly applied all of these pass the notability standard put forth by WP:ATHLETE.
Looking at the other side of the WP:ATHLETE coin, in some respects the criteria for amateur athletes is almost impossibly high by comparison. The current standard is that they have to have participated in an Olympics or World Championships. For many sports this means it is limited to one or two athletes per country per sport or event per OG/WC cycle. It also means that the top two or three athletes from Timbuktu are granted the same consideration as those from countries with much more amateur athletic talent, while the third or fourth best athlete from an athlete-rich country (who will be far better than the Timbuktu athletes) is granted no status. And looking at it from the perspective of both professional and amateur athletes, the excessively high standards for amateur inclusion means that we will let in literally tens of thousands of baseball players while limiting, say gymnasts, to a maybe a thousand.
There are other things that make athletes notable other than having play professionally or having gone to the Olympics, while many athletes who have played professionally or have gone to the Olympics are not notable. And each and every sport has different criteria for what denotes notability – you can not create a single standard that will fairly separate the notable from the non-notable across all athletic endeavors.
Quick question: How does WP:ATHLETE apply to a sport like boxing where the barrier of entry to the professional ranks is low and that the most significant difference between amateur and pro is that a professional boxer gets paid? I am of the opinion that not all professional boxers should be considered notable and that the basic criteria of notability should apply to these cases. I had put a notability tag on Phil Williams (boxer) which is being disputed on my talk page.
Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I would ask WP:BOXING to see if they have any notability requirement. Perhaps the boxer needs to be ranked in the top 10 by a top level commission or have fought in a championship fight. Patken4 (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Alumni lists
Can someone help with the interpretation of WP:BIO in relation to alumni lists within school articles?
This is specifically in relation to Walnut Hill School. On that article, 146.115.44.253 (talk·contribs) added Matthew Risch on April 28th [7]; which I reverted [8] as notability had not been established. Earlier today, the anon again added the same person, with a citation that demonstrated the person may meet notability criteria [9] - but which failed to provide any support for the claim that the individual was connected to the school, so I reverted it again [10]. My revert was itself reverted by ForgottenManC (talk·contribs), stating that WP:PRESERVE should take precedence. I also reverted this [11], again citing WP:BIO. This user then posted to my talk page [12]] questioning my revert. (note: while three reverts to the article, only two today - but close enough to the edge that I want someone more familiar with WP:BIO to give me feedback - I have no intention of reverting again on this - unless to revert my own revert if it turns out I was interpretting this too strictly).
update: while I was typing this, ForgottenManC posted again to my talk page [13], referencing WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG as the basis for their position - I see their point, and will be reverting my own revert which removed the person from the list. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
second update: and while typing the first update - the original anon returned with additional sources that established the connection and eliminated any concerns with the listing in the article. So, this appears to be a resolved non-issue at this point. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I know that WP:BIO is primarily for defining the notability of individuals; but, I'd like to see some small mention of the removal of questionable material such as WP:GRAPEVINE does for BLP. Note: this blurb would seem to cover what I think should be mentioned here. I was tempted to just add it to the BIO guideline, but thought it may be better to get some feedback from the folks that are regulars here first. thx. — Ched : ? 17:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, nobody objected, so I added the 2 links to the see also section - revert at will, I'm not precious about my edits. — Ched : ? 21:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Read this Afd. I think the guideline is in need of a change regarding the rather unusual situation of actors only appearing in one lead role in a movie. MickMacNee (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. This is likely to be far from the only such instance of something like this. Guidance on this would be greatly appreciated, as one role seems to be a bit along the lines of WP:ONEEVENT.Tyrenon (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The one thing that always struck me as a bit contradictory was the WP:ENTERTAINER vs. WP:ATHLETE. They are both professions, and yet seem to have very different standards for inclusion. A person can just be a "member" of a professional sports team, never play a game, and yet it meets WP:N? Whereas an actor or actress must:
Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions.
If nothing else, I'd rather see something like:
Has had a significant number of minor roles in multiple films, television, stage performances, or other productions, OR a staring role in such productions. At least it would level the playing field a little bit - so to speak. Now I'm not sure what number we assign to "significant", but it has been a thought in my mind for a while that we hold "entertainers" to a higher standard than we do other professions. — Ched : ? 20:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree not sure why entertainers are being held to such a high standard to pass notability. We allow the creation of thousands of stubs on athletes, thousands of articles that no one is ever going to search for or even look at, yet an actress in a major motion picture who I'm sure will be searched for is not notable enough to have an article? We need to either get notability inline and stop letting certain groups control the consensus or get rid of the concept and rely on the core policies.Ridernyc (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually no, athletes need to have played a game. It says "competed at the fully professional level" - thats normally taken to mean "played", not just been signed. Ironholds (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
So playing one game for 10 seconds and you are notable, play lead in major motion picture do hundreds of interviews not notable. Either notability is inherited or its not. The key issue is thousands of articles on athletes would fail notability if held to the same standards as other fields of endeavor. We need to make one set of standards and not allow exceptions for certain groups because they have a strong lobby group to sway consensus.
It isn't anything to do with a "strong lobby group". Notability is based on referencing. If an athlete plays for a fully professional team, then in the world we live in such references will be available. Note that I wasn't commenting on your point, just correcting a flaw in your argument. I would point out that you're rather belittling the achievements of athletes by suggesting that playing for a fully professional team as a young, strong, skilled individual at the height of his career who has beaten out thousands of people and raced against the odds to compete in one of the most glorious arenas of human competition is somehow less worthy of notability than someone who has "significant roles in multiple productions". Considering the number of two-bit morons with IMDB profiles out there I think a policy that keeps said people out is a good one. If you've only had minor roles, newsflash! It's probably because you aren't very good. Notability is based on referencing. A minor actor is unlikely to be covered in great detail by a variety of third party, independent sources. Ironholds (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
it has nothing to do with referencing I can reference everything about this actress. And there are thousands of articles on athletes who have no references beyond being on a roster. You also back up my point which has always been if someone passes the core policies they are automatically notable and notability is really a useless guideline. I have never seen notability used for anything other creating exceptions to policy. In the case of athlete it bends policy in an inclusionist direction, entertainer bends it the other way.Ridernyc (talk) 02:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
No, the policies were created for referencing purposes. All athletes for major teams are almost certain to have the third-party coverage needed to pass WP:BIO. As such, they're automatically included because some referencing will turn up. All entertainers for major films, the same. Entertainers for minor films, however? You can't say the same thing. If you've got the referencing needed to pass WP:N and WP:BIO fine; read the additional criteria notability guidelines, particularly "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included" and "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.". The policy allows for exceptions to the rule, which shoots your "its biased towards deletionist" theory right in the foot. Ironholds (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it is silly to compare the atlete's guideline to that of actors. Hell, we can argue that the chick in Transporter 3 more notable than an acceptable article about an organizatoin. The notability guidelines are not alwys ammended in tandem and it causes us to stray from the main point. Is being a lead in a major motion picture notable enough? The only reason to keep the "multiple" guideline is to prevent stubs. This is common in these guideline discussions and is a simple knee-jerk reaction.Cptnono (talk)
Beat me to it the problem is the word multiple. The way the guideline is worded creates all sorts of problems. Ridernyc (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Ironholds: you are presenting the issue from what seems to be an inclusionist point of view when an athlete is presumed to be notable in absense of RS simply because RS "must exist" (doh?). But the whole rant started with deletion based on the fact (fact, not guideline) that WP:ENTERTAINER overrules GNG. Same thing happend routinely based on WP:ATHLETE, so Rudakova case is nothing new. Perhaps it's time to admit that general policies don't work anymore, let's invent all sorts of creeping crap. NVO (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to accuse me of bias - really, I appreciate it. I'm closer to the deletionist end of the spectrum than I am to the inclusionist - I wasn't expressing my personal views, I was explaining the rationale given for the current state of policy, i.e. the idea that such people will automatically have such references available elsewhere. Ironholds (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I came here to make a proposal about WP:1e, which I did below, and then saw this discussion. The problem with WP:1E, is that it makes the assumption that if the person was known for one event then nobody would care if they were known for another. This is a false assumption. Many people from many walks of life (namely entertainment and athletics) are known for one thing, and that one thing makes people look them up to see if they ever achieved another accolade. For these people the fact that they were simply a one-hit wonder is not a detriment, but rather part of their story, which in and of itself might make them notable. WP:1E needs to take into account these professionals to whom people might wonder, "did they do anything else?"---I'm Spartacus!NO! I'm Spartacus!14:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Ironholds, I know that a lot of colleges don't consider people to have played until they are actually on the field... but in most professional sports, you are considered to have played for the team if you dressed for the game. You don't have to actually play, just being part of the team as it played.---I'm Spartacus!NO! I'm Spartacus!14:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I see some valid and interesting points all the way around here. Ironholds mentions above a valid point that a professional athlete must actually play in a game to reach the WP:N threshold. Two points I'm considering here: 1.) Would it be acceptable to equate the player that does not play to an understudy in the entertainment field. I'm not particularly interested in being pointed to the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS essay, I'm more interested in consistency across the section of regarding notability of people and how their chosen professions relate. 2.) I've seen it mentioned (WP:OR) that the majority of Wikipedia editors are young to middle-age males. If that would be the case, is it possible that greater effort has gone into tweaking the WP:ATHLETE section than the WP:ENTERTAINER section? — Ched : ? 21:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Without comparing it to other bio guidelines, can anyone provide a reason for someone staring in a major motion picture not being notable. It looks to me like the oneevent guideline was to prevent a deluge of news based stubs so I cannot think of any reason.Cptnono (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I think the 1E is primarily for news style 1-event items, and I don't consider a movie an "event" as such. But I have noticed that others don't share this viewpoint. — Ched : ? 22:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
So what is the process for amending it. I don't expect the situation that started this discussion (a random chick lands a big role) to occur that often but it seems like some people agree that staring in a major motion picture is notable enough. We can discuss what is a major film and how it relates to athletes or dogs or leprechauns some other time. For now, I propose we strike the "multiple" qualifier from this particular guideline.Cptnono (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, basically I guess the sort of thing that was done up above in the #Clarification: Legislators section. (I didn't get involved in that because it seemed centered around a UK political venue, so I figure the folks that are more familiar with it are better informed on what is better). But we'd have to decide on a proposal. Discuss it as we are now, and word it so folks could choose the idea that works best for them. That's how we'd start to develop a consensus to make any changes. (see: WP:CON). — Ched : ? 05:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I propose amending the line under Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers to state: "Has had a significant rolesinmultiplea notable filmsor multiple significant roles in television, stage performances, or other productions." The purpose of this is to grant inclusion to an actor or actress who has starred in a notable film which has been "widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" Cptnono (talk) 07:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The word multiple should not be a part of it at all. Particularly for stage and TV, the way it's written an actor who has a 5 year run playing a lead on Broadway would have problems passing this. There are also soap opera stars who have played the same character for decades. Coverage in Reliable Sources is what matters, not some arbitrary number of roles we pick out of a hat. Ridernyc (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a bandaid without addressing the real issue. The real issue is that WP:1E doesn't apply to many walks of life. There are numerous areas where being 1E is enough. The amateur golfer who comes out of nowhere to win a single major tournament is clearly notable, even if they never play a round of golf again. Creating a "redirect" to the page on the event is not the answer as that simply leaves the question, "Well what else did he do? I knew about that event, I want to know if he won something else?" The solution is not in piecemeal adding clauses for specific categories of people, but rather to encompass the purpose of 1E and encompass the nature of the exception so that they can be used rationally.---I'm Spartacus!NO! I'm Spartacus!14:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you thinking that 1E needs tweaking or clarification? .. or that N (people) isn't making clear that 1E exists? .. or that these discussions just aren't taking 1E into account? — Ched : ? 16:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
For now, I am focusing on the movie scenario. Removing "multiple" from television and stage or modifying the not news/one event guidelines are great discussions that can be had but for now: Does anyone object to amending the current guideline to allow someone who has starred in a single major picture assuming verifiable reliable sources can be found for the subject?Cptnono (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
All your version will end up doing is not only making the section contradictory of other sections. It will also make it contradict itself. No need to rucj to start making changes if we are going to make a change it will take months. Just look at the past 2 years at WP:FICT.21:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I see your concern. However, common sense says that someone in an internationally released feature film is different than someone in a play. We could even break it into two separate bullet points in the guideline so they are not directly correlated and potentially confusing. (line 1 explains TV and Stage Line 2 explains film and the other bullet points currently in would stay the same) I just don't want to see this potential change to the guideline get bogged while discussions are made regarding other entertainers.Cptnono (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Resetting indent. Totally against doing this my experience with working on guidelines is wait work out a version that everyone can agree on then change it. I'm also against anything that will make more sections and varying rules. 22:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget to sign your 2 comments, Ridernyc (I'm usually the one to forget!) Again, note worthiness varies between the mediums. I don't see how someone in a movie can be compared to someone on a stage (notability wise). I'm almost surprised the current guideline has blanket coverage. Sorry to keep on chiming in, hopefully a few more people will jump in to see if we can reach consensus.Cptnono (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but totally disagree here. You must not have a very clear understanding of what it means to perform on Broadway. I also think as this entire guideline stands now it's an example of insane instruction creep. I see no need for so many delineations and sub rules. if some can pass policy they can pass notability, simple as that. Ridernyc (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I understand just fine. Unfortunately, the world gives more credit to an actor seen on movie screens throughout the world and less to someone on one stage in one theater on Broadway. Maybe the notability guidelines need to be amended to fix those special folks but as it stands, someone doing multiple shows at the Village Theatre in Issaquah, Washington is more worthy than Natalya Rudakova. No offense meant to stage actors, just the perception of society. And regardless of which actor is the best, is the current wording for film actors sufficient? Natalya Rudakova has plenty of verifiable sources to create an article and is obviously interesting and note worthy to many people. Just to be clear: I don't care about her in particular since the movies suck and she isn't even that hot, just the principle of her not being notable per the guidelines.Cptnono (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Reset indent and follow-up: Adjusting the guideline to the following might be a good idea without coming across as confusing and as a slight to those on Broadway:
* Has had a starring role in a notable film
* Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions.
* Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
* Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
o See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc.
Is the purpose of notability guidelines to limit the creation of stubs or to truly gauge if certain people are "worthy of notice". The guidelines seem to be limiting the content of the project more than is necessary.Cptnono (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of the notability guidelines (some will undoubtedly disagree with me on this) is first and foremost to make sure that Wikipedia remains a tertiary source and not something else; that is, that it only has entries on subjects already the subject of publishing in the wider world. This is the nature of an encyclopedia and goes hand-in-hand with our verifiability policy (the information in articles, as opposed to the topic of articles, must be sourced), and our policy prohibiting original research.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Per, WP:WITS, all that is needed to qualify as a tertiary source is the compendium summarizing both secondary and primary sources. Assuming that reliable and verifiable sources are used, we could see a huge increase of stubs that have the potential to be improved. Maybe it wasn't the original intent of the project, but Wikipedia has become an amazing source of information that has superseded the level of information available in many of its printed counterparts. Since proper sources are not that hard to come by in at least some AFD scenarios, the only reason I see for such restriction is the fear of having lower quality stubs. We should be flagging and maybe even deleting poor articles but not limiting the creation of what might turn out well. We are essentially just not assuming good faith in other editors.Cptnono (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think it's more important to clean up our existing articles on notable topics before opening up the door to "a huge increase of stubs that have potential to be improved." لennavecia13:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
My understanding of notability has always been that it's just one more way of trying to keep Wikipedia from being full of junk. (And yeah, I'm sure there are plenty of fancy and intricate explanations for it, but this is an easy rule of thumb for me.) We want to be, and are, an encyclopedia, so we should limit ourselves to encyclopedic topics. It's always a matter of debate what constitutes an encyclopedic topic, but we can all agree that we don't want to be a compendium of stupid junk, and the notability guidelines are just one of a set of content guidelines aiming to set some sort of standard for what is encyclopedic and what is junk. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs13:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia, more than anything else, has to be verifiable. For this, there must be reliable sources. The purpose of notability guidelines is to make sure that our content is verifiable at all times - by setting out a minimum of reliable sources for each article which means that, in theory, all articles are verifiable by the reader. Ironholds (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Disagree with your premise entirely. Some people will be worthy of an article, but the article may never amount to more than a stub. There are historical figures/concepts throughout all of time which are notable, but which not much is known. If we were to make the assumption that every article had to have at least 1,500 bytes of readable prose (the minimum for DYK) then we would be doing the project a disservice.---I'm Spartacus!NO! I'm Spartacus!14:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying here Spartacus, and I agree - but I'd been thinking along a different line. I was wondering if the criteria were equally established across all walks of life. That is to say, is the WP:ENT criteria a bit more stringent, as it stands, than say that of the athlete, or other professions? — Ched : ? 16:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
They're certainly not equal. WP:ATHLETE, for example, is the subject of perennial debates (I was even kicking around in the most recent one for a little while) because a lot of people see it as too lax. Some other people guidelines are more exclusive.
On the other hand, in theory everyone is equal under the GNG. The problem, as I see it, is that some guidelines such as WP:ATHLETE appear to extend the GNG (ie, adding criteria that can automatically make you notable, such as having played in one game), whereas others may not, or might be construed as limiting the GNG. (For example, I may have said in the past that I think WP:PROF is too restrictive, but I'm not so sure about that anymore.) Ideally, nothing should limit the GNG—if someone is notable for independent reasons, they don't need to meet the requirements set aside in any of the more specific guidelines—but the question is whether certain classes of people should be made exempt from the GNG through special rules like WP:ATHLETE. I believe they shouldn't, but I don't see that getting changed any time in the foreseeable future. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs16:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
In regards to the comments on verifiability and junk, it would be easy to make a decent article about a player who plays in the second division of English football. Currently, those players do not warrant an article even though some of these are note worthy. Conversely, I also don't believe you would see most of the guys in the Premier League in a print encyclopedia. Wikipedia has grown to a level of content far above that seen elsewhere. Is the intent of the project to copy printed encyclopedias into an internet based form without any expansion?Cptnono (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, they are not equal at the moment. I certainly don't mind making the effort to tweak things into a more compatible format. (as time permits over the next few days). I figure that the only failure in trying is the failure to try. (I'm sure that's a quote from somebody famous, I prolly heard it when I was growing up .. lol) — Ched : ? 04:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The idea that the GNG is fair because it applies to everyone only holds if the level of available sourcing has an equitable distribution across fields. It doesn't. It also begins to lose power as more and more local sources become generally available. The only way it has survived so far is the progressive limitation of what counts as a sufficiently non-local source for the purpose of notability. My local newspaper, available on the net, & of provable reliability because it which has won awards for the quality of its journalism, has good coverage of every primary candidate in even the most minor elections, and for everything at even the state assembly level, there are competing papers to provide multiple sources. I have refrained form using it to introduce articles below the accepted level, but if all such newspapers were available, we could go far below the present level of practical notability. Think what we could if we accepted college papers for campus figures! We will only keep the GNG usable by restricting it so far that the restrictions are the effective rules. DGG (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:1E
I think there needs to be a clarification made in WP:1E. "In some endeavors, particularly entertainers and athletes, people might be interested in knowing if the individual ever achieved another notable accomplishment. Thus, while technically a one-hit wonder, it may be appropriate to create an article if for no other reason to say that the individual was a one-hit wonder."---I'm Spartacus!NO! I'm Spartacus!14:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I can go along with that - are there any discussions ongoing that you're aware of, an RfC or anything? ... I'll check over at BLP page for talk too. — Ched : ? 16:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't one-hit wonders already be considered notable anyway if they were "wonder"ful enough to receive independent coverage or to otherwise meet the notability requirements for musicians? For example, the second criterion in WP:BAND is "Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart." rʨanaɢtalk/contribs16:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Music is just one example. There are plenty of other examples. The Amateur Golfer who comes out of nowhere to win a major tournament, the actress who gets a lead role in a major movie and disappears, etc. The problem with the current wording is that it implies that if the person is known for only one thing, then they don't deserve an article. This clearly is not the case (as one hit wonders' do deserve such coverage.) The current wording give lead to the notion that if the person was only notable once, then the article should redirect to the issue that made them notable. This does not address the fact that when dealing with creative professionals or competitive professionals, that people might be looking for them explicitly to see what else they've done and the lack of doing anything else might be notable. The key to 1E, is IMO, was the item to which they were known a fluke and unlikely to ever propel them to the spotlight again? Eg the Baggage Handler that foiled the terrorist attack a few years back, or is the nature of their notability such that people are likely to want to see if they repeated the feat elsewhere. The current wording doesn't differentiate between those two types of 1E. Let me use a perfect eample from my own area of interest---Poker Players. In my opinion, anybody who has won a World Series of Poker bracelet is notable enough for an article. The WSOP is the epitome of Poker and it is the most covetted (non monetary) prize a person can win. People who win bracelets are treated differently in the poker world and routinely acknowledged if they compete elsewhere. It is the gold standard in poker. Many of the people who have won a bracelet fail to ever win a second bracelet or achieve anything of note again. Louis Asmo is just one example. He won a bracelet in 1997, but never achieved anything deserving of an article again. He did make to the money in 11 WSOP events and 3 WPT events, but those accomplishements are not noteworthy. BUT he still deserves and article and the fact that he never did anything of note since winning the bracelet is also noteworthy. Redirecting his article to the 1997 article would not convey the same information. ---I'm Spartacus!NO! I'm Spartacus!17:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that some clarification would be helpful here. Not sure myself what would help, but I'll try to keep an eye on this thread over the next couple (busy) days, and support any improvements. — Ched : ? 04:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Clarification: Legislators
It's my understanding that the special criteria for members of a legislative body is to cover elected members, not hereditary ones such as those found in the House of Lords. Could we have a clarification of this in the criteria, please? Ironholds (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm uncertain here. I tend to think that anyone in the House of Lords is notable, though not necessarily because of their membership in that body. Being in the peerage of the United Kingdom (hereditarily or not) is a pretty solid notability claim and I've never come across someone from the House of Lords who is not reasonably documented in reliable sources. I would say though that notability for politicians clearly does not require an election. Appointees to high office (e.g., the US Cabinet) or dictators who rule by force are also quite notable. Cool3 (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Certainly. The idea behind notability policies is that the person is likely to be covered by the media, and they're therefore going to have WP:RS somewhere. But unelected, hereditary members of the House of Lords? Life peers have done something notable, or they wouldn't be life peers, and that is something that will get media coverage. But unelected ones had the mighty achievement of successfully 1) being born and 2) having their dad pop his clogs. Being in the peerage is not really notable for a hereditary position. Ironholds (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Essentially it would create a little exception saying "oh btw, hereditary members of the House of Lords have to pass the standard notability test". Ironholds (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I'm not saying they did anything besides being born (and as an American I think the House of Lords is utterly ridiculous), but they still tend to generate coverage in the press and other reliable sources. It's not unlike being the Queen; little more than a figurehead but people still pay attention, and that attention leads to notability. I notice looking at Members of the House of Lords, that I only see a handful of redlinks. Simply put, even people who did nothing but wait for dad to die can be notable when people pay attention to them. Cool3 (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't suppose there would necessarily be a problem with creating such an exception, but given that most members of the House of Lords pass the GNG anyway, I don't see the need to create such an exception; we can deal with this case by case at AfD, and I would tend to assume that someone in the House of Lords is notable (unless shown evidence to the contrary). Cool3 (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Yup, but that isn't how notability works. If someone passes the exception, they don't have to pass the GNG - there's no way of fighting this on a case-by-case basis.
Taking the attitude that Hereditary lords are automatically notable of members of the Lords creates a problem. It is a convention on Wikipedia to redirect hereditary lords to the article on the parent peerage itself, unless they've done more than be born. Before 1999, however, all hereditary peers would have counted as members of the House of Lords, even if they never attended. How do we reconcile those two views? Ironholds (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
My argument and proposal in full
There is currently a clash between convention and the notability guidelines. Convention is that articles on members of the UK peerage who have the sole achievement of being peers should be redirected to the article on the title itself. The guideline, however, says that members of a primary legislative body should be treated as having inherent notability. Before 1999, all members of the UK peerage would automatically have been members of the House of Lords.
The reason for notability guidelines is that Wikipedia articles, in theory, should be well sourced and verifiable. The guidelines are not there to arbitrarily decide what is and is not important, but rather to set a base standard, based on references. If something is "notable", it means it has the reliable sources to make the article verifiable, and therefore conform with the purpose of Wikipedia.
Automatic notability, therefore, is done with the attitude that because of their position, there most be coverage by reliable sources, and any article on them can therefore be sourced reliably and sourced well. The reason for legislative members having automatic notability is the idea that they will have received media coverage - for their electoral campaigns, for work as a backbencher or minister, for bills pushed through, so on. This makes it likely that the article can be sourced.
Lords, however, especially hereditary ones, do not necessarily have this sort of coverage. Life peers have (in theory) done something significant before they were made a life peer, something that justified their peerage, and those things and therefore the life peer are likely to be covered by reliable sources. The sole achievement of hereditary peers, however, is usually simply being born and living slightly longer than their father. This is not something likely to be given coverage by the media. For that reason, I would argue that the automatic notability afforded to members of a legislative body cannot apply, because there are going to be Lords who never turned up at parliament and who nobody gave a crap about, and who (because they have done nothing as notable as getting elected) have not made enough waves to get media coverage.
I would say that hereditary peers, specifically, need to pass the general notability guideline, rather than have the exception of the automatic notability guideline that applies to members of a primary legislative body. Ironholds (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The Lords haven't had full legislative powers since 1911. I don't think they qualify under WP:POLITICIAN. After all, when you say members of a national legislature, you mean members who actually have a say in things. RayTalk02:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Ray. Members of the House of Lords are hardly politicians (not necessarily because of their hereditary status, but rather because of their lack of power). Thus members of the House of Lords should be dealt with via the GNG. Thus, we have no need for instruction creep, amending the current guideline to explicitly write in an exception. Cool3 (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
That would've been the opinion I took, Ray, but the people at AfD seem to interpret it differently. Thus, an amendment would be nice. At the end of the day the Lords is still a part of the primary legislative body (except in some situations, if you take Jackson to be the gospel truth). Ironholds (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe it's a case-by-case basis. Sometimes a hereditary peer is clearly notable (Duke of Norfolk, Marquess of Cholmodeley, who both hold offices of state). In the case of minor hereditary peers, sometimes the only thing that gives them an article is their title. This shouldn't be happening. A hereditary peer who currently does not sit in the House of Lords, for example, is unlikely to hold anything to substantiate a separate article. That is my opinion. PeterSymonds (talk)09:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think there do need to be separate provisions for House of Lords members. I feel they should be merged to somewhere in Category:Lists of peers unless they satisfy the GNG in their own right. I recommend WP:POLITICIAN is clarified to say that "for the purposes of WP:POLITICIAN, members of the British House of Lords are not primary legislators".—S MarshallTalk/Cont11:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I would keep things the way they are. Wikipedia grants inherent notability to relatively small groups of people (major league baseball players), places (almost any location in at atlas) and things (licensed radio stations) in order to remove the article from a debate over notability, and I think that the national legislators exception is one of the best of those -- although we might be hard-pressed to find a significant accomplishment made by someone who was one-term Congressman from Iowa in the 1870s, we don't take a survey on whether there should be an article about him in an encyclopedia. By the same token, I don't think we should start questioning how a person got into a national legislature, whether it was by a free and fair election, or by being "to the manor born", or by being placed there in sham proceedings in a totalitarian state. Mandsford (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd add that we tend to think of a politician as someone who runs for public office,
The one-term congressman had the accomplishment of being elected. That, in itself, is impressive. As you say, a politician is someone who runs for public office (and presumably gets elected), and a hereditary lord does not fall into that definition. Ironholds (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment - there seems a degree of confusion here, are you describing current peers or historical peers? Some contributers are being unclear on the matter. Most hereditary peers (bar 92 elected by their peers) are not now in the Lords by virtue of their titles.
So you'll be withdrawing your deletion nomination for Rupert Mitford, 6th Baron Redesdale who is both hereditary and in the Lords (a LibDem spokesperson)?
Comment2: It has yet to be demonstrated that there is any clash between convention and the notability guidelines. The only convention I am aware of applys to Baronets and Irish peers who didn't have seats in the Lords. Can you demonstrate this with the use of sources please Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I've dropped a note at the WP:PEER talkpage - it isn't anything I've seen written down, just an unwritten rule I've seen a lot of other users use in various places, here for example. As mentioned, I've asked the peerage chaps to chip in. Ironholds (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this is a good example, the user who performed those recent redirects was immediately pulled up for acting arbitrarily. As far as I can see there is no convention whatsoever, I therefore await the peerage project views with interest Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Ahem, I did chip in myself on the ANI discussion and I have no absolutely no COI in the area. I am however familiar with the notability provisions for biographies and the conventions that extend to nobility articles Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
As Ironhold has already said membership in a House of Lords (before 1800 there was also an Irish House of Lords) was for centuries merely a thing of inheritance (until 1999), therefore I reckon it an insufficient indication of notability. There are by the way many cases when peers, although technically a member of a House, were too old, died too young, held their title too short or lived abroad to attend any of its meetings. I think it the best to start/keep only articles about peers in connection with offices or other special features, and to avoid articles where at the most a summary of genealogy is possible.
I suggest we use the same process as for non-notable baronets. Articles on peers that only contain brief biographical information (such as Richard Trench, 4th Earl of Clancarty) can be merged into the peerage article. One example of how this can be done is Dashwood Baronets. The article on the peer should then become a redirect to the peerage article. Tryde (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Works for me. So, if I can summarise: articles on hereditary peers who do not sit in the Lords post 1999 (and if people want to extend that to hereditary lords generally, fine by me) should be exempt from WP:POLITICIAN, and should be expected to pass the general notability guidelines. If they do, fine. If they do not, we merge any useful information into the article on the title itself, and redirect their article to that. Example: Clotworthy Limpbiscuit, 12th Earl of Pearlyshrew, took up his seat in 1967 and is not one of the 92 peers. He is expected to pass WP:BIO like us simple plebs. If he fails WP:BIO, we include information on his life and the ingenious lemming traps he spent his life designing in the article on Earl Pearlyshrew, and redirect Clotworthy Limpbiscuit, 12th Earl of Pearlyshrew to that article. Right so far? Ironholds (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Another question - is it possible to edit policy based on changes here? We have an overwhelming majority on this talkpage, but that's a 7/2 split of "people who feel peers should have to pass the GNG" "people who feel they should not", and imo nine people might be an iffy way to form consensus. Thoughts? Not on yes/no to the change, but yes/no to "is that enough to justify making a change". Ironholds (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
View of a random bystander (whose also a long time Wikipedian, although not logged in ATM): I've read the discussion here, and the proposal makes sense, and should go forward. Good work, folks. 207.233.32.18 (talk) (really, User:JesseW/not logged in) 01:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with respect to those of ranks higher than Baronet even after 1999. There is notability for good reasons and bad. By my own standards, and those, probably, of most of us here, hereditary rank in a peerage is not a really good reason why people should consider something notable. Yet they do. It's part of the social institutions of GB. I think it's pretty stupid that people should consider winners of certain sorts of contests notable. Yet they do. It's part of the way people think. As a possible compromise, If you don't want to accept mere Lords, then certainly Earls and Viscounts and Dukes and Marquises.
It can be argued that the Lords isn't a fully legislative body. I'm slightly confused about your "as a possible compromise.." part - what exactly do you mean by that? And speaking as a British citizen, it is indeed bloody ridiculous. In addition, since when has en-wiki been bound by outdated and (in most cases) not even applied British social rules? Why should a person have an article because he's a politician when he wasn't elected, never even attended the body he's a member of and did nothing other than be born, get a title and die? That hardly meets the description of "politician" I hold in my head for one thing it doesn't include words like "conniving" and "weasel"
Sorry, I'm not quite understanding your point. My argument is this: If the people are notable, i.e if they pass WP:BIO, they can stay. If, however, the only way they pass is under WP:POLITICIAN, because 300 years ago their great-great-great-great-grandfather lopped off someone's head when the king happened to be watching, they shouldn't stay. Hereditary peers are unelected members of a body that arguably hasn't been fully legislative since 1911, and unelected members who in many cases never even turned up, be it because they didn't live long enough after getting the title or because they had no interest in politics. Run the idea of "an unelected person who has no interest in politics and never even turned up to Parliament" through your head and work out if that sounds like a politician to you. Ironholds (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The House of Lords is part of the British parliament, just like any upper chamber, and shouldn't be treated any differently. There are currently only 92 members who are there because they are hereditary peers, and 90 of those were elected by other members. The remaining members are all life peers. I sort of agree with Ironholds's statement at 00:31, 5 June 2009. All current members of the Lords should be included, but others only need be if they are otherwise notable, with articles being merged with that for the title where necessary. As for historical figures, if they ever did anything useful in the House of Lords, it should be possible to write a verifiable article about them. If it isn't, I see no point in just having an article with their names and dates - that information can go on the relevant title's page. JRawle (Talk) 13:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Excellent. The general tone I'm getting here from the people who think the current system needs some tweaks is "pre-1999 hereditary peers should have to pass WP:BIO, but post-1999 fall far enough under WP:POLITICIAN to get a free pass". Do you think its worth setting up an RfC on the matter to make this easier to navigate and make consensus more clear-cut? Ironholds (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I tend to think we need separate standards pre-1999 and post-1999. Hereditary Lords still serving post-1999 are very often notable, as they are elected from several hundred members. Before then, and particularly in the 20th Century, there are major issues that come to mind that would suggest that many are non-notable. Some are (Peter Carrington, Thatcher's defense minister, comes to mind; so does Lord Halifax, who nearly beat out Churchill for PM), but there are a good many who were many generations removed from notability. This became a bigger problem in the mid-20th Century with more political appointments (and their children) flooding the Lords. Though the initial appointments were often notable in their own right, the sons and grandsons weren't, and you got a lot of those in the decades before life peers were introduced.
I'll support Ironholds' proposal: Put a footnote in on members of the Lords pre-1999 as not counting under WP:POLITICIAN without independent sourcing (other than a stray, uninformative entry in Burke's Peerage which only confirms existence). I would suggest this for any other similar legislature of a historic nature; Ireland and Scotland had similar structures, and I'm fairly certain they weren't the only ones.Tyrenon (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
So again: should I set up some kind of RfC or Infernal Voting System here to get consensus that is easy to read? At the moment I'm reading most people are for WP:BIO for pre-1999 peers, with some for "all notable" and some for "not all notable, but it would be instruction creep". Given that people at AfD at the mo are applying WP:POLITICIAN to cover hereditary lords with nothing else going for them, the third group seems to have a rather undermined argument. Ironholds (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I see the areas of consensus a little differently: pre 99 lords are like any other legislators and notable; the serious question is after that date. As for the HoL being a serious legislative, body, they certainly were till 1911 in every possible sense; after that the powers were limited, but they remained of national political importance, & are treated as one of the two branches of the legislature in every book of British government and history.. FWIW, their historically limited powers over money bills - a limitation since the very origin of Parliament, is also true of the US Senate. Recall that in countries like australia and the US, members of not just the national legislature, but of every individual state legislature, are notable. Compare the political significance. After 99, and for Irish and Scottish peers after 1801 and 1707 respectively, it seems accepted that only the ones who sat in the Parliament are in fact notable under this rule.
After that date, I think it is consensus that Baronets are only notable under other rules. The area of disagreement is the higher nobility who did not sit in parliament. DGG (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I think pre-99 is the entire problem; post-99 we accept that hereditary lords who no longer have seats are not notable. Peers pre-99 could (and many did) never attend parliament, be it because they died too soon or because they had no interest in politics. I wasn't referencing the money bills limitation, although actually that was post-1911, I was referencing the lack of power post-1911. Ironholds (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
At Ironholds (or anyone else who might know). Can you provide any specific examples (links, preferably) of AfDs where an article member of the House of Lords failing the GNG was kept on the basis of WP:POLITICIAN? Cool3 (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
What about the Lords who served prior to 1911. Back then, there is no doubt that the Lords were part of a true national legislature; they had power (and for many centuries they had more power than the House of Commons. Certainly, it seems that pre-1911 Lords should then qualify for WP:POLITICIAN. Are we then left with an exception that only applies to Lords who served in the 88 year period fro 1911 to 1999? Cool3 (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
No, because the argument against pre-99 lords (that in many cases they played not active role, had no interest in politics, in some cases never even attended) still applies. Post-1911 not being fully legislative is only one of the arguments against pre-99 inclusion. Ironholds (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Would it be practical to assume automatic notability only for those pre-1999 Lords who actually cast a vote in Parliament at least once? Or is there no easy way to find that out? Sandstein 07:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't work too well, I don't think. We do have records of people who have spoken/voted, but the further back you go the more limited they are. If someone comes up as having spoken/voted 0 times, it doesn't neccessarily mean they didn't vote, it could just mean Hansard have lost the relevant documents. Ironholds (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I would say that all nobles when the monarchy truly reigned were inherently notable; their contemporaries certainly thought so. A noble (or a member of the gentry who was within the court) was part of the small, elite and hugely powerful group who ran the country. 91.85.173.26 (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Voting, infernal voting
Yes
Proposal: that hereditary members of the House of Lords who held their seats pre-1999 should have to pass WP:BIO. if they do not, their article shall be redirected to the parent title and any useful information included in that article. A note to those who see such a move as instruction creep, and argue that the current guideline should be interpreted to exclude Lords members - it isn't. In several AfDs I've seen people have read the letter, not the spirit. Such "creep" seems the only way to work this out.
Support, for several reasons; please note, by the way, that in accordance with convention the use of the word "lord" in this argument pertains to all members of the British peerage. The first and most obvious is that the guideline is meant to act as a failsafe for politicians on the grounds that references will eventually turn up. With "normal" politicians references are likely to turn up - they've done notable things through being elected, through actions they participate in while in parliament, so forth. With hereditary members of the House of Lords pre-1999 this is a problem. Many peers never even turned up to parliament, either because they had no interest in politics (run that through your definition of politician and see if it works) or simply because they died before the opportunity presented itself. Their actions to become a Lord are not necessarily notable either - the hurdles they had to overcome to do so are being born and having their father pop his clogs, hardly front page news. The idea that an unelected figure who gained his position simply because of who his dad was, did nothing useful with his life and never turned up to parliament or showed any interest in politics should be considered a politician and held up to the same standards as a media-friendly figure is simply bizarre. There is also an argument to be made that the Lords have not been a primary legislative body since 1911, or arguably before that thanks to some parliamentary conventions (the Lords, for example, is forbidden by convention from opposing any bill if the subject of that bill was part of the ruling party's election manifesto). Post-1999 peers have been elected by their (pardon the pun) peers, and so it isn't as much of a problem - they still attend parliament (my old headmaster, for example). A counter-argument, and one I don't understand, is that the social status of these figures in the UK should somehow influence how we do things. Wikipedia is not bound by British social rules, and the social rules discussed are outdated and never used - I know a lord, and the first memory of him that comes to mind is helping us plant carrots. The titles are purely ceremonial, and the holders are usually afforded no additional rights in the real world. Ironholds (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Support for most of the reasons above. The problem with the body is that many members were non-notable for a seat which they might never have taken, or might have only taken for the briefest period. There's also the fact that certain conventions resulted in large amounts of deadwood building up over the course of many decades. In sum, a hereditary legislature not subject to substantial pruning of deadwood needs to be handled somewhat differently than an elected one. The restricted powers of the Lords in later years are another matter which limits notability as well, but I find the issues concerning large numbers of members-in-name-only to be worth consideration.Tyrenon (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Support. I believe the House of Lords has to be regarded as a special case when it comes to national legislatures. The process where mini-biographies of non-notable peers can be added to peerage articles is a good compromise. I think we should also determine whether Irish and Scottish representative peers should have to meet WP:BIO or if they should be considered automatically notable. Tryde (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Support – people need to be noteworthy in their own right, not just because some King long dead thought that their grandfather was a nice guy. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢18:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Support Enough of the Lords did nothing remarkable with their lives that they're markedly different from the standard premise of WP:POLITICIAN, which is people who were movers and shakers to the extent of actually winning an election. RayTalk23:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Support It is an interesting debate. Personally, before the 99 reforms, it was just an inhereted post. I am sure there will be many who will pass other notability guidelines but they don't need this crutch to lean upon that would lead to the inclusion of people like the umpteenth earl of piddlesbury who did bugger all. Though I doubt we have articles on those chaps anyway. So, to summarise, I support the changes though I believe many of our existing articles will come under other notability guidelines (Judges of note, ministerial posts, their actions in life etc). --Narson ~ Talk • 10:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Support Heriditary peers that were members of the House of Lords pre-1999 were members of a national legislative body. The fact that they were not elected and thus did not recieve the attention that naturally comes with an election campaign does not change the fact that they are a part of the legilative process. Generally speaking, people that are part of a nation-wide parliament are notable enough based on that fact alone and should be permitted their own page. 12:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Proposal: the WP:POLITICIAN guideline should remain the same.
Support As I have tried to explain above, before 99 they were members of a legislature. Not all of them took a very active role, but a great many of them did. Almost all at least ook their seats at one time or another, and so actually participated. I do not think it is our business deciding that one of the two chambers of a national legislature is too insignificant to makethe members notable. That's putting it below the House of Representatives of Vermont, or of other small US states, all of whose members remain notable. Even in the 90s, the HoL was more important than that. DGG (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
But those members who took absolutely no role (and I can pull out a couple at a moments notice) should be included? Surely those who did play a part would have third party coverage to reflect their role. Ironholds (talk) 04:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Information on members of a national legislative body of this nature should be available in a comprehensive reference work. Ty04:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Supoort with qualifications -- The House of Lords has full legislative powers, except on Finance Bills. The fact that its rejection of a bill can be overridden by the Commons under the Parliament Act makes no difference: the procedure is rarely used. I would suggest that most pre-1900 peers were notable. There will be a redlink for them on the article on the peerage. One difficulty is that if the precedessor or successor was notable, there will be a succession box which should have the same redlink. I can see the argument that if a particlar person is NN (accoridng to general criteria), he should not have an article, but this cause difficulty with succession boxes. In modern times, peers who were not rich have treated taking theri seat in the House and making a maiden speech as a right of passage. I would suggest that if a long line of peers was NN, redlinks should be delinked, but only after the editor is sure they really were NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused - you're saying that peers should always be included, but then that non-notable peers should not be included? Ironholds (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Support. Even if some of them didn't care about it, the Lords were just as much of a legislature as any other national body prior to 1911. There are plenty of members of Congress today who only show up when they feel like it; that doesn't detract from their notability. I would accept a guideline saying that members who served between 1911 and 1999 must be subjected to the GNG; however, amending a guideline designed to apply to a wide variety of countries and legislative bodies just to write in an exception for one house of one country's legislature for 88 years is instruction creep to the 10th degree. I agree that not all members of the House of Lords are inherently notable, but that's why we have WP:COMMON and WP:IAR; we don't need to write every exception into every rule. Cool3 (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that when something is covered under one guideline or another, deletion can become very difficult even when WP:COMMON and WP:IAR would seem to mandate action otherwise. In short, while we've got those mandates, there's always the issue of those leaning towards inclusion using the set rules to keep stuff in (just as deletionists could easily use rules to engineer the exclusion of articles that, while not covered under the rules, do improve the encyclopedia; that said, I tend to find the former more likely than the latter as a rule due to the general guidelines WP:POTENTIAL, WP:NOEFFORT, and so forth).Tyrenon (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
(Adapted from a message I left at User talk:Ironholds)Even if WP:IAR is not good enough here, I still tend to think that's it's instruction creep to write in this exception. There are already elements of the policy that address this situation. I'd remind you of the following bits of WP:BIO.
"A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards" (emphasis mine). Note that it says "generally" not "automatically". The guideline is designed to handle special cases as just that.
See also the section on people who fail the general criteria but satisfy the specific criteria: "If neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article, but the person meets one or more of the additional criteria: Merge the article into a broader article providing context." If I'm reading the suggestions correctly, then what's being suggested is that articles on peers who fail the GNG should be merged into the article on the peerage. In other words, doing exactly what the policy already provides for.
In short, I will re-state my position that the policies and guidelines already in place provide a mechanism for dealing with this without having to start tacking footnotes onto our guidelines. As they say keep it simple stupid.Cool3 (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Please explain why, using logic, they should be included. The basic rules of Wikipedia say notability works on references and achievements (which make the chances of reference-finding more likely). Please explain why peers who have no valid references or achievements should be included. Ironholds (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
2nd proposal
I'm going to make an alternative proposal to you.
1) All members of House of Lords, pre and after 1999 are notable (Members of Legislature: Bishops- nobody will propose their removal, life peers (as appointed members), and hereditary peers
2) All members of 1. Peerage of UK, 2. Peerage of Great Britain, 3. Peerage of Scotland should be included (Earls, Dukes, Marquesses, Barons, Viscounts) , but we should differ with the peerage of Ireland, because they are a republic
3) Heir apparent's are not included. They can be included when (or if they succeed)
4) All legislatures should be judged as equally relevant despite different powers
5) The way someone comes into an important office is important for me but not for notability in wikipedia and it should stay that way.
6)That every article should be good sourced is nothing new.
Eh, this sound exactly like the guidelines that are now in place and which we are discussing to change ... (except that peers of England and Lords of Parliament - there are no barons in the Scottish peerage - are also considered automatically notable). What Ireland being a republic has to do with anything is beyond me. But please follow your point three and don't add articles like Benedict Alexander Stanley Baldwin, Viscount Corvedale to Wikipedia. Tryde (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
That was the compromise I'm willing to make. About Ireland; In a republic the peerage looses its importance.Max Mux (talk) 05:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Titles in the Peerage of Ireland were created by the English, and after 1707, by the British monarch. They have nothing to do with the Republic of Ireland. Tryde (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Your proposal is actually worse. You're suggesting that we include peers of GB and Scotland even though they never even had a seat in the Lords. That isn't a compromise, that's absurd! I've told you before and I've told you again - being a peer doesn't make you notable in itself. Never has, never will do unless you can come up with a good reason that they should be considered notable, and a better one than "well the UK is a monarchy" as you've previously tried. Ironholds (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
But that's exactly a reason. In monarchy there are (in this case) dukes, barons and so on are persons of the public life and known by the people.Max Mux (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
They're not known by the people. Its a constitutional monarchy with no real power, and I'm telling you, as a citizen of the UK, that we've never heard of most of these people. If the dukes, barons and so on were actually important any more there'd by coverage by the media, which there isn't. Nobody cares about the peerage system in the UK any more, and it is dying out - there's no reason to suggest that such people are still important or "persons of the public life". Ironholds (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
See my other points. You're arguing that these people should be included because the position of "duke" or whatever makes them "persons of the public life and known by the people". I'm telling you that it doesn't. If people are "persons of the public life and known by the people" there will be references to them in the media, and WP:BIO will kick in and save them. Ironholds (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Strongly oppose including all non-House of Lords nobility. I believe that your point #2 sums up your position most clearly when you state that "but we should differ with the peerage of Ireland, because they are a republic". Why in the world would Ireland be any different ? These people have exactly the same role in their country as non-House nobility in the UK and thus are non-notable for the exactly the same reason. Having a particular name does not make you notable. After all, being the great-great-grandson of Thomas Edison does not make you notable either. Why would it ? If we started to make exceptions for being the decendant of famous/notable people we would soon have scores of articles of cousins, grandchildren and "close" friends of pop stars who all want their own vanity page.
I might also add that if your assertion that "in monarchy there are (in this case) dukes, barons and so on are persons of the public life and known by the people" were correct, then these people would easily pass WP:BIO, negating the need for a new policy. However the fact that we are having this discussion clearly indicates that for most of these people such notability cannot be established - which is the reason for you seeking a blanket policy to include them all. Passportguy (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Support--on the basis of my previous comments. But as for some specific points:
For those in the HOL, they will always be found in Hansard, now searchable back to 1800 [15].
since historical record counts as much as present day, all Irish peers before 1921 would be as notable as Scottish peers. Before 1801, they sat in the Irish Parliament. Afterwards, only representative peers sat in the UK Parliament. The current status as a republic is irrelevant. DGG (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. There are plenty of one-line footballer stubs and plenty of one-line baron stubs... and now you're proposing to actually legalize "notability" of otherwise non-notable ... gentlemen? Basic notability of people is sufficient. NVO (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't see any convincing reason to treat these people differently than general notability principles would suggest. (But then I would say that, I'm a republican.) Disembrangler (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Military decorations establish notability?
Is there any policy / consensus / opinion as to whether military decorations are enough by themsleves to establish notability (per "the person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them")? It came up in an AFD discussion, where the subject of the article has been awarded the US Silver Star and Bronze Star. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
A high enough military decoration would certainly qualify one for an article. I don't see a single redlink on List of Medal of Honor recipients, for example. I don't know where the boundary should be drawn, though. Our article on Silver Star says: "ndependent groups estimate that between 100,000 and 150,000 Silver Stars have been awarded in US History." That seems to be too many for that alone to qualify one. --Tango (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that would create a gigantic swamp of folks like my late father who otherwise simply don't qualify. The Medal of Honor and Victoria Cross are a whole 'nother ballgame. --Orange Mike | Talk13:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
True, although I'd guess they lack articles due to a lack of available information rather than lack of notability. --Tango (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I know I'm only one voice here, by my feeling is that if a cartoon character is notable enough to have an article, then any of the brave men and women who were acknowledged in a time of conflict should certainly be acceptable as well. Mike, ... my appreciation goes out to your late father. I think one thing that would have to be considered however, would be the desires of descendants as well. I'd also note, that it would be much more difficult to find WP:RS to establish the WP:N, for 1944 vet. than it is for a 2005 cartoon, but I'd love to see a push in that direction. — Ched : ? 21:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
addendum: And as Tango noted, the past is more difficult, but we have have global conflicts continuing to this day - so some items that may be available via various military websites could perhaps be a consideration. I believe there is a project:Milt. ... but I'm not sure where. Might be a good place to check into. — Ched : ? 21:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
My small voice: I regard the Wikipedia as aspiring to be an encyclopedia, with the aspiration that it provide roughly complete coverage (according to some criterion for completeness) for any subject that it aspires to cover. As a rule of thumb, I would claim that any single criterion that includes within Wikipedia's aspiration an increase of more than 5% of the articles already there, that criterion should be reexamined, and most likely rejected - because Wikipedia is highly unlikely ever to achieve that coverage. At the moment, there are 2.889.947 articles on Wikipedia, which means that my rule of thumb is around 144.497. The 150.000 Silver Stars violate my rule of thumb. (BTW, the project is Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, and its notability criterion is at WP:MILMOS#NOTE) --Alvestrand (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
So trying to include more military awards as a threshold would be a bad idea, because it would cause too much large scale change? Or it's something we need to get a large scale effort in order to change? Is there anything in-between that might work? — Ched : ? 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
"if a cartoon character is notable enough to have an article, then any of the brave men and women who were acknowledged in a time of conflict should certainly be acceptable as well". Is a flawed analogy. The reason being that oftentimes cartoon or other fictional characters achieve notability on a global scale whereas military decoration is usually not significant outside the host country. Wiki isn't supposed to be biased for nationality (also, when deciding the amount of new articles it would allow, realize it would also allow articles for recipients of similar awards in other countries so the number would actually be a lot higher). The absolute highest level awards in anything (military, science, etc) can establish notability on their own. Lesser awards can establish notability in conjunction, or count towards notability in addition to other achievements. If you look at the Silver Star page there is a list of notable recipients with their own articles. The Silver Star counts towards their notability but they've also achieved it in other contexts. Military is no different than other professions. There are lots of professional awards that don't establish notability oh their own. With that being said, I'm not against there being more articles for award recipients, I'm just saying we have to very carefully define it. The point about an increase in % is valid, as if an award is widespread it loses notability.24.190.34.219 (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Unique Names
A new section has been added to this guideline at #Unique Names. I think it better to discuss such a large addition to the guideline prior to actually implementing it. I'm going to revert to the original version, and open discussion on the idea. The diffs are here. Thoughts? — Ched : ? 23:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
This is not necessary. When someone creates a page, they can use the simplest title possible—ie, if no other pages share the name, they don't need to disambiguate it. Once more pages with the same name come up, then people decide whether to disambiguate them all and turn the non-dab'ed page into a disambiguation page, or to deem one page as more common than all the rest (so that it doesn't need to be dab'ed and the others do) and set up a disambiguation page with "disambiguation" in the title. As far as I can tell, these issues get handled fine without a need for any new policy. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs23:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
This isn't the correct page for this. It has nothing to do with notability. Wikipedia:Naming conventions is where to take this, although, I believe we already handle this matter well, as Rjanag has outlined above. لennavecia23:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
People are a special case of disambiguation and I agree that this new requirement should be noted on the disambiguation and Naming conventions pages as well. As noted in the entry, proper nouns are unique in being a priori ambiguous. One should not use the simplest title possible for these entries. They should be unique from the get-go. Even if another entry does not exist the naming guidelines clearly states, The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. Adding a Uniques Names section here, with the specific instructions for creating entries for people, is an important principle of notability that belongs here. Indeed, it is not stated elsewhere that editors of people, should guard against positioning a person as more notable than another with the same name for simple reasons of "I am writing mine first." or "I am a judge of what person has primacy over others of the same name". Again, unless a person is a household name, readers are poorly served by needing to read further in an entry than the title to find it is or is not who they were looking for. BTW, I am a user experience designer for a Fortune 100 company. Creating pages about people like they are now on WP, without preemptive disambiguation, would never pass first muster on a business site.Kcornwall (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC).
You still haven't really explained why this belongs in the notability guideline (it doesn't), but ok, I'll bite. No one said that not using disambiguation in the title means we're "positioning a person as more notable than another"—it's just most convenient when there are no other identically-named people on Wikipedia. If another one comes up, then the original (non-disambiguated) page gets moved to a disambiguated title, and then both are disambiguated...unless one person is clearly more well-known (for example, if a stub got written on some random entrepreneur named Barack Obama, we wouldn't move the current Barack Obama article to Barack Obama (president), we would just put a WP:DABLINK at the top). And besides, that already falls under your "household name" clause that you yourself put in your addition.
As for your ethos argument...well, big whoop, Wikipedia is not a business site. The current naming scheme has worked fine for years, and unless you can present some real arguments for why it's ruining things, everything you're saying is just a solution looking for a problem. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs00:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I can agree with what you say on principles (certainly not with not with the recourse to personal aspersions) - with one exception. As I've said before, I have no interest in my own page. Finding Kevin Cornwall in WP just brought up the issue, which I feel is important, generally. The discussion has helped me understand WP better and this issue more clearly. I still believe Naming conventions may warrant a change. However, my present opinion on Notability is this: being a professional athlete, with no other distinction, is no more significant than being a professional fireman.. What do think, do you want to imply to your kid that it more important for them to be an undistinguished professional athlete than a doctor or teacher? My recommendation is that the criteria for Notability Athletes be updated to require accomplishments more significant than just being paid. With that, the entry for Kevin Cornwall should rightly be removed and reserved for someone who has distinguished themselves in their field, sport or otherwise.Kcornwall (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC).
Notability is not the same thing as significance. "Notability" refers to Wikipedia's notability policy, which is specifically about how much coverage a person or topic gets in news, media, academia, etc. It's not about how important they are in the world or how much contribution they make to society. Saying that one person is more "notable", by Wikipedia standards, than another person, is not the same as saying they're more significant or more important. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs02:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Think we're quibbling semantics. The word, "significant" comes up over and over again in the Notability policy. But I get your point and thank you for supporting the spirit of my recommendation that merely being a professional athlete is not notable (not widely covered in major news media as the criteria is fine by me). Without this caveat, WP could be flooded with hundreds of thousands of otherwise unnotable professional athletes (my kids' tennis pro for example). My suggestion for a revised guideline for athletes then is: 1st bullet - "People who have received significant press coverage at the fully professional level of a sport." 2nd bullet - "In a league sport, people who have received significant individual coverage during team play or their team reached the highest levels of competition, usually considered to mean national playoffs. 3rd bullet as is.Kcornwall (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC).
You'd better start following the discussions about the athlete guideline, then, starting with #WP:ATHLETE just above here. The argument over changing the athlete guidelines has been going on for months, probably years, and proposals to change it are a perennial thing. If you want to contribute to the discussion you are welcome to get involved.
As for naming conventions, I think this thread has already gone far enough off-topic already and there is clear consensus that the naming doesn't need to be changed, so there is no further reason to comment here. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs17:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
for the record, though I missed this discussion, i would very strongly support disambiguating names in advance by using what are likely to be unique descriptors--it makes things much clearer to users. . I'd suggest in fact a standard list of them. I encourage anyone who wants to carry this to namingconventions, and start what will probably be a multi-year process of getting consensus to very slowly move. I'll join in a little, but there are things to be done of higher priority that will take less time to bring about, such as fairer deletion procedures and clearer help to article creators. DGG (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Lists
A first draft of a change to this guideline is being discussed at village pump. To keep the discussion centralized, it is recommended that further discussion take place there.
I brought this discussion to the village pump, but in the five days since it has been posted it hasn't received comment. I thought perhaps it might here.
Many place articles have sections called Notable people that contain lists of individuals that were born in, reside in, once resided in, or died in that place. I feel strongly that someone's birth having occurred in a particular location (generally a city or regional hospital) is not only non-notable, but the birth location likely did not have as profound an influence on one's life as the municipalities in which one grew up / achieved notability / currently resides. This is not to say that this information doesn't belong in the article about the individual, but that it does not belong in an article about the municipality (or in some cases schools, as in so-and-so went to this high school). Certain individuals were born in one place, grew up in another, and went on to live in several other places only to be buried somewhere else. That's a lot of articles they could be included in as a notable person/resident. Such sections are generally more prevalent in less populous areas. For example, one doesn't see an article about Hollywood, California listing all the celebs that work/live there, nor is there such a section for notables born in New York City.
Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people doesn't appear to provide guidelines as to what qualifies an individual to be notable in association with a particular location, only whether the individual is notable enough for general list inclusion. Someone who spent no more than 2-3 days as a baby in a delivery ward of a city's hospital is just as eligible for inclusion as someone who lived there all his/her life.
Additionally, lists of people seem to contribute very little to an article about a municipality, in that it doesn't describe the municipality (the article's topic). For example, to list Martin Luther King Jr as having been born somewhere provides very little content and context, whereas writing a paragraph about how Martin Luther King Jr impacted a community that he was active in provides a lot more context not only about the individual, but also about the place.
In summary, I'm seeking a guideline/policy enhancement for lists of people that more stringently defines just who can be included in the context of an article about places, and what qualifies them to be notable in association with said municipality. Either that, or the elimination of all such lists altogether.
Is the point of Wikipedia to provide a lot of harmless yet unhelpful information? Or to provide perhaps little yet helpful information? --JBC3 (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Many of these lists are redundant with categories (for example, Category:People from Scarsdale, New York), and categories might be a way to preserve this random, often trivial information but keep it from cluttering articles with junk. The only issues I see are 1) lists in articles allow us to add appositives describing who the person is and why I should care, whereas categories don't; 2) a category can be harder to monitor and maintain (although in general, if a junk article is getting added to a category, that will probably be dealt with by people watching the person's article itself); 3) there would need to be some way to make categories easy to find for people not familiar with WP's inner workings—for example, a template sort of like {{commonscat}}; 4) of course, it's a pretty major change from what is standard now, and would probably have to go through a community-wide vote (yech). rʨanaɢtalk/contribs19:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Lists "redundant" to categories are good things. Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. In this case, they can indicate the relationship to the place. In general, editors are more likely to add relatively weak relationships for the more famous people, so it balances out. The categories serve to capture them all, and then the many editors who like doing such cleanup catch up on the lists. DGG (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Lists and categories are not redundant as they serve different purposes. Lists are regular encyclopedia articles, which means their topics have to be notable and the lists have to comply with our policies and guidelines, such as WP:IINFO and WP:V. Categories are much less strict than this. Their primary focus is to categorize information internally within our system, not to present encyclopedic information. For many of these broad categories, an article about them is not suitable unless an encyclopedia article can be written about the group as a whole. ThemFromSpace01:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
A first draft of a change to this guideline is being discussed at village pump. To keep the discussion centralized, it is recommended that further discussion take place there.
WP:Athlete is a clear example of sexism, where the standards make it insanely easy for athletes in what are deemed as "masculine" sports to make it in, while olympic level athletes in less "masculine" sports are marginalized. For example approximately 3-5 US ahtletes would qualify for the 5K run in track and field while 2000 currently playing athletes would qualify in football. In sports where an objective mark used for comparison this should be the standard for notability. For example, someone running an olympic level time. This athlete is cleary olympic level, but does not get a wiki because of discrimination based on either age or circumstance (not making an olympic or world championship team because of a bad race or an injury). There are so many pages of meaningless football players, and yet there are so few pages of famous track athletes, of which many of them get thrown into deletion. I think the standard should include a section:
"People with achievements that are equivalent in merit to the athletes that meet the above standards. For example, in an event like track and field or swimming this category would include a collegiate/High School athlete who achieved a world championship or Olympic caliber mark."MATThematical (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
While I agree with you that WP:ATHLETE should be more inclusive of athletes in sports like track/swimming/etc. (and less inclusive of athlets it's super-inclusive of now, but that's a discussion for another day), I also have to caution against basing notability on "achievements". Notability is generally determined by recognition (i.e., coverage in reliable sources) rather than achievement; just running a great time isn't necessarily enough, but the person has to be well-known and covered in relevant media outlets (for example, Runner's World, usatf, or whatever is relevant to the sport in question). These things often go hand-in-hand, but it's an important distinction to make. Part of the reason for this is that "achievement" is very open to interpretation (people can easily argue over "well, such-and-such is not a world record, but it's a major achievement for someone who is [insert random qualifier here]"—the subjectivity problems are similar to those described in WP:BIG and stuff like that. Recognition, on the other hand, is easier to quantify objectively (although it still gets argued about all the time, as anyone can see from an hour or so of working at AfD. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs14:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
If someone is really notable, then there will be independent verifiable sources and the person will meet WP:BIO (which supersedes any specialist guideline). We should simply do away with specialist guides such as WP:ATHLETE, which are all the time interpreted that they allow the creation of thousands of stubs for person that would never make WP:BIO. --Crusio (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea. Yet why is it not done? I think the reason is that the sports community is inherently sexist, and this is why we have a definition that gives undeserved recognition to the most "masculine" sports. I think it needs to stop. Can we move for a deletion of this subsection. Thats just my opinion. If not it needs to be edited so its fair to all sports/gender rolesMATThematical (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
There is a lot of people who easily misunderstands 'news coverage' with 'notability'. People who are in the news are not necessarily notable: technically, I might provide you with sources from local newspapers for every single amateur football player in Sicily, despite this I don't think such subjects would be actually notable. We definitely need a rule of thumb to make clear that an athlete must do something really notable in its sport in order to deserve an article. So, WP:BIO is good, but not enough, especially when dealing with major sports such as football you can easily find a newspaper covering details of an amateur team based in a 1,000-people city. --Angelo (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:N and WP:BIO supersede WP:ATHLETE. If a team or person meets the general guideline, that is sufficient for an article. If there are multiple reliable sources about an amateur team in a 1000 people town, then they are notable and there can be an article on that team (but articles/stubs about all the individual team members is quite another thing). The point with WP:ATHLETE is that it establishes rules that make people notable based on their accomplishments, NOT on their coverage in independent verifiable sources. Hence the countless stubs on footballers, boxers, basketballers, disc-throwers, etc. that will remain stubs forever simply because there are no sources covering these people (except sports listings, listing scores, times, and such). almost none of these sports stubs meet WP:BIO or WP:N, so doing away with WP:ATHLETE would help us get rid of all these poorly sourced stubs (also a BLP problem), not the other way around as you seem to suggest.
One other remark: compare WP:ATHLETE with WP:ACADEMIC. The latter guideline is designed to make it more difficult for academics to meet WP:N. All academics publish articles and/or books and those are at least occasionally cited by others. Without WP:ACADEMIC it could be argued that my grad student with a couple of dozen of such citations would be notable. WP:ACADEMICprevents the creation of unsourced stubs, quite unlike WP:ATHLETE. --Crusio (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Both WP:BIO and WP:N talk about presumption of notability, and none of them are policy. Sportspeople are famous, and receive coverage, because of the game they play in. If they don't play in a sufficient level, then they just don't deserve an article. WP:ATHLETE just enforces all existing notability rules: if a subject meets WP:ATHLETE but receives no coverage, then he is not notable. Plain simple to me. --Angelo (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree and this is how it should be, but go tell that to the people who put in those countless stubs. Try prodding one and you'll get yelled at that "it meets WP:ATHLETIC because John Doe was on the field for 1.3 seconds during a professional game!" (Some even want to include players that never got on the field but were sitting on the bench...). --Crusio (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you really think things are gonna change just by removing WP:ATHLETE? Right now we have an article about an unknown 17-year old Finnish footballer, who is contracted with Liverpool and has never played in a professional football game, only because a bunch of Finnish media made him a few interviews because of his move to England. I have no problem in amending WP:ATHLETE the proper way, that is, by explicitly stating a subject needs to receive significant coverage through reliable independent third-party sources. But removing it means anarchy would take AfDs over, with even more stubs coming out the closet. I deal with such articles on a daily basis, so I know what I'm talking about, trust me. --Angelo (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
So by that logic, then, Finnish media coverage is not an indicator of notability in Finland of a Finnish individual. Ridiculous. I think the point many are missing is that WP:ATHLETE is designed to loosen the inclusion criteria for professional athletes. The reason for this is because of the scarcity of easily available information on athletes from long-ago (besides statistical compilations, which do not meet WP:BIO). Another reason is simply pragmatic, in order to create an objective definition for notability to minimize gratuitous AFD nominations. As for the "inherent sexism" of WP:ATHLETE, I think you are putting the cart before the horse. "Masculine" sports, even sports that have women's versions (like association football and basketball), are far less notable due to substantially less significant media coverage, fan interest, and economic implications. Just as an example, how many women's college basketball games are on broadcast television? None, not even during the tournament. Regular season men's college basketball games are on broadcast television many times a week. Strikehold (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Media coverage is not the only indicator of notability, regardless of the country. Football coverage throughout the world, especially in Europe, is absolutely massive, even with carpenters and sailors who play football in ridiculous amateur football levels. You are usually notable because you've done something notable, don't you? Being in the news, again, is different than being notable. --Angelo (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Angelo: Media coverage, while not the only one, is one of the primary yardsticks for notability, as outlined in the general notability guidelines, along with coverage in other reliable sources. There are some additional criteria that lend other individuals or things notability despite lack of coverage in reliable sources, but the basic tenets of notability are inherently rooted in their coverage by either the media or other reliable sources. That said, of course, the actual extent of media coverage is an important consideration -- a mere recitation of statistics or brief mentions in game recaps is not "significant" coverage. However, accomplishments is really tangential to notability, and there are plenty of people who haven't really 'done anything' noteworthy, who are certainly notable nonetheless. Strikehold (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Strikehold - I don't believe misrepresenting other peoples "logic" and then calling it Ridiculous is a particularly helpful way to proceed. I believe Angelo's point is that the Finnish teenager has done absolutely nothing notable in his sporting life, the only thing that has given him press coverage is his association with Liverpool F.C. If you can't see the difference between notability through achievement and notability through association perhaps you wont mind if I get started turning the David Banda and Romeo Beckham redirects into articles, (there are plenty of sources to satisfy WP:N).
I also disagree with your claim that WP:ATHLETE is "designed to loosen the inclusion criteria for professional athletes", the history of WP:ATHLETE suggests otherwise, it started off as a very POV based guideline then it was changed to something very similar to the current guideline using consensus through lack of interest. It seems the motive for the change was to think up something based on achievement rather than POV, not some conspiracy to increase the number of sports biographies. In fact WP:ATHLETE has been cited as a reason to delete hundreds of biographies for footballers that have not played in fully professional leagues.
Nobody believes that WP:ATHLETE is perfect and since its creation it has been a constant source of disagreement both here (just look through the archives of this page) and at countless AfDs. It has been suggested over and over again that it be replaced by a revived WP:SPORTS built up from consensus based criteria from the various sporting wikiprojects (such as WP:FOOTYN) but nobody seems to know what the procedure for doing this would be. King of the NorthEast13:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I am not going to mince words when I disagree with someone's rationale, and I did not misrepresent anything: he said that we have an article only because a Finnish footballer received coverage from the Finnish media. That carries the distinct implication that regional media is not relevant to WP:BIO, which is a "ridiculous" assertion as far as I am concerned. You're, of course, entitled to your opinion, but to "disagree with [my] claim that WP:ATHLETE is 'designed to loosen the inclusion criteria for professional athletes'" goes against the very letter of WP:BIO itself (of which WP:ATHLETE is a part). WP:ATHLETE is an additional criteria of WP:BIO, all of which are designed to loosen restrictions on notability: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" (emphasis mine). That means that the additional criteria helps include people who otherwise would not meet WP:BIO's basic criteria. Otherwise, there'd be no need at all for the additional criteria, as everyone would have to meet the basic criteria anyway! Additionally, notability and accomplishment are not equivalent things; it doesn't matter if someone hasn't "done anything" in his/her life, they can still be notable. As a final note, it's interesting that you first chide me for being "unhelpful" and accuse me of "misrepresent[ing]" someone else's words, and then say "If you can't see the difference between notability through achievement and notability through association perhaps you wont mind if I get started turning the David Banda and Romeo Beckham redirects into articles, (there are plenty of sources to satisfy WP:N)." What part of my first response did you interpret as saying "notability through association" exists? Since you cite WP:N, you recognize that notability requires significant, independent, and reliable coverage -- which, presumably, neither of those people you name have. Strikehold (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
If you think that Lauri Dalla Valle deserves an article because some Finnish journalists have nothing better to do than write about a child who has done nothing more than join the youth system of a "big club", it shows that you believe news reports of completely non-notable acheivements (such as fame by association) make someone worthy of an article. Imagine the kid turns out to be rubbish and never plays a professional game (90% of youth team players never do), we would be stuck with an article about a footballer that never played football. There are loads of sports journalists with nothing better to do than write about child footballers in the hope that one day the kid will become a great footballer and they can say that they were the first to spot him and thousands more all over the world that write about footballers that play at amateur regional levels far below the level dictated by WP:ATHLETE.
It seems that David Banda has a lot more significant, independent, and reliable coverage than say 1930 FIFA World Cup winning goalkeeper Enrique Ballesteros. Banda should not have an article because the only reason he has all of this coverage is that he is the adopted child of a celebrity and notability is not inherited. Ballesteros hardy has any significant, independent, and reliable coverage on the internet but to use WP:N to deny him (or other historical players) an article would stink of recentism as he is as notable for his acheivements in football as Gianluigi Buffon.
Without some kind of specific guidance on what makes a footballer notable the project would see systemic bias towards articles about modern day non-footballers like Dalla Valle or amateur players that happen to play in the modern era, at the expense of articles on historically significant players that happened to play long before the internet era.King of the NorthEast23:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
(undent for readability) Your point about Ballesteros is exactly what I said in the first place. Direct quote from my original post: "The reason for [WP:ATHLETE] is because of the scarcity of easily available information on athletes from long-ago..." WP:ATHLETE loosens notability criteria for professional athletes for that very reason. Anyway, regarding the Finn, I don't speak Finnish, but if those references are feature articles exclusively about the subject, then he very likely passes WP:BIO's basic criteria. And, again, notability doesn't correlate directly with achievement; there plenty of notable people who are "famous for being famous" and who really have no significant accomplishments. There are some additional guidelines specifically reducing notability restrictions for individuals with special accomplishments in certain fields, but by and large, there is no requirement that an individual have "done" anything. As for David Banda, a news search doesn't return much that I would qualify as "significant coverage" (mostly passing mentions or tangentially related, not focused on Banda himself) or "reliable" (mostly tabloids). Anyway, not sure why you're pummeling that straw man, because, again, I never said anything remotely resembling "notability [can be had] through association". Of course, notability is not inherited. Strikehold (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Just pointing out that we don't really know how the community thinks that the subject specific notability guides (SNG) should relate to the general notability guide (GNG). The September 2008 RFC was infamously inconclusive on that. —JAO • T • C14:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I have a concern with the sexism the masculine comments. It comes across like your real concern is with sports coverage in general. and not the guideline. Keep in mind that their is professional competition for about every sport. If you google or start going through the back page of the sports section you will find plenty of sources. More people watch the Super Bowl than many of the competitions listed here but it has nothing to do with the guideline being incorrect. Men participate in sport not typically given wide coverage, too.
Also, per the one event guidelines, a high school runner with one amazing time does not warrant its own article. Put it in the article related to the sport or follow their career and create one as they become more noteworthy in the particular field.Cptnono (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in here after it seems the discussion has wound down (again), but I have to say I find this whole conversation very disheartening. I've been spending some time looking at a few hundred of the 156,000 articles in Category:Automatically assessed biography articles, and a very large number of them are one-paragraph stubs for unremarkable soccer players on little-known teams in non-English-speaking countries. Many of them are orphans or nearly so, and most of them have not been touched -- except by bots and the occasional disinterested human editor on cleanup patrol -- since they were created. It is quite clear that nearly anyone who plays soccer today in any professional league anywhere in the world can generate numerous independent, third-party references, none of which will ever contain more meaningful biographical information than is already given in the one-paragraph stub. (Of course, many of these references will not be in a language understood by the vast majority of en.wp editors, and it's not clear to me that WP:V is really being honored in the spirit.) If an article can never be anything more than a stub, then it ought not exist. Many of the articles I have reviewed do not meet any reasonable standard of notability. If, some day, there is enough verifiable biographical information to write more than a paragraph about these people, the absense of the stub would not make much difference.
If I were dictator, I'd make the guideline closer to what it is for many other bio subjects -- and, for that matter, many non-human subjects for which there are specific guidelines: the subject should have participated in some important championship (as relevant to the sport and league in which they played), or received significant recognition from their sport (such as an annual sportsmanship award or membership in a notable hall of fame), or have had a high competitive ranking as an individual. 121a0012 (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hear, hear!! Try the random article function and see how often you hit one of these unremarkable stubs and then think what impression that gives to someone not familiar with WP. Who knows how many first-time visitors are driven away forever by that... --Crusio (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Even worse, check out Category:All unreferenced BLPs and see how many are athlete bios have no sources whatsoever. Most have no notability other than just appearing on a roster. This overly indiscriminate guideline impedes sourcing and verifiability and at best all we have are a lot of perma-stubs. This guideline should be tightened up a bit as clearly not everybody who has appeared on a professional sports team is notable enough for inclusion. ThemFromSpace14:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Personally I'd rather see some of the other guidelines loosened a bit, but either way, I agree that there's too much disparity between the various professions. I guess the bottom line is: Do they meet the WP:N guideline when CSD tagging them or sending them to AfD. I do understand the point that running across an article with no refs, and a one line sentence that says: "John Doe plays position-x for Team-ABC", isn't exactly of very much value. In a discussion below, it's mentioned that just being a member of a sports team isn't enough to pass, but rather a person has to actually play in a game. The WP:ENT section says must "Has had significant roles in multiple notable..." and WP:DIPLOMAT say: "Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events". I think the key word here is "Significant". I'd rather see it removed from sections, but if adding it to the athlete section makes things more comparable, then I guess we could live with that too. Just my 2-cents. — Ched : ? 22:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Some guy playing second string in Serbia in my opinion is not noteworthy but if it should be easy enough to find a couple RS for a dude playing in the second division of England. Stubs suck but they are easy enough to fix sometimes. Not saying who is or who is not notable just trying to point out that there are ways to fix stubs if that is your only concern.Cptnono (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, actually 2 points on this. 1.) That guy playing in Serbia might not be noteworthy to you or I, but it may be noteworthy to the people living in Srebia. 2.) As Spartacus mentions below, sometimes a stub can be sufficient and educational as long as it's referenced and meets WP:N. Not everyone that is notable is going to have a long and distinguished career in a particular field, but rather they made their mark of notability by achieving something outstanding at one point in time. — Ched : ? 16:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe that WP:ATHLETE attempts to measure significant participation in a sport through the play in a fully-pro league requirement. It may not go far enough because I remember one editor claiming one second of play in a fully-pro league was enough (which seems too little in my view). Jogurney (talk) 03:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Why not? Yes, it is bogus that people use the argument that 1 second warrants notability but the guideline is broken. Someone that plays for FC Academia UTM Chişinău who's stadium has a capacity of under 3,000 but is in the top flight of Moldovan football is more noteworthy than a guy who plays for Nottingham Forest F.C. in front of over 20,000 a week (on average in the stadium without even including televised numbers) for a club with a significant history in a significant league. In response to Ched Davis, I'm not trying to put down Serbs or Moldovans. Just saying that someone in the second division of English football is of more interest (term used in the guideline) than someone playing at a high level in a country with a poor (per FIFA rankings not me) top division. Serbia also has some good teams so it wasn't the best example : ) Cptnono (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:ATHLETE (cont'd)
(Added section break for ease of editing/reading)
I think you guys are trying to read too much into WP:ATHLETE. I don't believe its purpose is to measure significant participation or contributions (and its conferral of notability upon people who play just one game seems to confirm this). Rather, it's just a guideline that uses a convenient objective metric in order to reduce the need for subjective interpretation (and pettifogging). Strikehold (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and one other point since you guys touched on it. I don't think there is anything wrong with a stub, in principle. For some athletes, you'd see the same thing in a sports almanac—and Wikipedia is partly an almanac. Second, I just opened a real encyclopedia, and lo and behold, the article on Blackbeard is all of four lines long. I think that qualifies it as a "stub". As for the glut of unreferenced BLPs, I say add unreferenced articles in general to the speedy deletion criteria, and that problem would be solved quickly.... Strikehold (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Question: When did WP:ATHLETE become an exclusionary requirement rather than an inclusionary one? In AfD, I see many people essentially saying no current college player is ever notable - to the point where entire articles from major sources are completely ignored in favor of ATHLETE. To me this is absurd. A top college player is significantly more notable than someone who played "1 minute" on a pro team in reality. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that is exactly true. For example, depending on the size of the town or city and the number colleges (or high schools) in the area, and the other level of sports that are covered in the town/city, a young person might get many mentions in the media as an amateur athlete. That in no way makes them notable in a way that means they should be included in an encyclopedia as an separate entry. The notability guidelines are meant to correct for the saturation of media coverage that might existent for a particular person or class of people if they have loads of media mentions by the nature of their activity. Notability guidelines also exist to correct for lack of obvious media coverage for people whose work does not cause them to get loads mentions in the current media but their lifetime achievements are significant and verifiable in reliable sources. FloNight♥♥♥19:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I misunderstood your points, but as I understand them, I have to disagree wholeheartedly with your assertions. You say:
"[Many mentions in the media of an amateur athlete] in no way makes them notable in a way that means they should be included in an encyclopedia as an separate entry..."
Why not? We do not have the same logistical restrictions that paper encyclopedias have. Significant media coverage, even in a specific geographic region, indicates significant noteworthiness and public interest in the subject. That is what an encyclopedia is designed to record. You also say:
"The notability guidelines are meant to correct for the saturation of media coverage that might existent for a particular person or class of people if they have loads of media mentions by the nature of their activity."
— No they aren't. That's why WP:BIO says, as the basic criteria, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" Then it proceeds to add additional criteria, which loosen the restrictions for notability, with the qualifier "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". There is absolutely nothing in WP:BIO which "corrects for [media] saturation". In fact, if someone's coverage in the media could be called 'saturating', I'd say that clearly shows notability. Because that indicates a clear case of an individual being, as WP:BIO defines notability: ""worthy of notice" ... "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." .. [or although secondary, but not irrelevant] "famous", or "popular"..." Local high school athletes very very rarely fall into that category. When they do, say O.J. Mayo or Lance Stephenson or Kevin Garnett, they are notable without question. You also say:
"Notability guidelines also exist to correct for lack of obvious media coverage for people whose work does not cause them to get loads mentions in the current media but their lifetime achievements are significant and verifiable in reliable sources."
— This is true, but doesn't have any bearing on your first assertion. If the individuals are, as you say, covered to a significant degree in reliable sources, then they meet the basic criteria anyway. "Reliable sources" does not mean only the media. Strikehold (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
There should be no question that WP:ATHLETE is an 'inclusionary', not exclusionary, criteria. This is clearly written into the guideline itself. In AfDs, however, it is often willfully ignored or ignored due to not reading WP:BIO in full, but that doesn't make doing so correct. The guidelines exist for a purpose, and they are where consensus stands currently. Simple mentions in media do not lend to notability; it is of course significant coverage that does that. But the fact remains, often times people ignore significant media coverage when it comes to American college athletes, and they often cite WP:ATHLETE as a reason for deletion. Strikehold (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
That may be your particular interpretation of the guidelines but I don't think that it is an uniformly agreed on interpretation as evidenced by the way that people vote on Afd's. On Wikipedia policy and guidelines are intended to describe the agreed upon understanding of the way that a situation should be handled. If many people disagree, then there is not consensus, and the situation needs to be evaluated and discussed in light of the particulars of the situation. It can be frustrating for people not to agree. But the way that Wikipedia works, the outcomes can never be permanent and 100% consistent because different people come to each discussion with different real life and wiki experiences. FloNight♥♥♥20:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this gets to the question of applying WP:N. A subject of an article could have coverage in multiple reliable sources that amounts to "this person is expected to do great things", "the manager expects this person to fill a need for the team", and "there is a lot of buzz about this person as they signed a contract with a prestigious institution where they might someday achieve success". Some editors, including myself, view that type of coverage (even though it may meet a literal reading of WP:N) as insufficient to demonstrate notability. It's notability from expectations of doing something with an important team (which results in the person getting unusual amounts of coverage before achieving anything). I don't think it's a matter of WP:ATHLETE over-riding WP:N, so much as a common sense interpretation of WP:N. Media coverage in and of itself shouldn't be enough for notability if the coverage is simply related to possible future achievements. Jogurney (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
What about when the coverage is about their accomplishments as amateurs. I.E. things like setting an amateur record, winning a national amateur award, winning an amateur championship. Many (most?) editors seem to argue that amateur accomplishments are mostly meaningless. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the guideline as written says that it is inclusionary, not exclusionary. However, in practice it is treated as both. See, for example this current AfD on 6 college athletes. Nearly everyone is arguing for delete based on failed WP:ATHLETE despite the non-trivial sources I have provided. (Of course this case is far from an isolated example.) This baffles my mind, as common sense says the very best college players are in reality more notable than someone with 1 pro game in their entire career.
I asked point blank on several editor's talk pages if any college athlete can ever be notable for playing sports and they said "essentially no; no one can ever be notable for playing college sports"
Clearly the guideline is being used as exclusionary in practice. This leads to the bizarre scenario where perpetual, largely unsourced stubs on "1 game" pros are kept, but well-sourced articles with real content on current college players are deleted. This is highly unfortunate. Unfortunately, getting consensus to change the guideline in any way has failed miserably numerous times, so I'm not sure there is much hope of rectifying this discrepancy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree that all professional athletes should have articles and vote that way in an Afd when appropriate. The notability guideline were not intended to force users to check their common sense at the door so that we maintain separate entries about people that in the big scheme of things next to no one will care about them in 10 or 100 years. With very few exceptions the information about high school, college, and early career professional athletes usually can be included in other articles. Commonly, our stand alone articles about athletes are poorly maintained, often not updated, so have stale information. We need to consider more than the short term fame of the person as we make decisions about how to present content about a person. While I would not start an Afd discussion if a college athletes article is well written using reliable sources, is current, and has no other problems (such as copyright vio or BLP issues), I might vote to delete on an open Afd if I feel that the person will not have long term notability because the media attention they receive is largely about the their potential for future achievements. I think that is a good rule to measure whether someone has an article because it takes into account that the media attention is as much hubbub about the entire draft class moving in to the professional ranks soon, as it is about the individual athlete. The sports writers are covering the topic of the draft often, and the individual people are not as significant as the media coverage makes them seem. FloNight♥♥♥21:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
change WP:ATHLETE
Recommended change to WP:ATHLETE. "People who have received significant press coverage in their field for their individual achievements at the highest level of a sport." (ref remains as is). This is to address issues of professional vs. amateur and what is notable as a professional."Kcornwall (talk)
I have always been supportive of WP:ATHLETE as an additional requirement which should be deemed as necessary but not sufficient to establish notability in case the subject fails WP:N. Of course, there is a chance of very exceptional cases where WP:ATHLETE can be ignored, for instance in cases where very extensive, detailed, non-trivial and broad coverage for a subject from third-party independent news providers can be provided, where WP:IAR may apply. --Angelo (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
If there was for instance in cases where very extensive, detailed, non-trivial and broad coverage for a subject from third-party independent news providers can be provided, that would not be IAR, that would be the basis for WP:N. Athlete attempts to make arguments for people who don't meet that requirement.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!22:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Definitely, but it's a fact there is a lot of users who mistake notability with news coverage. WP:N is invoked and over-invoked even in cases where high-quality sources are not available, and this is a problem with sportsmen, especially in games like association football in Europe who receive lots of news coverage, but only a minimum good' coverage. I can make examples of 16-year old footballers hailed as "next promises" by a handful of sports journalists despite never having played a single senior football game in their life; these guys obviously aren't notable, since they still haven't achieved anything of note in their "profession", but despite this they have news coverage. --Angelo (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The question should be in a deletion discussion for an entry, "What is the best way to present the information about the topic to readers?" A stand alone entry? Or should their profile as an athlete be included in another entry instead? Too often people get wrapped up in the significance of having a separate entry as if that alone will be a measure of the person's significance in life. There are many good reasons why that we should not be starting articles about people (particularly young people) before they've had a chance to live their life. Later people can write a broad overview of them if they sustain a high level of achievement in their field. Too often the immediate media coverage is sensational and does not reflect the true person. We are doing a disservice to them by treating the articles as biographies, when they are not complete since no one has really looked at the whole person and and put their life into proper perspective. I'm much more in favor of writing team profiles that include limited biographical and sports data since that is really the level of detail that we can provide in an way that accurately reflects who the person is.
Our notability guidelines for athletes need to be seen as a way to determine which way is best to present the information about people that may get excessive media attention because of the way the sports are routinely covered. So, the criteria needs to be an additional requirement, yes. FloNight♥♥♥21:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I've heard the idea of making players bios part of season or team articles before, but it is simply not a tenable option. First, it would adversely affect the quality and readability of the existing articles, not to mention that it just doesn't go together. Where for example, in 2005 Texas Longhorns football team (Featured Article) would you put that information? It is doing readers a disservice, not a service, to combine bios into a season article, and the only argument for doing so is to circumvent the byzantine notability rules we currently have in place.
I also have to disagree with your opinion that young people shouldn't have standalone biographies because their overall significance is as of yet unknown. The same could be said about any current events, any current politicians, or any other individual or venture you can think of that hasn't happened a few decades in the past. For athletes, their notability stems from athletic achievement--surely they can also later garner it in other fields, but that is usually their main claim, and that's how and why they should be judged on getting an article.
What we really should be stepping back and asking is what is the real meaning and purpose of "notability"? Too many people seem to take it as some undefinable quality, something that they just "feel" when someone "deserves" an encyclopedia entry. That is bunk, in my opinion. WP:BIO states exactly what notability is, and it uses a real encyclopedia's definition: ""worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."" In general many college players are worthy of having their biographies recorded as a matter of public interest, and I view that niche aspect of Wikipedia as functioning like a sports almanac. I can quite clearly see situations where someone, for instance, would be reading about the 2007 USC Trojans football team (another FA) and reads that player X makes a play, and then clicks on the click to learn more about X, what became--or didn't--of him, and so on. And if you don't like football, well, then why are you looking up football bios anyway? Who cares if there are articles on college or any other sport players? What harm does it do? Believe me, I understand there are plenty of serious flaws in Wikipedia, but a plethora of athlete biographies is not one of them (the opinions of people who don't happen to like sports notwithstanding). Strikehold (talk) 04:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with much of the above, that there are college players of note. However, I think the criteria should be strengthened on the side of professional players as well. The number of completely worthless sports sub-stubs on athletes who are in no way covered in reliable sources, but are apparently notable for being on a professional team or club is just staggering. There are thousands of these that should be deleted as they'll never be expanded and they offer nothing of interest to the readers. Most are unsourced completely or simply link to a website that provides greater detail than our article. لennavecia17:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm seeing consensus throughout this discussion for this change to bullet one: "Professionals noted for individual achievement at the highest level of a sport." (ref remains as is). It qualifies professional as more than just being paid and requires achievement as opposed to just being on the team. Bullet 2 about amateurs can remain to be hammered out. What say ye? Kcornwall (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's the general problem. If we restrict professional players, then this becomes a huge problem of recentism. Certainly a current baseball player is more notable then a high schooler c. 1970, but who's more notable? Someone in college baseball now, or a baseball player who played in 1970? If we pick the former, then we're saying that after a few years people stop being notable, as google news articles only go back so far. Also, keep in mine that virtually any professional player can be turned into a decent article with next to no effort, so this is a solution in search of a problem. Wizardman17:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I concur. Professional athletes are generally easy to source. There are thousands of unreferenced BLPs about athletes, but many of these are not professionals (and should be deleted) and the others can be easily sourced when time permits. The solution is making sure new editors understand that new BLPs need to be referenced (so the number of unreferenced BLPs doesn't increase) and that repeated creation of them after being warned is tantamount to vandalism. Jogurney (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
And here's a more specific problem. This discussion about reforming WP:ATHLETE comes up once a month like clockwork. There's a lot of talk, all with good intentions in mind, and then it fizzles out within about a week or so because even this limited audience can't come to a consensus. I've said before and I'll say again — we can talk here all we want and we should use this space for trying to come to a good starting point. But any change to a notability guideline, particularly this one, is going to need discussion with a much wider audience than just people who happen to see it here. This will be the third rail if not handled properly. I'm all in favour of being bold, but there's a time and a place. Mlaffs (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The restriction for professional players has nothing to do with amateurs on school teams. So there is still consensus throughout this discussion over changing bullet one as above. Kcornwall (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Trust me, there is a long standing sort of consensus that the current ATHLETE guidelines don't work very well, but there is no consensus to change. ATHLETE is one our most criticized guidelines, but I all attempts to change it have failed miserably.
That said, I think the main reason it is so heavily criticized is really a criticism of society by non-sports fans. Many people feel that sports are way over covered by the media and that sports players generally aren't really notable. They thus feel that our sports guidelines should be tighter than our general guidelines of "being the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources." This is in contrast to other guidelines which are designed to make it easier, not harder for people to qualify. For example, professors are rarely the subject of any source material. However, our guidelines (rightly) recognize that many professors are notable for their work even if no one has ever written about the person behind the work in depth.
The fact that many people don't like that most professional athletes and many amateur athletes are heavily covered by reliable sources doesn't make them not notable. In short we are stuck with the current guidelines (which don't make much sense), because 1) those editors who want less sports bios refuse to admit that any amateur athlete can be notable, regardless of coverage and 2) those who like sports refuse to admit any pro could be no-notable. I personally think 2 is a far less serious problem because, in reality, most professional athlete articles could be expanded and properly sourced given sufficient manpower to do so.
I strongly believe that all additional notability criteria (such as ATHLETE) should serve to loosen restrictions, either to fight recentism or to recognize people in fields that aren't often recognized by a wide audience. The plain language of the document agrees with this principle, making it clear that people can still be notable if they fail an "automatic inclusion" criteria. It repeats this point several times and bolds it. Yet, in practice (in AfDs) most people treat the guidelines as both inclusionary and exclusionary. This most often affects current athletes since they are more likely to meet the general guidelines without meeting the specific ones than most groups, however others are occasionally affected as well. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Kcornwall, I'm sorry, but in reading all the way from the top of this discussion, I don't see anything that I'd consider remotely approaching consensus for the change you're suggesting to the first bullet. And regardless, I'll say again that a change to this guideline needs a lot more eyes and comments on it than what we have here for consensus to be claimed. Even if we had consensus here, acting strictly on that would be a disaster. Mlaffs (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
comment I agree with ThaddeusB... I think that WP:ATHLETE is kind of like Microsoft Outlook--it sucks, but I don't have anything better to offer. The big challenge that I see is many people see Athlete as "exclusionairy" -- meaning if an athlete doesn't meet it, they must be excluded. I've put together a short essay on this with what I call the "Abraham Lincoln" argument--Abe Lincoln doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE--should we delete the article?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I strongly disagree with your draft. Stating "Abraham Lincoln doesn't meet the guidelines of WP:ATHLETE, but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted" is utterly nonsense, since Lincoln was not a sportsman. Needless to say WP:ATHLETE applies only for subjects whose only claim of notability regards their career as a sports individual. In addition, what your draft roughly says is WP:ATHLETE has no value at all, therefore suggesting it should be implicitly deleted, that is a decision that would open the gates to even more subjects, including 15-year old guys whose only accomplishment is about receiving news coverage for no particular reason (and believe me, there are a lot of examples coming to my mind!). --Angelo (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Question What do you mean by "strongly disagree" ? Do you think we should delete the Abraham Lincoln article because he doesn't meet WP:Athlete? The point is simple: There are many, many, many people who meet the general notability guideline but do not meet the strict WP:Athlete guideline that consensus has agreed are notable--and they are athletes. Remember, college football is much, much older than professional football, and "American" or "gridiron" football is not played at the olympic level.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
When I say "I strongly disagree", I refer to the reasoning behind that article. Lincoln's notability does not originate exclusively from his achievements as a sportsman, so WP:ATHLETE does not apply in that case. --Angelo (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment then what you're actually saying is that you agree with the essay. I don't understand... how can you say you disagree with something and give as reasons the major points that it supports?--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Yep...I understand the essay is saying, "if someone is generally notable already for something, they don't need to meet WP:ATHLETE". Even an athlete--if an amateur athlete has gotten tons of media attention for something (i dunno, maybe working to increase the standing of a sport in this country, or setting some kind of record, or who knows), they might be generally notable even though they meet the GNG. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs12:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
If a subject's only claim of notability involves his/her own activity as an athlete, then WP:ATHLETE should be considered as an extension of WP:N (a guideline that is in my opinion potentially misleading due to the fact a lot of users, deliberately or not, mistake news coverage for notability despite existance of policies like WP:NOTNEWS) and therefore can be accepted as a valid point in AFD cases. This doesn't really seem to be what you wanted to say with your draft, or am I wrong? --Angelo (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Can we be absolutely clear that I'm only recommending a change to bullet one? People keep conflating that with bullet 2, which is there to deal with the issue of amateurs, e.g., school athletes. Sure bullet one can be changed and for the better, future eyes notwithstanding. How did it ever pass muster in the first place? First and foremost, bullet one makes no sense. The first clause speaks of professionals and the second wants to contrast them with athletes in individual sports. Huh? But Tiger Woods, in the later category, is surely a professional at the highest level of competition, so why would it seem that he must be handled by the second clause? Moreover, the first clause doesn't say anything about team sports, so why the qualification about it in the second? This is nonsensical. Let's at least write it to make semantic sense. Therefore my proposal, for the first bullet dealing with professional athletes. Professionals noted for individual achievement at the highest level of a sport. (ref remains as is). It qualifies professional as more than just being paid and makes no confusing distinction between team and individual sports. Let's agree to change it, not because it is perfect, but because it makes sense.Kcornwall (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
This wording is awfully subjective. I have long been in favor of changing WP:ATHLETE, but one of the arguments made in favor of it is that it's objective, and changing it would invite arbitrary standards and bickering. Any change you're going to make is going to need to address that argument, by defining a clear boundary between "noted for achievement" and not. Your change doesn't address that, and even though I personally would like to see a change in this general direction, I can guarantee you that there is not consensus for the change as you have suggested it. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs00:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
My wording, in fact, is exactly as subjective as "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport", but it removes the confusing distinction about non-league sports - which adds no objectivity whatsoever. It also adds the criteria that the athlete has to have done more than be paid, which handles the issue of team members who are taken along for the ride. If there ever was consensus about what is there now, surely the same level of consensus exists and will exist for my proposal. C'mon guys. Let's run it up the flagpole and see if anyone has a better suggestion. WP:BOLDKcornwall (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
If you'd look back through the history of the wording of this guideline, you'd find that the first bullet used to read Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis., and the second bullet used to read Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports.. This was reworded to its present state back in November last year for a few reasons — to remove the redundancy ("competitors who have competed"), to clarify that a single sport can have more than one level, and to provide clarification about what the highest amateur level usually means. The disconnect in the first bullet about non-league sports that you've identified was an unfortunate result of that rewording, and I'll actually step up and take the blame for it — I largely suggested the new wording, and should have caught that at the time. By all means, let's figure out a way to fix that.
However, Professionals noted for individual achievement at the highest level of a sport. is not the way to fix it — I'll say again that it's far too bold to be implemented only as a result of this limited discussion and that you're still seeing consensus where none exists. It is also, as Rjanag notes above, likely to lead to far more problems at AfD than it might solve. Who's going to determine what constitutes achievement? Does it take setting an individual record? Leading your league in a category? Do you just need to play a complete season? Personally, I think even making it to the NHL, MLB, NFL, etc. for one game is a significant achievement within the context of that profession. It further contains a fallacy in logic by assuming that the professional level is always the highest level of a sport. By way of example, the highest level of figure skating is the amateur level — that's where the serious competitions take place, including the Olympics and World Championships. While there are professional figure skating competitions, that level has historically been the domain of exhibitions and ice shows; it's what you do when your real career is over. Mlaffs (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree. With all do respect Kcornwall, your change not only has no consensus, but is a bad change to make. As pointed out it could be seen as an excuse to eliminate virtually every athletic bio if someone wanted to interpret it narrowly enough. Second, it would completely eliminate the point of the guideline in the first place - namely that some people (in this case athletes) can be presumed notable without having to go out and find conclusive proof. If an athlete is only notable for "significant accomplishments" it would be abundantly clear already without a need to refer to a guideline to tell you that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems 99% sufficient as it is now. For example: Courtney Kupets is notable per the guideline for her participation (should point out that it was very good) in the World Championships and Olympics. She just won the Honda-Broderick Cup, given to the nation's top female college athlete in the country which you could argue makes her worthy of inclusion but she is already included. Also, Alistair Brownlee is notable in triathlon. His college stuff may not make him eligible for inclusion but participation in the Olympics did. Even if that wasn't significant enough, his leading the current ITU World Championship series is a clincher. It is pretty easy to find reliable sources pointing to notability for less popular spectator sports. The only concerns I can see anyone having is that it does not allow for the inclusion of athletes who solely participate in collegiate sport (which I lean towards being OK with) and limits footballers (which seems to be taken care of just fine at the wikiproject page).Cptnono (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the guidelines, as written, are good. The guidelines as written actually do allow for amateurs to be notable under the non-athlete specific criteria, but most editors choose to ignore this. Further, they technically say that pros are only presumed to be notable and could possibly still be not-notable if there is no RS info about them.
The real problem (in my view) is that ATHLETE is taken as the "absolute word" by far too many with an "all pros are notable/no amateurs are." This creates the bizarre scenario where technically someone like Matthew Stafford (the first pick in year's NFL draft) won't be notable until the Lions play their first game. (Sure he's been drafted, but it is possible that he might not actually play a single professional game.)
In short, ATHLETE shouldn't be used to exclude people from Wikipedia, but I don't know how to convince anyone of this. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
ATHLETE has a severe bias against college football. Walter Camp would not be notable according to ATHLETE, or essentially anyone who played college football for the many years before pro football even existed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that's correct. The fully-pro league requirement only applies if the sport had a fully-pro level of competition at the time. For sports that were amateur, WP:ATHLETE can be satisfied if the individual played at the highest level (e.g., Olympics or something comparable). Jogurney (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
And therein lies the issue. There is nothing comparable to the "olympics" for college football. The amount of coverage that even an average team can recieve would rival the coverage for any given olympic athlete. Sure, the "Olympics" have wide recognition, but compare the coverage of Olympic athlete Al Oerter to even the average college football player, and you'd be shocked at the level of coverage and information available on the college football player compared to the olympian.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
What's an "average" college football player? Because I can't see an "average" player on an "average" team getting much coverage beyond the campus paper and "local boy does good" fluff pieces in small hometown papers. Think about it for a second - there are currently 120 top division college football teams. Each team, including walk-ons and redshirts, have 100+ players (not to mention that some teams have no-cut policies). Of the 120,000+ who are active members of FBS teams, how many receive any appreciable coverage from outlets that don't have an interest in the teams or the players? Even All-Conference performers barely get non-trivial coverage, so the average player isn't getting much press.
Anyhoo, I've always been for eliminating any distinction between amateur and professional athletes in WP:ATH. Why not have an automatic inclusion criterion for Olympic- or World Championship-level athletes for non-league sports, and leave it at that? --Mosmof (talk) 00:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for indent! When I said "average" I was referring to an average starter, but yeah you could extend that I suppose. What kind of coverage? Gee, statistics are compiled on a regular basis by ESPN, Sporting News, NYT, USA Today, CNN/SI, and a host of others. There is so much demand for this data that every college I can think of (and perhaps every college) has an entire "sports information department" just to manage all the media requests. You'll also find that this goes way beyond "top division" teams and extends into Div II, Div III, and even NAIA sports.
I'm not saying that every college football player who suits up should have an article on Wikipedia. I've made multiple attempts to clarify what I think is notable and not notable in college football at this essay and even I'm not satisfied with the results.
It gets even more confusing when you look at things historically, when back in the 1920s and 30s and 40s, papers like the NYT would carry articles and information about small school teams in Wisconsin and Kansas and wherever.
I'm afraid I yet to have an answer myself. I've spent a lot of time defining the problem though and I hope that through collaboration we can come up with something that makes sense.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad we are in agreement that simply suiting up for a Div 1 team does not WP:N make, as was argued in one AFD discussion I was involved in.
But what kind of coverage, you ask? When I say significant coverage, I mean feature articles in national or major city/regional newspapers, and that's the domain of: (a) all-conference performers; (b) national award candidates; and, (c) legitimate draft prospects. The rest (I don't think 99% is exaggeration) are pretty insignificant - you're not going to get much beyond simple raw data, game reports and factoids. And obviously, the depth of coverage varies greatly from team to team, even within the Football Bowl Subdivision, between the mid-majors and BCS contenders.
I don't know, I think the general notability criteria work well enough for college sports for the most part (we could probably have guidelines for pre-TV era, though). --Mosmof (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
break
Guys, what's with the ADD? I'm recommending a change to the first bullet dealing with professionals. Fix the second bullet to deal with amateurs, e.g., college athletes as you may. But bullet one is semantically confusing, contrasting professionals with athletes in non-league sports. My recommendation fixes that and adds the requirement of individual achievements - which handily accounts for starters on pro teams and eliminates 2nd string bench warmers. It's not perfect. But the flaws that still exist in my recommendation (i.e., how to determine what constitutes achievement) are already in the current guideline. But, while my change may not address that particular issue, it can't be blamed for introducing it. So, look at this as a step-wise approach: it is at least superior to the current guideline because it is cleaner while clearly addressing some long-standing issues. And, let me add that, yes, WP Athlete should be exclusive, no different than any other notability categories. So, again, let's fix the first bullet for pros. This will guide editors so that it will prevent adding and support cleaning out entries that don't belong in WP. Then we can have all the continuing debate you want about how to deal with amateurs.Kcornwall (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
"My recommendation fixes that and adds the requirement of individual achievements" - that is exactly the problem with your edit. There is no consensus to add this requirement. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Your statement, But the flaws that still exist in my recommendation (i.e., how to determine what constitutes achievement) are already in the current guideline. But, while my change may not address that particular issue, it can't be blamed for introducing it., is incorrect. While you may consider it to be a flaw, there is no need to determine what constitutes achievement under the current guideline — if you've competed, you're notable. By all means, let's fix the league/non-league disconnect that was inadvertently introduced last fall. Any change beyond that lacks consensus even in this discussion, and needs wider notice/discussion/consensus to have a chance of lasting even 24 hours without someone reverting it. This guideline is one of the third rails of Wikipedia, and so it's important to tread very carefully lest one get a nasty shock. Mlaffs (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't get people here saying there is no consensus and that is won't last, when they themselves don't hold the objection. We can only speak our own minds. No one has been given proxy for others. If you, yourself, are one who is holding up consensus, please state your personal opinion. We won't make any progress, pitifully undermining WP:BOLD, if we're so timid that we are going to imagine objections when we don't actually hold any strong feelings of own about it. Others who happen by can object in their own stead. If among those present, there are no strong objections, it doesn't hurt to make the change. If immediately reverted, let he who would revert let us know why. I certainly haven't heard anyone lay out a straightforward case, yet, for why professional athletes, among all other professionals in the world, wouldn't need to make an individual contribution on a team to be notable - that is without lapsing into off-point tangent about amateur athletes. Bold, gentleman, bold. (BTW, Mlaffs, I agree that it's not a flaw that we don't define achievement, it's what someone else objected to, my point was for him: this edit doesn't introduce a flaw, while for others like you there isn't one here anyway.)Kcornwall (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
You already made the BOLD change, and it was reverted. That's how Wikipedia works: be bold, but then discuss things if it turns out there are problems. It's clear there is no consensus for your change, so we all need to stop beating the dead horse. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs03:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Kcornwall, I do hold the objection. It appears that I'm somehow not making that clear, as it also appears that you misunderstood my comment. First, my argument is that the current guideline for professional athletes does not suffer from the flaw of how to determine what constitutes achievement — that determination is currently irrelevant, as having competed at the professional level is sufficient to demonstrate notability. Even if you believe that it's too inclusive, it at least has the benefit of providing a clear, brightline standard for users to follow. Your proposal, to redefine the guideline as Professionals noted for individual achievement at the highest level of a sport, does introduce that flaw. If the requirement is that someone has to be noted for individual achievement, then you have to define what constitutes achievement and, for that matter, you also have to determine how to separate individual achievement from that of the team.
Second, one of the main arguments against the current guideline is that it sets a lower bar for notability than exists generally for other people. That's a reasonable concern. Your proposal would actually set a higher bar than exists generally, which would be equally a concern. The general notability guideline is that A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Assuming that achievement might mean winning an award, leading a league in a statistical category, appearing in an all-star game, or setting a record, there would be numerous athletes who could meet the general guideline but would not be able to rise to this standard.
Finally, there are at least two of us here currently engaged in discussion with you about this suggestion, and I at least am suggesting disagreement with the proposal. If you read further up the page or in the recent archives of the page, many other users have expressed dissatisfaction with the guideline as being either too expansive or too restrictive. You've already tried to insert your suggested edit into the text twice, and you were reverted both times, by two separate users. It's on the basis of this discussion, previous similar discussions, and those reversions that I am stating my belief that consensus does not exist for the change.
You're clearly passionate about this issue, which I think is commendable. As I said earlier, this guideline is a third rail — I wouldn't dream of trying to kick off substantive discussion about change, mostly because I've been through the discussion enough times to believe that it's impossible to draft a change that will get general approval. Nobody likes it as it is, and nobody has been able to get enough people to agree on what the better system is. It's kind of like the Internal Revenue Service — necessary, but universally disliked. If you're really serious about trying to reform the guideline, my advice to you would be to restate your proposal in a new section, and advertise the discussion through many of the central channels to get as many eyes on it as possible. People who care about the discussion will come to join it — in the best case, a critical mass will develop and coalesce around wording (yours or something else) on which there is a true consensus of the interested parties. In the meantime, I don't think that we're going to get anywhere continuing to bat the discussion around amongst those of us who have commented most recently. Mlaffs (talk) 03:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I would also object to the change. It is my opinion that the current guideline is already less inclusive than those for most other professions. People try to say the guideline is equivalent to saying sometimes like "all surgeons are notable," but that is a bogus argument. By making it to the point where one can earn a living in sport, the individual has already surpassed 99.9% of the people who played the sport seriously. I feel this is a reasonable cut-off for automatic inclusion (slightly higher might be better in theory, but that would introduce unnecessary subjectivity). My problem is that people use it to exclude players who are actually more notable than the minimum pro, but haven't yet played a pro game because they are still in college. I do not think the language of the document supports the idea that college players are automatically exclude but that the way people treat it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
"By making it to the point where one can earn a living in sport," the individual has demonstrated ordinary competence in their chosen profession. Not every player who has ever appeared on a team roster for an obscure middle-eastern pro soccer team will have sufficient independent, verifiable, third-party sources to support a biography, and without that, hundreds if not thousands of sports-figure stubs are nothing more than pages in an enormous directory of people who once received money for playing a game. WP:NOTDIR. 121a0012 (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem with this line of thinking is that it encourages systemic bias. US media coverage of sports is ridiculous, we all know, so an American athlete doesn't need to do much to reach the point where we can say stuff about him. On the other hand, pro athletes in many other countries, or even pro athletes in the US just several decades ago, don't have much written on them; changing the guideline to what you suggest would essentially mean that US athletes need to do a lot less than others to get into the encyclopedia. Sure, there is always going to be systemic bias anyway because of what we have available (ie, even if we include athletes on "obscure middle-eastern" soccer players, we may not be able to say much for lack of sources), but we shouldn't be contributing to it. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs14:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
If we don't have anything to say about someone, then we shouldn't be saying it. There does not need to be an article which says nothing about a person. (And extracts from a league statistics database or team roster don't say anything worth saying about a person that isn't better said by the database or roster it was copied from. Again, Wikipedia is not a directory, and it's not an indiscriminate collection of information, either. The current wording of WP:ATHLETE wants to make it both.) 121a0012 (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually that is not true, the statistics would not be indiscriminate as they are about a specific person who met a specific criteria to have a page which is the definition of discriminate. As well it would not fail directory as it does not fall under any of the 7 points of WP:NOTDIR. -Djsasso (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I give up. Let Wikipedia be filled with garbage one-sentence "biographies" of little-noted people of no particular achievement. That's not my notion of what an encyclopedia is; I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to clean this crap up. 121a0012 (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
People notable only for one event
This guideline is impossible to follow, and needs to ditch the requirement that the name of the article describe the event that made the person notable. What it needs to point out, is that if the name is likely to be confused, it needs to include a disambiguation, and that the article needs to focus on the events that made the person notable, if they are not otherwise notable, but the article name does not need to explain the event that made them notable. This topic comes up thousands of times, and is an unnecessary discussion, created by an impossible to follow guideline. Instead of "For example, Steve Bartman redirects to Steve Bartman incident", it needs to say "For example, Steve Bartman incident redirects to Steve Bartman, an article which is not a general biography of the otherwise non-notable Steve Bartman, but an article only about the incident, and any information that is relevant to the incident." 199.125.109.102 (talk) 04:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The guideline is not at all impossible to follow. Just because every single event doesn't have a name doesn't mean the name of the event (when one exists) shouldn't be the first choice for the name of an article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The point is, why make an exception (some of the time), when a name does exist? If you go through BLP, I am certain you could find hundreds of exceptions both ways, both where they are non-notable, but have the article named their name, and where they are notable and have the article named their name-with a description of the event. It is really pointless to make the distinction. Besides, how do you decide the threshold when Rosa Parks becomes notable in her own right? Really a pointless discussion, in my mind. There are countless examples of one event making someone notable, and they either become notable in their own right, or not, and it is useless to decide the name of the article about them (or what happened) based on which happens. It is always their name that is going to be searched for, like "Steve Bartman", never "Steve Bartman incident". 199.125.109.102 (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The reason to have the article clearly named for the event is to give a very clear signal to editors what the focus of the article is. This is both necessary and effective. Disembrangler (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it should be a matter of judgment in each case. The guideline should be that, the name of the event is usually preferred, but no stronger than that. If we cn be ore precise we should, but I think there are multiple factors involved in deciding this. DGG (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The number of times that this issue has appeared on this page, I am inclined to think we need to have an RfC on the subject or something. Right now it is too confining and unevenly applied. The original intent, as far as I am concerned was to deal with people who are notable for the odd news story. BLP1E should be deprecated to a guideline, as a policy we have too many policy wonks fighting over it.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!23:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify, we are not talking about WP:BLP1E, which is not even on this page. This page is WP:Notability (people), or WP:BIO, which is a guideline, not a policy. The section we are discussing, is WP:BIO1E, or Articles about people notable only for one event. The event is what is notable, not the person, but where a single person plays a major role in the event, it is normal to use the person's name for the event, even though the article is about the event, not the person. It really goes against the tide to do otherwise. Baby Jessica falls down a well and what do we expect? Baby Jessica, not Baby fell down a well and was saved. If the person becomes notable, as in the case of Rosa Parks, and likely in the current case of Neda, then the focus of the article tends to naturally shift from being about the original event that made them notable to the person, but there is no need to change the name of the article when that occurs (although it may end up being two articles, one about the person, one about the event, both notable at that point). WP:BLP, which is a policy, already points out that "If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate." WP:BIO1E simply needs to recognize that in that case, it is more likely that the most commonly expected name for the article about the event may in fact be that persons name. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Guinness World Record holders
Is there a standard or precedent for people who hold a Guiness world record and are notable for nothing else? I just came across Linda Lou Taylor and was about to nominate it for AfD, but I figured I should check here to see if these issues have been discussed before (I couldn't find any guidelines about this on the project page). rʨanaɢtalk/contribs06:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
No guideline or real precedent as far as I know, but in most cases the person will pass the GNG due to reliable source coverage of the record breaking event. I would think just about any record based on actually doing something would be sufficient for inclusion, but genetic related records are debatable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I figured it would come up against ONEEVENT/BLP1E...although in retrospect I guess those guidelines are more about events that happen to people, rather than things that people do themselves. I guess it is a graded continuum and there's no black-and-white; articles like Danny Higginbottom are probably worse than this (and others probably better) in terms of notability. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs14:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, BLP1E doesn't apply. It is, as you state, designed to keep people who are part of news event from getting a page - often for privacy reasons. If the person makes news intentionally, for example by breaking a record, then BLP1E doesn't apply.--ThaddeusB (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I would question ThaddeusB's assertion that there will usually be sufficient RS of the record breaking event. There are a whole load of records, most of which probably get little or no coverage. Remember, we need either indepth coverage from one source or multiple independent reliable secondary sources and I suspect many sources can't meet the criteria. This may not be the case for Linda Lou Taylor but I would suspect there are other cases. E.g. I'm not seeing any RS in the Danny Higginbottom article. Nil Einne (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Considering Guinness itself is an RS, I think that most successful record attempts will have the required two sources. I am not saying that record breaking people are automatically notable, I am just saying that IMO the required coverage is likely to exists in most cases. Notability still has to actually be proven by pointing to that coverage though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Governance review
A review of governance on the English Wikipedia has been started here. The input of everyone with any interest in the project is welcomed and encouraged. --Tango (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
3rd GMI Report
3rd Report of the Growth Monitoring Initiative
Number of articles about soccer players per nationality
Name
England
Scotland
Brazil
Italy
Argentina
France
Germany
Spain
Netherlands
Others
TOTAL
July of 2008
6,695
2,253
2,413
1,379
1,337
1,572
1,155
1,087
933
11,558
30,382
July of 2009
9,435
2,928
2,854
1,578
1,663
1,986
2,233
1,356
1,144
17,007
42,184
GMI monitors the growth of soccer related biographies.
Wikipedia now has over 42,000 articles dedicated to soccer players.
11,802 new articles in one year.
38% growth in the number of articles in one year.
This report calls for the creation of tools that reduces the Editor Time required for the improvement and for the maintainance of those biographies.
(...)Most of them low-quality stubs.
GMI monitors only soccer, the problem is the same for all sports.
32 new soccer player articles every single day.
This report favors the creation of a WikiSports in the same way of WikiQuotes. WP:ATHLETE is too inclusive and sets no minimum quality criteria.
I would say the growth is due at least as much from people creating stubs for players that fail ATHLETE as it is for ones that pass it. Football (soccer) is unquestionably the sport that generates the most NN stubs. This is likely due to most fans not really understanding that their local 'professional' team is really what we'd call semi-professional and/or not realizing that only fully professional players are automatically notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with this report and that WP:ATHLETE is too inclusive, but I think the issue of these being unencyclopedic and the need for another wiki are two separate questions, best tackled on their own. Most of these players are only included because they have played on a notable team. Thousands of these biographies are uncited and the majority of them are very low quality and would require extensive research just to get more than a few paragraphs of information. This is indeed a problem, but is the answer an entirely new Wiki? I'm not too familiar with the creation of new Wikis but you could try posting this request over on meta and seeing what response you get there. ThemFromSpace21:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I would guess this would be something for Wikia. However, if someone chose to start a soccer or sport related Wikia dedicated to every player everywhere, that is completely irrelevant to how we treat these bios on Wikipedia. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, they are either notable, or they aren't. If you think they aren't, AfD them. If they survive AfD, then accept the consensus. But then, we've been through this so many times already I've lost count. At this point, EconomistBR is probably the only person left who cares. Resolute15:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with Djsasso, but I do think a little more can be said. One aspect of the sports-related bio "controversy" (if that) that isn't mentioned enough is that there's an immense amount of verifiable statistcal/performance information about professional sports events that allows the creation of at least short, summary articles about virtually every professional athlete competing in the developed world, and often outside it. This allows much more detailed Wikipedia coverage of sports than of almost any other field. And, while I'm generally not interested in such things, I'm forced by the weight of evidence/experience to acknowledge that sports fans like to look up the basic information that's included in such articles. So. The articles can be created in ways which satisfy the GNG, WP:V, WP:RS, etc. Their content isn't harmful to Wikipedia or invasive to the article subjects' privacy. And people are likely to find the articles useful/valuable/helpful/whatever. So there are lots of them? Why worry. And they're a particularly convenient "gateway" for many users outside the US/English-speaking areas of Europe. In terms of BLP standards, they're probably above-average in quality, especially to the extent that they're short and summary, aside from the statistics. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
An anon IP has twice tagged this article, which I wrote last week, with a 'Notability' tag. I have removed it once, as I believe the subject of the article, a film producer/literary agent/playwright, is notable. Have I done the right thing?--Beehold (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The best way to respond to these templates is to try to address the issue. Find more third party reliable sources about Ms. Zitwer and use them in the article. Once the issue is addressed, someone will remove the template. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps someone else can try and explain in a bit more detail to User:Beehold, I've tried and stopped. Take a look at the article now, in response to the above, the article now references multiple sources for each minor fact e.g. produced film X. It still doesn't reference any source which is actually about Zitwer. My interactions with the user so far are less from promising, so I doubt me going any further with this is going to help and will possibly make things worse, as such I'll disengage. However their stubborn refusal to actually try and understand the wikipedia guidlines doesn't bode well for the future. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Sent the Beehold some info. I am glad you are taking a step back since you seem to be getting a little hot over it. The page needs to be watched and the editor needs a push in the right direction. Notability wise, she has created, or played a major role in co-creating well-known works of multiple independent reviews. Unfortunately, her resume does not make a very good addition to this project. Should be easy enough to clean up. Give the IP a chance to learn the guidelines and see what happens. If the IP continues (wouldn't be surprised to be honest) to be in violation of guidelines please take it to the appropriate discussion page based on what standards are not being followed.Cptnono (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:Athlete, juniors
I suggest that WP:Athlete is amended to unamibigously indicate whether
junior efforts (e.g. a junior grand slam win in tennis or a junior world championship
in athletics) are sufficient for inclusion.
(The same applies to youth and master's competitions; although common sense
would indicate a "no", based on the current formulation---barring a "yes"
based on other criteria than WP:Athlete, obviously.)
94.220.247.12 (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
It actually already is pretty unambiguous, its says the highest level of amateur competition, which isn't junior. Age limits mean that the best in a sport would be barred from competing, the idea of top level is that its the best of the best. -Djsasso (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking that if a junior athlete is truly notable, they will be notable under general notability guidelines or WP:BIO. Remember, the "athlete" standards are not exclusive (see WP:ABELINCOLN essay).--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. The point of specific topic notability guidelines is to make them work for each topic so we include articles that are encyclopedic. Sometimes the guidelines will be tend toward being inclusionist and other times more exclusionist depending on the need. FloNight♥♥♥19:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with FloNight, they are meant to be both depending on the circumstances. But I don't intend to get into that debate again, especially since the abe lincoln essay you link to is your own essay and is not even close to the current consensus/reality on the topic. -Djsasso (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Well for starters WP:ATHLETE doesn't cover every bio, it is only for bios whose claim to notability is being good at Athletics. So the whole example you use is inappropriate. Of course Lincoln fails wp:athlete... he isn't an athlete. He shouldn't be deleted because he passes wp:politician or wp:n. WP:Athlete in the end has no bearing on him because he gains notability for reasons other than being an athlete. -Djsasso (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
You still don't get it. I have seen other people try to explain this to you before and it always seems to go over your head. It wouldn't exclude Abe Lincoln because the claim to notability for Abe Lincoln isn't that of an athlete. However if Abe Lincoln was a junior tennis player and played at the top junior level but was never the man we know him to be in reality, then yes WP:ATHLETE would be used to exclude him. Basically what I am getting at is that for your essay to actually make logical sense you need an example of someone whose only claim to fame is that of a sports figure who doesn't meet any of the criteria of WP:ATHLETE but we still would keep. -Djsasso (talk) 04:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I still don't get it? The point is that someone who is an athlete may not meet notability guidelines for WP:ATHELTE but may meet them through other means. Modern examples as given in the essay include Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford. Did you even read the essay before you got so critical about it?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
None of them are Athletes is the problem, what I am getting at and what Mlaffs illustrates below is that for your essay to actually make sense you need a sports player example, not a president. Find an athlete who doesn't meet wp:athlete but does meet something else. -Djsasso (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, if you missed earlier in the conversation, I said ONLY sports. None of those people are most notable for the sporting achievements. The idea is you want someone whose notability only comes from sports such as the two examples below. Otherwise your essay doesn't say what you think it says. -Djsasso (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Huh? From the essay: "...meeting the guideline is grounds for inclusion, but failure to meet is not grounds for exclusion." What do you think this means? Seriously?--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Forget it, keep using your example, you don't seem to realize how your example makes your argument seem less valid. I am trying to actually help you make your essay be better received. You are using a strawman argument with your example. -Djsasso (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone like Bryce Harper, for example? Hasn't played at a level above high school, although award-winning at that level. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources, including a Sports Illustrated cover story. Or for that matter the player he's most often compared with, LeBron James, if we were having this discussion prior to LeBron turning pro. Mlaffs (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
without anyone specific in mind, I do think a large chunk of Wikipedia would try to claim Mr. Harper is non-notable since he fails ATHLETE. That is utterly ridiculous, in my opinion, as the clear language of the document says ATHLETE is inclusionary only, but many editors treat it as both. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
However, current guidelines which I presume was based on consensus clearly states "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't think the current guidelines ARE based on consensus. Virtually no one reads the topic guidelines before starting an article. The main people that follow the various version of the guidelines are the people that regularly participate in Xfd. FloNight♥♥♥19:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Now, on this afd Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Delilah_DiCrescenzo, there's the issue of an athlete who competed in another IAAF Championship.. the World Cross Country Championships. A user at the AFD pointed out this link [16], which lists World Cross as a championship (along with Racewalking, youth events, golden league, etc.)
It is certainly a matter of interpretation (just scroll through this page or browse the archives to see heated debate on the actual meaning of WP:Athlete), but here is my take: Despite the capitalization, "World Championships" is a generic term. Without any further qualification, it is impossible to say what governing bodies events' are with the scope of that rather vague term. The IAAF World Cross Country Championships do appear to me to be "world championships", so I think that participants would therefore meet WP:Athlete, with respect to its current wording. Strikehold (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I am pretty sure the current wording is intended to main any official world championships and not just the IAAF events. I don't see why other amateur sports' championships wouldn't be included just because they don't fall under the IAAF's jurisdiction. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The IAAF World Championships only cover a defined group of events. Events that fall outside of this scope such as cross country still have an ultimate championship and is even defined as one by the IAAF itself. If you eliminate these, what you have is a very restrictive criterion that would eliminate cross country athletes from notability. For example, you would be in the situation where as cross country world champion would not meet notability for WP:ATHLETE. Wikipedia's own article(recognizing we aren't a reliable source) on IAAF World Cross Country Championships calls it "the most important competition in international cross country running". -- Whpq (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) A related question: it is difficult to tell whether "compete" in the guideline means simply to compete at all, or to compete and do well. More on that also at the same AfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
It' isn't difficult at all. If doing well was a criterion, then there would be qualifiers in the notability guidelines to point out that they must win a medal or place in the top eight, etc. There are no such qualifiers. -- Whpq (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, yes it is difficult, because the policy goes on to say "at the highest level." Does competing at the highest level imply doing well? Or does it simply mean competing, with whatever result, in a highest-level competition? The wording is ambiguous. What you said here, you have also said at the AfD. I've read through past talk here, including archives, and it seems to me that there are a variety of opinions on this point, without a clear consensus, and that ambiguity makes it very difficult to assess notability of amateur athlete bios. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
It is ambiguous in your phrasing which is not a direct quotation, but it is unambiguous in the original, which more fully states "competed at the highest amateur level of a sport". That makes it clear as to what "level" refers with context being added by "amateur level" and "level of a sport". It doesn't mean quality, it means administrative level or tier. Strikehold (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you; that may very well be the answer. But I can't help wondering whether competing at the highest amateur level carries the same implied meaning as performing at the highest amateur level (as opposed to participating at the highest amateur level). If it does not, and if, as you said, it doesn't mean quality, it raises in my mind a serious question about the suitability of the policy in its present form, if we are to be a quality encyclopedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
You will also need to consider the WP:ATHLETE portion in total then as the mere appearance in a professional league is sufficient. That is a much lower bar to pass than a world championship. As for the quality of the encyclpedia, I fail so why the inclusion of a person competing at world championship can be considered diluting the quality of the encyclopedia. -- Whpq (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with what you said about amateur versus pro. The quality thing is, I guess, very subjective, very much in the eye of the beholder.
But -- I'm wondering about changing (at least as a thought experiment) the policy to read "People who have participated..." at the beginning of both parts one and two, instead of "competed." I do think that writing the current version with "competed" has a bit of political expediency to it, so that editors who mentally equate "competed" with "performed," and those who mentally equate it with "participated," can each see it to mean what they would like it to mean. If indeed it does mean, in effect, "participated," (and I'm not completely comfortable that it does, at least in part two, where it says "the highest amateur level" instead of "the fully professional level"), then it might be more honest and clear to say so. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Performed, participated, and competed all mean the same thing in regards to WP:ATHLETE. The idea behind the wording is that they did their particular sport at the highest level possible in amateur sports and has nothing to do with how they did at said level. -Djsasso (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Although some editors here are arguing that they all mean the same thing for purposes of this policy, they do not all mean the same thing in their natural dictionary meanings, and there is nothing in the policy as written to clarify what competed means, other than what it means on face value. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
They actually do all mean the same thing in a dictionary sense. You are trying to infer different meaning where there is none. -Djsasso (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Courtesy of dictionary.com: Participate - "To take part in something", Perform - "to execute or do something" and, Compete - "engage in a contest". As you can see they all talk about doing something, and none of them talk about quality. -Djsasso (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Then let me explain. Perform (at the highest level) has a connotation of "measuring up," whereas participate (in an event) has a connotation of just "showing up." Compete is intermediate between those two. The definitions you quote are consistent with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)The AfD has closed, and I regard the closing admin's decision as being an answer to my question: as other editors have said just above, compete simply means being one of the competitors. I think that settles that, for this AfD, and any others in the future, so long as the current version of WP:ATH stands. As to whether it would be a good or a bad idea to modify WP:ATH, I think I've made it clear what I personally feel is wrong with it, and I would welcome other editors taking up that issue, but I also realize from this talk page that there has already been a tremendous amount of talk on it, and I'm not going to pursue it for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
38 Reality TV contestants nominated for deletion today
I hope this doesn't break WP:CANVASS, but as this issue has been the subject of such intense debate over the years then I think its OK. Today I nominated 38 American Idol contestant articles for deletion (I've compiled all of the AFDs together here). Based on the results, I feel we need to reach a consensus on how we measure the notability of Reality TV contestants - something I have previously tried, and failed, at WP:REALITY (which I am going to edit and re-nominate). I'm going to post this at the talk page of WP:BLP too, and we shall HAVE THE DISCUSSION THERE to keep things all in one place. DJ20:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
clarification desired
Many of the criteria are very subjective.
Perhaps adding optional objective criteria would be helpful. Anyone who is deemed notable under the old criteria would remain notable.
The added optional criteria could include (this is just brainstorming):
Academics: Any faculty member (past or present) of a university with more than 20,000 students who has also had at least 2 publications.
Diplomats: An diplomat with a rank of Ambassador or High Commissioner of a country.
Entertainers: An actor or actress that have appeared in at least 30 films or at least 10 films as one of the top 3 charactors based on the studio's order of listing.
Pornographic actors: Penthouse Monthly Pet, or whatever the title is (should not give undue weight to only Playboy Playmates)
These are entirely arbitrary, I think they would just invite bickering ("what if an actor has been in 28 films?" etc.). Also, at least the Academics criteria is extremely broad....two journal articles is not a lot (especially if you count co-authored articles) and being on a department's faculty doesn't make notability (in fact, the article requirement is a bit redundant, as I doubt many departments would hire a professor with no publications). Every professor in my department would meet that requirement, but many of them should not (and probably do not want to) have WP articles written about them. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs21:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
These possible criteria are just optional criteria. An actor could be notable even if they starred in only 1 film if they had a cult following, which is a current subjective criteria. However, they could be deemed notable after starting in 30 films. The actor with 28 films could not claim notability by the 30 film criteria but there are many pre-existing criteria to become notable.
An academic faculty member doesn't have veto power to dictate if they don't want a WP article on them. However, we don't have to say 2 articles that they authored, we could up the number to 5.
The problem is that numerical criteria, no matter how high or low, are arbitrary. What's the difference between an actor with 29 film credits and one with 31? What's the difference between an academic with 4 publications and one with 6? In both cases, why should one be granted automatic inclusion and one not?
Long story short, there is a reason the notability guidelines are very subjective. The reason is that we're not robots, we're able to judge things on a case-by-case basis. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs21:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the confusion is that you are confusing objective criteria with minimum criteria. The actor with 29 credits is already probably unquestionably notable by the subjective criteria. User F203 (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
And if an actor with 29 credits is already unquestionably notable, why do we need extra criteria for actors with 30 credits? By your own admission, they are also already "probably unquestionably notable" under the criteria we already have. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs22:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Then it would avoid a fight for someone who is so overqualified. No need to debate any further if a proposed article's subject meets these very high objective standards. Otherwise, even the world's most famous actor would potentially have a huge debate. Do you think 5 publications for academic is too low, up from 2? User F203 (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The academics qualification seems low. It seems to me that we already have a pretty reasonable way to determine academics are notable in WP:AUTHOR - The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. In my field (history), this would more or less cover a huge number of people, since most historians write books that are then reviewed in scholarly journals. It might work less well for scholars in fields where articles are the principal means of publication. Perhaps some sort of criterion that mentions citations of a scholarly work as a basis for notability? I don't see that the entertainers thing really needs much in the way of modification, and I am indifferent to whether Penthouse pets are automatically notable. On diplomats, the criterion seems problematic. Up to the mid-twentieth century or so, there were several major levels of diplomatic representation that a country could have. Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary was the highest level. Below it was Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, and below that was Minister Resident. For that period, when only the diplomatic representatives exchanged between the larger and more powerful countries had the rank of ambassador, it might make sense to say ambassadors are automatically notable. In the present day, though, there must be, what, ten thousand accredited ambassadors and high commissioners? And that's just at the present - the numbers are constantly changing. Giving them all automatic notability seems like an invitation to unpleasant stubs. Furthermore, it seems to give undue notability to minor figures of the present as compared to major figures of the past. Charles Francis Adams (although he obviously possesses sufficient notability on his own, anyway) was a very important American diplomatic representative, as minister to the court of St James during the civil war. But he did not hold the rank of ambassador, so he wouldn't be given automatic notability. On the other hand, we'd be giving automatic notability to the ambassador from Ecuador to Peru, or something. I don't see any particular need for this. If we can find sufficient biographical information on an ambassador from reliable sources, we should feel free to create articles about them. But there's no good reason to set some arbitrary rule as to which are notable ahead of time - it seems to me that the current rules are sufficient to insure that most diplomats of any importance should be able to be included. john k (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
This is useful dialogue. The point is that there should be some optional objective criteria in addition to the subjective criteria. Otherwise, we accept bias. The subjective criteria would remain the primary criteria but having an optional objective criteria reduces the chance of discriminatory behavior.
John k's comments are useful because there should be dialogue about what the objective criteria might be. Since he thinks the academic qualifications are low, perhaps a modification is in order. He wrote "It might work less well for scholars in fields where articles are the principal means of publication." Chemistry is such a field. Chemists in universities primarily write peer reviewed journal articles and there are not a lot of book reviews and certainly no movie reviews. So if you don't like the 5 articles, how about double that or 10?
"I am indifferent to whether Penthouse pets are automatically notable". I am uncomfortable ceding notability to Playboy. Furthermore, I was under the impression that Playboy and Penthouse are the two major nudity magazines.
As far as ambassadors, there are already many articles on ambassadors who have done very little, at least in the WP article. However, they are the highest level so that's why they were included in the proposal and not vice-consuls or visa clerks.
A problem in logic is "Furthermore, it seems to give undue notability to minor figures of the present as compared to major figures of the past. Charles Francis Adams (although he obviously possesses sufficient notability on his own, anyway) was a very important American diplomatic representative, as minister to the court of St James during the civil war. But he did not hold the rank of ambassador, so he wouldn't be given automatic notability."
Automatic notability will not necessarily be conferred to the most notable people but does introduce objectivity. Furthermore, it is an OPTIONAL criteria. By the objective criteria, God or George Washington would not be given automatic notability but they pass easily on their own. However, an actor who has starred in 100 films would not have to be subject to argument because he would already pass the objective criteria. If the ambassador criteria is not liked, how about having the objective criteria being that any ambassador who has been at the post for greater than 3 years passes the criteria?
It may be like a job. An employer can hire anyone that want. The objective criteria are not required criteria (like a work visa might be).
I think the problem with the arguments against the objective criteria is that everyone mistakenly things the objective criteria are required. This is not the case.
The main issue we should resolve is that there can be optional objective criteria. The alternative is edit warring and fights over what is significant. The "Murder of (person)" constantly has this battle. The arguments are always whether vast simultaneous coverage on CNN and BBC is significant coverage. This is because everything is subjective. That's why we need optional objective criteria, which will always be more stringent than the subjective criteria. User F203 (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely not. I never said I oppose these objective criteria because they would be "required" or would rule out good articles. I opposed them because they're unnecessary. By your own admission, they would rarely apply—most people who meet the objective criteria already meet the existing criteria, and so these new criteria would only be useful in the very rare cases of someone like an actor with 35 film credits who is somehow not notable in the other criteria. These cases are so rare that they already can be handled on a case-by-case basis.
Usually objective criteria like the ones you are proposing are made up as a convenient heuristic for solving disputes that crop up nonstop...take WP:ATHLETE, for example. It was brought up because there are thousands of athlete stubs on WP. What you are suggesting, though, is to create a whole new set of problematic rules to handle two or three unusual articles. There's no need for that; articles like those are what we have WP:IAR and brains for. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs18:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I had a length response, but this is basically exactly right - I don't see in what way these proposed standards would do any good. john k (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Peers again
I was just reading over the discussion from last month about the notability of peers. It didn't seem there was any particular consensus, so I thought I'd bring it up again. The discussion was over whether most peers ought to qualify as automatically notably on the basis of WP:POLITICIAN. There was also some broader discussion of peers who didn't fall under the terms of WP:POLITICIAN ought to be considered automatically notable anyway. There didn't seem to be any consensus. I do think it's worth taking this issue up again, perhaps in hopes of writing a specific sub-guideline for peers into the notability guidelines, in order to reduce ambiguity on these points and be clearer.
My view is generally towards inclusiveness on this. I think many of the arguments that were made against inclusion were on some sort of understanding that notability must be earned - that to be notable requires some specific merit on the part of the notable individual, and that, as such, inheriting a title did not qualify. There was also some argument to the effect that the House of Lords was not a "real" legislature, and so its members should not be considered a priori as important as members of the Wyoming House of Representatives. I think both of these arguments are basically without merit - notability is simply a descriptive factor, not a normative judgment, and the House of Lords is pretty clearly as significant as, if not more significant than, many of the legislatures nobody is kicking up a fuss about.
As such, my basic view is that membership in the House of Lords ought to count as WP:POLITICIAN notability. This would mean that the following peers would qualify automatically for articles:
Life peers created under the Life Peerages Act 1958 (I've also not seen much controversy about including them)
Peers spiritual
Male hereditary peers in the peerages of England, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom prior to 1999
Male hereditary peers in the peerage of Scotland before 1707 (as members of the Scottish Parliament)
Male hereditary peers in the peerage of Ireland before 1801 (as members of the Irish House of Lords)
Scottish representative peers between 1707 and 1963
Irish representative peers between 1801 and 1922
Female hereditary peers in their own right in the peerages of England, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom between 1963 and 1999
Hereditary peers in the peerage of Scotland between 1963 and 1999
The hereditary peers who have been elected or appointed to continue serving in the chamber since 1999
I think that something stating this would be useful
However, there was one interesting point that Ironholds brought up, which I thought was worthy of some thought. This was the fact that some members of the House of Lords never actually took their seat, and thus were not in any real sense members of the House, and so should not be considered notable. This is probably true, but I'm not sure what the significance of it is. It seems to me unlikely that there are very many adult peers who never attended the House, never gave a speech, and what not. There were certainly many members who attended very rarely, but this is not the same thing, I think. Unless Ironholds can give a significant list of peers who never attended the House of Lords, with citations, it seems to me that this is not worth worrying about - certainly there are U.S. congressmen who were elected but never actually showed up in Washington - they are still considered congressmen, and I think the same can be said for peers.
There are several exceptions, however - some peers who simply cannot have ever taken their seat in the House of Lords, and perhaps it is worth considering whether they should be considered automatically notable. These are:
Peers who died before reaching the age of 21. Such peers are not entitled to sit in the House of Lords and, as far as I am aware, never have been so entitled. There are a significant number of such peers. Some would clearly be notable (Henry VIII's bastard the Duke of Richmond, for instance). Others less so.
Peers who held their peerage only during a period when the House of Lords was not sitting or did not exist. Examples would include large portions of British history before 1689. The House of Lords was abolished between 1649 and 1660, and parliament famously did not sit between 1628 and 1640, as well as during other, more brief periods. A peer who succeeded his father in 1650 and died in 1659 would never have had the opportunity to sit in the Lords.
For these peers, the issue goes beyond whether they did take their seat in the lords. The issue is that they could not take a seat in the Lords for whatever reason. Our practical ability to determine who these peers are would also be far easier than determining whether someone who could have taken their seat ever did - we just need to look at birthdates and death dates, more or less. Would it make sense to exclude such peers from consideration, as exceptions to the guidelines I suggested above? It seems worth considering that convenience is the main reason for the various notability guidelines - the idea is that we are conceding notability pre-emptively because they'll likely be considered to hold it if it's investigated individually, and thus allowing us to avoid wasting time on individual investigations. Certainly all peers (including the ones who never served in parliament) have reliable sources published about them - peerage guides, most obviously. A good reason not to exclude the peers mentioned is that it would create problems with succession charts, which are useful for navigating around. If I'm trying to browse through the Dukes of Somerset, for instance, it would be annoying if there was a big red link on the 3rd Duke (who died when he was 17) to prevent me from navigating from the second duke to the fourth. On the other hand, the article on the third duke is a tiny stublet, and likely to remain that way. So this feels like something of a genuine dilemma to me. Anyway, I'd welcome further discussion of this issue. If there were some easy way to tell if a peer ever took his seat, that might also be worth looking into. I do think that some sort of clarification of precisley which peers had seats in the House of Lords would be very useful to have somewhere in the policy pages as a reference. john k (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that's all a bit too detailed to weave into WP:POLITICIAN, but as a reduced form of my original request I would support eliminating peers who never sat (for whatever reason) from WP:POLITICIAN. Ironholds (talk) 08:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree it's too detailed to put on this page, but a subpage of some sort as a kind of extended footnote might be appropriate. In terms of eliminating peers who never sat, I don't think that I would necessarily object, so long as the burden of proof was on the person who wanted to delete the article - i.e. the presumption would be that the person was a member of the House of Lords, unless they died before they turned 21. Going beyond WP:POLITICIAN to a broader assessment of peers, I was just looking through the broader bio criteria. There are two points there which arguably would expand the number of peers to be included. Firstly, criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO: The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. I think that a peerage (or baronetage) creation would clearly count as a "notable honor" - thus allowing anyone who received an Irish peerage after 1801 as well as any women who were created as peers, as well as all baronets of first creation, to be considered as notable. I think it would also extend to virtually anybody who received a knighthood, especially the higher orders of knighthood, as well as to all lords-lieutenants of counties.
My second point is even broader, although perhaps more controversial. The basic notability guideline states that the basic criterion for notability is "a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." It seems to me that the Complete Peerage pretty clearly qualifies as such a source. As such, one might argue that this, our basic notability guideline, covers all peers prior to the twentieth century. I'm less certain of whether Burke's and Debrett's would qualify, but my sense would be that they ought to. Deaths of peers tend to be reported in newspaper obituaries, which could (arguably) more or less get us the more recent ones. I suppose the question here is what is the meaning of being the "subject" of published secondary source material. Peerage guides are massive works of reference. Can any one of the many people mentioned in such a book qualify as the "subject" of it? Further thoughts? john k (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
A further point on this, discovered in the midst of doing something else - every peer and baronet is in Who's Who. It's been published since 1897 with full biographical entries - there's also Who Was Who for dead people. Between Complete Peerage and Complete Baronetage and Burke's and Debrett's and Who's Who, plus any other coverage (obituaries, etc.) there seem to be a significant number of reliable sources on virtually all peers. As such, it seems to me that all peers and baronets pass WP:BIO, except for the very newest. This is unsurprising, given the historical prominence of the peerage in British life. So, anyway, it strikes me from this that we ought to simply say that peers are notable, and not worry about arguing over deleting articles on them. john k (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I strongly disagree I am afraid.
An entry in Burke's or some equivalent material obviously does not make you notable: all peers are included whether notable or not. Suppose that someone published a list of students attending Winchester College since 1970 and what they are now doing (for all I know they have done so). Obviously inclusion in such a publication would not make you notable since that is not the test being applied for inclusion. You might just as well say that a mention in the Birmingham phone book makes you notable.
What about (say) the Army List? Is it suggested that inclusion in the Army List makes you notable? At least you have to have actually achieved something to appear in it (ie obtain a commission) so in that sense inclusion is selective. Is it suggested that that makes you notable? Any officer will appear both in the Army List and no doubt in their Regimental magazine and other publications.
Or what about the Legal 500 or Chambers Directory? A mention of an individual in either directory is strictly on merit (in theory), ie lawyers referred to are genuinely noteworthy within that sad little world. Why are such publications any less important than a directory of every peer ever? (NB: Burke's and Debrett's presumably also mention all issue so why would they not qualify on the same grounds?)
Or what about mention in McKenzie Selby or any equivalent volume? Again you actually have to have done something to be referred to, albeit not much. I don't see how Debretts can possibly trump a volume like that, or why a reference in Debrett's / Burke's is considered more significant than one in McKenzie Selby and Harris. The latter would be of genuine interest or potential interest to members of the public or some anyway whereas inclusion in Debtretts is irrespective of whether anyone would actually want such information: it is literally for completeness.
In short being referred to in a specialist reference book, if its scope is deliberately comprehensive and if it therefore includes categories of individual whether notable or not by reference to some other test, is no guide to notability and (obviously) cannot of itself bestow notariety / notability.
The reference to Who's Who is superficially slightly stronger. But again the same problem arises. The editors of Who's Who, if they include all peers regardless of importance, are not identifying notable individuals they are identifying notable individuals plus (for completeness) a load of people who qualify for inclusion for other reasons. (Besides: Who's Who includes some pretty minor characters. I have not checked but for example: every single QC? every MBE, every OBE?)
But the real question is: why does it matter whether people are notable or not? If someone wants to write an article about the third Earl of Muckwater (or for that matter about the senior partner at Bones Jones and Loans) good luck to them. After all we have got an article on every episode of Family Guy (I expect), so why not. 86.164.173.243 (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
From a perspective of US sports, at least, this guideline seems seriously wonky. In the first place, we have
People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.
This would seem to mean that every Minor League Baseball player is eligible for inclusion.
On the other hand, for amateurs we have
People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships.
Which would mean that players on ranked college football teams would not automatically qualify. As far as significance, this seems about backwards to me. Single A baseball players seem much less likely to me to be notable under ordinary criteria than players at the top college football and basketball programs. Division I college football and basketball gets a lot of media attention in the United States - probably more than the NHL. It seems utterly bizarre that players in professional minor leagues should get an advantage over them. john k (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to pile on here, this guideline seems badly flawed to me too. (I say this realizing that there has been perennial talk about the issue, but I still think it constructive for editors to continue to raise concerns, in the hope that the guideline will ultimately be improved). As I see it, the problem is that WP:ATH simply defines too many non-notable people as notable. I think that editors who like a lot of coverage of athletics tend to dominate discussions of this guideline, with the result that it has not been possible to reach consensus for a more rational guideline. A lot of persons who pass WP:ATH might well belong on lists, but they would never be considered worthy of inclusion as bio articles in any encyclopedia other than ours.
For example (as also discussed just a little above in this talk), the second part of the guideline allows bios for any amateur who has ever competed at a world-class meet, regardless of performance. The fact that "compete" means simply being a competitor, regardless of performance, has recently been affirmed here, so that is what the existing policy requires. Now let's consider what this means. Every athlete to appear on such a roster merits a bio if an editor wants to create one. We are accustomed to thinking of this in present-day terms, but it also applies historically. Let's imagine that a reliable source is found, listing the entrants in a 13th-century jousting tournament that drew entrants from many nations of that time period. One knight jousted once and apparently was defeated. There is absolutely no record of anything else notable this person ever did or ever was connected with. However, under WP:ATH, we must allow a stub on this knight. And so on, and on. In my opinion, that's ridiculous. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I would note your argument has the flaw of recentism. Of course after 700 years there might not be much to say about them, but at the time they may very well have been notable. Notability is not temporary. Just like most athletes that compete in the Olympics or minor leagues of pro sports probably have enough reliable sources about them to be considered notable now. -Djsasso (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
This seems silly. The "amateur" criterion clearly specifies people who competed in the (modern) Olympics and world championships. 13th century jousting tournaments are just a complete non-sequitur. john k (talk) 05:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
We seem to be talking past one another, so let me try to explain better. Of course I mean my example to be somewhat humorous, to illustrate reductio ad absurdum what I see as a problem, but please do not jump from that to concluding that the issue is silly. With respect to recentism, it's illuminating to compare john k's and Djsasso's comments. John suggests that the guideline is targeted at modern-day amateur athletes, whereas Dj suggests that to do so is exactly the wrong thing to do. This contradiction suggests, to me, that the guideline lets editors see in it what they want to see, and that is not helpful in having a cohesive notability policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Let's compromise? People who have competed at a very high amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships or a significant member of a ranked amateur team. ????? User F203 (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, obviously you don't have to meet WP:ATHLETE. The problem is defining a bunch of single A baseball players as automatically notable should anyone choose to write an article about them. john k (talk) 05:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
You all might want to read the archives. Athlete gets argued about every other week. Its not likely to change anytime soon. -Djsasso (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have read the archives, and I know. Not that I'm expecting change soon, but I still think it constructive to point out what's wrong with a very flawed guideline. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with john k, I agree with Tryptofish, I agree with F203, and I agree with Djsassc... and if you know me, you know how much this will likely make me crazy! Seriously, WP:ATHLETE is a terrible guideline. It's also just that--a guideline. It's not policy. I personally think that each project should create their own notability essays like we did at WP:CFBN and work to outline, discuss, and try to standardize. But don't forget, "Athlete" is inclusionary, not exclusionary--so the notable college athlete will still meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO or whatever other multiple standards may apply.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that! But I guess my concern is that there are cases that fail GNG and BIO, where ATH is used to confer notability that would not otherwise qualify. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I would think this is the big issue. Any significant college football or basketball player is going to qualify based on BIO. The problem is not that they are excluded, and that we need to expand WP:ATHLETE to include them. The problem is that it is already rather ridiculously broad. To say that anybody who's ever played for a professional sports club automatically qualifies seems totally unnecessary. If there are reliable secondary sources about the person, they can have an article. If not, no. If the material we can find about a person in reliable secondary sources is so limited that it would never result in anything more than a stublet, then it should be merged into some larger article. I don't see that it's so difficult. john k (talk) 05:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Since most of us agree there is a problem, should we form an Athlete Notability Task Force (ATNF). We can start with a clean sheet of paper. Try to define notability. See below User F203 (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Single-A minor leaguers are definitely not notable, so using that as an example doesn't work to well. I imply professional as major league rather than minor in that case. Wizardman05:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
You mean you infer it, I take it? But that's not what it says. Very specifically it is not what it says. It would be easy enough to say that only players competing at the highest level of professional play would qualify, or to do it sport by sport, country by country. That is not what it says. It states that all athletes who compete in a professional league are notable. Minor League Baseball describes itself as professional. If we don't mean to include them, the wording should be changed (I think the wording should be changed, personally). john k (talk) 05:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Mission: to define notability better to make it easier for editors and also to reduce arguments over who is notable.
Who is notable/working space
We should first have some general idea to who is notable. Famous professional, college, and non-professional, I think people have an idea to who is obviously notable. Should we define the cutoff for certain ranks? Should we define it as reliable source coverage, primarly news sources? Is length of service possible optional criteria, for example, if a person has done it a long time (length of service minimum would not be imposed on everyone, just as an optional guideline) User F203 (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
If we define certain ranks, we could always have a disclaimer. We could say for baseball it's such and such, for football/soccer, it's such and such. For sports not mentioned, it would be as close as reasonably equivalent to the examples provided. User F203 (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest for amateurs who do not otherwise meet BIO or GNG, some kind of requirement of accomplishment, above simply being in a competition. Things like winning, medaling, setting a record, and so forth. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
If they don't meet BIO or GNG then they shouldn't have articles. That being said the idea you two are trying to create has already happened and died. See Wikipedia:Notability (sports). I would suggest moving this discussion there and restarting discussion there if you want individual guidelines per sport. Basically it came down to the more exceptions or rules you make, the harder it actually becomes for editors and the more arguing will happen and that the current wording was the lesser of multiple evils. -Djsasso (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I would also note that most people also think the criteria is actually too loose and let too many non-notable people have articles, so I don't think you will find many people supporting anything which allows for more people who fail GNG and BIO to get articles. -Djsasso (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how anyone who got a medal in the Olympics, say, could possibly fail BIO. How would that work? There seems to be some sort of sense that BIO is hard to meet, but it's not. It's incredibly easy for an athlete of any stature to meet BIO, as far as I can tell. Every Major League Baseball player has their full career stats available via any number of sources, and there'd certainly be plenty of media coverage of most of them, even going back some time in history. The basic limitation of BIO, as far as I can gather, is that we can find reliable sources that discuss the person in enough depth to write an article. The reason to have specific guidelines is to give the shorthand for large groups of people who already meet the criteria of BIO. All Major League Baseball Players, or English Premier League players, for instance, are probably going to have enough written about them to write at least a short article, and as such, it makes sense to create the specific guideline because they'd meet it anyway and it'd be a waste of time to argue about it. People seem to be building up BIO as though it's a difficult standard to meet. It is not a difficult standard to meet at all. Anyone who gets an obituary in the newspaper meets BIO. There is a Biographical Dictionary of all Major League baseball players who played in the 1950s - so every major leaguer in the 50s qualifies for BIO. The reason to have ATHLETE is just to say "look, anyone who's ever played in the NBA is, upon investigation, going to be discovered to meet BIO, so let's just say ahead of time that they're notable so we don't argue about it." It should not be used as a way to include people that wouldn't ordinarily fit BIO. john k (talk) 05:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
"If they don't meet BIO or GNG then they shouldn't have articles." I agree with that. But here is just one recent example of a page that fails both BIO and GNG being kept, only because it passes ATH.
"That being said the idea you two are trying to create has already happened and died." I understand that, but consensus changes over time.
"I would also note that most people also think the criteria is actually too loose and let too many non-notable people have articles." I agree, and I'm one of those people. If there really are a lot of editors feeling this way, then continued discussion actually is well-justified. I do realize that F203 and I are making different points, but I'm referring here to my point.
"It's incredibly easy for an athlete of any stature to meet BIO, as far as I can tell." That's true, which is why I feel that pages like this are being kept when they fail BIO, only because they pass ATH. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
DiCrescenzo passes BIO by a mile, so your example is highly flawed. The only reason people were arguing for delete on the AfD is because they believed she failed ATHLETE. Specialty publications are most certainly allowed to be used to establish notability. No one would argue for deleting a scientist who's scientific accomplishments are only discussed in scientific journals, but people are always looking for an excuse to delete athletes. The most common reason is "sure they have lots of coverage, but it is only about their sports accomplishments and therefore is trivial in nature." Well duh, of course it is about their sports accomplishments - they are sports players. Sports players become notable by having their on field activity noticed, just like painters become notable for having their paintings noticed, and actors become notable by having their acting noticed.
The real reason people hate ATHLETE is not because it lets non-notable people, as defined by Wikipedia, get articles; it is because it allows people who are non-notable in their opinion get articles. A large chunk of the Wikipedia population thinks athletes get too much media coverage and that we should correct this bias by setting our standards higher. It is extremely rare for anyone who passes ATHLETE not to be the subject of multiple magazine and newspaper articles. Indeed, the far more common use of ATHLETE is to (improperly) exclude amateur players who do have coverage in multiple reliable sources, often including full biographical write-ups. A typical argument: "Delete - fails ATHLETE" -> "Keep - easily meets the general qualifications of BIO and the GNG" -> "All those stories are about their sports play and therefore trivial" -> "What about this biographical piece" -> "It still talks about their sports accomplishments which aren't notable because the person fails ATHLETE. Therefore, it isn't significant coverage because it talks about their insignificant accomplishments"
If there is a problem with ATHLETE (and I don't like the guideline very much either) it is that people use it for exclusionary purposes, not that it lets a bunch of non-notable people in. Wikipedia's version of notability is a very low bar for all professions, but people usually only complain about ATHLETE. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I would say that many single-A ball players tend not to pass BIO, but appear to pass ATHLETE (unless single A baseball isn't considered "fully professional" - but I'm not sure what that means)), but otherwise I think you're right - it's mostly setting the bar too high, especially if people are saying that someone who passes BIO but not ATHLETE should get deleted - certainly DiCrescenzo would seem to be in that category. john k (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Thaddeus, I guess it's my fault that we are ending up re-arguing a closed AfD, since I brought it up. But I feel I have to reply to what you said above. "DiCrescenzo passes BIO by a mile, so your example is highly flawed." Without entirely re-arguing it, the closing admin concluded that there was no consensus about BIO, whereas the reason for keep was ATH. Whoever's right and whoever's wrong, it is the case that there was a lot of disagreement over BIO, and I'm factually correct that the reason for keep was ATH in its present form. "The real reason people hate ATHLETE is not because it lets non-notable people, as defined by Wikipedia, get articles; it is because it allows people who are non-notable in their opinion get articles." The problem with discussing it that way is that I could reply that the real reason people defend ATH is because it lets people who are notable in their opinion get articles, even when those people are not. Yes, it is "as defined by Wikipedia," which is why those of us interested in changing the guideline would like to see Wikipedia define it differently. My specific gripe is with defining as notable someone who lost, someone who placed badly. I have no problem with lists of all competitors at major events, but writing a biographical page on someone who is better for a list seems to me something that no other encyclopedia of quality would do. You make a comparison with scientists. In fact, not every scientist, or academic of any sort, who has published something gets a bio. They have to measure up to a higher standard than just showing up, and I'm really just arguing for the same for athletes. The reality is that ATH sets a lower standard for athletes than for anyone else, because it allows editors who want to see a lot of athlete bios argue that an athlete who fails BIO and GNG is notable simply because that athlete took part, even once, in a major competition, regardless of performance. I would argue that, if performance were part of the guideline, then anyone who satisfies the guideline would also satisfy BIO. ATH lowers the bar. Of course, there's a lot of subjectivity there, but that's what we're discussing when we discuss guidelines. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to reargue DiCrescenzo, but by the plain language of this document she easily passes: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Note there is nothing this material has to be biographical, national, or general purpose. It is highly unusual that any fully professional or internationally competing amateur doesn't meet this guideline.
As defined by Wikipedia notability (for any subject) means significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Athletes should be no different and that means more athletes are notable than most professions. It is not Wikipedia's fault that our culture deems professional athletes more important than scientists, but it does. You say "In fact, not every scientist, or academic of any sort, who has published something gets a bio." That is true, but not every athlete you has ever played a game of baseball gets a bio either. They have to have played a game in a fully professional league which means they have already done better than 99% of those who have played the game. WP:PROF generally makes it easier for professors to get an article because it allows them to get a page if their work is important, even if they don't meet the general notability guidelines. That is a good thing because it combats the bias in the correct way - letting notable people who don't meet the GNG in. Making ATHLETE into an exclusionary guideline (which is the way most people treat it) is the wrong way to address bias. Doing so excludes people who meet the GNG but aren't deemed important enough by us to get a page.
Again, whatever philosophical objection one has to "play a pro game & you are in" ATHLETE almost never allows anyone in who isn't the subject of coverage in multiple reliable sources. Search for any professional athlete - even those who've only played a few games - and you will find dozens if not hundreds of news stories about them. Sure the stories are 'routine coverage of sports', but what would expect a story about an athlete to talk about? Their artwork? Yet to many people these stories don't meet the GNG. If ATHLETE were to say that an athlete had to accomplishments, people would use that as an excuse to argue for the deletion of nearly every athlete article, not matter how much coverage the person had. "Sporting coverage doesn't confer notability" -> "subject is an athlete and therefore only has sporting coverage" -> "subject is not notable"
As such, I strongly object to any tightening of athlete. Would I prefer a guideline that better matches the GNG - certainly. Should this guideline be based on performance - certainly. However, I know that people will use ATHLETE to exclude people who otherwise qualify under the general guidelines and that is wrong. No subject should be excluded that the public deems noteworthy just because we don't think it noteworthy ourselves. ATHLETE is already used to exclude sports figures who are important (i.e. more important that the 1 game pro) but who are currently in college or otherwise still an amateur, and tightening it would just make the problem worse. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Consensus is surely not truth. The issue here seems to be readings of BIO and GNG which ignore what those rules actually say. The gloss on "significant coverage" in GNG pretty clearly does not say anything about "specialist sources" being excluded. I'd add further that I don't see why an article in a Chicago newspaper would be insufficient to demonstrate notability. I would add that your description of the DiCrescenzo AFD is flawed. The closing admin mentions ATHLETE, GNG, and NOTINHERITED but not BIO. Furthermore, there not being a consensus as to whether she fits GNG is in itself a reason not to delete - we do not delete articles unless there is a consensus to delete, as far as I understand it. I would also add that DiCreszcenzo isn't notable for being the subject of a song - plenty of band-members' girlfriends have been subjects of songs without becoming notable thereby. She is, however, notable because there has been tons of media coverage about how she was the inspiration for the song, including interviews with her about the subject, as well as a reasonable amount of specialist media coverage of her athletic achievements. These, together, make her notable. As I said before, the problem here seems to be a compound one. 1) A certain contingent of people ("Deletionists", dare I say it) are committed to interpreting GNG and BIO very narrowly - in a way that, I think, is much narrower than the policies themselves, and the gloss given to them, can support. The guidelines basically say that "trivial" coverage is things like the mere fact of being on an election ballot somewhere, or a birth certificate, or a listing in a directory. But some people seem to have expanded this to include things like significant coverage in local media or specialist publications is apparently "trivial." There is nothing in the wording of any notability policies that I am aware of which allows for such an interpretation. Also, apparently if someone is mentioned in dozens of articles, but is not the primary subject of most of them, one doesn't qualify for an article - this is "trivial coverage." Thus, we don't have articles about the president's daughters, in spite of the fact that there is a considerable amount of media coverage of both of them. 2) In response to this very narrow construal of what ought to be a very broad and easily met standard, other people ("Inclusionists") argue for various "objective standards" for inclusion which are generally ridiculous. Even when they're not completely ridiculous, they're generally so arbitrary as to be pointless - thus, minor league baseball players qualify, but not college football players; my state representatives qualify, but not my city council persons, even though the latter represent more people; and so forth. 3) In response to the adoption of these silly objective standards, the "Deletionists" come back and start claiming that any article about an athlete, or a politician, or whatever, who doesn't qualify for the objective standards, ought to be deleted. This turns the arbitrary nature of the specific standards into a blunt instrument to club articles people don't like, even if, by a resonable interpretation, they meet BIO and GNG
The solution to this, in my view, is to construe the general requirements broadly, and to make sure the specific requirements are sensible ones that only cover people who meet the general requirements, broadly conceive. john k (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both for what I think are very thoughtful comments. As someone who has little other experience with athletics-related pages, and came to this one by way of the song, I have to admit this is all very much of a learning process for me. One thing I continue to be struck by is the extent to which different editors read these guidelines in very different ways, including what seems like no consistent application of guidelines as either inclusionary or exclusionary. Indeed, when Thaddeus defends sports media coverage, while John points out that mainstream coverage of the Obama children does not confer page-worthiness, I see conflicting interpretations of what kind of coverage "counts." I initially read the second (amateur) clause of ATH as meaning competed at the highest level in the sense of competed, and turned in a performance that is at the highest level of performance in that field of athletics, when, as I have learned as the process moved along, it actually means competed as a competitor in an event that is considered to be the highest level of event in that field of athletics. In the AfD process, editors took the latter reading quite literally, in a way that clearly implies to me that a hypothetical amateur athlete who was good enough to qualify once for a major event, but who then performed very poorly at that event, and for whom there has been no media or other coverage other than a few reliable sources listing that person as having participated in that event, would have to be considered bio-worthy here. I realize that this hypothetical scenario is unlike most real ones, and that commonly athletes who qualify for major events do get BIO-qualifying coverage, but I'm talking about the possible cases where that is not the case. It could happen, and probably has, and it seems to me that the present guideline makes it mandatory to keep a page on such a person (or my fictitious jouster, above), and that truly seems to me to be wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Tryptofish - I don't think I was making a normative comment that the Obama children are not worthy of a page - I was making an observation that they don't have a page, seemingly because of interpretation of what "significant coverage" comprises. My sense would be, in fact, that the interpretation given to "significant coverage" is wrong, and that they are notable and should have pages, and that it is a poor reading of notability guidelines which denies them one - there is plenty of information available about them from reliable sources. I think this is the only fair way to determine notability. Beyond that - before I'm convinced that this is a real problem, I'd want to see some examples of individuals who clearly meet ATHLETE and fail BIO and GNG. john k (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Right or wrong, the children don't have a page primarily b/c they are minors (which we tend to protect), and secondarily because they have no notability independent of their father. I could certainly see an argument that they are notable, but they are denied pages primarily out of BLP concerns - kind of an unwritten, but generally supported, guideline about protecting minors. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
If that is our position, it should be written out somewhere. Because they clearly pass BIO and GNG. The claim that "they have no notability independent of their father" doesn't even make any sense. We define notability as whether a person has reliable sources written about them, not whether they are famous based on substantive achievements of their own, or something. The two Obama daughters both have material written about them in reliable sources, so they are notable. If there are "unwritten rules" which mean we can't have articles on them, those "unwritten rules" ought to be written down. john k (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
John: I did not mean that you were expressing your own opinion that the Obama children are not worthy of a page; rather, I interpreted what you said as meaning that, under existing policies and guidelines, they do not receive a page. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Further, I have to express humor at how long this "working space" has become, with nothing presently in the proposed language space below. Not that I was seriously expecting any guideline revision to come of it, and not that I am at all surprised. I find John's comments about unwritten rules very appropriate, in that, the more I become familiar with the issues here, the more I think that, in pretty much all notability controversies, editors on all sides really start from a position of Ilikeit or Idontlikeit, and then find reasons in guidelines to construe as supporting their POV. And I'm as guilty of it as anyone else. The problem is that our guidelines allow one to read into them what one wants to see (dare I mention Rorshach tests?!), and, yes, that makes them rife with unwritten rules. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Tryptofish - there are no existing policies or guidelines that I am aware of which indicate that the Obama children should not get a page - none that relate to notability, nor any in BLP that I can see. There was a deletion vote over a year ago when various people cited "notability," but my sense is that people who cite "notability" in delete discussions frequently have not read what "notability" is supposed to actually mean. Since then, there's just been a bunch of revertions of individuals' attempts to recreate the article. I just reverted Malia Obama to what looked like a well-sourced version that somebody put up a few weeks ago, and explained why on the talk page about Obama's family - no one has yet commented or reverted me, so I guess we'll see what happens there. john k (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Proposed new language
Porn Awards
Whose idea was it that someone who was nominated for an AVN or other major porn award wasn't notable unless they were nominated in multiple years? The Best New Starlet award is one of the major awards for AVN, and that's obviously something that you can't be nominated in multiple years for! Is someone who hasn't been nominated for an Oscar/Emmy/Grammy/Tony/Pulitzer/Nobel Prize et. al. in multiple years not notable? I don't think so! Why should this be any different?SPNic (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Porn award nominations are handed out like Halloween candy and should not be compared to prestigious awards like the Oscars, Emmy, or Grammy Awards, much less the Pulitzer or Nobel Prize. لennavecia16:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Completely different industries and don't see how AVN can be compared to the awards listed above. As always with this one, I'm in favor of removing "multiple" qualifier from the porn award. The focus should be on making sure articles have verifiable and reliable sources not limiting creation under the assumption they they are not available. (Still looking for Alison Angel sources to cite but it is definitely a losing battle :) )Cptnono (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that's an accurate characterization. Granted there are more nominations for AVN than for the Oscars, but there are a hell of a lot more qualifying films/performances. Since porn is the largest portion of the entertainment industries from a financial standpoint, it actually makes sense they would have a larger award pool overall.Horrorshowj (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
(out)
The guideline change took place 2nd April 2009 here [17], when User:Morbidthoughts acted boldly. This prior discussion [18] is interesting in at least two respects. First, I count about 7 people involved in the discussion; at at certain point in time there is a vote, with three votes in favor of keeping the existing or lowering the inclusion standards, and four in favour of tightening the inclusion standards. This is interpreted as "clear consensus". (?!) Second, one of the initial motivations behind the changes was a frustration with many stub articles. As User:Epbr123 said: "There are currently too many one-sentence stubs on Penthouse Pets, which are unlikely to ever be expanded, and there's the potential for dozens more to be made. On the other hand, Playboy centrefolds tend to be more notable, and most currently have articles of a reasonable length". But the tightened criteria are now used also to flush articles "of reasonable length", for instance
Jelena Jensen - "graduated Magna Cum Laude with a Bachelor of Fine Arts" and has 39 films
Christina Aguchi - with a black belt in Tae Kwon Do and a bronze medal at the Junior Olympics
Anais Alexander - Penthouse Pet of the Month and has also appeared in other magazines such as Hustler.
Brad Baldwin - one nomination and a most incredible 163 films
(I recently deprodded those articles). I have great respect for editors who sit together and discuss new policies, and are bold; but in all fairness, there could be some legit concerns if the views of just two handfuls of editors actually reflect wider community consensus. Here I think primarily of the many contributors (and users) with an interest in this topic, who may not be monitoring this Notability (people) page religiously. I you hit more than, say, 40 films, (forty!) wouldn't there likely be some independent sources somewhere? I tried to find out. Gscholar insurprisingly returned 0 hits, a regular Gsearch many more, but many of those point to xxx sites that have my browser go unstable and crash - so I gave up, fearing for the health of my other data on my PC. I think, that a call for a broader discussion is warranted Power.corrupts (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
There was a month long discussion in the project, and an additional listing on BIO talk page for three weeks . That's not exactly acting precipitously. I believe it was also listed at the pump to get more eyes on it.
The removal of Penthouse Pets was due to several Delete results at AfD. Hard to argue that doesn't reflect a community consensus. The project is basically unanimous in opposing the addition of a film count criterium to the additionals, at least with regard to het porn. It's not that uncommon for a performer to work consistently for a decade or more, yet have no awards or significant coverage. A few examples would be: Davia Ardell[19] 13 years-225 performs, Angela D'Angelo [20] 19 years-251 performs/56 directs, C.J. Bennett [21] 17 years-215 performs, and with male performers it's even worse. Horrorshowj (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Well maybe this one will go on for another 3 weeks if people chime in. Maybe it won't. I'm curious about the Penthouse deletion discussions. Is there an easy way to pull these up or do you have any names off the top of your head? I don't want to reinstate any but am am wondering what the actual reasons were (bad articles as opposed to disputed notability, consensus showing a complete lack of notability, little interest in the discussion, no one taking the initiative to bring up adjusting the guidelines, and so on). It is interesting that editors continually attempt to start these pages. I'm sure some of them are just fanboyism but many editors might actually think that Penthouse pets are note worthy.Cptnono (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, would it be inappropriate to do an WP:RFC? Maybe a simple "Is the current guideline to limiting?" would help me and a few others know if this is even worth discussing further.Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason to criticize the well-thought-out consensus reached by the members of the relevant project who discussed matters at some length. In particular, they should be commmended for their efforts to bring the WP:PORNBIO criteria into line with more notability standards recognized across a broader slice of articles. Too many notability discussions focus on the opinions of the participants over what should be notable, regardless of general community opinion. Here the discussion carefully looked at the category-specific criteria and applied more broadly determined consensus to clarify/modify the standards governing this narrower set of articles. The discussion was a model to be emulated, not a target of criticism. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
As I recall, my input at the earlier discussion was just to comment that I generally do not follow, or offer input to such discussions because I feel that Wikipedia's home-grown "notability" standards are in violation of good and valuable policies such as NOR and NPOV. I have yet to see a reliable source used to back up an assertion of what constitutes "notability". Following NOR, I believe that a decision as to what is and is not "notable" is to be made by reliable sources in the field, not by a "consensus" of anonymous editors. Especially when that "consensus" is generally from editors who are happy to spend at least as much of their time here discussing how other people should do things here, and what should be removed, as as actually contributing things here themselves. I feel that time spent discussing and making rules here is time lost from contributing, which should be the main activity of every volunteer editor here, bar none. The more time I spend at discussions such as these, the less my enthusiasm for Wikipedia, and so I avoid them as much as possible. I know other editors who have similar feelings.
That said, I feel that an award as proof of "notability" is one of the few criteria with which I am in agreement, as it implies a recognition of high profile within the field. My editing in erotic entertainment is mostly on the industry in Japan, where awards are few and difficult to find-- especially any older than a decade or so. If awards are indeed given out by the U.S. industry like candy on Halloween-- I don't know whether this assertion is true or not-- then that needs to be addressed by editors of those articles. And it needs to be addressed not by arbitrary POV/NOR decisions pulled out of thin air, but by looking at what reliable sources on the subject have to say. But, most important as far as I am concerned, it needs to be pointed out that what the U.S. industry does and does not do only reflects on the U.S. industry, not on the erotic entertainment industries of other countries. Dekkappai (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Loosen criteria Much like Dekkappai, I think "notability" limits and maybe even damages Wikipedia. Since it won't disappear anytime soon, I vote as always for loosening the restrictions as much as possible...in this case just one award or recognition (pet/playmate status) by a credible third party. - Draeco (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Noticed that Hustler Honeys (their Playmates/Pets) has plenty of red links. I think Playmate is too strict and Hustler Honey might be too low for some editors. In my opinion Honeys should be in with the discrepancy in available sources and the huge circulation difference between the magazines will make it seem not note worthy to some.Cptnono (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
It does strike me as odd Playmates count and not Pets or others, and I don't understand the reasoning behind that. I'm sure that makes Playboy happy, though. That one of the criteria is mainstream coverage isn't necessarily bad, since it is not mandatory. However, it strikes me as a little odd that pornography industry coverage isn't also an option in some way (there would have to be some standard for it, certainly). Шизомби (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Proposing to roll-back the guideline change
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and we should be careful not to act as if it were so. I'm particularly concerned that this discussion, and the discussion that preceed the earlier guideline changes, have had such a limited participation, and that the outcome of the discussions by no means is clearcut. We are a far cry from "consensus" on changing the guideline. Take for instance the two examples provided above by Tabercil on AfD discussions that "demonstrate" community consensus on purging Penthouse centerfolds: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prinzzess and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginger Jolie. As I'm not an admin, I can't see the articles, but the discussion surely could be closed also as keep - I would say that a no-consensus close would be in order for both; the one closing admin debates at length why it is a borderline case, and the other closing admin was MZBride whose deletion log clocks close to 800,000 page deletions if I remember correctly. Also, the 4:3 vote in the earlier "consensus" vote preceeding the guideline change, reflects majority by the thinnest possible margin - far from "consensus". (Is anybody aware of a rule on the minimum number of people to participate in a discussion before it can be said to reflect the "community"). I don't know the number of editors that contribute to PORN articles. But there must be many, many more than the two-handfuls of editors active here. Those articlespace people may be interested in article creation and improvemenet, and less in Wikipeida policy work; while those interested in the policy policy part may be less interested in articlespace work. Morbidthoughts has acted wholly according to procedure, I have NO criticism, and it's entirely fair to act boldly. My concern is merely that it simply does not reflect community consensus, the reason being bureaucracy, winding discussions in some speciality discussion forum, and limited participation. After some days of discussion I may therefore act boldly and roll-back the guideline change. Power.corrupts (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I object to any rollback to these guidelines without any further discussion to reach a consensus. As far as the disputed closing of the Penthouse Pet AfDs, the Ginger Jolie deletion (to which I had objected to on deletion review) was endorsed at deletion review. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I also object to the "rollback". There's a clear consensus here and this guideline helps keep bad BLPs and nonnotable people out. Consensus can't be "rolled back" as that is just disruptive. Any change to the guidelines should be done only after a new consensus is established that supports the change. ThemFromSpace08:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Precision. I dont see my action as a change at all. This is simply a roll-back of a too WP:BOLD change, for which I see no clear consensus, nor broad participation. To Themfromspace: I'm not "rolling back consensus" - and I challenge you to point to evidence that there was consensus for the bold change, that I want to roll back. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse rollback There is obviously not consensus for the bold change by mobidthoughts. Enough people in this conversation and enough people in the previous one did not believe it was the best change to the guideline. The editor works diligently on such articles. Unfortunately, other editors didn't voice their opinions while he was persistent.Cptnono (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Why on earth should we have a separate notability criterion for actors and models in this genre rather than any others, such as actors in horror movies, models in fashion catalogues, etc.? Porn actors/models should be subject to the same notability requirements as everyone else, and having a particular notability requirement for them just underlines the popular conception that Wikipedia is dominated by the obsessions of teenage boys (which, I'm sorry to say, I agree with, however much I try to fight against it). Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
There is an awesome lot of WP:CREEP in the notability guidelines, which essentially is moving Wikipedia in the direction of becoming a bureaucracy, with a clerical elite and the whole slew. Sometimes, less is really more. Keep it simple etc. But this is not the topic for discussion here - which narrowly is a too bold change. I would be very surprised in there were any teenagers in this discussion, but I do see a lot of immature comments at the AfD circuit Power.corrupts (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The whole "notability" idea is appallingly subjective, POV, OR, and against all the good ideas behind Wikipedia-- a "populist" encyclopedia that is seeing an attempted take-over by pseudo-elitists. I believe a strictly subjective, "Verifiable/Public" standard would end most of the endless arguing/debating we see at Wikipedia, which all stem from this inherently subjective standard... But one doesn't walk into the lion's den preaching vegetarianism and expect to get many results, of course... Dekkappai (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Because Porn isn't a genre it's a completely separate industry. Better questions are why is it every person opposed to the guideline feels they should engage in person attacks, and why can't they ever look in the archives to see the results from the last time the question was asked? Horrorshowj (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Just because it's a separate industry it doesn't mean that we need a separate guideline for it. We don't have separate guidelines for, for example, the aerospace industry or the financial industry, because subjects in those areas are covered by WP:CORP. The porn industry is part of the entertainment industry so can be covered by the more general WP:ENTERTAINER. As regards to the rest of your comment I would like to point out that I am opposed to having a separate guideline and have made no personal attacks, so it is not true that "every person opposed to the guideline feels they should engage in person attacks". Saying that pornography is an obsession of teenage boys (and I was one myself, a very long time ago) is simply stating the obvious, not attacking anyone. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse rollback. I absolutely hate that someone who would be notable under the old guidelines may no longer be so because of arbitrary changes. Notablity is not temporary. As for keeping Playboy but not Penthouse, most Playmates are not porn stars (Teri Weigel is the main exception) but a lot of Pets are.SPNic (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Roll it back The criteria for PORNBIO is more arbitrary than most of the other SNGs (which is saying something). Unless we can somehow show that meeting PORNBIO corresponds well to being the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources, then we shouldn't be including or excluding articles based on it. Remember, notability is just a tool to help us make articles that meet our core content policies and mission. It isn't a demarcation about what is and isn't worthy in the world (something we tend to forget when debating things like how important a grammy is versus an AVN award)--that's not our job and we should avoid it wherever possible. Protonk (talk) 08:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that these criteria are arbitrary, but rolling back the change (which tightened them up) will make it less likely that meeting PORNBIO corresponds well to being the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources. --Stormie (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Rollback This was the antithesis of a bold move, it had a prolonged discussion period here. It was extensively discussed in the project. It was cross-posted to give more people a chance to see it. There was the same period of discussion, and more attempts to generate it, for the change that brought PORNBIO to here from being its own guideline. Horrorshowj (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Rollback.User:Horrorshowj is absolutely accurate in describing the process used to revise the guideline. In fact, it looks to me like a much better process than that used to create the guideline initially, which looks like it was shorter and less widely publicized. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Rollback. I think where it cuts off non-notables is reasonable. Just a quick look at the number and the full scope of nominees for AVN awards is enough to indicate the pron industry's policy of self-congratulation through proliferation of awards. If we are to include AVN, these should be restricted to the 'main' award categories, and I would agree with the requirement for 'multiple' awards. In any event, AVN should not be the only barometer for notability, which should include other reliable sources. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
for clarification, I meant 'Award', not nomination thereto, which I consider to be low value self-congratulation for the industry. The basic criteria of WP:BIO should definitely apply. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Rollback. These articles are high maintenance and low value. They draw OTRS complaints due to attempted outing, negative claims, and copyvios. Much of the problem is that it is difficult to distinguish fact from fiction, as the industry considers the actors' biographies to be part of the entertainment. As such there are few truly reliable sources. The Uninvited Co., Inc.20:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
It sounds like your concern is with people creating poor articles and not the lack of notability of a Penthouse Pet.Cptnono (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: The basic premise or evidence of biographical notability is that a person has significant coverage by reliable sources. The problem the project found is that for some of the "less notable" performers, reliable sources do not exist for them beyond evidence that a person was nominated for an award or awards a certain year and that's it. Nothing else can be verified but people are always tempted to insert all sorts of items into biographies based on anecdote, personal experience/analysis, speculation, and stuff they read on a msg board or blog because of the existence of the article and the dearth of information. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
You know I was guilty of that once. However, that should not exclude the opportunity for decent articles to be created. Unfortunately editors have to watch out for garbage being put in but that is the price of having such an open project.Cptnono (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Rolling back the guideline doesn't really have to do with the articles per se. Individual articles can be sent to AfD (or not) on their merits. We shouldn't roll this guideline back then AfD any article kept as a result of it, we should just focus on improving articles whose subjects are covered by independent sources and removing articles whose subjects are not. Protonk (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Endorse rollback. The only complaint that struck me was There are currently too many one-sentence stubs on Penthouse Pets. That's an easy fix - push them into a list until enough sourcing warrants an article. There is likely corresponding list articles for any pornbio that isn't ready yet. And no, the awards are not handed out like candy but the nominations might be in some cases. These are huge industries that tend to be on the cutting edge of technology and the industry is increasingly web-based. So sources will remain key. -- Banjeboi02:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Rollback, change was by no means excessively bold, it followed a discussion over the span of something like six months in multiple locations. --Stormie (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
it doesn't look like multiple "years" had much consensus. The Penthouse thing didn't come up too much. Most importantly, the conversation did go on for a long time but it only had a handful of contributers (less than a dozen is my quick estimate). This was even more of a concern during the last month of the conversation. Maybe people should have spoken up but 4 people shouldn't be able to alter the guideline so much regardless of how tirelessly they work on the related project. As a reminder, someone posted the archive above: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography/Archive 4#Proposed change to WP:PORNBIO Who knows, maybe I am reading it wrong..Cptnono (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Support I think User:Power.corrupts made his case quite well. And I think pornbios overall on Wikipedia are already quite underrepresented and lacking in quality mostly due to ignorance of the industry on the part of most people writing the policy. -- Ϫ08:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Rollback - The nominations were created as an "out" for pornstars who lacked significant coverage by reliable sources. This by itself indicates that there is a severe lacking of reliable sources to pull information from. Corpx (talk) 09:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Rollback - most pornstars are not notable by any society wise standards and that is what Wikipedia should reflect. As has been pointed out there are few reliable sources for information in this field, which means the encyclopaedia shouldn't be carrying much inofrmation. It worries me that when we have cases where there are few or no RS, people immediately want to lower the criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Focus, please. The issue is not whether we like or dislike the PORN guidelines. My point is narrowly that it must take more than 7 people and a 4:3 vote, the slightest possible majority, to change a guideline. This is an issue of principal interest. I have noticed, that a person involved in the original discussion has commented, that there was no consensus, but Morbidthoughts was the most persistent editor. That is why I ask for comments on reverting the change, perhaps revert is a more correct term than rollback. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
of course it is not enough discussion, if there is disagreement. List it for broader attention, probably by filing an RfC. Many more people would be interested in a change of this nature than normally watch the page here or would have spotted it on N:People. Possibly at some future time we might decide that our size was so great that individual projects had autonomy on their guidelines, but at present this is not the case. As for the issue, I'd like to see a good size sample of who would be included/excluded to judge the effects before I decide. DGG (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the original discussion was lengthy but received very little feedback. That isn't the fault of the editor who made the change but that is why the "rollback" has been proposed.Cptnono (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Rollback - This was discussed over a period of several months, and underwent several modifications; my impression is that if the majority of people who participated in the discussion had voted, it would have had a strong consensus. Chewyrunt (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
There was a vote for multiple (not years just multiple) received 3 while No criteria = 2 Wins only = 1 Single Nomination = 1. The Penthouse removal was hardly discussed when the change was made sometime later when only 4 editors remained to discuss the change.Cptnono (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOTAVOTE and consider that discussion over the choices were laid out and viewed on a spectrum and remember that the strength of each person's argument for a position may not be equal to another's. For example, there was the option of awards being an inclusive criteria v. no criteria. Five editors felt there should be a criteria where two didn't (one feared it was less inclusive than the general entertainer criteria while the other wanted to ignore existing guidelines and based inclusion on subjective interestingness). Then, the criteria discussion should be analysed from most restrictive to least restrictive (win, multiple nomination, single nomination) not as a pure vote count. The Penthouse discussion should not be viewed in a vacuum either. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
"The article mentioned" looks hardly sufficient. So far it looks like there is not consensus on if there was or was not consensus in the change. The pseudovote is close and is narrowly (two?) in favor of "oppose". However, per the not a vote guideline, "support" arguments look to be more on topic and in response to the question at hand.Cptnono (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Bold, revert, discuss - As a third party who is not invovled with this discussion, i think it is very obivous, judging by this page, that the decision, whilst bold, was contentious, reverting the decision for further discussion should be an obvious call. There is absolutely no valid reason why further discussions should not take place, there are more than enough editor who want further discussions and a stronger, wider consensus. Trying to block further discussion for fear that it will lead to a different decision does nothing to improve the project and those who are doing so should seriously question their future participation in this collaborative project. --neon whitetalk23:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose rollback - It's clear there has been a resonable amount of discussion. I would emphasise one important thing. The wording for the additional criteria makes it clear that these are only intended to be helpful guide. There's no guarantee a person is notable even if they've won 10 awards (on the other hand, there's no guarantee they're not notable even if they don't meet any of the additional criteria). The basic and most important criteria is coverage in reliable secondary sources. The policy is quite clear on this matter and without coverage in reliable secondary we can't write an article anyway which is a key reason for this policy. Some people seem to think if someone meets one of the additional criteria, they are notable and there's no way the article can be deleted according to policy. But in fact, if despite multiple thorough attempts, no reliable sources can be found for someone allegedly notable, we have to presume the person is not notable and the article can legitimate be deleted, according to policy as it stands now. A rule of thumb is only useful, if it's mostly right. I've seen ample evidence from this discussion that person receiving one nomination is often not notable. I've also seen evidence from my own experience that a Penthouse Pet of the Month is often not notable. This being the case, it makes sense to tighten up the criteria so it's actually useful, in other words, most of the article we have are on people who are notable, not on people who we think are notable, but actually aren't. Nil Einne (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and in the very same wein, some people seem to think if someone does not meet one of the additional criteria, they are not notable and there's no way the article can be kept according to policy. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Support The main problem with researching porn stars is WP:V. If an article can be written on a person that passes WP:V, and the person then passes either WP:Entertainer and/or WP:N, why not have the article? Abductive (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I'm not understanding your position. PORNBIO is meant to be an inclusive criteria. If there's is enough coverage by reliable sources on a star to satisfy the general notability guidelines, pornbio doesn't matter. PORNBIO comes into play when there doesn't seem to be reliable sources about that person where you can write much of a biography. The question then is, do we want to keep these stubs alive or no? Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Completely agree. Not having reliable sources is the true concern and article need to be fixed or removed. As you remember and I now know, the Alison Angel page I originally attempted did not have the needed sources. Unfortunately, some pages will and have been deleted even if the sources are available since people rely on the notability requirments as the sole reason for their decision.Cptnono (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
So, if the person has enough reliable sources to pass WP:N, then they can have an article? I seem to recall cases where that was true, but they were deleted because they hadn't enough awards. Abductive (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Action - I'm going to revert the bold change to the guideline. A number of oppose !votes stray into issues unrelated to the guideline change. E.g. assertations that PORNBIO articles are "high maintenance" and "low value", that they are abused as attack pages, BLP concerns, they generate OTRS complaints etc - and that the articles fail WP:V and WP:RS. But the bold changes to purge Penthouse centerfolds, and to require AVN nominations in multiples years, do little, if anything at all, to alleviate those concerns. A number of support !votes argue that the guideline change, whilst bold, was contentious, and reverting the decision for further discussion is warranted - for instance through an RfC. My principal argument has also been supported -- that a few persistent editors, in this case it narrows down to User:Morbidthoughts and User:Horrorshowj, cannot instigate a guideline change merely by means of limited participation in a speciality discussion forum, overruling the minority editor User:Cptnono. There is also a broader discussion, if Wikipedia should have PORNBIO notability guideline at all, or if it should be folded into WP:ENTERTAINER or perhaps WP:GNG. The limited participation prior to the guideline change could certainly indicate that this speciality forum has become too specialized. These issues are suitable for a RfC, and I encourage the editors to start this process. I won't be able to comment further for the next couple of weeks due to vacation. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Reaction. That's not bold, that's just against consensus. My count is eleven !votes supporting the current guideline, six !votes supporting the previous version, and four !votes, per Protonk, to roll back the guideline entirely and rely on on the GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. That's !15 to !6 that the older guideline was too weak, and conflicted with general notability principles, which makes your action completely inappropriate. And allowing four minutes for responses, and discounting opposition votes that you don't like, isn't appropriate either. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The change may be implemented if no objection is made to it or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change. If there is no consensus for a given text, old or new, it should not be asserted as though it were consensus; possibilities include silence on the issue and acknowledgement that editors disagree on the point. If the result is not clear, then it should be evaluated by an administrator or other independent editor, as in the proposal process.
When I made the change, it was a matter of boldness when there was no seeming objections a week after notifying the talk page. I made it on behalf of the project which was a result of a long discussion of which I had taken a much more restrictive view of pornographic notability. The proposed guidelines were agreed to as a compromise out of a discussion from 7 participants not out of some simple vote. The first serious objections from the general community came two months after the change after it has already been utilised and relied on multiple AFDs. Now when you proposed a rollback the issue has truly become contentious. You may criticise that there was not enough discussion in the general community to institute any change but every single iteration of PORNBIO was hammered out within the project (See Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors)) so there is no iteration to go back to that had wide backing of the general community. Let an independent administrator sort this out rather than being bold. Otherwise editors will just boldly revert each other back and forward. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
If voting is all of a sudden important, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I recommend you take a look at the discussion that brought about the change: very few "votes" from 4 editors who pushed until most of the original few (less than a dozen contributors over months) was opposing the change. The original change completely spit in the face of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Unfortunately (as far as I'm concerned), the recent edit was rash. Par for the course I guess.Cptnono (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Rollback Porn, and the people who work in that, ahem, "industry," is seldom notable. Its absurd to suggest otherwise. Big names that are well-known throughout the society at large, such as Jenna Jameson, Ron Jeremy, John Holmes, etc., should have articles, and that's about it. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose rollback From seeing the articles that are brought to AfD, and are generally kept or deleted, I would think as a fairly uninvolved and admittedly naive observer that the current criterion does seem to correspond to what seems to me personally a level of significance that one award does not have in this particular field. There undoubtedly are single awards that would bring notability by themselves, as it other fields, but what is the likelihood that someone would have one of these but no other? I think the present criterion gives a reasonable number of articles for this. I think the people who worked this out did a rather clever job. DGG (talk) 02:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment I could use some more context for what "roll-back the guideline change" would mean in this case. Шизомби (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey Шизомби, an adjustment was made to the porn guidelines that tightened the limitations on WP:PORNBIO. Some editors believe it was done without consensus and others believe that it was a necessary change. The previous guideline was:
Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards or Category:Film awards or from a major pornographic magazine, such as Penthouse, Playboy, or Playgirl, as well as their counterparts in other pornography genres.
Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography, or starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature.
Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.
The newer version is what is currently stated (Has received award nominations in multiple years and limits inclusion of Penthouse and such). Someone mentioned WP:N and I hope that guideline is enough for certain editors if this comes up in future AfDsCptnono (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
minor error corrected
Under entertainers, there is a reference to notable TV, stage or other performances but this is not defined. So rather than have an impossible criteria to fulfil, I've removed one word so that now it reads that they have to be in multiple TV, film, etc. Mentioned here just for the record. I've also added radio theater, something that used to be common in the 1930's but not done anymore. User F203 (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this change: now someone who appeared in 6 home movies meets the "multiple" criterion, since you no longer require any standard for the films themselves. And how is the old language "an impossible criterion to fulfill"? I am going to revert the removal of notable pending other comments. And radio theater is of course covered in"other productions"; there is no reason to specify all of the other types. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Fixed this to address home movies. Now it is multiple commercially produced or significant movies, TV... Makes it much easier to prove. The old language was that you first had to prove that the TV show was notable, which the guidelines are not exactly clear, then you needed to prove the person is notable. The way it is now, you only have to prove the person's notability.User F203 (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Notibility for military
I find it rather odd that knowhere on this pages does it mention military personnel (we have some longstanding determinations that state that Medal of Honor recipients, Victoria Cross recipients and several others as well as most general officers are notable) it seems like a good place to mention that. I was tempted to add it but rather than instigate a potential Conflict of interest between an article I have that was recently recommended for deletion I did not but I wanted to leave a note on the talk page requesting someone do it. --Kumioko (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm no expert on military issues, but I can see value in not having pages that are essentially memorials for non-notable persons. But wouldn't BIO/GNG already cover that? What, specifically, would have to be criteria for military figures, that would not also apply to all other bio pages? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
That makes sense. On the other hand, we should not have a page for every recipient of, for example, a Purple Heart. Should there be an agreed-upon list of suitable medals? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know the only ones that fall into that would be the Medal of Honor, Victoria Cross (or in theory their counterparts in other countries but most don't have articles yet). I agree that a purple Heart recipient shouldn't but I personally think that most if not all Navy Cross or equivalent could probably have an article (although perhaps not all and I know there are others who would disagree). I also think recipients of rare awards like the Brevet Medal (only 23 people ever received it). I also think that probably most generals could or should have an article as well. I can't think of anything else at the moment but I am sure there are other reasons. --Kumioko (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I guess the question that follows is whether those few medals really need a separate guideline, or whether anyone who wins them would satisfy BIO/GNG anyway. In that regard, the section directly below is closely related. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
This is covered by WP:MILMOS#NOTE, and it seems to have usually been accepted that the top military honour in each country is sufficient to meet the general notability requirement about "receiving significant honours" (or whatever the precise wording is). I don't think it necessarily needs to be spelled out in the general notability guideline. David Underdown (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Notability of Military Leaders
WP should reconsider its policy on notability for military commanders. Firstly, the rank of O-7 (BG/RDML/Brig. Gen.)is rare enough to merit inclusion in WP, since WP includes positions which are equally as numerous, such as U.S. Representatives. Secondly, WP doesn't provide sufficient information on the people involved in military actions. To understand a military engagement one must understand the people making the decisions--what would Waterloo have been without Grouchy or Blucher! Thus notability must depend upon a persons relation to extraordinary events even if there actions were ordinary and his or her career mediocre. 75.150.107.198 (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Saddam Hussein's regime had over 3000 brigadier generals. I'm quite sure some Third World regimes are worse. There are thousands of forgotten peacetime brigadiers as well. I think we're better off sticking to the usual requirement that there is substantive sourcing about somebody as a notability criterion. RayTalk12:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why GNG and BIO need exceptions in this case. If you can find reliable information about a Brigadier, or a Colonel, or a Captain for that matter, they can have an article. If not, not. john k (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you realize how many generals (even in most sophisticated forces) are mere paper shufflers (politically correct: middle managers)? What makes them notable? NVO (talk) 08:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
See WP:MILMOS#NOTE. Generally the cut-off has been at two-star rank, though if sufficent sources exist, brigadier-(general)s are not automatically excluded (though of course in armies of the Commonwealth, post-WWI brigadiers are not strictly general officers, which is another reason for drawing the line at 2 stars). In terms of numbers, during WWI there were over 1250 British generals (see [22], obviouly more of these would have been 1-stars than higher levels, some may have held the rank temporarily, for a very short time), see for example Douglas Gordon Prinsep, should he really be considered notable by dint of his rank? David Underdown (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Historical figures
Some editors seem to be going through texts and making articles for every historical figure they find. I'm not saying the creator of Beerzan is one of them, but where do we draw the line for people from thousands of years ago? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Very good news that people are contributing to building the encyclopedia. Excellent! Sourced articles on historical figures are most welcome. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Although it may seem silly to create an article on them, a person who lived more than 1011 seconds ago and whose name survives has got to be notable. Consider also that somebody went to the trouble of translating the original source, indicating that a scholar found it interesting. Only if you can show copyvio or original research should you be concerned. 66.57.186.100 (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd draw the line the same as otherwise: the sourcing has to be WP:RS, and there should be secondary sourcing to establish notability. And I agree that the problem here is recentism, not ancientism. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
There is of course a recentism problem. I'm not sure what you mean by secondary sourcing. A huge number of original sources have been translated, not because someone is mentioned once in them but because the work itself is considered worth translating, so I don't think that that can in itself make the person with one sentence notable. I'm not sure my questions's been answered. How about a fairly obscure person's diary from a century or two ago, that mentions a maid that worked for them for 2 weeks. Maybe that's 'recent' though? Dougweller (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Now I understand much better the issue that you raised. It seems to me that a maid mentioned only in passing in someone's diary is not notable, regardless of the time period. I suspect that most of us responding to your original question did not realize that that was the kind of page you were referring to. To clarify, in turn, what I meant, I think that there would need to be reliable sourcing to establish not simply that the person existed (as in your example), but that the person was/is regarded as being significant in some non-trivial way (which, I hope!, would be a successful argument for AfD'ing your example). Are there examples of real pages that are as bad as your example? (Beerzan does not seem as bad as that to me.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, although I think I've seen some, I haven't bothered to do anything about them except add a reference (they are almost always unreferenced). Next time I find one I'll try to remember to bring it here. Dougweller (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
If all the information we have about a person is one sentence, I don't see what basis there is to have an article about them. I think the possibility of using reliable sources to write an informative paragraph would be about the cut-off point for me. john k (talk) 05:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
If that one sentence is in a prominent place, people will see the name, and want to see what information there may be. If they come here, they will find out that it's the only information available, which is often very helpful. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to cover the hard-to-reference. It depends, of course, on what is said about the person. If the information is that someone was in a position that would be equivalent to one that would warrant an article, it warrants an article. NOT PAPER. One of the key purposes of notability requirement is keeping out spam. This is not a problem with historical figures. another is keeping us to a level of conventional respectability. Covering historical figures even if minor ones helps us look like a proper encyclopedia since, encyclopedias have always covered these people , from the beginnings on down, and we have a general rule to include what other encyclopedias do, as reliable sources. There is no magic about one source vs two, if the source is good enough. them. Anyway, it should always be possible to write a full paragraph, by including context. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
How hard is BIO to meet?
I touched on this above, but I wanted to bring it into clearer focus. How difficult do we believe it to be for someone to qualify as notable under BIO?
The basic criterion is pretty simple, and it's basically that, to be notable, we have to be able to find reliable sources about a person. Here's what it says, again:
A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.
As far as I'm concerned, this should be viewed in a very inclusive way. Anyone whose book has ever been subject to a review from a credible source (academic journal, newspaper, reputable periodical) would qualify, I think. So would anyone who's received a newspaper obituary. I would suspect that virtually every major league baseball player has been an entry in a biographical dictionary at some time or another. To get back to peers, which I discussed above, every peer before 1900 gets a relatively detailed entry in the Complete Peerage, and every peer since then will have a somewhat less detailed entry in Burke's and Debrett's - most who die will probably get obituaries, too. In essence - meeting BIO is easy. If you can't meet BIO, you're more or less not going to have an article because what that means is that there's no reliable information available about a person.
Having specific guidelines, in my view, should not be seen as a way of getting around BIO. It should be seen as a way of identifying groups of individuals whom we assume will generally meet BIO, so as to allow us not to have to argue about them in detail. john k (talk) 05:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I fully agree with the last paragraph. SNGs such as WP:ATHLETE should neither be able to limit nor extend the concept of notability, but serve a purpose especially for people who very probably meet the basic criteria but where this might be cumbersome to prove because of FUTON bias and other considerations. However, I must note that while this is my view as well as John's, the September–October RFC on the matter is difficult to interpret, although the option "SNGs override GNG" was clearly met with an opposing consensus. —JAO • T • C07:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
You're forgetting that one of the criteria is significant coverage. As the first bullet point under what you quoted says, trivial coverage in one source is not enough. And as for a person who's had one publication reviewed...well, that is second-party coverage of the book, not of the person, so such a person would not qualify. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs13:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
"Having specific guidelines, in my view, should not be seen as a way of getting around BIO." Exactly, that's my point. But the problem is that specific guidelines are being used for just that purpose (see the section just above for an example). That is the problem I would like to fix. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Most book reviews (or at least many) will say something about the author. I suppose you're right that it would be arguable whether such a person would qualify under WP:BIO. I do think, though, that WP:AUTHOR, unlike many of the other specific criteria, is an actual supplement - it provides an alternative method of determining notability that is as valid as WP:BIO, in terms of saying that a person can be notable through writings on their works, as well as writings on themselves. It seems silly, at any rate, to say that a book counts as notable, but the person who wrote it does not. As far as significant coverage, the examples given of trivial coverage are trivial indeed - the examples of trivial coverage are a birth certificate and placement on a ballot line. An obituary, which is a mini-biography, is clearly not "trivial" in this sense. Nor would a biographical dictionary entry, even if it is pretty short, so long as it's not a pay-to-play one. Inclusion in Who's Who would seem sufficient to me, for instance. Again, WP:BIO simply isn't that difficult to meet. john k (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:BIO is difficult to meet for athletes that competed before the internet era, especially outside of the English-speaking world. Articles about most of Uruguay FIFA World Cup winners from the 1930s or 1950s will be nearly impossible to source, particularly for non-native Spanish speakers. The current version of WP:ATHLETE may be flawed, but it is designed to correct for the bias in WP:BIO towards athletes in English-speaking countries during the internet era (particularly in countries with a high degree of internet usage). Jogurney (talk) 04:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
This is nonsense. Uruguay had newspapers in the 30s and 50s. Those newspapers have archives. Those newspapers talked about the players on that team. Ergo, those athletes almost certainly meet WP:BIO. The sources may be harder to actually find, but that's neither here nor there. john k (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry you are correct that the sources probably exist, but finding them is nearly impossible. Since WP:BIO is biased towards sources that are easy to find, my point stands as internet era, English-speaking country sources are the easiest to find. WP does not have many editors with access to the archives of Uruguayan newspapers from the 1930s, and I doubt it ever will. Hopefully that's clear. Jogurney (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I actually think that Jogurney raises a very good point, although I would take it in a different direction. Earlier, when I raised the hypothetical about the medieval jouster, another editor raised the issue of recentism. Back in the archives, there is talk about how ATH results in "MySpace-ism." Rather than making it difficult for pre-internet athletes to qualify, I would say that it makes it relatively more difficult for them to qualify, compared to present-day athletes. But that relative difference does not mean that it is, in an absolute sense, too difficult for earlier athletes to qualify. Rather, it points to how it is too easy for present-day athletes to qualify. Athlete bio pages do suffer from recentism, and over-emphasis on the trivial, passing interest of the present moment. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The way I would look at it, a scientist or other academic (for example) who meets BIO has done something that will be of lasting significance. People will still be interested in the impact of that person's work a century from now. But an athlete who competed, who was in an event but was surpassed by others in the same event, who will continue to be surpassed by others in that field of athletics in the future, will be considered to have passed ATH (competed) by editors who are interested in recent events in athletics. But that basis for "notability" will not last over time, will not seem notable a century (or maybe even a decade) later. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, there's also any number of books on the World Cup. So, at any rate, it's possible to find material on Uruguayan players, and what not. But if it's not possible, what is the point of having individual articles on them? If all we can find is a roster, and no specific information about individual athletes, what good does it do us to have a one sentence stub about them? We should only write articles about people if we have sources to write those articles. john k (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with that. But I've seen arguments, treated seriously, that as long as the roster is an RS, then the person has passed ATH: competed in an event at the highest level. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
This is exactly what's insane about these kind of objective standards. A player on the Uruguayan 1930 World Cup team is almost certainly notable, but if you can't actually find any reliable sources about the person beyond the mere fact of their existence, there's absolutely no reason to create an article on the person. In general, I'm inclined to be fairly inclusive - if you can find reliable information about a person, you should be able to write an article on them. But it makes no sense to encourage the creation of useless one sentence stubs, even if they are of people who would be perfectly appropriate to have articles about, if we could find decent sources. BTW, there is this, which appears to be an Encyclopedia of World Cup Soccer, and which would presumably at least have stats for the Uruguayan players. john k (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I was using a hypothetical as it is true that statistics (which are from WP:RS) can readily be found on any World Cup athlete. However, the ones who competed in the early cups will only have WP:RS which satisfy WP:BIO if they are from a nation that has newspapers or books archived on the internet or readily available on Amazon, etc. Since the Uruguayan newspapers of the 1930s do not to my knowledge maintain internet archives, one would probably need to visit a library in Uruguay in order to obtain the WP:RS needed to satisfy WP:BIO. However, rudimentary information can be found about such athletes, particularly dates of birth and other vital statistics as well as playing statistics. Maybe you don't see the point in such an article, but there are a good number of WP users that would want to know more about these players. Jogurney (talk) 04:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it's important to note the difference between WP:BIO satisfaction (which is met as soon as the required articles are published) and evidence of WP:BIO satisfaction (which requires someone to actually find the articles). As I said above, WP:ATHLETE can be good to have in the (unlikely?) case that someone starts AFDing lots of bios on sportspeople who obviously must have had articles written about them and so do meet the basic criteria, but where this is hard to prove because of FUTON bias. But this, in my strong opinion, does not mean that WP:ATHLETE is what makes these Uruguayan footballers notable. They are already notable per the basic criteria; WP:ATHLETE just lets us not prove it in every single case. —JAO • T • C05:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
By the way, a related issue that came up in an earlier discussion of WP:ATHLETE: Are local news media (assuming they are reliable sources) considered independent of the subject? For sportspeople, especially in typically non-professional sports, it's often way easier to get a non-trivial writeup in a local newspaper than to meet WP:ATHLETE. —JAO • T • C05:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Why would local news media not be considered independent of the subject? On the other hand, we can get to rather obscure people in this way - do college newspapers count? (I'd say that college newspapers are generally reliable sources, particularly on athletics at the university in question, and so they do, but I imagine others would disagree) I agree with your assessment above about the distinction between satisfying BIO and proving that someone satisfies BIO. Something like ATHLETE is arguably useful for allowing articles on people where we might not have the articles due to INCOMPREHENSIBLEWIKIPEDIAJARGON bias - but we still shouldn't have an article unless there's some kind of minimal information actually available. john k (talk) 06:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The explanation given for why local media does not meet the "independent" standard seems completely specious to me, based on a completely different understanding of what "independent of the subject" should mean than what the actual GNG guideline says. Here's the guideline:
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc
It seems clear that "affiliated with the subject" in this sense means something like "produced by the subject's mom, or by someone in the employ of the subject." All the specific examples are basically of self-publicity. A local or college newspaper isn't "affiliated with the subject" in the sense indicated. Basically, it seems like we have guidelines that say one thing, and a lot of people who think those guidelines are too broad, and just choose to pretend they say something different. At any rate, I don't see what is served by deleting articles when we clearly have reliable sources to work with. If the reliable sources don't say enough to warrant an article, then we should delete. john k (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand, wouldn't that treatment of local sources mean that if a high school athlete got written up in a gushy piece in the local town paper, then the kid's parents, as well as an editor independent of the kid, but who just likes high school sports, would be justified in saying notability has been met? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
But notability will have been met. The person will pass GNG and BIO if they get a gushy profile in a local paper, as long as that paper is a reliable source. john k (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I fear that you are correct in your reading of policy as currently written, and that's the problem. You began this talk section by asking how easy BIO is to meet, and you just answered your own question. Very easy. In my opinion, too easy. What other encyclopedia would consider it encylopedic to include an article about how little Johnny or Susie did well in the game against cross-town high, as well as being a good leader of the high school fundraiser? What other encylclopedia would seriously claim that such an article will be of lasting interest through the ages? Now, having said (ranted?) that, I'll say much more optimistically that I really do not see much evidence of pages that look like that, and I know that at least some editors do argue that such a page fails notability. But I think this exchange points out how poorly constructed this area of policy currently is. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why it bothers people to have material on wikipedia which they are not interested in? High school athletics certainly can be a big deal. Given that space is apparently not an issue, I don't see any reason not to allow well-sourced discussions of high school athletics to appear in Wikipedia, so long as there are reliable sources. I don't consider high school newspapers or school newsletters to be reliable sources. But if high school football, for instance, is covered by a reputable paper, I don't see why people shouldn't be free to create articles about it. The fact that Wikipedia has articles on all kinds of things that traditional encyclopedias do not is one of the great things about it. john k (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you would have a very valid point if it were just a matter of what individual editors were interested in. But it's something much more important and basic than that. It's what editors consider to be appropriate to an encyclopedia, as opposed to, for example, Myspace. If I were to indulge my ego, I would like nothing more than to use Wikipedia to publish an article on Tryptofish's pet theories about everything. But we have policies like NOR, as well we should. Just as Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it should not consider something encyclopedic just because it was reported in a reliable newspaper. Having articles on things that do not appear in other encyclopedias should not be a license to have articles on cruft. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) On re-reading the page after thinking about the issues in this discussion, something occurs to me about how ATH and the other occupation-specific guidelines are treated. Quote: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." It occurs to me that this sentence is a big part of the unwritten rules issue. It basically says: these guidelines can be used inclusively, or they can be used exclusively, whatever editors feel like at the moment. The first half of the sentence makes sense in that someone can still pass BIO or GNG even if they fail a guideline. But if someone fails BIO, fails GNG, and narrowly passes a guideline, how do we determine objectively when the second half of the quoted sentence does apply, or does not? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
See, what I don't understand is why WP:ATH is less stringent than WP:ANYBIO. If you're not in sports, you actually have to have done something notable. But a lot of these professional sports articles merely assert that X person was on Y team from this year to that year. It seems to me that the criterion should be that they did something notable in their field. Like won a Super Bowl, or been on a noteworthy team or broken some national record. I don't get how the fact of being a professional is in itself noteworthy. Also, WP:ATH seems to contradict WP:GNG in that it doesn't demand secondary sources. It's seemingly enough to cite some tertiary source (like a sports almanac or directory). I'm not sure it's enough to say that they be reported in a reliable newspaper, either. I mean, high school athletics teams get coverage in reputable newspapers. The fact of your name appearing in a newspaper sports stat page isn't enough, it seems to me, cause it could be that your stats are "did not play" or "0" or whatever else is used to indicate "no performance". CzechOut☎ | ✍20:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
What you don't see is that isn't actually less stringent it just appears that way. 99% of people who pass ATH would pass ANYBIO as virtually every athlete (including many amateurs) is written in reliable sources (primarily newspapers) on a regular basis. Additionally, every fully professional athlete has accomplished something significant - they have surpassed over 99% of their peers and made it to the point they can play professional sport. Compare this to say being an actor - nearly anyone who tries can get bit parts in movies, but very few who try can get a bit part on a professional sports team.
What you are really asking is Wikipedia have more stringent requirements for athletes in order to correct the media bias that gives significance to something you don't view as significant. While this might be a reasonable view, removing ATH by itself wouldn't change much as these "minor pros" would still meet ANYBIO and the GNG in virtually every instance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think CzechOut (I love that username, by the way!) makes some very good points, although they may actually apply better to amateurs than to pros. There is a tendency to use very trivial media coverage as if it were secondary source evidence of notability. Getting written about, at all (did not play), seems to be the same as competing, at all (competed, and came in last). Talking about "something you don't view as significant" really doesn't get us anywhere, because I could just as well assert that it is "something you personally view as significant," and we could go in circles. (And, "nearly anyone who tries can get bit parts in movies," unless you mean independent films that never get distributed, or bit part as appearing in the crowd in the background, well that's a new one on me!) In fact, persons who get tenure as university professors could just as well be said to have surpassed 99% of their peers (depending, in both cases, on how one defines "peers"), and yet we require much more than that to establish notability for them. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually there is a developing, but not yet official, consensus that full professors are almost always notable. Personally, I would just prefer to rely on the GNG for most subjects (including athletes), but I don't view it is as a major difference in any specific case. Again comparing athletes to actors, but in a different way: a minor sports player is going to have some coverage about their sports play but a minor actor is unlikely to even be mentioned in a coverage of the movie(s) they took part in.
WP:PROF is one of the few guidelines that actually is looser than the GNG, but no one seems to complain about that one (myself included). Again, the ATH debate isn't really about it letting it too many people as compared to the GNG but rather it letting in too many people as compared to what "we" think it should. If we want to correct this bias, the way to do it is to loosen other requirements - and find people willing to write those articles. (Tens of thousands professors pass N but don't have pages. The primary limiting factor isn't notability, but rather an interest in writing those articles. )--ThaddeusB (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I went back and looked again at WP:PROF in light of your observations, and what strikes me is that PROF is actually quite rigorous about distinguishing between kinds of sources (science "news" coverage doesn't count the same way as primary research; vanity publications do not count; mid-level awards do not necessarily count; impact factors/degree of citation by others counts), in ways that ATHLETE does not (coverage, by and large, is coverage, no matter what it consists of, and "impact" counts very little). Also, full professors with named chairs generally pass, full professors without named chairs: as you said, consensus is evolving, and tenured associate professors generally do not pass, even though they are unambiguously "pros." But I should add that you are absolutely right about the need for wider editor interest in starting articles. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Yah, my comment was in regards to (for example) criteria 1 which allows professors who's work is widely cited to get in even if not a single person has written anything biographical about the person behind the work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
By way of explaining further what I mean, when impact factors are applied to academics, that's actually a very valid way of assessing secondary source validation, even when, as you put it, "not a single person has written anything biographical about the person behind the work." Particularly in the sciences, someone publishes a study, and if that study subsequently gets cited repeatedly by other scholars (reflected in a high impact factor), that generally means that other established scholars have deemed that person's work to be of sufficient importance that they are basing subsequent scholarship upon it, and those subsequent studies based upon it are validated by having been peer-reviewed before acceptance for publication. For Wikipedia's purposes, having a biographical source about a person is evidence of notability, and a high impact factor is just such evidence. And my point, ultimately, is: that seems to me to be a more substantive, more encyclopedic, form of evidence than just any sort of "biographical" writing about the person, if the latter includes any short gushy piece in a local paper or a brief listing in a box score. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
re: politicians
Does a politician meet this criteria if s/he was not elected or appointed by anyone but instead inherited a seat through a peerage? I am speaking only of those people for whom there is absolutely no other information beyond factual establishment that they did in fact hold their seat (and perhaps vote or occasionally speak on the floor.) No sponsored bills or press coverage or memoirs written or interns harassed or anything else. I am neutral on this question and can imagine a lot of arguments either way. Can we amend the politician section to clarify this, if we have a consensus?
Second part: what if there is no proof the peer took a seat? No voting records or anything like that. Can that peer have a wikipedia article based solely on an appeal to WP:POLITICIAN? Dmz5*Edits**Talk*00:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that any such peer as you describe actually exists. Every peer who held a seat before 1901 has a considerable entry in the Complete Peerage. Every peer since then has at least a small biography in Who's Who or Who Was Who, along with entries in Burke's and Debrett's. WP:POLITICIAN should apply to hereditary peers in the British House of Lords because virtually all of them are going to turn out to be otherwise notable under BIO and GNG, and it's easier just to say ahead of time that they're notable than it is to go through and argue about each one. john k (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I can grudgingly accept that an entry in Who's Who may establish notability, but I find it frustrating that this can be used as a source to create an article on a person who didn't actually do anything. As to your point about WP:Politician specifically, I gotcha. Dmz5*Edits**Talk*00:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Well now I'm not so sure. Doesn't an entry in Who's Who only confirm that a person exists? The phone book does that. If the peer in question didn't take a seat and didn't do anything notable, and his entry simply states "born London, 1949, died Rome 1995. Wife Mary, issue John" can we legitimately use Who's Who to establish notability? I'm just trying to think critically about the subject. Dmz5*Edits**Talk*00:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
A Who's Who entry provides a short biography of the person. Usually it's about a paragraph. I've looked through them. They're often quite basic - club memberships, occupation, education, etc. But it's almost always more than just pure genealogical information. I think the peerage guides tend to be the same. My general position on this is that a person doesn't have to "actually do anything" to be notable. As I think I pointed out a few times above, being notable isn't an award that you earn. In my view, at least, being "notable" just means that there's enough information in reliable sources about someone to write an article on them. I'm sure others disagree with me, but I think looking at it any other way runs into serious problems. Anyway, my basic position on this is that just about every peer has sufficient sources to write at least a brief article on them. I also think that given that WP:POLITICIAN is used to allow the existence of articles on U.S. state legislators, it is not really a stretch to believe it also includes members of the upper house of the British parliament. But that's really a side issue. Being a peer makes you notable because there's various people who publish books that give biographical information about every peer. Whether WP:POLITICIAN applies seems like a side issue - it's useful that peers are covered by it, since you can just go to POLITICIAN and say - "He was notable as a member of the House of Lords," but it's really beside the point. Peers are notable because their lives are noted. john k (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there a specific peer article that you think is of someone who's not notable that you can point to so as to ground this discussion more concretely? john k (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I found the 9th Earl of Essex article you nominated for deletion. I think the thing to note is that virtually all hereditary peers you're going to be able to find some information on. Nominating them for deletion is perhaps constructive, since it gets people going to make the articles better, but I think ultimately that an article can be created on virtually any peer. john k (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I didn't mean to refer specifically to that article, but yeah its an example. I have to say, I wonder how widespread your perspective on notability is. What about Who's who in American Doctors. "Dr. John Smith graduated from Harvard medical school and is an oncologist at Liberty medical center in Santa Fe, New Mexico. He belongs to the kiwanis club and Knights of Columbus and is a member of the national board of oncologists." Should he have an article? If anything he is more notable because his inclusion is based on something other than his existence. I could do a lot of research on myself and find random little local news articles about myself throughout my life. I even had a summer job that ended up with my name buried in a published paper. Combine this with factual info about me that is easy to track down on the internet, like my job (my name is on the staff page), and I think by your criteria, there should be an article about me.Dmz5*Edits**Talk*02:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Who's Who in American Doctors is not, so far as I am aware, a reliable source - such books generally solicit people to pay for entries, and simply publish whatever the person sends them. Who's Who is a specific and iconic reference work in the UK which has been published for over 100 years, which has editors to select who to include, and which at least conducts some fact-checking to try to insure that information is accurate (although my understanding is that there are sometimes errors of omission). They have a policy to include all peers and baronets precisely because they believe peers and baronets are notable - worthy of note. Similarly, there exist peerage and baronetage guides which talk about all living peers and baronets because, once again, the publishers deem those individuals to be notable. So basically, there are whole, long-established, reference works which exist entirely to document peers and baronets. Who's Who, which is described by the Oxford University Press as "the essential register of information about 'the people who matter' in public life today," has a policy of including all peers and baronets. It seems to me that this establishes very clearly that all peers are considered notable. Whether I consider them notable is irrelevant. The point is that there are major reference works which are devoted to cataloguing them. That makes them notable. The problem you are having with this seems to be that you don't like the fact that peers get to be notable without having to actually do anything to deserve it. The 9th Earl of Essex has an apparently unremarkable military career and gives one speech in the House of Lords and he gets to have an encyclopedia article about him, simply because his seven times great grandfather was a royalist general in the Civil War. I suppose that's unfair. But it's how things go. People write things about peers simply because they are peers. We can then use those things they write to create wikipedia articles about them. That is how wikipedia works - when we have reliable sources that talk specifically about the thing in question, we can then create a wikipedia article on that thing. A listing in a for-pay directory or a couple of random mentions in a few newspaper articles is not the same thing as being the subject of an entry in Debrett's or Who's Who or Complete Peerage. john k (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I completely understand this reasoning, although something about it still makes me feel that we are assuming as evident the thing that is in question. Peers are notable because they are peers, the Complete Peerage publishes a list of all peers because they are peers, and they are notable because they are in the Complete Peerage. I would still maintain that a listing in the Complete Peerage only proves that these people exist, and that we aren't bound by another publication's very specific (one might even say questionable) mandate on notability. I do also think you are making two unrelated claims here, one being that peers are inherently notable because they are peers and others are working to catalogue them all; and the other that, as long as enough non-trivial information exists about someone, they can automatically be on wikipedia because there is "enough" for an article. I think I have more qualms about the second point than the first. Dmz5*Edits**Talk*04:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. That is our basic criteria for notability, straight from the general notability guidelines. As far as I can tell, my statement about notability is basically just a restatement of this. Maybe I'm judging "significant coverage" broadly, and you may want to construe it more narrowly, but I think what I'm saying is very clearly a defensible interpretation of GNG - peers are notable because a number of published reference works devote entries to all of them. And I don't think I'm begging the question here. "Notability" is basically defined in wikipedia as "something that reliable sources independent of the subject have put an effort into describing." So the fact that other publications have found something notability is precisely what makes something notable. It seems like there are a lot of people who either don't like or don't read how notability is actually defined on wikipedia, and want a different rule which says that something has to be "truly encyclopedic" or "of lasting interest" or some such to be notable, but this a) would be incredibly difficult to define; and b) is simply not what the notability guidelines say. john k (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
From the discussion at [23] and following this one. I believe I will continue to create articles of peers. Even at the risk of being tagged for deletion, redirection, or merged. Daytrivia (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
This needs to be changed: "Has had significant roles in multiple commercially produced ... films" It currently allows every B-movie actor and porn star to have an article. Epbr123 (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
No, not "every", as WP:ENT is not all-inclusive. If the roles are not significant, or if there are not a number of multiple commercially produced films, the actor fails the criteria. With the greatest of respects, not liking a guideline because of who it might let in through WP:BEFORE is certainly a reason for discussion of changes, but not a reason to pre-emptively nominate articles for deletion because of disagreement with the guideline amd wanting it to be changed to reflect your view. Would you also wish to change WP:GNG for the same reasons? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
All B-movie actors and porn stars have significant roles in multiple commercially produced films. The "multiple commercially produced" part of the criteria was added without consensus after this brief discussion. Epbr123 (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
No, not all roles in all films may be considered significant. Leads and major roles are. Minor characters and background are not. As for your provided diff, you might consider asking input from those involved in that discussion, as you seem to disgree with their clarification of guideline. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
It would be a shame if these notability criteria are being designed with intentional bias towards select groups of entertainers. While we may all agree here that it is good to artificially limit our coverage of porn stars and B-movie actors, wording which is designed to exclude them-- unless it names them specifically-- can easily be used to exclude other out-of-the-mainstream subjects: Independents, minorities of all sorts, entertainers outside of the Anglosphere, etc. It's perfectly noble, of course, to descriminate against articles on porn stars and B-movie actors, but some editors will use this to act on their own agendas: limiting articles on groups against which they have illegitimate biases-- biases against groups other than porn stars and B-movie actors, that is. I realize I am not part of "consensus" on this, but I do feel that designing these sort of criteria, in which the bias either intentionally or accidentally built in, is against the best ideas on which Wikipedia was founded. Dekkappai (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
So, to clarify: I recommend we keep the current, less subjective wording, and that we see that they are implemented in AfDs; or that we spell out the intended bias plainly: "...except for porn stars and B-movie actors." Oh, "and and really skinny models." (I don't like really skinny models.) Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It's perfectly noble, of course, to descriminate against articles on porn stars and B-movie actors - Ehm, are you talking for real? or was it sarcasm? --Cyclopia (talk) 11:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It is ridiculous. The problem is people in projects such as Porn and Footy (soccer) get so ticked off at seeing the creation of so many stubs that they disregard basic BIO guidelines and tighten the inclusion requirements in the subcategories. It is a real shame that editors won't just request deletion of articles for being unsourced rather then fiddling with the standards to have an easier excuse in a deletion discussion. It sucks that certain editors have to see so many poor articles but that is part of being a user contributed project. A girl with a website showing her masturbating probably has thousands more fans and exposure than a small book shop owner in Montana. However, it is infinitely easier to get the bookshop guy included than it is to get the girl.Cptnono (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
We definitely agree. My concerns come from the current deletion discussion of Miko Lee. She appeared in a bit less than one hundred professional hardcore movies and was nominated for an award, yet it seems it will be deleted, for there is a will to apply WP:PORNBIO as restrictively as possible. While I think not every amateur with a webcam can have a place on WP, I think deleting Miko Lee (or anyone else of similar notability) is symptomatic of a problem with the system. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
There are WP:BLP issues with having hundreds of unexpandable stubs on the fairly mediocre porn stars such as Miko Lee. The cost of having to maintain these articles isn't worth it for the small amount of info they provide. If all the unsourced info and trivia from the Miko Lee article was removed, it will only be a couple of sentences long. Epbr123 (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
You mean maintanibility issues? I'd say that an essay like WP:CHANCE should be pondered in such cases: since when we're deleting stubs for their only being stubs? But let's discuss about the Lee case in the appropriate AfD page; here I brought it only as an example: a notability guideline/consensus that excludes a porn actress appearing on something more than 100 movies of top porn production studios is a flawed guideline. --Cyclopia (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I had a look at that section of the essay and I am relieved to know it is an essay and not a policy -it tiptoes on the edge to nonsense: if there is a reliable source stating that a magazine has thousands of subscribers, how can the magazine be deemed non notable? I am talking of cases in which we have multiple reliable sources (IMDB, etc.) stating that a performer appeared in more than 150 movies made by top studios. If we were talking about 150 amateur homemade videos released only on the Internet, I could perhaps agree, but we're talking of Vivid stuff here, for example. As for the "numerous discussions", I only found one, which as a chief argument for policy restriction lamented the difficulty in maintaining all potential stubs. My feelings are much closer to WP:DEADLINE, WP:CHANCE and WP:NOTDONE essays: the fact that many articles could remain stubs for a long time does not implies they should not exist. We should use a bit of commonsense; and commonsense says clearly that a porn star working in a huge amount of commercially distributed movies for top studios and also nominated for an award (and all of this being verifiable and verified) is notable. If the policy or consensus disagrees, I can't but deduce that's the policy the one being wrong. --Cyclopia (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not being on IMDB that makes you notable; but if you were starring in dozens of IMDB-listed movies with significant roles, you were nominated for a cinema award, and there were other listings confirming, it would be natural to consider you notable. --Cyclopia (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I was being sarcastic, Cyclopia. I was slightly exaggerating the message of the original post-- "The rules have to be changed, or articles we all hate will pass!" I think these POV/OR-based definitions of "notabililty" are entirely subjective and entirely opposite to the original goals of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia community has come to accept as business-as-usual that a couple of editors can get together, create a new definition of "notability", pronounce their little group as "consensus", and then go on a deletion tear throughout the encyclopedia. The "notability" rules have become a shell-game, and the AfDs kangaroo courts, and those editors who spend their time running them seem to be aware of their own cynical manipulation of Wikipedia-- as evidenced by the uncharacteristically candid targeting of two subject groups at the head of this thread. It's a situation far more absurd than my sarcastic comment, so I can see how it was hard to tell if I was serious or not... Dekkappai (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it was difficult to say if you were sarcastic because unluckly there are people who would make such a comment for real. I agree with most of your analysis of the situation; I don't know if there is a true bias against porn stars or B-movie actors, but for sure there is a tendency to create arbitrary guidelines and applying them without thinking what makes real notability or not. --Cyclopia (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Right. I didn't meant to imply I think there's an intentional system-wide bias against porn & B-movie actors, only that this apparent bias was, uncharacteristically openly stated at the top of this thread. I do think that we all have our biases-- national, ideological, etc.-- and that definitions as subjective as this are all-too-easily manipulated by those biases-- both in the making of the guidelines, and in their implementation at AfDs. But I think the most dangerous bias is that which comes unintentionally. Presuming that multiple independent sources-- even if available-- are as easy to find in a subject 100 years old or more, or from another language/culture, as they are for the latest Hollywood blockbuster/star is a form of bias, and its implementation at AfDs results in bias (unintentional, I believe) against non-mainstream, non-current, non-English subjects. (I speak from the area of Japanese popular entertainment, which is, of course, covered in their press and other reliable sources, but not put online as much as their US/English counterparts, and, when they are, are removed after a few months and blocked from archives. When our version of "notability" is strictly applied to these subjects, it gives the impression that subjects even "notable" by our standards-- covered by multiple independent sources-- are not, because those sources cannot be shown.) Dekkappai (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I should also mention the ludicrous double-standard between what we can add as editors and what we can delete. When we add to an article we are not trusted with enough authority to make even the most obvious of unsourced claims. Yet when it comes to "notability"-- let your imagination run free! "Starring in 100 films is notable", so those of us actually working on articles scramble to find 100 films for these articles. Then, at a whim, it's decided number of films don't matter, so those articles which rely on 100 film titles are mass-deleted. "Being Playboy Playmate or Penthouse Pet is notable" so up go all the articles on those subjects. Then, at a whim, it's decided Playboy is notable, but Penthouse is not. So the Pet articles are mass-deleted... "Nominations for awards are notable," changed to "Nominations are not notable unless they're in multiple years" or has it been changed to "Nominations are not notable at all" yet? On an on it goes. Who says what is notable and not-- what can be covered in an article here or not? An authority? A reliable source? Or is it based on a subjective an objective standard like Verifiability? No-- These editors-- the same people who would not be allowed to add "The sky is up" to an article without a source-- make these up completely from their own personal opinions, "original research", biases, etc. Those who want to delete using "notability" are given completely free reign to make up whatever rules they want, as long as they get a couple of like-minded editors to nod their heads so they can call it "consensus". It's an absolutely disgusting situation, and totally destructive to creating an unbiased, neutral coverage of any field, but especially those which are out of the mainstream, controversial, or out of the Anglosphere. Dekkappai (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. I think there is a real problem going in. I would like to collect some evidence in AfD deletion debates and talk pages, and then post something because it has to be discussed. --Cyclopia (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:NOTABILITY for businesspeople?
Guys, is/are there notability guidelines for businesspeople (managers, CEOs, etc.) wherein there are references for the actual biographical article but has no indication of notability whatsoever? Thanks. E Wing (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean? If the references are to reliable sources independent of the subject, and they deal with the subject more than trivially, that is what notability is. john k (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Not exactly. Some absolutely non-notable people of the past became subjects of detailed history studies - the historian wanted to present an everyman's life story and picked the first well-documented person. A well-researched street cobbler is still a cobbler. Or consider the title characters of this book. NVO (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, he is still a cobbler, but he is a notable cobbler, because he is "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." There seems to be some sort of unwritten understanding of notability which has no basis in the actually written texts that explain what notability is. john k (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
It is the key distinction for notability, I think. Someone must be the subject of reliable sources, not simply trivially mentioned in them. But if somebody writes a non-fiction book about you which qualifies as a reliable source, then you're notable, even if the book is about how you're an average everyday person with nothing special about you. "Notable" does not mean "special". john k (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
BTW, as to servants mentioned in passing in diaries, don't be too sure they're not notable. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography has an article on "Servants of Samuel Pepys" who are all basically just that - maids and other servants that Pepys mentions in his diary. Obviously Pepys's diary is a different thing from any random diary, but I think we should be very careful about dismissing the notability of sourced articles. john k (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you that it's a problem when editors put a name on a list when the bio page does not exist. I think they usually do it as a way of "hinting" that they want someone else to create the page. I suspect that templates will tend to be ignored. I think it's best to just delete all red links on lists. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
My personal rule is to remove redlinked names in lists unless they have a clear claim to notability. I.E. I probably wouldn't remove an entry like "Joe Q. Somebody - U.S. congressman" --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Query regarding ATHLETE
I understand that any athlete who has participated in the Olympics meets the general requirements of notability, provided sourcing can be found to support and article. Does this extend to the Paralympic Games? On the one hand, these games likely to represent the highest possible level of competition for these athletes ... provided that articles can be found on the athlete (in some cases as a competitor before injury forced them to compete in these games), does this meet the notability requirement? LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The ratio of total athletes to the number that compete in the Olympics or in the World Championships is much smaller than the ratio of para-athletes to the number that compete in the Paralympic Games. So, an argument can be made that competition in the Paralympic Games is not as reliable an indication of notability as the regular Olympics. The general public and the general media view the Paralympic Games favorably, but don't really follow specific athletes' careers. Racepacket (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Interpretation of WP:ATHLETE as it regards baseball players
I've identified around 300 articles on baseball players that I think are of questionable notability or of such limited notability that they obviously fail WP:ATHLETE (perhaps the easiest notability standard to satisfy). One issue that I had not previously considered, however, was national representation. If the Olympics and the World championships satisfy WP:ATHLETE, what about the World Baseball Classic? It's not an amateur event, quite the opposite actually, but it could easily be the highest level of participation for, say, Concepcion Rodriguez of Panama, even though he's signed to a Major League Baseball team and currently in its minor league system (which is obviously unsatisfactory for WP:ATHLETE). Then there's players like Loek van Mil who did participate in the Olympics, but are not at the highest professional level of the sport. Would Rodriguez be considered notable? Van Mil? Nosleepbreak my slumber15:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion (others of course will disagree), the highest level of competition language is simply too vague, and is used to justify keeping pages that should be deleted. More directly to the point, it seems problematic to me to say that there is a personal "highest level of participation" for Concepcion Rodriguez that is, in effect, lower than that for Alex Rodriguez. Highest should be highest, not relative. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Technically the minor leagues does qualify a player. Though the baseball project does usually delete low level players in the minors. -DJSasso (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The Minor Leagues are not at all "obviously" excluded by WP:ATHLETE, which specifies that anybody who has competed at a "fully professional" level is notable. This is probably a bad standard, but it's not obvious that a minor league player doesn't meet it. john k (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm considered very deletionist on baseball players. That being said, I think the two you mentioned pass the guidelines. I'd like to see rodriguez expanded/sourced, but i'd also like that for 1000 other players. Wizardman23:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
But, again, that's not what ATHLETE actually says. And that's not what BIO actually says - if the local sources are reliable, and cover a Conference National or Minor League Baseball player more than trivially, in what sense do they fail BIO? john k (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
But, by that logic, if I produce 4-5 articles covering the local little league and its star player, the team and the player would be eligible for an article. I think the whole purpose of BIO is to acknowledge that WP:N has something of a limitation; that is there may be people who receive considerable local coverage for some amount of time, but still really are not worthy of an article. My interpretation of ATHLETE in regards to baseball is that the player is eligible only if they actually play at the highest level attainable in a given country. I would interpret minor league payers as not being eligible for articles under ATHLETE. Just my two bits. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Your interpretation would be wrong. Specific notability guidelines do not override the general ones. Granted minor league players are rarely going to meet the GNG, but if they do they are eligible for an article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Can you however get 4-5 articles in different papers on the individual which is what is required by multiple reliable sources. That is not as likely. -DJSasso (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
About the comments just above by LonelyBeacon and ThaddeusB, Thaddeus describes correctly what the guidelines are today, and LonelyBeacon describes what they ought to be. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Does an MBE confer notability?
Does an MBE, the lowest level of the British honors system, confer notability. I am considering the case of Thomas Clifford Peters and don't want to AFD it if he is automagically notable (being the leader of a small council isn't enough on its own). Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
No, absolutely not. According to the UK Government, there are over 100,000 living members of the order today [24]. That's way too many for autoconferred notability, given the relative obscurity of almost all the awardees. RayTalk03:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Bridgeplayer, there are no authorities here, only editors just like you and me. As long as it's sourced and verifiable, leave it alone and go find a subject that interests you, and contribute to its coverage here. That article's presence here does harm. Its deletion will only waste time, cause ill-will and take information away from someone seeking it. Dekkappai (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Given that we are editors like you and me, I think Bridgeplayer should feel free to do what he or she wants. Telling editors to leave it alone goes against WP:OWN. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
How the fuck you can cobble together a reference to WP:OWN out of a suggestion that an editor edit is beyond me. I suggest that editors edit, rather than make pronouncements on notability, which is something only an authority should do. But this is what passes for discussion at these pages I guess... Please continue... Dekkappai (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you feel that way. Naturally, I agree with you that editors should edit, but I just wanted to communicate that they should also feel free to start an AfD if they feel that it is justified (and that editor was even considerate enough to ask a question here before starting an AfD). That's all. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
It's presently unsourced, a bit of searching does at least verify that the book he wrote exists, http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/15304621&referer=brief_results and his MBE is recorded in "No. 48639". The London Gazette (invalid |supp= (help)). 12 June 1981.. Neither of which make him notable, as stated an MBE is a very low-level honour, and the bok is available in only 2 libraries in the whole of the UK. In addition, the article as it stands appears to contain errors, the MBE award describes him as a member of Kingsbury District Council, not as leader of Mangotsfield town council. The book was published in 1985, which is hardly shortly before his death (in 2002). The article was almost certainly originally created by a relative. David Underdown (talk) 09:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
This really goes beyond the original question, which has been answered: there are over 100,000 living members of the order today [25]. That's too many for every MBE recipient to merit an article purely because of having one. (Of course having one may contribute to notability: notability is a spectrum, not either/or.) Rd232talk18:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I have restored the word notable to the first part of WP:ENTERTAINER. It was removed without consensus and despite a strong disagreement from the only other party in the very short discussion. The reasoning for the change appears to be based on the belief that "notability" for productions mentioned is not defined. That is what other notabitly guidelines are there for. The change was to "multiple commercially produced or significant". Significant is even less defined and commercially produced would include small local commercially produced plays,show,etc which would make many small local actors notable (from my understanding not the intent of WP:ENTERTAINER). Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I actually thought that the revised language, "multiple commercially produced or significant", was more specific and gave better guidance. My own linguistic feeling is that "significant" is a higher standard that just "notable". --Bejnar (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
This may (or may not) be true in the wider world, but in the world of WP significance and notability have defined connotations. For example, CSD uses the word significance and then explicitly states that this is a lower threshold than WP:N.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!00:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Publication by major houses and notability for authors
An editor brought up that publication of books by major houses is a good indicator of notability. It seems like an "obvious point" and I see it brought up regularly in AfD discussions as a reason for keep of a book or author. For whatever reason, it's not part of WP:AUTHOR. I hunted through the archives and could not find prior discussion on this. I've broken out some thoughts below as separate threads to make it easier to add comments on just that thought. --Marc Kupper|talk22:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Selection Process - Pro
Excluding vanity presses publishers employ a selection and review process to see if they can publish a story for profit. In a sense, this is "independent coverage" at nearly a peer-review level. It's the publisher's money on the line. --Marc Kupper|talk22:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Selection Process - Con
There are plenty of trash/garbage books from major publishers meaning that selection by a publisher is likely weighted towards "can I make money" rather than if it's a high quality work. With that in mind, publication by a major house would have little or no weight as far as WP:N goes. --Marc Kupper|talk22:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Notability is not the same as importance, so this point is largely moot. However I don't see how publication can be used to establish notability since it does not inherently imply that we have indepth coverage of the author. We need independent sources to base our article on, and that is one of the functions of WP:N. Most publishing houses give a biography of their author, but its problematic to see this as independent from the author. Taemyr (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Multiple works equals notability?
If an author has more than one work published by one or more major publishers would that make an author notable or is this an indicator of notability. The implication here is that their earlier works were received by the public well enough that publishers continue to support that author. --Marc Kupper|talk22:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Define major
What constitutes major? Can we use notable in the WP sense meaning publication by someone that has a WP article qualifies as "published by a major house?". (Again, exclude the vanity presses). --Marc Kupper|talk22:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Partly per what you pointed out in the "con" subsection, I think there might be an issue of a book that was intended to be commercial, rather than intellectually notable, and then ends up selling poorly and being largely ignored. Such a book would still have been published by a major house, but might not be what we would want to consider notable. Therefore, I would be reluctant to make publication a sufficient reason for notability, but would prefer to see evidence of critical review (secondary sources, in other words), or at least evidence of major sales. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
If there is any independent coverage of the book (reviews, etc.) -and for major publishing houses usually there always is- I'd say it is obviously and firmly a case for notability. --Cyclopia (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
If a publisher sends out a few thousand advanced reader copies and some of them result in reviews then it's firmly a case for notability? If a reviewer is covering all works that come out in a specific field then it's firmly a case for notability if someone's book is in the field covered? --Marc Kupper|talk21:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Those are good points. I think the first is covered if existing policy is applied correctly: the secondary source must be independent of the subject to establish notability. And the second: the secondary source must really be about the subject, not just mentioning the subject in passing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok - there seems to be some debate over some NFL practice squad players being notable despite the fact they have yet to compete in an NFL game (pre-season games don't count as they are not offical games). What is the current consensus on this? One editor states that WP:ATHLETE needs to be changed to reflect practice squad players. What say ye? ArcAngel (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Practice squad players do everything active roster players do except play. They usually stick around multiple years, usually attend camps, preseasons, because they are the best of the best just outside the NFL. Every single one of them is talented enough to play in a lesser league (UFL, CFL, af2, formerly AFL) but they don't because they are too good. They are between those leagues and the NFL, just on the cusp of the most talented league for the sport. They are still some of the most talented football players in the world and nearly all of them were productive college players. They should be included as they are integral parts of an NFL team.►Chris NelsonHolla!02:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you've hit the nail on the head there. They have to PLAY to be notable as then they would receive enough coverage by reliable third-party sources such as ESPN, USA Today, etc. to fulfill WP:ATHLETE. ArcAngel (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
It would be quite rare for a player to be good enough to make the practice squad to not be notable from their college play. Although that does appear to be the case for Ed Gant unless sources about him simply aren't available online. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
So if a guy is a backup but PLAYS in a lower level league, he's notable. But if he chooses to be on an NFL practice squad because it's a more talented arena, and because the pay is better, he's not notable? That just doesn't make sense. Players are on NFL practice squads because, for the moment, they are too talented and too highly regarded to be playing in other leagues.►Chris NelsonHolla!03:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I would say, at what level is there reliable sources and coverage of the individual? If they have reliable, widely-sourced coverage and otherwise meet GNG, who cares if they're scrub NFL or starting semi-pro...--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Chris, you saying an NFL PS guy is more notable (note that this player has NEVER played) is more notable than a guy who plays every few downs doesn't really make sense since the backup in the CFL has actually played. However if they have significant coverage from their college days (i.e. Alex Mortensen, Robert Felton) then they're notable.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
It most certainly is, because it takes more talent to do one over the other. But if you're going to continue to just be wrong, there's nothing I can do.►Chris NelsonHolla!23:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
No Chris, playing in the CFL or whatever is more notable of an accomplishment than sitting on the bench in street clothes.--Giants27 (c|s) 23:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, if you're not going to be smart about it there's nothing I can do. Just because you have some newfound hard-on for the CFL doesn't mean they're all fantastic. You're just wrong.►Chris NelsonHolla!00:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay if you think I'm based let's use the UFL. When a player who's a backup there (never played in the NFL, right out of college like Tyrell Fenroy or Brian Toal) and they happen to play a down. They're more achieved than people like Edward Gant and Alex Field, I'm sorry but the fact you don't see that is stunning to me.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't speak with any authority about the UFL, but can I ask the we drop the fallacy that the CFL is a "shitty", "lesser", or "lower level" league for players "not talented enough to sniff the NFL"? Are there players in the CFL who are there because they got cut by NFL teams? Yes, there are, just as there are players in the NFL who got cut at one time by other NFL teams. Are there players in the CFL who will go there out of college and then later play in the NFL? Yes there are. However, there are also players in the CFL who are there because they're, you know, Canadian, and want to play in their home country. There are also players in the CFL who prefer the Canadian rules, or the Canadian style of play. There are players who are ineligible to play in the NFL at a particular moment (a la Ricky Williams). Most importantly, there have often been players who are in the CFL because of biases that prevent them from being considered by NFL teams. For example, and for a long, long time, if you were an African-American and you played quarterback in college, you weren't going to get the chance to do that in the NFL, no matter how talented you were. Instead, they'd turn you into a wide receiver or a tailback. In the CFL, they looked at your talent rather than the colour of your skin, and the result was athletes like Condredge Holloway, J.C. Watts, Warren Moon, and Damon Allen, all of whom were easily talented enough to play QB in the NFL (and some of whom eventually did). Is the average NFLer a better football player than the average CFLer? That might well be true, but to extrapolate from that to saying that a member of an NFL practice squad is more notable than ANY CFL player is ludicrous. At the moment, notability for athletes derives from 'did they play in a fully professional league' and, if not, 'has there been enough published about them in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines'. If the practice squad player meets the second test, likely through their time in college, then they're fine. Mlaffs (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. How can you see that it shouldn't be that way? How does the fact that Brian Toal sucked too much to get signed by an NFL team make him more notable than Edward Gant, who is currently too good to be in a lesser league? It doesn't seem right that more talented players on the cusp of the NFL are excluded from the encyclopedia, while players not talented enough to sniff the NFL are included because they play for peanuts in some shitty league. Where do we draw the line? CFL? AFL? af2? College? High school? Pop Warner? The encyclopedia should include the best players of the sport. Not just include the best, then exclude the next best, then include guys that are worse.►Chris NelsonHolla!02:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
If Toal plays he's more notable than Gant. Being the best at something, is rather ambigous. If they play in pro league then they're notable.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Field played college ball at Virginia. Virginia games are shown on television, and attended by far more people than any UFL game. College athletes from BCS conferences are almost certainly more notable than UFL players. john k (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
This whole thing is ridiculous. Is the guy the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources? If so, then he's notable. john k (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Typically, PS players DON'T have significant coverage so that means they automatically fail WP:ATHLETE. I fail to see how PS players are more notable if they don't have coverage than xFL backups WITH coverage. ArcAngel (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Huh? This doesn't seem right. If they don't have coverage then they fail BIO. As far as ATHLETE, I'd say that if they play in NFL pre-season games they basically pass, but ATHLETE is a stupid guideline, anyway. But I'd imagine that many practice squad players probably have significant coverage from their time as college players, and those in more high profile positions (QB, Running backs, and such) probably get some attention during the pre-season. Why can't we apply some common sense here? Merely being on a practice squad oughtn't make you notable. Someone who does pass BIO but has only played on a practice squad is notable. You shouldn't create articles when all you have is a list of names and positions. Alex Field, at the moment, doesn't even have his college listed, and the article is completely unsourced - the only information given is that he is a defensive end and on the Cardinals practice squad. That doesn't seem like enough to say he's notable. But, on the other hand, he seems rather clearly to pass BIO - CBS Sports profiled him before the draft. There's a decent profile on his college career at the University of Virginia athletic department's official site. There's a profile of him at nfl.com. There's also a fair amount on him from the UVA student newspaper: [26], [27], [28], [29]. There's likely more. There is the material to write a decent article about him. I don't see why it shouldn't be done. john k (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Basic guidelines here should be: a) don't create terrible articles that don't give any evidence of notability; b) even if somebody has written a terrible article about someone that doesn't give evidence of notability, don't delete an article if five minutes of googling easily provides enough information to write a decent article on the person. john k (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting stuff. It seems to me that under the current WP:ATHLETE any player on an NFL practice squad only has NOT "competed at the fully professional level of a sport". They may have played in pre-season games, but pre-season games don't count, therefore pre-season games are not "the fully professional level of a sport". However, I understand the argument that they are in fact professionals on NFL squads, and I don't think anyone denies that the NFL is a "fully professional level of [the] sport". So the key word in my inturpretation is "competed". While the guys on the practice squad are paid by a fully professional franchise, they have not competed at the fully professional level (which is, and only is, a regular or post-season season NFL game). I don't think that its right to say the NFL is above the CFL, obviously it's followed by more people and makes more money, but the CFL is still a "fully professional level of [the] sport" and therefore their players would still be notable. This is the reason that I've always supported breaking WP:ATHLETE down to specifically address each sport, as this is very similar to the minor league baseball player discussion we encountered a few months back. blackngold2918:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Criminals and WP:BLP1E
Why is there a lot of editors that say that a criminal is notable because of the crime, trial, whatever else it took to get a result, and the result (or two of those) gets a criminal out of BLP1E? Even though they seem to not realize it, they are saying that every criminal should get an article. With every criminal, there is more than the crime, but that it in no way gets it out of one event. Joe Chill (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems there is no criteria on coaches, and their inclusion in Wikipedia. If there is such a guideline, would someone please direct me to it, if there isn't shouldn't we create one? warrior432123:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
You may want to check out this AfD where the closing admin stated, "an NFL coach is inherently notable". However, that covers just one league and the overall notability should be addressed.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
My great grand uncle Isaac Edgar "Ike" Smith built the first 22 of these sailboats in 1911 and went on to build 82 of them in total before his death in 1940.
I created an entry for him, linked to the article on the Stars, containing references to the books in which his name appears and his obituaries.
The entry was deleted for lack of notability.
I'm questioning why someone like him can be deemed "not notable" while there are hundreds of entries for porn stars and fictional comic book characters.
I pinged the deleting admin, perhaps he can clarify. We know that the man had an obituary in the NYT, and that he built this run of 22 boats but if this is indeed the only significant public event of his life then, indeed, a single mention in Star (sailboat) is better. NVO (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I moved the article to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Isaac E. Smith. As written the article had a couple problems: 1) It failed to indicate why the subject was notable. 2) In consisted almost entirely of a copy & paste of the two obits (which violated copyright policy). However, I did search & found the subject to be notable. As such, I moved it to the Article Incubator where some of our best editors will help bring it up to standards and then move it back to mainspace. If you think you can help with this process, please do so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks ThaddeusB. I can write out a bio for Ike, but the sources, aside from personal family history, would be mainly from articles in the Port Washington News which is only available on microfilm at the Port Washington (NY) Public Library and Hofstra University (Hempstead, Nassau, NY). If that's acceptable I'll write it up and post it. Dcsimages (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Sources not being available online isn't an issue. That said, there are several sources available online (see article's talk page). It seems User:Bilby has already gotten a good start on writing a proper bio, but I would still encourage you to help. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm troubled by listings within some biographies of certain minor awards that I think aren't worth mentioning, because they're rarely if ever discussed and indeed seem primarily to be devices for pumping up CVs in the eyes of the underinformed. This is a characterization with which I expect some people would disagree, and for which I know I'd have to provide supporting evidence. But if I were persuasive on this point, I'd aim for a guideline against the mention of these awards within biographies.
Wikipedia:Notability (awards) looks vaguely relevant. But it's obsolete and its discussion page points people here. However, WP:BIO seems concerned with the question of whether the person merits an article, not of whether this or that factoid about a person merits a mention within a biographical article. Which would be the right forum for discussing award listings within articles? -- Hoary (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
If such awards are reliably sourced, why excluding them? If they are true, they do not "pump up" anything, they are statements of fact. I can understand maybe some WP:UNDUE concern, but apart from that... --Cyclopia (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you implying that this talk page is the appropriate place for discussion, and thus that WP:BIO would be the right place for the addition of any guideline? (I realize that you're very sceptical about my idea and would probably oppose it, but that's a separate matter.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
The awards in question are essentially paid for, so I would argue they're hardly even awards despite what the organisers will tell you, they're merely advertising, which doesn't really merit inclusion within the articles in question. RaseaC (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Let's not (yet) argue about the matter here, and instead say for now that at least one organization puts out a large number of what it calls "awards", and that certain aspects of these awards (and not only their sheer number) make a listing of them in recipients' articles seem questionable in some editors' eyes. If this isn't thought to need a central discussion, then there's a risk that the talk page of each relevant article could prompt a discussion (or worse, a row), which would be a cumulative waste of time. So I think a central discussion would be better. ¶ I'd agree with RaseaC that these seem less awards in any normally expected sense than tools for PR; others may disagree. WP:ADVERTISING points to a section of "What WP is not" that says next to nothing about discrete promotional elements within articles that are otherwise acceptable, so its talk page isn't the obvious place for discussion. Shall we discuss it here, or elsewhere; and if elsewhere, then where? -- Hoary (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Since we're discussing on this here, I'd just discuss it here. You can drop a message in other project talk pages if you want more visibility for the thread, of course. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the specific awards at issue here, but I have a few general thoughts. "Awards" that are essentially purchased should, fairly obviously, not be included in pages as evidence of accomplishments, because they are not genuinely independent of the subject. Awards need to meet a high standard of notability if they are used as the basis of claiming notability for a bio page, but if the subject is notable in any case (ie, with or without the awards) then it is reasonable to be more inclusive in describing the awards the subject has won. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Please note that notability guidelines don't determine what can or cannot be part of an article. There only purpose is to determine whether an article should exist or not. It is then up to editor discretion to determine what belongs in the article, keeping in mind things such as WP:UNDUE. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
What we actually need is guidelines for the content of articles throughout Wikipedia, but that's a bigger question. Some types of articles which frequently recur do have practical guidelines--articles on politicians, authors, academics, athletes, actors. A fairly general rule is if there are multiple major awards, we remove all the minor ones. For example, for academics, I & others will usually remove all in-university awards below the highest university level, keeping "best teacher of the year" but not "best English teacher of the year"; Similarly, I and others will usually remove lists of papers presented at scientific meetings unless that's the main form of publication in the field. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree with you, DGG, and I'd like to continue the conversation. But I don't want to do so here only to have it later criticized or deleted as an improper irrelevance. Shall we move it to Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view? But "neutrality" doesn't sound right either. I could create a new page in my own userspace, but that might look (would-be-) proprietorial. "Village Pump", perhaps? -- Hoary (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Why do we have specific guidelines at all?
It seems to me that the various specific guidelines are virtually all terrible, with the possible exception of WP:ACADEMIC. There is virtually no reason to have any of it. Broadly speaking, a notable subject is one that is discussed by reliable sources. WP:ACADEMIC is useful because it provides an additional way for a person to be notable - if their work, rather than their life, is discussed in reliable sources. Virtually all of the rest of it seems close to worthless - these guidelines have nothing to do with the core meaning of notability, and just provide a fertile terrain for people constantly arguing with each other over minutia.
As such, I suggest two potential amendments, one very radical, the other more moderate. First the radical one:
Eliminate all the specific guidelines entirely. Sweep them from the page. There is really no need to elaborate on BIO - a person is notable if we can find reliable sources about them (which are independent of the subject - but really that's just kind of an elaboration of what a reliable source is - a source coming from the person themselves is generally not going to be properly reliable).
If people think that is too radical, I have a more moderate proposal - leave the current specific guidelines basically in place, but indicate very clearly that these are simply examples of individuals who will likely turn out to be notable. Members of parliament are not notable because they pass WP:POLITICIAN. Nor are professional athletes because they pass WP:ATHLETE, or pornstars because they pass WP:PORNSTAR. They are notable because they pass BIO. The only thing ATHLETE or POLITICIAN or PORNSTAR ought to indicate is people who are likely to pass BIO because there are reliable sources on them. If somebody created a stub article on, say, Lionel, marquis de Moustier, a nineteenth century French diplomat and foreign minister, he would presumably pass POLITICIAN and DIPLOMAT. But the article should be kept not because of this, but because he would certainly pass BIO - there are definitely reliable sources about him. POLITICIAN and DIPLOMAT are just useful corollaries that give us a sense of people who are likely to pass bio. The current text gives no evidence of this. Instead, we get the completely meaningless verbiage:
A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
Does this mean anything? So far as I can tell, it is entirely meaningless - these guidelines mean that someone is notable, except when they aren't. Some revision, at least, is in order here. john k (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure there will be complications brought up by others, but I like your suggestions a lot! I think you have analyzed the issue very well, and I agree that the verbiage you quote is utterly meaningless. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree, Tryptofish. I think that, in general in these discussions, we've had rather different views of the breadth of BIO - I tend to think that a large number of disputed entries would end up passing BIO, even if you ignore the specific guidelines, while you seem to think that many would not. But it's almost impossible to even have a discussion of any individual when there's all these other quasi-guidelines that may or may not overrule BIO. At any rate, assuming we go for the less radical option, do you have any thoughts for how to change the wording of that introduction? I think what needs to be made clear is that these guidelines do not overrule GNG and BIO, but are merely a list of examples of groups of people who would be likely to pass GNG and/or BIO. john k (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's actually very interesting that we agree, and I tend to think that it means that you are on to something good, a good kind of paradigm shift. You are right that I tend to think that at least some of the specific guidelines are used to pass pages that would fail BIO/GNG, and that's why I like your idea. If nothing else, the fact that you and I have come to the same conclusion from "opposite" starting points indicates that the present wording is much too much open to subjective interpretation for it to be useful as a reliable guide. First, I guess I wouldn't be too quick to rule out your more "radical" suggestion. I'm a little uncomfortable suggesting new wording before seeing what other editors have to say, but I would probably replace the passage that you block-quoted with words to the effect that the following standards are intended to illustrate the kinds of pages that may be suitable for inclusion, but decisions to include or exclude a page should only be made on the basis of BIO/GNG. Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Technically, what you are saying is exactly what the document is saying if we rely on the plain language. The specifics are intended to provide examples of what kind of people generally meet WP:N are not be absolutes. However, this is not the way people treat them. The reason is, IMO, primarily because people like "easy" rules: e.g., national or regional politician=in/local politician=out as opposed to having to actually argue each case individually. (There is also a practical side to that argument.)
The specific guidelines also help to correct modernism and westernism. For example, we "know" a governor from the 18th century or Sri Lanka is equally notable as a 21st century American governor, but we usually can't (easily) find the sources to prove it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
It might sort of say that, but most people don't generally understand it to mean that. I think one basic problem is that there's a lot of people who seem to have no interest in how "notability" itself is defined. On this page and elsewhere I keep coming on people saying things like "if a reliable reference source decides that it's going to include all peers [or all Major League Baseball players, or whatever]" then it can't be used as evidence for notability, because it's not being selective - it is not saying that any particular peer is notable, because it is just dealing with all of them. What this is based on I have no idea, because notability is simply defined as being the subject of discussion in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. All the various examples and such seem to give people the idea that to be "notability" is something which a person needs to earn by good works, rather than something that is granted by grace from reliable sources (to use a possibly inapt metaphor to theology). The existence of these various arbitrary standards of notability, along with the very unclear wording explaining what they are, gives no help in this regard. john k (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Enter the unwashed bewildered peasant... How come "a governor from the 18th century or Sri Lanka" be as notable "as a 21st century American governor" if the amount of RS on the subject is incomparably lower, not available on the web, written in odd foreign characters, has not been subjected to peer review etc... It's all about quality and diversity of sources (verifiability trumps truth), isn't it? NVO (talk)
(edit conflict) Thaddeus, one of the things to which both john and I are reacting is the passage that he quoted in block-quotes. That clearly is not plain language, and it confuses things. You bring up the issue of correcting recentism, and I could actually make the case that specific guidelines are sometimes used to promote recentism (for example, my ongoing complaint about the amateur part of ATH). On the other hand, you also rightly point out something important that we ought to examine carefully before changing anything: dialing back to BIO/GNG would have the effect of putting the emphasis on secondary sources, and there are risks that such sources might skew modern and Western. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
You guys don't have to convince me, as I am in favor of using the GNG (BIO is just a restatement of it) for nearly all topics. I was just explaining the argument for specific guidelines. I am also not in favor of excluding some RS just because it chooses to cover all or nearly all of something. Someone shouldn't have to be "more notable" than their peers to be included.
I believe the specific guidelines are designed to be examples, not rules, but people rarely (if ever) treat them that way. The document itself backs up this belief, but actual practice does not. The document says "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included" which means they don't override the GNG, yet I regularly see people argue (for example) X isn't notable because he failed to be elected and all coverage of him is based on his failed political run. The document also says "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included," which means they aren't exceptions to the GNG, yet trying to get anything deleted that meets one criteria is impossible. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, keep in mind this is just my opinion and any changes would require consensus. Also policy is intended to be descriptive and not proscriptive. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
(indent)so, to play devil's advocate ... if I have a little league player in the local paper who is the subject of 2-3 articles over the past 2-3 years as a "star local player", that person could have an article? I know that we all know the answer is "no" ... but how do you differentiate?LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I would say they could have an article, but the best means of differentiating would be in arguing over the definition of what qualifies as a reliable source independent of the subject. Once you accept that the local paper is both a reliable source and independent of the subject, the kid passes GNG and BIO, and warrants an article. john k (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
ETA: Oh, I forgot trivial coverage. If the kid is the subject of a profile in his local newspaper, he probably is notable. If it's just a few casual mentions, that's trivial, and he doesn't warrant an article. john k (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no current guideline that says this hypothetical person isn't notable as all SNGs are inclusionary, not exclusionary. AfDs on figures of local notability are unpredictable, which means there is no implied consensus either. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
We need to limit articles for people beyond some mentions in a reliable sources for several reasons. Have you read the coverage that people get when they live in a small town or even a smaller city? Since there are no professional sports teams to cover, then the local high school and college teams get excessive coverage compared to the same level of the sport in areas with larger populations. That does not mean that these people are a topic of interest beyond the local community. Also, with only a few mentions in the media clustered together, the problem is that we are covering a very narrow aspect of the person's life. The information will grow stale because they will not get further coverage. The information will not reflect who they really are. If someone is truly of interest because they are significant for reasons in the notability guidelines, then people will write about them for many years. FloNight♥♥♥18:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that FloNight brings up a very significant issue, and I agree with that very much. (In fact, I realize now that that was bothering me in the back of my mind from the start of this talk section.) There is a problem with BIO (and maybe even with RS?) in that we do not adequately make those kinds of important distinctions. I see problems with the specific guidelines in that they do little to solve that problem and are sometimes construed in ways that exacerbate it, so I still like john's idea, but I realize now that we will continue to have a problem if we do not also solve the issue FloNight identified. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how covering only a narrow aspect of someone's life is that much of a problem, because presumably it is only that aspect of the person's life which is notable. I've never heard that the point of articles is to "reflect who [the subjects] really are," but to reflect what reliable sources say about them. At any rate, I'll say again that mere mentions in a reliable source can be seen to be trivial, and thus allow us to delete the article. The point is - none of this has anything to do with ATHLETE. So a local high school athlete fails ATHLETE - that is entirely irrelevant to whether or not they are notable, because you still have to demonstrate that they are not notable under GNG. Are you making the argument that there are people who qualify as notable under GNG but who are still not notable because they fail ATHLETE? This seems clearly the wrong way of looking at things. And I'm not sure how we are to judge whether someone is of interest beyond the local community. Is the local newspaper a reliable source? If so, on what basis do we exclude somebody for only getting local newspaper coverage? At what point does a locality become large enough that people discussed in the local newspaper are notable? You seem to be proposing modifications to GNG, to say that people who are covered non-trivially in reliable sources independent of them are still not notable. But that is how notability is defined. Things constantly come back to the fact that people don't like the very definition of notability, and think it needs to be narrower. This is not the right place to discuss that. john k (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and we were agreeing so well! Actually, what I think FloNight was saying and I know I was saying is that there is a bigger issue that goes beyond what we can solve in discussion here. It goes to how a source can be reliable, and cover a person (or any other subject) in a way that is not just a mention in-passing, and yet still be trivial, in the way an encyclopedia should understand trivial, in a way that makes Wikipedia different than MySpace. I guess it comes down to GNG less than to WP:What Wikipedia is not. In my mind, it's a matter of whether we have a reasonable expectation that future readers will be as interested in a page as are readers today. Look, there are lots of small-town papers that are perfectly reliable, but which routinely run feature articles about how little Jimmy did such a fine job of leading the local bake sale. There are gazillions of kids and their parents who would love to have pages here based on such sourcing, and we need ways of saying they do not meet notability. That's well worth discussing here, even though I agree with john that we are not going to agree to change anything this big soon. And I still agree with john about his proposal, regardless of this issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, by "trivial" the current guidelines mean "mentioned only in passing." And could you give me an example of a local newspaper which "routinely runs feature article" about little Jimmy's leadership of a local bake sale? School newsletters and high school newspapers are not reliable sources. I've read some small town newspapers, and can't remember much in the way of stories about people running bake sales. Looking at the websites of, for instance, The Gazette newspapers, which was a community newspaper from the DC suburb where I grew up; or the Berkshire Eagle, the local newspaper for the Berkshires in western Massachusetts, I don't see much in the way of the kind of stories you are suggesting run rampant there. I think this is a straw man. john k (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Will Hartford Courant qualify as local or not? Yours truly had a quarter of a page back in '93. Or was it 92? Seriously, may I recommend dropping all perennial attempts to define and rank RS, it leads nowhere. The idealistic "future readers will be as interested in a page as are readers today" premise is great, but who are we to judge future generations? NVO (talk) 05:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, john, the current guidelines do define "trivial" that way. That's the problem. I can point to a paper from my own home town, but I'm averse to outing myself. Perhaps NVO is an example. What NVO sees as idealistic (thank you) I see as having high standards. I don't think it's that hard to recognize recentism when one sees it, and print encyclopedias have been able to do that for a long time. (No, I'm not simply saying we should be just like print encyclopedias.) What is difficult is reaching consensus to change policy here, and I understand that. But I figure if editors are telling me to drop it, then maybe I'm touching a nerve. But, having said all that, I still do like john's proposal (remember that?). Really, I like it! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The definition of "trivial" is actually pretty unclear. We basically know that having a whole non-fiction biography of you from a major press is non-trivial and makes you notable. We also know that being quoted in a newspaper article is trivial, and makes you non-notable. We have little sense of where the line is, probably purposefully, because nobody actually agrees on that. I'd say that probably most us would agree that having an article about you in a specialist reference work, or being profiled in a major newspaper or magazine, would also qualify as non-trivial coverage. But once we go down from there we probably start to run into difficulties. john k (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The biggest reason we have specific guidelines is for afd. The GNG, to put it bluntly, sucks for its primary application. It is way too subjective, and the majority of vote-stacking situations occur when the subject is being debated under general. "Significant coverage", "trivial" and "intellectually independent" all require value judgments. If we had 1000 highly trained editors, who all agreed on exactly the same meanings, it would be the only standard we'd need.
What we actually have are 6,000,000+ editors and at least a thousand different interpretations of the GNG threshold. Deal with a bio for someone who inspires true believers (ie Musicians, Minor religious figure of major religions) and there's frequently no such thing as insignificant coverage. Even press releases are independent enough because they're just so darn honest. Conversely if it's one of those sort of people (ie porn stars, psychics, figures from minor religions) no coverage is ever quite significant enough to a lot of editors.
The specific guidelines are usually bright line decisions which simplifies things. If anything, the section you've pointed out should be deleted. The specifics are applied as sufficient for notability at AfD.Horrorshowj (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with john k. There have been, and there are still, mass deletions of articles on obviously notable subjects only because their notability was not covered by guidelines with completely arbitrary thresholds (WP:PORNBIO, I'm looking at you). This massive loss of relevant information from WP is a major problem. Erasing guidelines, at least when their thresholds are purely arbitrary, and discussing notability case-by-case on a rational basis is the only way to go. A less drastic alternative could be to rename guidelines as "examples" and making clear that passing WP:RANDOM_GUIDELINE means that it is notable for sure, but not passing the guideline by itself means nothing to AfD debates. --Cyclopia (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind naming some articles that met the general guideline but were deleted for not meeting WP:PORNBIO ? I've never seen one. An article can establish notability by passing either the general or any additional criteria that are applicable under current guidelines. Horrorshowj (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
See this AfD debate for example. An actress with a hundred-and-more movies with significant roles, made for top-notch porn commercial studios, nominated for an award, etc. all guaranteed by WP:RS. Yet it has been deleted because it "failed WP:PORNBIO" criteria, despite she is, beyond any reasonable doubt, much more famous that most athletes covered by WP:ATHLETE, for example. --Cyclopia (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Problem with your argument is that the article still didn't meet the general notability guideline. Everything on there was trivial coverage, and there wasn't enough to hit trivial. You never claimed otherwise, and still aren't. You're arguing that she wasn't allowed to pass by virtue of meeting Entertainer. The two are separate in large part because of the prolific issue. Scenes are recycled for compilations constantly, but still count as another credit. Horrorshowj (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
"Why do we have specific guidelines at all?" Because our concept and definition of "Notability" is inherently flawed and biased. These specific guidelines are attempts to bail water out of a paddle boat with a huge, gaping hole in it. Why do we have editors endlessly defining and redefining "Notability", based on personal opinion, Original Research, "gut feelings", who argues best... Why isn't all this editor time which is spent debating and arguing on inherently subjective standards instead being spent working on articles based on Verifiability, NPOV, and all those good ideas on which Wikipedia was founded? Dekkappai (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Isn't a big problem with bios on pornstars that we can't find any independent non-trivial reliable sources about them? There's their own webpages, and what not, which are not reliable at all, and then we can find lists of movies they've been in, which is arguably trivial. Beyond that, there's going to be virtually no coverage for a pretty substantial percentage of pornographic actors and actresses. We shouldn't have articles on somebody if all we have is some dubiously reliable information from their personal webpage and a bare list of movies they were in. On the other hand, if there is more information, then it seems rather ridiculous to delete an article simply because the person made 99 movies rather than 100. Conversely, if we have no reliable information on someone, the fact that they've made 100 films shouldn't make them automatically notable. The key factor in both cases should be the presence or absence of reliable sources. john k (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Not really. There are two major trade journals in the US, and a few dozen lesser sources. Primary sources are also usable once notability is established per the GNG, so most of the articles are expandable. Most of the articles are going to be stub/short class, but that's true of pretty much every category on WP. Horrorshowj (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I can certainly see the need for having specific guidelines. The way I interpret notability is whether someone on a different continent is going to care about the subject 20 years from now. For a local garage band or the latest widget from Company X then answer is no, even if they do have coverage in the media. For a Roman emperor or a mathematical theory the answer is yes, even if you have to go to a college library to find information on them. The problem is that whether will someone care 20 years from now isn't a practical criterion and it has be interpreted differently depending on what you're talking about. First, we need a high standard of notability for some subjects, like living people, companies, products etc. But the people who are trying to create this type of article can often find coverage in local media or specialty periodicals. These sources can be reliable according to GNG but the subjects still aren't encyclopedic. The truth is that not everything covered in a newspaper or in a magazine should be in an encyclopedia. This is usually where specific guidelines come in. On the other hand, a lower standard is needed for more obscure but important subjects. A Roman emperor or an abstract mathematical theory are going to have a hard time making if we they are held to the same standards. But just because most people don't know about them doesn't mean they haven't had a big effect on history or science. That being said, having too many specific guidelines is definitely bad. I'm too new at this it have looked at all the different specific guidelines to see why they were created, but if it gets to the point where people need a flowchart to determine if something is notable then it's gone too far. The biggest danger from that is people will simply ignore the criteria (even more than they do now) and AfD discussions will devolve into a bunch of people spouting their gut reactions based on nothing whatsoever (even more than they are now). To me, more specifice guidelines should only be created if there are ambiguities in the current guidelines that are causing AfD's to result in no consensus.--RDBury (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with a lot of what RDBury just said. The more I think about these issues, the more is seems to me to become a question of reconciling WP:BIO with WP:NOT. And I'm starting to wonder whether john k is beginning to regret having started this discussion! But, getting back to that starting point, how about clarifying the wording of the passage that john block-quoted at the top of this talk section? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I tried: I just re-stated what was in the passage, but it got reverted as a "major change with no consensus", even if it didn't say anything different from the passage itself (at least, that is how it looked like to me) --Cyclopia (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
And how do we crystalball what will people care about in 20 years for now? And why shouldn't we be interested, 20 years from now, on indie garage bands or widgets of Company X? A collection of information like that kept on WP will probably be of enormous academic interest 20,200 and 2000 years from now, because it will reconstruct in detail a lot of information about the culture and times in which WP has existed. Obviously we need to talk about verifiable, notable subjects, but constricting ourselves into arbitrary guidelines without applying a bit of rational thought, is another thing. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
So basically, so are saying you don't think pop culture is notable in most cases. That's all fine & good as your opinion but it doesn't relate to our actual policies in any real way. In fact, that sounds more like the inclusion requirements for a print encyclopedia than Wikipedia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I already said that the 20 year test is not a practical criterion so you don't need to ague that it isn't. It's just my own personal interpretation of the meaning. Turning personal interpretations in to operational definitions is always the difficult part. It sounds like what Cyclopia is trying to say is that actually Wikipedia should be an indiscriminate collection of information because someday future historians are going to want to sift though all of it. I would think that actually future historians aren't going to me any more happy about sorting through gigabytes of trivia than we are; there is already so much information on Wikipedia that it would take many lifetimes to go through it all. To ThaddeusB I would say that I don't think there's anything wrong with pop culture and I've done my share of editing pop culture articles. But when I have to spend time doing link maintenance because someone thought it would be a good idea to write an article about some guy with a guitar, a MySpace page and couple of coffee house gigs I have to think that whoever created that article is wasting my time and wasting the time of nearly everyone else who stumbles on it. Maybe my ideas are influenced by print encyclopedias; I do spend time sporadically with the wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica project. I know the limitations of a print encyclopedia, the articles skip over a lot of interesting details simply because the editors needed to fit everything into 28 volumes. But the experience makes me ask, why does anyone still care about this 100 year old text enough to try to put it in wikisource? To me it's because the editors a hundred years ago had some pretty good ideas about what is encyclopedic and what isn't and maybe some of those still apply. It's true we don't have the 28 volume limitation here, but that doesn't mean no limitations at all. Even if Wikipedia had all the server space in the world, having too much information creates problems in finding the the information you want. If you need to find an article on Joe Smith, it doesn't help to have have articles on 50 Joe Smiths, 49 of which are about people that almost no one has ever heard of.--RDBury (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it should be indiscriminate and I said that notability criteria are required. And I wholeheartedly agree that a kid's band with a MySpace is NOT acceptable. But if something is notable here and now (with some criteria to avoid it becoming a newspaper), I feel it deserves inclusion, even if in 20 years is almost forgotten, because it means that in that period it was of interest and as such it was a non-trivial part of culture. As for old encyclopedias, they obviously had to have tight criteria on what was encyclopedic, because they had strong space restrictions. The strength of WP is that we have no more the need to keep such criteria so tight, even if some criteria is needed. --Cyclopia (talk) 09:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Getting back to the original question of this talk section (way back at the top of the section!), I think we've discussed a lot of side issues, but not really come to any kind of resolution on the original question. About the short introductory passage from the guidelines that john k shows in block quotes at the top, how about fixing it so it actually means something, or getting rid of it? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Cyclopia, I'd argue that a fundamental weakness of Wikipedia is that (rightly or wrongly) guidelines such as WP:ATHLETE are considered as hard and fast rules that supercede WP:N.
Any article which passes the specific guideline should still be expected to demonstrate a degree of notability, even if it's a lesser degree of notability than might otherwise be expected. Conversely, articles which don't meet the letter of it shouldn't automatically be prodded. I'm aware of the note at the top of the additional criteria section, but this seems to be widely ignored. As Tryptofish and john k say, we should make sure that this absolutely crucial qualifer means something. In my opinion it is far, far more important to follow the philosophy that notability is the be-all-and-end-all, and merely consider the likes of WP:ATHELETE a generally accepted starting point, than the current wording, which gives the impression that (for instance) WP:ATHLETE trumps or equals WP:N, as they are both "generally accepted standards". WFCforLife (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
strange
There are many models in the web/magazines/TV, some dressed, some nude, some very nude, but I couldn't find any criteria due to these people. But I have found this in Renata Daninsky: doesn't appear to pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Looking at this I have learned, that an adult model has to make movies und should at least get one price (as actress). Living in Czech Republic Daninsky is famous as "Peach", even in the US. There might be some download movies with her in the web, I have no idea. But the question is: Why should she make movies? Why she should have sex with guys? Only to have a chance to get a porn prize and then to meet the wikipedia porn criteria? And what all the other models should do? Why there are no criteria for all these people? That's strange 78.55.55.251 (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
All that is required for Renata, or anyone else, is two reliable sources that talk about her in detail. No special criteria is needed (although one does exist - being a Playboy centerfold). If she is truly famous, it should be quite easy to find to sources that talk about her. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Does this include news channels? Or would television journalists and newsreaders come under WP:CREATIVE, which says: "Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals" ? ƒ(Δ)²09:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a part of Wikipedia that I spend much time in, but my first opinion (which I expressed in a recent AfD) is that news anchors are not entertainers unless they are anchoring a show that is intended to be comedy (which in the US would include people like Jon Stewart). So I would use WP:CREATIVE. -- SoapTalk/Contributions18:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Thanks for the reply guys. Really appreciate it. ƒ(Δ)²16:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
It would haven been nice if you'd had the courtesty to inform me of this question. The discussion here ignores the text of WP:ENTERTAINER, which refers to both "television personalities" and "opinion makers," indicating that it is not limited to comedic performers. There are quite a few classes of people covered by multiple guidelines, and this ought to be seen as one of those cases. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I was looking for a third opinion. (And my question was phrased with a NPOV) Your opinion is welcome here, of course. ƒ(Δ)²16:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
You really weren't looking very hard. Your argument is based on the misconception that one and only notability guideline can apply to a class of potentially notable people, an idea that's been widely rejected (eg, WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR often overlap). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
My argument is that ENTERTAINER shouldn't apply to newsreaders at all. There is no question of any overlap.
"You really weren't looking very hard." Explain. Do you think this isn't the appropriate forum? Where do you wish to hold this discussion? ƒ(Δ)²17:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Note, this question was brought forth as a result of this AfD. I used WP:ENT in the discussion since it specifically calls out the term "television personalities" which is how the subject of the AfD is described in the majority of the google/google news hits covering her. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh22:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually it was brought forth as a result of this AfD. Having said that, I believe it applies to the AfD you linked to too (as Talbot is a news presenter/reader and also a journalist). Though it's quite possible, of course, that I'm wrong. ƒ(Δ)²10:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has is correct. WP:ENTERTAINER does indeed refer to both "television personalities" and "opinion makers"... so news journalists are covered. You don't neccessarily have to be entertaining to be covered by entertainer... but then, some folks do find the evening news to indeed be entertaining. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
These days TV news is part of the entertainment industry and those who report for it or present it should be classed primarilly as entertainers. RMHED23:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. News journalists aren't entertainers unless they do entertainment journalism. There is a distinction for a reason. Lara18:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: the KATU article - I have a question on lists of television personalities.
A list of broadcast staff were added in the section "Notable on-air personalities" (here) by Hasselbeckfan 2007 (talk·contribs). I reverted this list (here) with the edit summary "rv - persons do not yet meet notability guideline defined at WP:BIO". But, I noticed the material was restored by Emarsee (talk·contribs) (here) with the edit summary "rv personalities are allowed, but I am going to remove the notable header. (TW)", with a subsequesnt edit to change the section header to "On-air personalities" instead of claiming notable.
I'm requesting clarification on the interpretation of WP:BIO in regards to lists of news personalities. The nearest sub-section appears to be WP:CREATIVE - but I don't see how the persons added meet that section or the basic criteria. Also, the section WP:NLIST would seem to be applicable; but only three of the persons listed have articles of their own which provide refs establishing notability. For the rest of them, none provide refs to establish notability, nor do they appear to have their own articles where such refs could also exist. I would appreciate others opinions / input on this. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
As far as I understand, lists personalities are allowed per WP:TVS. If you would like to hear the opinions of others, I would advise you to bring it over to WP:TVS, as I'm fairly busy at the moment. єmarsee • Speak up!05:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll post a notice on that project talk page, notifying about the discussion here. The discussion could likely take place in either location - but as it's already posted, I'll leave it here. Note: I'm not saying you're wrong in your interpretation - I just want clarification as I'm not seeing how the list of persons meet WP inclusion criteria - if someone can explain, that would be appreciated.
Note also, I see there's also a subsection at WP:ENT that could be applicable - but again, I'm not seeing how most of the names listed meet that set of criteria either. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I think what Emarsee is referring to in WP:TVS is the section on article structure where it says the article should include "information on its personalities, past and present". I did an unscientific sample of some other articles under WP:TVS, some had no such list (possibly because the article wasn't compete) and some, such as KVIA-TV, had very long lists. WP:TVS says to include information on its personalities but it doesn't (unless there's a section I missed) say you need to have a list of everyone who's ever had their face on the screen. The KVIA is a case in point; the "Former staff members" section is pages long and is a classic case of WP:IINFO. I would say that as a WP-wide guideline, WP:NLIST trumps WP:TVS, but it does allow some room for common sense exceptions. So it seems to me that WP:TVS should be clarified in that the "information on its personalities" should still fall within notability guidelines and if there are exceptions to be made then it should spell out the circumstances so that indiscriminate lists such as that in the KVIA aren't allowed.--RDBury (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Independent notability is not required for inclusion within a list. Considering that the personalities are notable to the TV station is is perfectly appropriate to include a list of them with the station's article, even if the people themselves are not independently notable. Of course not every person who has ever worked there is worthy of mention, but who belongs and who doesn't is a question of editorial judgment, not a policy question. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I roughly agree with Thaddeus above, in that as long as there is a source confirming the person's association with the station, and the person's relative importance, the TV personality may be included in the station's article. ƒ(Δ)²16:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The person's association can be sourced (usually) to the station itself. The part which seems a gray area to me is the "person's relative importance" ... would this be importance as defined as notability under WP:BIO (i.e. subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.) ... or would importance be defined in other ways? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
My take, basically agreeing with Thaddeus and Aditya, is that someone does not have to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:GNG simply to be mentioned within an article (on any subject), and including them on this kind of list falls under that criterion. (By analogy, there are lots of pages about historical events that mention persons who do not also have their own bio pages, and who would not qualify for such a bio page, but we don't go around deleting every name that isn't blue-linked.) So my take on the answer to Barek's question is that, no, the people do not have to pass BIO to be listed; rather, they just need to be judged by the editors of the page to be of informational interest to the readers of the page, while keeping in mind that it does not serve the reader to list everyone who ever appeared on screen, and that's a subjective call. Now there's a corollary: just being listed does not confer notability, and there should not be red links in the list. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
But doesn't such a list go against the WP:NLIST subsection of WP:BIO? If consensus is that such lists should exist, then WP:NLIST should probably be modified, as it current reads "Many articles contain (or stand alone as) lists of people. Inclusion in these lists should be determined by the notability criteria above..." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
You are right. (And maybe I'm wrong!) That's the kind of inconsistency about notability criteria that drives me up the wall. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I am pretty sure the NLIST guideline is only intended to be talking about the typical indiscriminary lists such as "graduates of" or "residents of" well the number of non-notable people who could be listed is virtually unlimited. (It certainly isn't phrased that way, though.) For example, if we have a notable band and want to list its members that is certainly appropriate even if none of the members are independently notable. If we have a city article it is certainly inappropriate to list every person who lives there. Given those two extremes, the NLIST guideline should really make it more clear what exactly it is talking about. I stand by the position that "notable to the article's subject" is really the best way to determine what should or should not be included in any given article, irregardless of what the guidelines say. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Proposed rewording of the "Lists of people" section
In regards to the above discussion, it seem clear that this section of the guideline is unclear in its meaning/intent. The current wording:
Many articles contain (or stand alone as) lists of people. Inclusion in these lists should be determined by the notability criteria above. Furthermore, every entry in such a list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group.
For instance, articles about schools often include (or link to) a list of notable alumni, but such lists are not intended to contain every graduate of the school—only those with verifiable notability. Editors who would like to be identified as an alumnus/alumna should instead use the categories intended for this purpose, e.g. Category:Wikipedians by alma mater.
leads to an interpretation that every list must contain only notable people when read literally. This is not consistent with standard guidelines that notability does not directly dictate what can be placed within an article on a notable topic. As such I propose the following rewording:
Many articles contain (or stand alone as) lists of people. Inclusion within these lists should be determined by the notability criteria above, except where the list is highly relevant to the article's subject. Furthermore, every entry in such a list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group.
For instance, articles about schools often include (or link to) a list of notable alumni, but such lists are not intended to contain every graduate of the school—only those with verifiable notability. Editors who would like to be identified as an alumnus/alumna should instead use the categories intended for this purpose, e.g. Category:Wikipedians by alma mater. On the other hand, a list of past school presidents can contain all past presidents, not just those who are independently notable.
I'm not sure that wording would be restrictive enough - as I can see people focused on a specific topic claiming that it opens the door to a more permissive addition of people to articles about charities, high schools, companies, etc. I see the direction you're going with this; but we need to be certain that the revised wording doesn't accidentally open the door too far.
Also, when looking in the history, I noticed an an edit to WP:NLIST from July of this year which references an earlier discussion from WP:VPP (now archived). Would it be appropriate to notify participants of that earlier discussion about this one ... or should this one be moved to WP:VPP as well? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Once we've nailed down a version we're happy with, we should seek wider input - either via WP:CENT or WP:VPP - but I don't see a need to notify the people who participated in that discussion specifically. I don't think that change directly relates to the issue being discussed here. (The discussion was aimed at eliminating such lists entriely for which there was no consensus - the improved wording was just an outcrop of the discussion, not the focus of it.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Getting back to the first section of Barek's comment, I think that's a serious point. I think that the sentence Thaddeus added at the end, about the list of past school presidents, is fine. But I think "except where the list is highly relevant to the article's subject" in the second sentence of the first paragraph is where we have to be careful, per Barek. It may be necessary to distinguish lists within articles from stand-alone list pages. If someone created a stand-alone list page of past school presidents, for example, and linked to it from the page about the school, I'd probably argue for merging the list into the page about the school. Thus, I think stand-alone lists should be governed by the notability criteria, period. But lists within pages should, instead, not be governed by the notability criteria, but rather by whether "the list is highly relevant to the article's subject". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Focusing on the language except where the list is highly relevant to the article's subject for a moment, a highly restrictive version would be except where the list is the article's subject. That, however, would not allow the academic president list in a college article. Except where the list is a sequential list directly relevant to the article's subject is a possibility. Are there reasonable non-sequential lists that we'd be excluding? List of founding members, or list of participating entities in a consortium, for example? If we do open the door a little, lets keep it small. The list of WorldCat participating entities would be unwieldy to say the least, and lists of non-notable founding members are not particularly useful. --Bejnar (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be overlap between the list section here and WP:Source list. If changes are to be made here they should be consistent with the other section. Also, I'm worried about phrases such as "highly relevant"; can objective criteria be given for this? The people adding lists of indiscriminate data probably think it's "highly relevant" to the subject and it would be hard to argue otherwise unless a more precise definition is given.--RDBury (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
We seem to have stalled ... none of us (including myself) seem to be coming up with a wording change that avoids vague language open for interpretation - which could lead to further content disputes on what is "highly relevant" to the subject.
The more I look at this, the more i think that we should leave WP:NLIST as it stands - require that persons in such lists meet notability requirements ... we then would need to refine the WP:ENTERTAINER section. Currently, it defines as notable anyone who "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." ... but I think it would be reasonable to also add a criteria for persons who are in programs that have an original airing date 5 or more times per week, and in which the program lasts one hour or more per day ... (again, the wording likely needs tweaking). This change does open the flood-gates to a large addition of persons who may not have previously been classified as notable (not necesarilly a bad thing) ... my main concern is it then becomes harder to argue against listing past news personalities in news broadcast articles. Not sure how to deal with that one if this change were made. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I still think that Thaddeus made a good point about NLIST needing some repair, but I also agree with the other editors about not opening the door too far. In the spirit of getting this effort unstalled, then, please let me suggest this:
Many articles contain (or stand alone as) lists of people. Inclusion within lists as stand-alone articles should be determined by the notability criteria above. Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by the relevance to the article's subject, while attempting wherever possible to replace lists with text, and subject also to WP:Trivia sections. Furthermore, every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group.
For instance, articles about schools often include (or link to) a list of notable alumni, but such lists are not intended to contain every graduate of the school—only those with verifiable notability. Editors who would like to be identified as an alumnus/alumna should instead use the categories intended for this purpose, e.g. Category:Wikipedians by alma mater. On the other hand, a list within an article of past school presidents can contain all past presidents, not just those who are independently notable.
I am not sure how this advances the discussion. Just leaving out the principle while retaining the example seems to open up the door more, rather than keeping the exception as small as possible. I do think that if we are to allow "past school presidents lists" and their ilk, with citation, but without separate notability, then we are bound to provide guidance as to when and where such lists are appropriately used. --Bejnar (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
A list of founders of an organization or a corporation may be marginally relevant to an article on that that organization or corporation, and would not be excluded by the trivia guidelines. In fact a regular list of non-notable alumni, with appropriate citation attesting to their membership in the group, would pass the trivia guidelines. Just saying that alumni lists are excluded doesn't provide a basis for excluding them. The trivia guidelines say This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies. What we need is something that will exclude alumni and other such lists but allow lists such as award winners in awards articles, past presidents in college articles and past editors in journal articles. That is what I was trying to do, if ever so inartfully, with restricting such lists to "sequential lists directly relevant to the article's subject". --Bejnar (talk) 01:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the clarification. I think the first paragraph of the proposed language (and in fact of the existing language) comes close to what you are suggesting; the second paragraph, about the school alumni and presidents, is (and has been) just an example for illustration. It would be fine with me to insert the word "direct" before the word "relevance" in sentence 3 of paragraph 1. Would that work? You also refer to "sequential"; I'm fine with adding that to the language, but I don't really understand what it means. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to summarize, the nub of the issue to to relax the guidelines a bit to allow people who aren't independently notable to be included in in lists under certain circumstances where common sense would seem to dictate should be allowed, but to not open the door to a lot of listcruft. Also, to keep things in perspective, most of the people who create listcruft don't pay attention to to these guidelines in the first place, but it's nice to be able to put "Per WP:BIO" in the edit summary when you're deleting irrelevant trash. I like idea of splitting into cases; I don't think there's anyone who wants to change the guidelines for stand-alone lists. I think Richard Pryor#Marriages is a good example of the kind of list you're trying to allow since if you follow the letter of the guidelines it's not permitted. The point I'm trying to get to is that the reason that it's common sense to allow a list like this is that the spouse of a subject is normally considered encyclopedic content and if one spouse is encyclopedic then all of them are. Similarly, the current president of a college is considered encyclopedic information and if the current one is then past presidents are as well. I still think the word "relevance" in the second sentence Tryptofish's proposed wording is a bit vague. How about something like the following?
Lists within articles must conform to WP:Source list in that the entries must have the the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
I too like RDBury's idea, but I would still like to see the modifier "sequential" as a restriction. So far all of the suggested examples to be allowed have been sequential lists, i.e. one person following another in the position. Of course the counter-example comes to mind of non-monogamists in "Lists of wives". But I don't think that is really an issue, is it? --Bejnar (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The original reason this issue came up - TV personalities - wouldn't appear to be sequential. Neither would a list of band members or the list of Deal or No Deal models that recently survived AfD (as a stand alone list) by near unanimity. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I thought we were talking about embedded lists, not stand-a-lones. I could see band members, but I think those are better as text. I can't see embedded TV personalities or Deal or No Deal models. --Bejnar (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I too think that RDBury made a good point. I still do not see a need for making a specific reference to sequential, however. Here is my stab at incorporating this:
Many articles contain (or stand alone as) lists of people. Inclusion within lists as stand-alone articles should be determined by the notability criteria above. Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:Source list, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:Trivia sections). Furthermore, every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group.
For instance, articles about schools often include (or link to) a list of notable alumni, but such lists are not intended to contain every graduate of the school—only those with verifiable notability. Editors who would like to be identified as an alumnus/alumna should instead use the categories intended for this purpose, e.g. Category:Wikipedians by alma mater. On the other hand, a list within an article of past school presidents can contain all past presidents, not just those who are independently notable.
It's been a few days since there were any new comments on this so I'm going to go ahead and update the article as there seems to be consensus.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RDBury (talk • contribs) 17:11, 27 October 2009
I have come across editors denying suitability of guideline WP:ENT because of the essay WP:NOTINHERITED, with the claim that relying on "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", is a way to assert notability through inheritance... and since THAT is not allowed per the essay, that portion of W:ENT may thus be ignored. What is the best response to this type of reasoning? Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.04:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The most obvious response is that an essay is just advice which may or may not reflect community will, but a guideline is explicitly endorsed by community consensus. If people feel ENT is in error, they should try to get consensus to change it not declare it invalid because their interpretation of an essay disagrees with it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:NOTINHERITED is right that simply appearing in a notable film doesn't make someone notable. The essay doesn't however address actors who have had significant roles in multiple notable films. Epbr123 (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't need to. Actors who have had significant roles in multiple notable films will have definitely received significant coverage by multiple repliable sources. The sub-guidelines are there to provide a safety net which says "if you can't find the references right now, then they probably exist if the subject falls under one of these categories". It is not a substitute for significant coverage by multiple reliable sources, which is what WP:NOTINHERITED covers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk12:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Correct, that is what most of sub-guidelines are intended to do. Unfortunately, the actual practice is a bit different, as people try to use them both for inclusion and exclusion at AfD: "So and so only had one significant role, so he isn't notable despite significant RS coverage." I certainly agree than any actor that has been multiple significant roles will have significant coverage somewhere, and that it is just a matter of finding it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Anyone who ever says something like "despite significant RS coverage" should be politely pointed at the GNG. We needn't concern ourselves with a failure to comprehend our primary notability criterion on this sub-page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk17:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree, but be aware that there are plenty of editors who think that for a topic where an SNG exists, the SNG should be used to the exclusion of (rather than a complement for) the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe additional criteria #5 of WP:PORNBIO to be in the spirit of WP:GNG. Criteria #5 states: "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." The term notable mainstream media does not mean the same thing as reliable independent media. The General Notability Guideline states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." News sources in the pornographic industry are by nature obscure and "mainstream" (aka mass media) rarely covers the subject unless it is in a disparaging way.
You're misunderstanding the purpose of the criteria. It's not meant to be a rephrasing of the general notability criteria; it means a porn star is presumed notable if they have performed in mainstream films, TV programmes, etc. Epbr123 (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
A pornographic film in itself would be considered a primary source. What I'm more concerned with are secondary sources like reviews and biographical articles. Porn bios get deleted all the time with simple justification of "does meet PORNBIO" without considering WP:ANYBIO or other guidelines. What I'm proposing is the terminology can be changed to reflect the value of industry-related journalism. Stillwaterising (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Stillwaterising. The current PORNBIO requirements are unreasonably restrictive -at odds with other guidelines like WP:ATHLETE for example. Being featured in industry-related journalism should be enough. I would personally add that instead of substituting it, meaning that if the subject's has been mentioned in mainstream sources, is also likely to be notable. --Cyclopiatalk12:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Any problems with excessive deletion that exist are due to editor attitudes, not the PORNBIO guidelines. The guidelines do NOT override the GNG - anyone who RS industry coverage passes. Changing the guidelines, however, won't change attitudes. If you really want to see more bios kept you'll have to make strong AfD arguments by providing sources. Most editors are ignorant of these "industry publications" and Google isn't going to find them, so they can hardly be blamed for !voting delete based on a lack of verifiability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Probably best that they do, a lot of the biographical guidelines are really pretty overly loose. If you've only been covered in specialty stuff, you're probably not really all that notable. You know you've got a problem when we've got stubs on every "pro" player that's warmed a bench for half a game, and if we loosen up the other ones too much, we'll have the same problem there. You have to pass the GNG regardless, subguidelines can't override it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me15:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that PORNBIO #5 needs clarification; I've seen it used too often as a means of evading GNG principles and claiming that someone who falls well below notability standards in two areas somehow merits an article simply because they're otherwise nonnotable in two fields rather than one. Specialized guidelines are intended to supplement the GNG by identifying classes of people who are presumed to satisfy the GNG, not allow end runs around it. While WP:ATHLETE has often been criticized, it's probably one of the best-targeted specialized guideline, because of the highly detailed reported on professional sports, including statistical reports, which typically ends up satisfying the GNG. Compared to what's generally required in practice for academics and business professions, WP:PORNBIO is a remarkably loose guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Hullaballoo, WP:BIO is an alternative to GNG, that's the way it's written. If you don't like it you need to be using the GNG talk page not this one. I'm supporting this with the following text taken directly out of the WP:GNG:
"NOTABILITY" for Entertainers and Artists NEEDS a revision
Hello,
I am relatively new to these discussions, but I offer a well informed fresh view. It has come to my attention that certain actors, musicians, and artists/entertainers of all sorts are added or deleted based on a very ambiguous term of 'Notability'. Who is to say what is 'notable' or not? Also, the roles actors play in certain productions must be 'significant'...again what does that mean exactly? Where is the line drawn? How are administrators of Wikipedia supposed to determine what is 'significant' and 'notable' based on these extremely vague guidelines?
I propose an additional criteria that can assist in determining the 'notability' of entertainers. Seeing as that the internet is and will be a major source of determining how prevalent any given entertainer is in today's society, and thereby relevant as a searchable subject for those seeking information about said entertainer on Wikipedia, I think an additional factor we can add to the determination of 'notability' is search engine results or 'Internet Proliferation'. Those who are less 'known' will have very few results as opposed to those who have made somewhat of a public stamp in society, who will have many thousands or millions. However, there is the issue of name commonality resulting in inaccuracy, for example, the name "John Smith" will have tens of millions of search results, whereas a less common name (ex: Chiwetel Ejiofor) will have a more accurate assessment of their societal public prevalence. This can partially be solved by adding a middle name and/or the occupation, example: "John Clarance Smith Actor" for those names that result in an excess of unrelated search results. Once this qualification is refined, we can set a guideline of perhaps, 10,000 relevant results as a determination of notability. This additional factor will indeed assist in those borderline cases where an entertainer is not universally recognizable, but does or did in fact have a relevant career in their entertainment profession. I realize there still remains some ambiguity in this, particularly with common named entertainers, but I think this is a huge step in the right direction and greatly reduces the overall vagueness of the guidelines.
Another vague criteria: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Here, "other productions" is clearly another term that is blatantly vague. What kinds of productions can determine notability? Are webisodes considered valid to qualify? What about straight to DVD/video films? Short films? YouTube Videos? How do we determine if an entertainer has been in what Wikipedia Administrators consider to be 'notable'? Perhaps the 'other productions' term should be removed and a list of exactly what kinds of productions are acceptable should be specifically listed. I suggest "Straight to DVD", "Short Films (that are available for purchase online through a 3rd party vendor - not those for sale by the entertainer or production company themselves)", "Films, TV Shows, etc. that are not completed yet, but in production and entertainer is verifiable through a source", "YouTube videos with 20 million or more views".
And how many is "multiple"? Is that "2 or more"? If so, then why doesn't it say "2 or more" instead of the unspecific term 'multiple' that can be interpreted by some to mean a larger amount?
Finally, the term "significant role" which is what the entertainer's participatory involvement should be if the credit is to be 'notable', thereby qualifying for the entertainer's 'notability', is very ambiguous. If someone has not seen a particular project, then they cannot accurately say how significant an entertainer's role is or isn't in any given production. And even if they have seen it, what determines significance exactly? Is it the effect or relevance their portrayal/character has on the plot of a story? Is it the amount of screen time (calculation of percentage of time on screen)? Number of lines spoken? Credit billing? Some kind of hybrid of these? This is a very grey area. For example, Ellen Burstyn received an Emmy nomination for her performance in "Mrs. Harris", a 2005 TV Movie, even though her character only appears on screen for 11 seconds and has only two lines. Based on the 'significance' criteria (lets pretend this is her first entertainer credit and before the Emmy nomination), this appearance would have been insignificant because it seems to be a rather small part in the film, but, in fact she was nominated for an Emmy. In addition, there exist projects that do not have significant character names - i.e. the 2005 feature film "Feast", which was highlighted on HBO's Project Greenlight, has major character's named 'Bartender', 'Beer Guy', 'Heroine', which at first glance seem like insignificant character names, but are in fact major parts in the film. So, how do we minimize the grey area here when determining which entertainers have significant parts in their projects or not? I'm not sure about a clear cut solution to this one, but something should be more detailed as to give a better guideline than what currently exists. Perhaps a combination of lines spoken and screen time? Or maybe it should be determined by credit billing - they must be listed in the top 60% of the credited cast list in the credits in order to be considered 'significant'? There still exists ambiguity, but its an improvement to the current guidelines.
Wikipedia's rules on this are antiquated and vague and should be given a much needed update. Thoughts on these proposed ideas?
Answer I agree with Nevpan 100%. Notability is a very vague term. I suggest using the term "An actor who has had a speaking role in a Movie, Play, TV Show or New Media". This would exclude background Actors. I don't understand with the present policy what the Administrators are afraid of. Wikiedia is supposed to be about the spread of knowledge. Their continued censorship of articles about Actors would make Joseph Goebbels proud.Enelani (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)enelani~
Notability is not a vague term. It refers to the existence of independent sources. In general search engine hits have in the several discussions been found to be a poor indication of the existence of such sources. The significant roles are a bit of a tautology, to determine that a role is significant we need a source describing it as such, and hence we get acceptance by GNG. Taemyr (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Answer I disagree with Taemyr 100%. I think you would agree that IMDB is an independent source for information on actors. Nope, not good enough for the intellectual snobs that delete articles on actors!!98.150.244.35 (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)enelani
I wonder whether there are any other "basic" sections in other (unrelated) guidelines or policies around the Wiki, and whether there would be disambiguation issues. Can anyone remember any? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I propose this be re-worded from "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" to "Has made multiple appearances in notable mainstream media". The current wording has led to confusion numerous times. Epbr123 (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment - :As in the original discussion, I had wanted this criteria to have independent verification by reliable sources (outside of tertiary like IMDB or primary sources). That's how I had always interpreted "featured". The appearance was notable enough that an independent reliable source had mentioned it. The reason why I objected to basing notability on the significance of the role is because that even being an extra can be a notable appearance if reliable sources report on it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose the phrasing. I agree that the current formulation has led to confusion, but think that simply saying "multiple appearances," without some qualfication, leads to problems. Otherwise performers with porn and mainstream track records that are both completely trivial would pass the guideline, but fail the GNG by a wide margin. Specialty guidelines are useful only when they reliably predict that a subject would pass the GNG. Under the proposed phrasing, any mainstream appearances would do; for example, a performer with half a dozen uncredited/"extra" roles in movies or TV would pass the guideline by making a single porn performance, regardess of its significance. At the same time, by limiting the test to appearances, leaving out other mainstream coverage ("featured" is a helpfully vague term here), subjects like Rachel Ryan or Marylin Star would fail the guideline, even though they've got more significant coverage than the typical award-winners, leaving the applicability of policies/guidelines like BLP1E, NOTNEWS,and NOTINHERITED to be debated. What criterion #5 does now is allows us to recognize that the combination of porn work and significant (as opposed to trivial) mainstream coverage can support notability in combination even when neither would be sufficient standing alone. The change would make this a mechanical, numerical test which clearly can lead to inappropriate results. I've suggested changing "appearances" to "significant appearances," because "significance" is used in speedy deletion criteria as a less stringent standard than notability, and therefore helpful here. There's a current AFD about a porn actress where (it's claimed) she gets some notability from appearing for 1-2 seconds in a notable music video, as the camera pans around a crowd scene. That, I think, is the kind of "appearance" that doesn't actually to contribute to notability, and the criterion should be written in a way that excludes it. And, as I said, "appearances" may be too narrow to bring in other sorts of coverage that contribute to notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Basically, Hullaballoo has explained it very well. But I think a solution might be to add "non-trivial" as a qualifier: "Has made multiple non-trivial appearances in notable mainstream media". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment. At the discussion that led to the latest version of the pornbio criteria, there was consensus that trivial mainstream appearances do establish notability. There's therefore no consensus that the words "significant" or "non-trivial" should be added. The only effect this new phrasing will have on AfD is that people like me won't have to keep explaining that criteria 5 has nothing to do with WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
If consensus does change, PORNBIO criteria 5 will become redundant due to WP:ENT criteria 1, so it can just be removed rather than reworded. Epbr123 (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Support. While this isn't what I originally proposed, but I'm in favor of a better-worded less-restrictive criteria. I'm apprehensive about adding the requirement of 'non-trivial' without clear guidelines as to what is trivial or not. - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The criteria is indeed confusing as worded. I, like main others, had assumed it meant mainstream news stories. If it actually means acting jobs, then it should use some other wording than the current one. As such I would support changing it to read as proposed, since that would be in line with the original intent it seems. If people no longer support its intended meaning, than it should be removed as confusing and not adding anything. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Inclined to oppose at this moment, anyway. I'm not sure the standard for notability for any type of people should be how often they are in "notable mainstream media." There are plenty of notable people that don't appear there, and plenty of non-notable people that do. I would support it as a characteristic that may bolster notability, but not as a requirement. Шизомби (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a proposal to make the criteria less restrictive. This is just a proposal to get the criteria copyedited so that "featured in mainstream media" doesn't keep getting misinterpreted as "coverage in mainstream newspapers". I can't see how this is so controversial. Epbr123 (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I see no meaningful difference between Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" and "Has made multiple appearances in notable mainstream media", so I don't see how that would help. Шизомби (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
LOL, You are essentially saying "I oppose this wording change b/c the two mean the same thing." Um, yah, that is the point. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
They're equally easy to misinterpret, because their wording has no meaningful difference. At the moment the change would serve no purpose for that very reason. I'm not sure what it is you want it to mean, or want it to prohibit. Шизомби (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
If you're not sure what it's meant it to mean, you can't be a judge of whether it's easy to misinterpret. As said above, it's meant to mean a porn star is notable if they have appeared in mainstream TV programmes, magazines, radio programmes, films, etc. Can you think of a better way to word it? Epbr123 (talk) 09:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
You changed "been featured" to "made" and "times" to "appearances." They're synonymous. Nothing was changed, nothing is clarified; consequently, the newer version is not going to be interpreted or misinterpreted any differently than the original. I still don't know what you're aiming at, you haven't explained yet, how can I advise beyond pointing out that your new version says nothing new? "If you're not sure what it's meant it to mean, you can't be a judge of whether it's easy to misinterpret"! If someone is not sure what something means, they know they're not able to interpret it, or in other words they've come to the judgement that they would misinterpret it. Шизомби (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe Epbr123's trying to get rid of the notion that if the actor is contained in mainstream media then he/she must be the focus of that piece. There's a difference between being "featured" on 60 Minutes or merely "appearing" on the show. But what if the actor was discussed extensively but did not personally appear on the show? I can see an argument against counting that under the criteria. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to explain it a different way. If there was an article about your life in The New York Times, would you be more likely to say "I was featured in The New York Times" or "I made an appearance in The New York Times"? Obviously the first, as the second uses uncommon and unnatural language. "Made an appearance in" is therefore less likely to be misinterpreted as "Was written about in". I don't really care exactly how the criteria is reworded, as long as people stop coming to AfD saying "Fails pornbio criteria 5 as she hasn't been written about in mainstream journals". This is a problem that needs to be fixed. Epbr123 (talk) 11:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, as I myself explained I was among the many who thought the guideline was pointing to news stories. I can't understand why some keep saying the wording is fine and unlikely to cause confusion since I myself was confused and I am hardly the only one. In the United States, at least, "media" normally means "news media." --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Alternate suggestion: change "notable mainstream media" to "notable mainstream productions (i.e. TV shows, movies, etc.)". That way we avoid the ambiguity of "media" without causing a debatable change in the meaning of "featured". --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
A possible variation on that, perhaps addressing more editors' concerns, might be: "Has made multiple non-trivial appearances in notable mainstream entertainment media". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion:Featured is an old term, no longer used In Screen Actors Guild contracts. It used to mean that a Background Actor appeared prominently on screen e.g. a third of the screen and was eligible for an increase in pay. In the new contracts an Actor is either Principal or Background. They either speak or they don't, there's no middle ground. Featured has been written out of the contracts. The modern use of the word Featured simply means the actor has prominently appeared on screen and nothing else. Really the only solution to the problem of the vague term "notability" is to eliminate it and replace it with the term "An actor who has had a speaking role in a Movie, Play, TV Show or New Media". This would cover speaking actors (Principals) in all forms of Entertainment. Enelani (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Enelani
New squad members
We continually get people creating articles for new squad members of major clubs in the time between them being signed and playing their first game. I can understand that some of these for whatever reason never appear and in a rare exception to the rule lose their notability after they are dropped from the squad. But while they are in the squad surely they are of interest and people will be looking for their Wikipedia page to see who the new player is. Equally if someone has been announced as part of an Olympic team it seems perverse to me that they don't qualify for an article during the opening ceremonies but only after their first event has taken place. So I suggest a small tweak to the criteria to accept these articles (proposed addition in bold):
People who have competed, or are current squad members at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.[1]
People who have competed, or are current squad members at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships.
It seems to me that there needs to be a way to be more certain that having been named as a squad member will definitely lead to competing. There are sports where a player is signed to a team, but held in reserve and never put on the field to play. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd have thought that would be a relatively rare event and easily remedied by a prod after they are dropped from the squad. ϢereSpielChequers16:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Why isn't the WP:GNG sufficient for these athletes? WP:ATHLETE lowers the bar and I don't think we need to do that for athletes that may never end up in a single competitive match. If they pass WP:GNG, they should have articles, but otherwise no. Jogurney (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
It should be, but unfortunately a significant % of Wikipedia hates sports articles and will !vote to delete on every single athlete who doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE. Sometimes some reasonable people show up and vote on the GNG, but most "regulars" either vote "keep passes ATH" or "delete fails ATH" every time. If challenged, these people will argue that every story about said athlete is just "routine sports coverage" and therefore doesn't confer notability. It seems sports coverage of a sports player can never confer notability - only playing a professional (or Olympic) game is sufficient to in these people's minds. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I haven't yet had an experience with a user that hated sports-bio articles, but I do know that the lack of referencing of sports-bio articles certainly annoys a fair number of users (some even crusade against WP:ATHLETE because of it). I also have seen several AfDs where articles on athletes who clearly failed WP:ATHLETE were kept because of good referencing. I suppose it depends on the sport and the extent of internet usage in the country the athlete is playing in, but most top athletes will have plenty of coverage in reliable sources and easily pass WP:GNG (which is how we justify WP:ATHLETE). Lesser (and newer) athletes tend to have little or no coverage, and it's not reasonable to assume they will pass WP:GNG unless the sources are actually available. Jogurney (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I could have worded that better - it isn't so much that people hate sports articles it is more that they hate the fact that so many sports figures are notable. They do tend to blame ATH for that, but it is actually quite rare for an athlete to pass ATH and not meet the GNG. Many editors feel that only a small % of pros should be notable because only small % of people in other professions are notable. What they fail to understand is 1) it isn't our job to correct real world bias and 2) pro athletes already represent a small % of all people who wish to play sports for a living. They feel ATH is horrible and prefer some other standard, but since that isn't possible they use ATH as an exclusionary clause whenever they can.
The problem is most evident in Football, which is probably not surprising since it the world's most popular sport. I have seen American college All-Americans with like 50 news stories nominated for deletion and only being saved due to very aggressive arguing by me that was able to convince ~35% of voters (enough for a no consensus keep). I contact many of the delete votes and asked directly if a college player could ever be notable for sporting accomplishments and they all either said "no" or something like "only if they accomplish something that no one has ever done before." To me, that is just nuts. The best college players are certainly more notable (i.e. have more RS coverage) than the worst pros, but since they haven't yet signed a contract they are somehow unworthy in some people's eyes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I suspect part of the problem is that university-level sports in the US are much more attended/covered in media than elsewhere in the world. I'm from the US, but that is the perspective I get from non-US editors. Of course, the proposal mentioned above really does nothing to address this issue and opens the door for more articles on the "worst pros" who very well will not be able to pass WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I think common sense should prevail here, and we should let a newly signed players profile (temporarily) stay if it is created even though notability hasn't technically been established yet. However, I don't think we should codify that, as doing so would likely lead to more confusion than it would solve. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
One of the purposes of notability guidelines is to ensure that there is adequate published material on a person to enable us to write at least a stub biography. Guidelines that presume notability based on team membership make it difficult to achieve this goal, and often leads to unsourced stubs, or articles full of tabloid nonsense. Surely if a person has been named to a team an entry on the team article is adequate until such time as the person clearly passes WP:ATHLETE. Presumably by then we have a much better chance of writing a halfway decent biography. Kevin (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
What Kevin said, essentially. Allowing squad members with essentially zero coverage to have full articles will increase our un/barely-sourced BLP count quite a lot, and that is not something I support. Instead, this information could be presented in a main article, or a list of X F.C. players article, accomplishing the same goal without adding to our stub BLP count. NW(Talk)00:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with NW and Kevin. The notability bar is too low already in this area, and lowering it further is not a good idea. It's just asking for impossible to maintain unsourced BLPs. ++Lar: t/c21:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
(indent reset) I would disagree with the above comment that most athletes that pass this would also pass the primary notability guideline, and this is confusing, as it seems to give the appearance that it overrides the primary guideline, rather than gives guidance as to when it's likely passed. Many backup players never develop substantial sourcing—they'll get directory entries and blurbs, but nothing of substance. When you're talking about a John Elway or a Michael Jordan, of course, there's no shortage of source material, but most players (even pros) don't reach that level of coverage. I've seen countless articles on sports players that are technically "pros", with no more sourcing present (or that I can find, available) than a team roster. But AfD them, and more often than not, even if you bring up the lack of sourcing, "But they're pro! Passes WP:ATHLETE!" I think it would be good to at least clarify this guideline to unambiguously state that the primary guideline must be passed, and that passing this just means it's more likely that it is, not that it acts as a free pass if it in fact does not. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with both NW and Kevin, the notability bar needs to stay where it is, especially if we're talking about BLPs. We don't need more unreferenced unmaintainable BLPs. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
WP: ATH paralympics
Just a query for other users that maybe can help interpret the second clause in WP: athlete for me. Paralympians and notability. In general what would be the notability guideline here? Is just competing sufficent? or is winning a medal any medal sufficent? I am curious about a few potential articles for creation. Thanks for your input Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Going solely by the literal meaning of the guideline, competing would be sufficient. Common sense would say not to create an article unless there is something actually to write about though. "X participated in the 2000 paralympic games. He finished 8th in the 100m." isn't very useful. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The only reason that athletes get a comparatively free pass here is the high level of public interest in professional and Olympic-level athletic competition. Cruel though it may seem to say it out loud, the interest is not there to the same extent for paralympics athletes, athletes who compete only in the Gay Games, etc. I would argue very firmly that simple participation or even medalling at this level of competition does not constitute notability. --Orange Mike | Talk18:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I would fully agree with Orangemike. We need a lot less of the "free pass" attitude, not more. We write articles if the subject has been covered in depth by independent reliable sources, we do not if that is not the case. There's already some idea that being a "pro" obviates the reliable source requirement. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Im inclined to agree with the above, makes sense to me at least. Even if a paralympian were to win a gold medal, would there be sufficent coverage, sources to demonstrate the notability? If there was the athlete would satisfy the other conditions of notability and not just WP:ath. Which probably explains why we have alot of 'gold medalist' redlinks for paralympians. Which in itself is too bad that the coverage (reliable sources) for those games is not there. Thanks for the input. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
For my part, I'm quite opposed to any automatic pass for paralympians. They do not play professional sports, nor do they play at the "highest level" of amateur sports. There's no standard that could be applied to disabled-only sports such as wheelchair basketball that can't be applied, say, to elementary school-age T-ball leagues, another sport played only by a particular group of people not thought physically capable to play the sport from which it's derived. RGTraynor 22:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Granted, there are enough anti-porn crusaders on Wikipedia that they can probably get through a number of AfDs on pornstar articles without adequate representation of broad consensus, and then try to change project pages to reflect their personal religious beliefs and pro-censorship attitude (ironic, given their likely high degree of private consumption of pornography as studies show). That's probably one of the reasons why Wikipedia often doesn't seem to like citing precedents or having guidelines or even policies be inflexible (Ignore All Rules). If there really were broad consensus it would be a different matter. That said, there's always room for discussion. Шизомби (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Most of this comment simply assumed bad faith and is unhelpful. How about focusing on the perceived problem and suggested solutions? Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, I fear it is not assuming bad faith, I wish it were. :-( It's clear from porn AfDs that WP:BEFORE and other aspects of AfD guidance are often ignored by the noms, who sometimes delete the evidence of notability from the article prior to submitting it to AfD, they call pornography disgusting, contemptible and so on, sometimes having statements on their userpages or offsite explicitly stating they're campaigning to delete pornography, etc. I perceive such people as part of the problem and countering them by achieving much broader consensus is part of the solution I suggest is necessary. That is certainly not the only problem, though, and I readily acknowledge there are some, perhaps many, porn-related articles that merit deletion and have myself supported their deletion. Other problems include the fact that Porn Studies is a relatively new academic field, and perhaps that some of the scholarly texts are things like articles or special issues of film studies or women's studies journals that aren't freely available online, and that pornographic publications (pornographic things themselves or industry publications about pornography) themselves aren't widely held by libraries. There's also the problem, which seems to cut across a number of subjects on Wikipedia, that mainstream news media coverage often gets overvalued: that if people aren't on it, they aren't notable, and if they are on the news, they are notable. Also, despite the mixed opinions regarding precedent, there probably would be merit to combing through AfDs on pornographic subjects to help find some of the problems there have been and some of the suggestions there might have been that got overlooked. AfD searches are somewhat easier now than they used to be, although some functionality is lacking from it that would make it even easier. I think, for example, that the categories that were in a deleted article should be saved into the AfD. Шизомби (talk) 06:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Proposal for a new "Notability (military officers)"
I was surprised to see this didn't exist already, but I'd like to propose a new guideline for the notability of military officers. It would apply to:
All General/ Flag officers (or at least 2 star and above since Brigadiers/ Brigadier Generals could be fairly unremarkable)
Officers who have held notable commands (commanders of deployments/ large bases where they do not meet the above) or notable roles within notable commands (where the role, if not the person, receives substantial coverage)
Kevin's question goes to the core of the problem with all such proposals. If the people concerned already pass existing criteria, the new criterion is superfluous; but if they don't pass the existing criterion, then there's no scope for a neutral article. So the new clause seem guaranteed to produce either useless articles or a useless paragraph in the guidelines. Why does anyone want to do this? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not at all sure that your proposal adequately discusses the way in which military figures are uniquely remarkable. Simply holding a notable command, e.g. being CINCPAC during a short period when nothing happened, isn't a cause for notability. I think that we need to retain WP:GNG at a minimum, which WP:MILMOS#NOTE does. --Bejnar (talk) 04:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
There needs to be a separate notability guideline for American football players. The NFL itself is extremely confusing with its active players being inactive on gamedays and its practice squad members, reserve members, etc. The current guidelines suggest that an athlete must have participated at a fully professional level, but does not specify whether that means for NFL players to be on an active NFL roster or active on gamedays or active on a practice squad or active on injured reserve. American football needs its own notability guideline in order to lessen these types of discussions that never end. Eagles24/7(C)04:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the meaning of competed is pretty clear. Simply taking up space on a roster isn't competing if the player doesn't actually play in the game. NFL rosters are already bigger than most other sports leagues and the league has no minor league, so most players already pass WP:ATHLETE. The ones that don't are the exception. There is no need to make alterations to include a handful of individuals. Grsz1104:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Eagles247 wrote "current guidelines suggest that an athlete must have participated at a fully professional level". But in fact, they suggest that an athlete must have "competed at the fully professional level of a sport" to be automatically considered notable. I think this roster / active question is moot once the original guideline is revisited. Bongomatic04:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, WP:ATHLETE is clear in what it says. But the issue is, should that be what determines notability for pro football players? I'm inclined to say no. There's no reason there can't be more specific guidelines for the notability of pro football players, because it shouldn't be as simple as "playing in an NFL game."►Chris NelsonHolla!04:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course it isn't that simple, they have to meet WP:GNG period, which even some guys who have played wouldn't do. I feel that ATHLETE is making more guys notable than less. Grsz1104:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
See the beginning of WP:GNG: "A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines:" then it lists the notability guidelines. Eagles24/7(C)04:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
(major edit conflict) Players that are on active rosters (even for a day) should be notable, as opposed to practice squad players, and this should be specified in the guidelines. Also, I have no idea what you are trying to say Bongomatic. "I think this roster / active question is moot once the original guideline is revisited." ????? Eagles24/7(C)04:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Eagles247, you stated that the guideline is confusing, citing questions about roster status, etc. However, it is not the least bit confusing or ambiguous as "competed" (as opposed to "participated") is the active word. Status is irrelevant—only if someone competed. Bongomatic04:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I was only responding to your statement that "'I have no idea what you are trying to say Bongomatic. 'I think this roster / active question is moot once the original guideline is revisited'" by clarifying my original statement. Bongomatic05:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. WP:ATH is more inclusive than the GNG, but like all subject-specific notability guidelines, is meant to be a proxy for whether it is likely that significant coverage exists but simply is yet to be identified. There will be inactive or practice squad players that will be notable per GNG (or some other reason), but there is no inherent notability in being on the practice squad, or being an inactive player that has never competed—just like there is no inherent notability in performing other tasks for a professional athletics team (e.g., statistician, accountant, equipment master). Bongomatic05:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose the current wording. Being listed on the active roster is ambiguous because is Jaison Williams notable now because he spent a few weeks on the active roster in the offseason. If the wording is changed to say on the active roster for a game then I'll support.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 13:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Well I didn't know this was going to be like a vote (or an AfD), so I'll provide the new guideline I would like to see for American football:
Gridiron football players
People who have been listed on the active roster of a fully professional gridiron football team, such as the National Football League, Arena Football League, Canadian Football League, and United Football League.
Oppose Most of the players on an active roster will play and pass ATHLETE. The few that don't are a rare exception and are not notable. I don't see why we're making a fuss over maybe a dozen players. Grsz1115:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
God you are being a pain in the ass. You don't even know anything about pro football and you're stubbornly opposing all kinds of reasonable things here.►Chris NelsonHolla!15:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Chris, it's obvious you haven't read a damn thing I or anybody else who opposes has said. It has nothing to do with knowing anything about pro football, which I challenge you to find anything we've said that is inaccurate. You've already made up some arbitrary standard that drafted players are notable, which again fails ATHLETE, and now you're raising a fuss about another handful of players. It's pointless. Grsz1116:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Revised Guideline:
Gridiron football players
People who have been listed on the active roster of a fully professional gridiron football team during the regular season or postseason for that league, such as the National Football League, Arena Football League, Canadian Football League, and United Football League.
People who have been drafted by a National Football League team in an NFL Draft, by a Canadian Football League team in a CFL Draft, or by a United Football League in a UFL Draft.
Oppose I learned the hard way that most players in the CFL Draft never play there. First rounders only. Playing is crucial but being listed as inactive (which I assume you meant) is considered non-notable despite the fact it should be notable.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 17:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. The "drafted" argument is a losing battle. I would say above a certain round should be relevant in the NFL though. Maybe top three or so. Because it's a story if the guy didn't play as well.
Also, I don't know if there will be any support for this, but I feel like if a guy hangs around the NFL for at least three years or so on practice squads/preseasons, I feel like that should be worthy of inclusion. One could even argue that preseason games do pass WP:ATHLETE, even if it shouldn't.►Chris NelsonHolla!17:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I doubt there'd be support for it but if he hangs around then I see no reason why he couldn't be notable. Top 3 or so round sounds good as well for the NFL and then first round in the CFL and UFL.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 17:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Well the UFL draft isn't really an amateur draft. They were drafting the rights to players, many of whom were already pros from time in other leagues. They were basically saying "if Chris Perry wants to play in the CFL, we got dibs." So unless they have a true amateur draft, it shouldn't be included in any guidelines for notability.►Chris NelsonHolla!17:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
True, wasn't sure if the UFL was going to draft players undrafted in the NFL Draft or not. If that's not the case then the UFL shouldn't be included.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 18:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Second Revised Guideline
Gridiron football players
People who have been listed on the active roster of a fully professional gridiron football team during the regular season or postseason for that league, such as the National Football League, Arena Football League, Canadian Football League, and United Football League.
People who have been drafted by a National Football League team in the first, second, or third round in an NFL Draft; by a Canadian Football League team in the first round of a CFL Draft; or by a United Football League in the first round of a UFL Draft.
Oppose - while I don't follow gridiron football very much, I don't see a good explanation why it needs a looser standard than other sports. Jogurney (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I took a look at that AfD (and even !voted). It's not very controversial as no one has done the work to show the article would pass the general notability guideline. I tried and found almost no sources on the guy. I think you need to show something more compelling before I would agree to loosen WP:BIO for gridiron football players. Jogurney (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, and clarify this guideline to unambiguously state that the primary notability guideline must be passed. Articles on "pros" that don't pass should be removed, articles on "non-pros" that do should be kept. We have the sources to write a full article, or we don't. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per Seraphimblade's excellent summary: either we have the sources to write a full article, or we don't. If we do have the sources, WP:GNG is met, so there is no problem, and if we don't have the sources why create the article? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Overall Comments
Oppose any of these changes. The existing guidelines cover this just fine, and we don't need more bureaucracy. 23:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Actually, the existing guidelines have been terrible for years. Construed strictly, anyone pitching half an inning for a rookie-league team or played a single shift in the low minors in hockey gets a pass, whether or not the athlete passes WP:V, the GNG or otherwise. There's never been remotely close to a consensus notion of "fully professional," which some construe to mean semi-pro and others construe to mean "only major leagues." Heck, there's not even a consensus definition of "sport." About the best thing possible would be to ditch WP:ATHLETE altogether and devolve athletic notability standards to the individual WikiProjects, which could then tailor them much better to the vagaries of the individual sports ... and many have already done so. RGTraynor 22:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I am surprised that it took so long for the glitch to be spotted, but a small and change by Sandstein to WP:POLITICIAN has had the effect of radically altering the meaning of point 1 in unitary nations such as the Republic of Ireland, at least for those who take it literally.
Here's what happened. In this edit on 10 June 2008, Sandstein changed point 1 as follows:
old text
Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature
new text
People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges.
Unfortunately, that's not what happened. In a Federal state, the meaning did not change, because a "first-level sub-national" political office is a state-level office: in the US, that would be a state governor, or a state senator/congressperson. I think that the same would apply in South Africa or Germany or Australia.
That produces the anomaly that a Galway City Councillor gets an automatic presumption of notability, whilst a New York City Councillor does not. That's perverse, because Galway has a population of 72,000 versus 8.3 million in the City of New York. Things get even better when applied to Kiribati, where the population of 98,000 has 21 local councils, an average of less than 5,000 people per local authority.
This led to a bit of an argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Cameron (Galway) who took a while to accept that this is a nonsense. So I will now edit WP:POLITICIANS to restore point 1 to read "Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature", and adding"and judges".
I hope that this should remove any further confusion, and avoid appearing to encourage a proliferation of articles on local politicians who lack anything remotely resembling substantial coverage in reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe there needs to be a revision in the way we consider minor league baseball players "notable." Many use the argument that they played at a fully professional level...however, hundreds upon hundreds of minor leaguers have played at a fully professional level, and using that argument every single minor leaguer down to rookie league could merit discussion for an article.
Here are my arguments, cross-posted from another discussion:
"I see a lot of people supporting otherwise non-notable minor leaguers because said minor leaguers get multiple Google hits when searched. This concerns me, because many of these minor leaguers do not deserve Wikipedia pages. The reason they get more hits on Google is because of the expansion of the Internet and the expansion of the coverage of minor league baseball on the Internet, not because of an increase in notability. Many of these players have accomplished no more than what a minor leaguer in the 1990s or before accomplished, however they maintain pages because their name comes up a lot on Google searches. If, however, I were to create an article for a player who played from 1986 to 1994 in the minors, his page would most likely get deleted because he doesn't get as many Google hits, even though he is as statistically similar and as similarly accomplished as a modern minor leaguer who does get Google hits. I think we need to review notability guidelines for minor leaguers."
"I don't mean to be blunt, but that is a very dumb way to determine notability. As I stated, an equally accomplished player from the 1980s will not have an article as a player from today, because the 1980s player did not have the Internet to give the false impression of notability. Look at Jackie Reid. He won nearly 300 games in the minor leagues and yet a Google search of him brings up apparently very little that is relevant to him. Nevertheless, he is still notable because of that statistical accomplishment, and no doubt was very notable during the time he played. Now, look at Tyler Mach. He played exactly one year in the minor leagues at the Low-A level, and yet a Google search of him brings up 8,380 hits. It's not because he is notable, it is because he played during a time when minor league coverage expanded greatly on the Internet, and the Internet expanded greatly as a whole."
For now, I do not know exactly how the situation would be remedied. However, I do believe something should be done about it. Alex (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
It's a widely held misconception that passing a subguideline makes a subject actually notable. Multiple nontrivial reliable sources on the subject are still required. The subguidelines give some guidance as to when that level of coverage is likely present, but can't substitute for it if it's actually not. ATH is especially problematic in this regard, especially the criterion you cite, since it happens so often that there are players who technically played at a professional level, but never got much coverage for it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me18:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't follow this argument. We shouldn't treat subjects who meet the GNG due to "greatly expanded coverage" in recent years because similar subjects from the past don't meet the GNG because the coverage hadn't yet expanded? And the issue is really internet v. print sources anyway. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
My point is, it doesn't seem logical or fair to give articles to people now because they have the Internet to make them "notable", when equally accomplished athletes from before the Internet boom would not be allowed an article because they do not have the Internet to give them a false sense of notability.Alex (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the Wikipedia concept of "notability" is inherently unfair; as it's currently implemented, for example, thousands of academics doing good, valuable, low-profile work are ignored while Z-list celebrity wannabes get covered, and Rhodes Scholars are treated as nonachievers while low-rent porn performers get articles. But using "people who ought to be notable" as the guideline would end up much worse. You can also make a good case that, given baseball's expansion, playing in top-level AAA leagues fifty years ago was just as notable as playing for the fill-in-the-punching-bag-team-of-your-choice today. As more and more newspaper archives end up online, through Google or however, the print coverage of the past will take care of some of the problems. As will, one hopes, editors with access to newspaper files in cities with important minor league teams. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
^Participation in and, in most cases, winning individual tournaments, except the most prestigious events, does not make non-athletic competitors notable. This includes, but is not limited to, poker, bridge, chess, Magic:The Gathering, Starcraft, etc.
