Stepping away from the above discussion of minor league players, do college athletes satisfy WP:ATH? Obviously they would still require multiple sources of coverage to satisfy more general WP:GNG principles, but outside of the likes of Tim Tebow or Sam Bradford who have risen beyond simple athlete status (as Heisman Award winners, in this case) is the average Joe college player (at least in college football, say, where there really is no higher amateur level) notable enough for an article? Look at 2009 Oklahoma Sooners football team#Roster compared to, say 2009 New York Yankees season#Roster. Every Yankee all the way down to Anthony Claggett has an article, while the Sooners only have the biggest names. Is that correct? Staxringoldtalkcontribs04:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
That's certainly how I interpret WP:ATH. College football teams have 70 scholarship players, plus as many as dozens of walk-ons. Only a handful, if that many, are notable. The place to talk about individual players is in the article about teams' individual seasons, especially given BLP policing concerns. THF (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, most sports consider college athletes to not meet wp:ath unless they played in a world championship/olympics. However, those that still meet wp:GNG are good to go. -DJSasso (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, I think WP:BIO is the more appropriate place to determine notability. If there are multiple, independent, verifiable sources about an athlete, then that make the player notable.—NMajdan•talk18:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Notable people about whom little or nothing has been written
I'd like to hear people's thoughts on a type of biography AfD. (This came up because of the current AfD on Volney Mathison.) The general question is: if a person can reasonably be argued to be notable because of something they have done (invented something, killed someone, whatever), but if there are no reliable sources that discuss that person specifically, only ones that mention the invention (or murder, or whatever it is), then is that person reliable? Mathison is fairly close to fitting that description, and I've been wondering if there are precedents that might apply. Mike Christie(talk)12:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
One of the reasons she hasn't received much coverage yet is because it's holiday season and the election coverage hasn't wound up into gear. By February I would expect that Jennings would start getting some significant coverage. You're right to be skeptical about the claims that her election is a certainty, because there are no reliable sources that say that. On the other hand, any Australian political observer would vouch for the claims made in the AfD that her imminent election is a certainty. This AfD does raise interesting points about WP:CRYSTAL. My view is that expressed in the AfD: apply WP:COMMONSENSE and leave the article be for now; but I recognise there are valid arguments against this as well. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd note I'm an Australian political observer, and I don't regard it as a certainty - although certainly a reasonable possibility. There has only ever been one winner from her party before at an election at that level, and that was in rather strange circumstances which saw a lot of preferences go to the Greens to secure the seat. Prior to this AfD I was minded to the "certain future election = might as well have an article" argument, but noting the woeful condition of this article and the lack of available sources, and seeing the way that such a stance or opinion has been interpreted by others has made me think that maybe we should just blanket enforce WP:BIO on the domain. Orderinchaos06:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Question regarding athletes
Per WP:ATHLETE 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 are considered notable. There are literally hundreds of tennis players who play professionally yet aren't anywhere near meeting the general notability guideline. Is the wording in this guideline supposed to cover all of those? Specifically, does this also include players who compete professionally in tournaments such as the French Open or Wimbledon but at junior level or only play a limited number of tournaments per year? I'm asking because I've been trawling through our articles on marginally notable tennis players and I'm trying to avoid getting my head bitten off at AfD so I'm asking for clarification before I proceed. Cheers, Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Having had my own head bitten off about this very issue in the past, I can say that most editors who care passionately about the subject feel that if you have shown up and competed, you are notable, even if you competed very unsuccessfully. I can also say that I disagree with this guideline! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
However if a competition has a separate junior level I think that's different - surely you need to have played at the top level. ϢereSpielChequers16:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Establishing notability
I'd like to make a page about Charlie Simpson, a 7 year old boy from London who has so far raised over £141,000 for the UNICEF efforts for the earthquake in Haiti (he set out to raise £500!) via his JustGiving page [1]. He's been featured on the BBC [2], The Guardian[3], ITN News [4], The Times[5] plus articles in The Sun and The Mirror. Does he meet the notability criteria? I propose to call the page Charlie Simpson (fundraiser) if you think it could stand on its own. Stronach (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I was recently involved in an AfD that I thought defied common sense, but maybe I was wrong. The article concerns a high school football player, touted highly by some national ranking websites, committed to a major D-I program. Of courses there were citations from the rankings websites and a couple of publications. Are high school athletes who have been the subject of a few newspaper articles meeting the notability guideline for nothing but playing high school football eligible for articles? LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Think of basketball where Lebron James and Brandon Jennings were nationally touted and notable under the GNG while still in high school. Football is a little different since you have to be 3 years removed from high school to go to the pros but if the amount of coverage is substantial in respected RSs, it's hard to say the kid athlete is not notable. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
It just seems to me I can think of 3-4 guys at the local school that have been the subject of multiple news articles in the local paper over the lat few years ... and only one of them even played college ball. I don't think any of them are particularly notable, and yet under the GNG they would be. I just have a hard time thinking that a kid who is touted as a top prospect, breaks his leg, and never plays a down of college ball is still eligible for an article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The high school player in question would have to be quite exceptional or have a particularly interesting news story to get an article. For example, the guy who decided to forego his senior year of high school to play in tougher leagues before entering the NBA draft. Granted, he'd be notable under the GNG anyway.. WizardmanOperation Big Bear03:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
There tends to be a bias against local media when enforcing "notability". If a high school player is covered by the national press, however, that really helps to establish notability in most editors' minds. There are always some holdouts, however, who seem to think that everything they don't personally care about is non-notable.--Father Goose (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
For the record, high schools, and associated subjects are very much something I care about ... I just fail to see how most high school players, even those who have a few articles, and a listing on a national ranking are notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry. I understand the GNG, but it seems counter to common sense to have athletes at this level recognized, when it is unorthodox to list them in encyclopedias that focus on their sport. For the record I support the use of local media to reference articles ... but it seems those sources, out against the GNG, open up a lot of people to having an article that just don't seem like the should. I guess from what I am seeing, my opinion is of the distinct minority. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree with you. Aside from the rare LeBron, high-school athletes simply aren't notable unless there's substantial press coverage that goes beyond reporting their local athletic exploits. THF (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The argument you want to be using here is WP:PERSISTENCE. That a high school athlete gets a spike of news coverage while he is in high school does not make him notable; if that athlete's accomplishments are spoken of ten years later, then there's a point to including his high school coverage. THF (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree and have said so many times. The way the current policy is written it greatly increases the chance that we collect pages with stale information because the person was part of the media buzz for a few years. And for the record, I'm a big sports fan and follow high school recruiting for U.S. basketball and football. UK2K, FloNight♥♥♥♥13:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I get the resistance here. Someone meets GNG if they have significant coverage in reliable sources. If someone is the subject of articles in a local newspaper, isn't that significant coverage in a reliable source? If not, why not? 71.175.244.6 (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
If that were the case I have newspaper clippings about myself from 25 years ago that would pass WP:GNG. Coverage of a high school athlete would have to be national, extensive and deal with the extraordinary career they have, as opposed to a single event such as a 100-point game in basketball or a 500-yard rushing game in (American) football. There should be a very high minimum level for such an athlete to pass. J04n(talk page)16:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I have wondered about high school athletes myself. In fact, I came to this page to ask about this very matter. Obviously, you do not want to grant notability to one whose name appears on the score charts or in a small article in the community times after each of a handful of games (see WP:MILL for this principle). But how about an athlete who is considered the very best on the team, and throughout high school has gotten multiple articles written about him/herself because of this? Sebwite (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I think High School Athletes can be notable, but I would think local coverage in a local sport section is not enough. Remember that substantial coverage needs to be established. Just because the person has a few sentences in one local newspaper does not make him/her notable. However, a full length article in a regional News Paper might. Regional newspapers are given more credit because you actually have to be at least more notable to get in them, than a local paper. Perhaps they set a national high school record. This could be notable if it is covered at the regional (beyond a small towns local paper) or national level. In my opinion I would say there are about one or two notable high school athletes in the nation each year. Probably way less than how many who get WP pagesMATThematical (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I suggest we add the following line to the section on politicians:
In the case of non-notable candidates for political office, consider redirecting to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion.
Support, but perhaps replace "non-notable candidates" with "candidates who do not meet this subguideline". I think we should consider redirecting marginally notable candidates as well on a case by case basis (particularly those who don't look like they'll win). --Mkativerata (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment I am not wholly happy with this, and am making an alternative suggestion in the "candidates" section below. The target should be an article that has (or will or should have) an election box. The problem is that the election box will have a link that redirects to itself (which is not wholly satisfactory). That redirect is likely to remain unless, remvoed after the election when the election results are added to the box, at whcih point the redirect would need to be nominated for deletion at RFC. It does have the advantage that the article is not deleted, so that a non-admin can restore the article, if the candidate is successful or notable for other reasons. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Creation of a notability criteria for religious figureheads
As pornographic artists and other people are already mentioned out here, I wished to propose the addition of a criteria for notability of religious figureheads as many are very historic, with news links from contemporary channels hard to find. The proposed addition as opposed to creative professionals is as follows
Religious figureheads
Religious/sect/following founders and leaders:
The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by his/her peers or successors.
The person has created, played a major role in co-creating, has led or is leading a religion/sect/following that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The particular religion/sect/following has its existence acknowledged by the government of any country/state in any manner (for example, in a positive/neutral/negative manner).
No opinion overall, but the first of your bullets is flawed, as "widely" and "peers" are undefined and "successors" is circular - the first person is notable because their otherwise not notable successor succeeds them? --Dweller (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I think this is subsumed under WP:BIO. We have exceptions for artists and professors, b/c their work is likely to be very well known, while it is also likely that little will be known about them until they die. Religious figures tend to get far more press in their own person. RayTalk17:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
An additional criterion could be that in a hierarchical religion, notability is established for anyone appointed to a position of authority - as examples in the Christian faith this could be Bishop, Cardinal, Archdeacon, Dean, Canon. Andrewrabbott (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
That's a nice idea. But unfortunately, what constitutes an authority position becomes open to debate when you move out of Western religions into, say, African religions, or Asian religions... Therefore, I don't know how this can be included. I'm making the additions to the main project page now. Feel free to make additions there which you believe will adhere to consensus. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣04:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Note: As I'm not seeing any consensus to make these additions in any of the discussion above, so I have reverted the additions made a few moments ago. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 05:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Your answering the points doesn't generate consensus. No one said "yep, go for it" they asked questions and disagreed. Their lack of further reply is not silent consensus when they disagreed with your proposal. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 17:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Updated criteria for notability of Religious Figureheads (see above discussions)
Religious figureheads
Religious/sect/following founders and leaders:
The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited.
The person has created, played a major role in co-creating, has led or is leading a religion/sect/following that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The particular religion/sect/following has its existence acknowledged by the government of any country/state in any manner (for example, in a positive/neutral/negative manner).
I see no reason nor need for these additional criteria at all. And it seems like its just a bad hash up of the author criteria with some search/repace terms, particularly the second point. Religious "figureheads" are already well handled by WP:BIO in general and WP:N. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 17:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. The first and third are really subjective, while the second is a duplication of our WP:GNG. At present religious leaders are adequately covered by the standard WP:BIO and WP:N guidelines. —SpacemanSpiff20:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Although you've since been blocked (by me), for the benefit of others reading this page, yes there is an indefinite semi-protection on this article due to persistent vandalism from anonymous or new editors. It's been in effect for years. I've added the missing template to the article to inform people of the protection. -- Atama頭18:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, please excuse my ignorance of American basketball associations. Now the question: WP:ATHLETE is pretty clear that notability for athletes is dependent on having reached the top level of professional play (in this case the NBA?) or top level amatuer competition (Olympics). Does college basketball (NCAA) fall under either criteria? The specific article I'm trying to determine notability for is Eugene Harvey. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh18:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball would probably be a better place for this question. But it's not an easy question, for example the NCAA has 3 different levels of competition, with Division I being the top tier. I don't know if everyone in that division is automatically notable (doubt it, that's 65 teams), or only if they've reached the Final Four, or what else would constitute the "top level" of play. -- 20:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
It's tough, and we've struggled with it at college football--especially historically. For example, in 1915, college football was way, way bigger than professional football. It really wasn't until arguably the 1970's that professional football became a "bigger" phenomenon! And if you compare the press, the coverage, and the following of college football to Olympic sports such as curling, it seems kind of silly. not that curling isn't cool...--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
About Eugene Harvey specifically -- My view is that the article currently makes insufficient claim to notability. It doesn't say that he played on a championship team, set any records or earned any awards. Maurreen (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
IMO, college NCAA athletes are not inherently notable. There are undoubtedly some who have won major awards, and perhaps been key contributors to championship teams that may generate enough coverage to meet the general notability requirement, but otherwise they would not be endowed with special presumed notability. I also agree with Maurreen, in that Eugene Harvey does not meet either WP:ATHLETE or WP:NOTABILITY. Just my two cents. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Definition of "Sports" and thereby "Athletes"
According to the Olympic Programme Commission "there is no global definition of what constitutes a "sport" but goes on to suggest some features and distinctions about and between "sports".
The Olympic Programme Commission conducted and reported on its Review of the Olympic Programme and the Recommendations of the Games of the XXIX Olympiad, Beijing 2008. [6] With respect to efforts to have chess and bridge become olympic sports, it concluded that "While there is no global definition of what constitutes a sport, and what the difference between a sport and a game is, the most commonly accepted element of a sport is physical exertion in the conduct of competition. In this regard, ‘mind sports’ could be considered as sports where the physical elements are not necessarily performed by the player in the conduct of the competition.
The Commission therefore makes the following recommendation in relation to ‘mind sports’ and the Olympic Programme:
that ‘mind sports’ be defined as being sports where the physical elements are not necessarily performed by the player in the conduct of the competition
that ‘mind sports’ should not be eligible for admission to the Olympic Programme
the recommended interpretation be incorporated in the text of Rule 52 of the Olympic Charter"
These recommendations were adopted.
I recommend that this reference be added in some fashion under the definition of "athletes" because it does support the hypothesis that bridge and chess are a type of "sport" and therefore removes any doubt that players of these sports who meet the other tests of notability are legitimate "notable people".
The closing admin in a recent hotly-contested AfD implored that a consensus be reached on how to treat articles on political candidates. I agree with the closing admin that a consensus needs to be reached, especially in advance of a big election year. We have recently seen a number of AfD nominations on candidates go different ways, which is, in my view, an undesirable outcome.
My initial view is that there are roughly three options for a consensus position:
That all candidates nominated by major parties for national level positions, such as members of a national legislature, and for chief executive offices of states or provinces, (or their equivalents in other jurisdictions) are presumed notable. For people nominated as mayor of a city, or a seat in a state or provincial legislature, notability depends on the presence of reliable sources offering substantial coverage according to the general notability guideline.
That a person is presumed not to be notable if the person's only claim to notability is his or her candidacy in a legislative election;
A middle ground: that the notability of a candidate depends on particular factors, such as:
the extent of the coverage of the candidate in reliable sources;
the extent to which the coverage is of the candidate as opposed to the election generally; and
the extent to which reliable sources indicate that the candidate has a genuine prospect of success in the election.
Of course, there is a fourth option, which is to do nothing and let the interaction between WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG solve each case. I do not believe this is acceptable.
My preference is for Option 3. We should include articles on candidates who receive significant coverage and who have a real prospect of winning election. But I do not see long-term encyclopaedic value in including articles about long-shot major party candidates who only receive coverage because they are candidates. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty hardline about this kind of thing. I think we already have far too many marginally-notable BLPs out there, without adding to the list by relaxing WP:POLITICIAN. Therefore, I support option #2. UnitAnode02:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Anode, I need to remind you that at the present state of Google News this is likely to result in articles for minor party candidates, people running for town councils, and even people just running for the nomination of a party. It would have been restrictive 3 years ago, but no longer. I remember encountering early here a trained local historian, who could find 2 technically acceptable but obscure secondary sources for almost anyone in his state in the 20th century--I did a lot of delete !voting for his articles. What his skill and local resources could uniquely do then, is very much easier to do now --for at least the US.
but the proposal I like least is no. 3. point 3. I do not think we can reasonably judge the probability of success in the election--this is the sort of value judgment we should not be making--and as far as showing that in RS, almost all news sources have a political inclination. Where such a consideration might be relevant is in considering minor parties.
I don't agree with this objection to point 3 of option 3. The reliable sources qualification adequately removes any value judgements. If a source has demonstrable political leanings, it is not reliable and should be discounted. There are many independent reliable and accurate election analysts whose judgments could validly be applied: eg Cook Political Report in the US and Antony Green in Australia. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I propose a modification that somewhat limits the effect of no.1:
ALTERNATE: That all candidates nominated by major parties for national level positions, such as members of a national legislature, and for the chief executives of states or provinces, (or their equivalents in other jurisdictions) are presumed notable. For people nominated as mayor of cities, or state or provincial legislatures, then it depends on the presence of Reliable Sources offering substantial coverage according to the WP:GNG, with the emphasis on substantial. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll go so far as to amend option 1 to reflect your suggested alternate. I think it is better and obviously less extreme (I can't imagine anyone preferring the original to the alternate, but we'll see). --Mkativerata (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
What are major parties? For the US it presumably includes the Dems and the GOP and excludes my party (oh well) but how do you judge that for Ghana (to pick a country randomly) where they may not be very well known? Or even Germany, where there are more than 2, or Israel where there are many. I think this definition may be too US/UK centric. I applaud the idea and probably would go for option 2 if that was cleared up. ++Lar: t/c04:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
You're right that it's a can of worms, even in countries with multiple parties. I mean, there are four clear major parties in Canada (Bloc, Conservatives, Liberals, NDP), but are the Greens major? That said, in theory, the best answer is that candidates who are notable only as candidates should get a minimal description in the article about the election. If there's more well-sourced material than will go there, then it's time for them to get an article—as they probably meet GNG at that point. Besides, even if we had a specific notability criterion for candidates, the general notability guidelines could be held up as the unmet standard in an AfD nomination. I know that leaves fuzziness and subjectivity in deletion discussions, but that's why we leave it for humans to make a call about notability in cases like this. —C.Fred (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, even that suggestion is problematic. If we contain information on every candidate in every election in a constituency, it's going to be filled with a lot of gunk. Ironholds (talk) 08:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that option 1 is unrealistic. For many countries, it's difficult to find information on even major party candidates for the presidency, and elected members of national parliaments. Even in North America and Western Europe, where details are more frequently available, the same applies for elections more than a few years ago. Option 3 initially sounds ok, but it is very unusual for an otherwise non-notable candidate to attract sufficient attention that the person becomes notable, regardless of whether they are elected, but there are rare instances, such as some perennial candidates. On the other hand, pretty much every candidate will have self-published material which may well receive brief attention in media covering the election, and will claim that they have a chance of success. Besides which, I don't believe that chance of success is a guarantee of notability - simply of the chance that they will become notable in the future, and we are not a crystal ball. This option is likely to lead to the creation of many, many articles by supporters of candidates who have done very little of note, which will be taken to AfD and deleted. This leaves option 2, which I am closer to, but would modify to something along the lines of "That a person is generally presumed not to be notable if the person's only claim to notability is his or her candidacy in a legislative election; excepting where reliable sources specifically covering the candidate, as opposed to the election generally, indicate that their candidacy has had a much broader political impact." Warofdreamstalk
Strong support option 2. The most important thing is that we need to be consistent in our decisions within each country so that we don't show any political bias. The recent AfD for George Lee resulted in no consensus, with many !votes saying that being a PPC of a major party is enough to make someone notable. In the UK we have 646 seats, which are probably fought by about 5 "major" political parties each, which would give us in the region of 3000 BLPs for boarderline notable people. We also have many more loonies and single issue politicians. To have this many articles of this nature, which won't be on many peoples watch lists, will be absurd, especially in the run up to a general election, where debate can get very personal. So I support option 2, especially in the UK, however I think there is room to decide this on a country by country basis if e.g. being a candidate for congress is deemed notable. Martin451 (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Whatever else is going on, I do not support outright deletion of such articles. Even if we determine somebody's not notable enough currently (say, a candidate for Congress) for an article of their own, there is (for major party candidates) a decent possibility of their becoming notable, which is sufficient for us to try to preserve the material. Hence my earlier suggestion of redirecting rather than deleting such articles, which I suppose can be strengthened some, maybe to "you should" rather than "consider." I present this as a way of mitigating the information loss even if we should decide that certain candidates are non-notable.
I think it's dangerous to paint with too broad a brush. Considerations to take into account when considering the notability of a candidate include, but are not limited to, the amount of press coverage, the duration of an election campaign, the size of a constituency, the power wielded by the office, the importance of the individual candidate to the election, and the probability of the candidate's victory. In some countries, the candidate is just a cipher, and it's the party name that's important (in some countries the candidate doesn't appear on the ballot at all!). In those cases, the candidate is much less likely to be of an enduring historical importance. In others, the person of the candidate matters a lot more, and can easily reverse the partisan polarity of the election. Or, to put it another way, a hypothetical: if Scott Brown, as of early January 2010, had not previously held an office in a state legislature, wouldn't he still have been notable, even if all the coverage of him was purely in the context of his candidacy? On the reverse end, nobody in their right mind would say that a random 18 year old at the bottom of the SDP list for the Bundestag merits an independent biography. Forcing the issue one way or another when it doesn't fit is a bad idea. Perhaps we could put something that abjures editors to use common sense in such gray-area deletion discussions, rather than lawyering the letter of the guideline.
Support 2, but employ redirects/merging liberally. Number 2 is basically my thinking on this, but I want to strongly endorse RayAYang's first point above. Whatever we decide here (or don't) these articles will be created, generally by people in good faith who don't know the guidelines. I'm in favor of "not notable if just a candidate and nothing else" as the standard, but the standard "fix" to an article like that should not be an AfD or a WP:PROD, rather the article should be redirected (and often merged) to an article about the election, which we clearly should have. If that article has not been created yet, the person doing the redirect should take three minutes to create a one sentence article ("The 2010 election for the ____ congressional district will take place on _____") and then list the candidates. If they don't want to do that they could ask the person who created the bio to do that, and tell them that some basic candidate info could be imported there. Articles about elections for national office can be extremely useful, and some of these biographies will contain useful information that we won't want to lose even if we go with option 2. So rather than just tagging for deletion, we should redirect/merge to "event" articles (in a way this is per the key policy WP:BLP1E) which is quicker than an AfD andpreserves useful info (if there was any) in a non-BLP. We should also avoid biting people who create these articles, and instead say "good work creating this, but these are our standards for these kind of political biographies, so let's move this into an article on the election where people can still get the info." If we proceed in this manner I would hope we could get a consensus for option 2 which avoids the mess of a bunch of new BLPs that will go unattended after the election but still keeps encyclopedic information of historical importance. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs21:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Support option 2. To make it work, and avoid a lot more AfDs where candidates' supporters pile up the number of local press cuttings and argue that the GNG over-rides WP:POLITICIAN, I would like to strengthen POLITICIAN to say explicitly that references arising from candidacy for a political office do not count towards notability. This seems to me perfectly consistent with the GNG, as an elaboration of the exceptions allowed in its last paragraph, which says that coverage in reliable sources only establishes a presumption of acceptability, but that editors "may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article."
To Ray's first point: deletion does not meant that information is lost: any admin can undelete a candidate's deleted article if the candidate is elected or otherwise becomes notable. To Bigtimepeace: I'm not so sure about redirects - we still end up with "the mess of a bunch of new BLPs that will go unattended after the election," even if they are hidden under redirects. Also, I can imagine edit-warring as supporters revert the redirects. But we maybe have to go the redirect route to avoid endless AfDs unless we can agree a new speedy for "Political candidate with no other notability, for whom an entry has been made in the article about his constituency." JohnCD (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
See what you think of my proposal below—for one thing if we make a more clear statement as I'm proposing I don't think the edit warring would be a problem, they would be going against the guideline for these kind of articles which eventually would become disruptive. As to the BLPs hidden under redirects, I don't think that's generally how we think about biographical articles that get turned into redirects and/or merged elsewhere. There's a huge difference between having a full BLP article laying around (which will likely end up at the top of google search results) and a redirect that someone will find only if they type the person's name in the search box. If there's a serious problem where people are restoring old candidate articles (which I doubt will happen) I think we would notice it, and if we're really worried about that possibility we could always protect the redirects and only unprotect when someone argues they can prove notability sufficiently for there to be a full article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs23:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, your points are good, and I support your proposed change, though for the reasons above I shall propose below it an additional change to the wording of POLITICIAN. JohnCD (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Support option2. Option2 is basically the status quo: that candidacy itself is not evidence of notability. The other options are all flawed: option 1 would lead to the creation of lots of of articles people abut whom there aren't enough source to say much other than "she exists and is candidate" , while the presumed middle ground of option 3 introduces a lot of subjectivity which would lead to endless disputes. JohnCD's rider seems to me to add unnecessary instruction creep, and could have some perverse consequences: a very high-profile candidate who attracts lots of coverage would be deemed non-notable despite passing WP:GNG many times over. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Strong support option 2 missed this discussion at the time but do want to register my views. There's been a number of afds for UK political candidates where the "but she's a major party candidate" argument has been used even though in some cases the person concerned hasn't a hope in hell of election. It's good that this potential loophole is closed. Valenciano (talk) 11:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
My own view is closest to option #2, although I'd also agree with #3 to an extent. I definitely don't think a person can generally be considered notable if their only claim of notability is having been an unsuccessful candidate in an election, but I don't think we can make a blanket assertion that it's impossible, either. I try to take into account things like the depth and breadth of sources, the circumstances of the particular election and how strong a claim of notability the person would have if we took their electoral candidacy out of the equation; even though Anne Lagacé Dowson lost her bid for election to the Canadian House of Commons, for example, she was already notable as a radio host. And I think that the greater degree of coverage given to some of the more prominent offices — such as a national presidency, leadership of a state or provincial government, the United States Senate, etc. — means that candidates for those offices may generate enough coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:RS just for their candidacy alone, but that doesn't necessarily hold true for candidates for the lower house of a legislature in an individual electoral district. Bearcat (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
In re-reading WP:POLITICIAN, I'm realizing the language we have there largely already says what I would want it to say (see my above comment) though we could strengthen it a bit so it comes off more as "this is what we do" rather than "here's what you might do." I would suggest we change the sentence "In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, consider redirecting to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion" to read as follows:
In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate.
And actually I don't care that much about the exact wording of the italicized phrases, the point is that we should not merely "consider" redirecting, rather it's what we should do as a rule, and furthermore useful material can be merged and the guideline should encourage that. This would result in a few positive outcomes in my view: 1) It means that we simply do not keep candidate articles as stand-alone articles, unless the person passes WP:N already; 2) It avoids an AfD once an article like this is created; 3) If the article creator is edit warring over their article being turned into a redirect, we can point clearly to the guideline which is now much less ambiguous; 4) We encourage merging of useful material. In terms of the original reason for starting this thread, I think this change would largely resolve future questions as to what is to be done about articles on candidates for national office.
Support. It gives effect to a sensible approach (preventing a proliferation of articles on candidates) but also preserves material from outright deletion. It is consistent with my general view that coverage of a candidate tends to be of the election, not of the candidate. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Support in any case, though for reasons stated above I would like to see POLITICIAN strengthened, and have proposed below a further change to its wording. JohnCD (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose -- While I do not want to see a profileration of articles on "No hope" candidates, I am unhappy with the prposal that they should be deleted out of hand. Articles should not be allowed until the selection process (primary, causus, local party meeting, or whatever) is complete. This will not apply to US Presidential candidates, because they will generally be notable already. I would suggest however that articles on candidates should be tagged with a template (with fields "candidate for election", post [nomrally a link to an article], date of election, and pre-election notability ["yes or no"]). After the election, unsuccessful cnadidates (without pre-election notability) would be deleted wholesale by the PROD process. I suggest the "pre-election notability" field, so that discussion could take place before the election on whether the person should be subject to the automatic PROD after it, enabling the continuing existence of the article to be defended. A major reason for making this arguemnt is that we have a UK election due within about three months. It is almost inevitable that we will get a vast number of candidate bio-articles. If my suggestion is not taken up, these will all have to go through the AFD process. Accordingly I support suggestion 1 above, but care is needed over the use of "mayor", as in many UK councils, the mayor is a senior councillor, whose turn it is to chair the council, without haivng any executive authority. I would suggest "directly-elected mayor" or "excutive mayor", and that this should be limited to major towns and cities. The Mayor of New York will certainly be notable, but the mayor of fooville (pop. 1002) will usually not. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This strikes me as too complicated and unworkable, and also it is not accurately describing the proposal above. For one thing current policy at WP:PROD allows any prod to be removed by anyone, so letting all of these articles be created and then "prodding" the non-notable ones after the election would not necessarily lead to deletion. The article creator could simply remove the prod and we'd be at AfD, which is not desirable at all. This would also be the only situation of which I'm aware where we basically allow for creation of an article of a non-notable person on the possibility that they will later be notable. This clearly goes against WP:CRYSTAL which we basically cannot do. As worded your proposal would allow for an article on every minor party candidate in every national election, which would be quite out of control. Plus what do we gain from it? Why not just merge their info to an election article? Finally you'll note that my proposal as worded does not call for deletion at all—quite the opposite in fact. It says we create redirects (which preserves the edit history) and target them to the election article. If the candidate wins we convert the redirect back to a full article, no problem. The whole point of the proposal above is to not go through AfD (rather creating a redirect would be the standard approach), so I'm not sure why you think we'd have to go to AfD if we don't take your suggestion. You might be misunderstanding the proposal I made above, and even if not I think your suggestion would rather make matters worse and would inevitably result in a ton of bios of non-notable people, which is literally the last thing we want to happen. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs22:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Enacted. Just a note that RayAYang has gone ahead and made this change (which I only noticed when I tried to change it myself) which I think makes sense given the support for it here, and the fact that there is probably implicit support for it in the "support option 2" comments in the main thread immediately above this. I'm not sure there is support for the change suggested in the sub-thread that follows, but I would say that the "for reasons unconnected with their candidature" idea as it pertains to general notability is already fairly implicit in the language we have now. Hopefully this change will be helpful going forward, and editors who come across new articles on candidates for office who are not otherwise notable should feel free to redirect the article to the appropriate target, while also leaving a note for the article creator explaining the consensus view on such articles and pointing them to WP:POLITICIAN. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs21:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Repeating a point made above: there is a tendency to try to game POLITICIAN by piling up references to events connected with the candidature, which can always be found in the local press, and then claiming that the candidate passes the GNG and that overrides POLITICIAN. I don't think that was the intention of POLITICIAN or how it used to be interpreted, and if accepted POLITICIAN becomes more or less a dead letter. This proposal adds words to say explicitly that references arising from candidature for a political office do not count towards notability. This seems to me perfectly consistent with the GNG, as an elaboration of the exceptions allowed in its last paragraph, which says that coverage in reliable sources only establishes a presumption of acceptability, but that editors "may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article." I propose that paragraph 3 of WP:POLITICIAN should be amended to read (proposed new words italicised):
3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if, for reasons unconnected with their candidature, they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."
Support except that "for reasons unconnected with their candidature" should not apply to local officials (that's another debate entirely!). --Mkativerata (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment A little too strong, I should think. I think, if a candidate becomes notorious to the point where, say, major papers run a full-length profile on him, we should include him, even if the sole reason for notoriety arose from the candidacy. It's a tricky line, between coverage that arises strictly in the way that one would expect from an ordinary, unremarkable candidacy, and ones that rise above that to significance. This knotty area is not, I suspect, amenable to the method of Alexander. RayTalk22:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that wikipedia is flexible enough that articles for the occasional loonatic or otherwise notable candidate to get past a guideline such as this one. Martin451 (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Stong Oppose per NBeale. Apart from adding yet more instruction creep, it would be more than perverse to deny notability to a politician who meets WP:GNG just because they becmae notable through a particular aspect of politics, while people who unambiguously fail WP:GNG are presumed notable under one of the get-out clauses (e.g a ball-game player who made a brief appearance in part of one game at the required level). --18:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Although I would support some kind of wording along these lines, I can understand the concerns of some people around the specific wording proposed here. As I pointed out above, I think that for some higher offices, candidacy alone may be sufficient to support notability in light of the much deeper and broader coverage that such races garner — but not as much for lower ones.
I'd like to note here that I've started working on a much more detailed rewrite of WP:POLITICIAN, meant to go into much more depth about what is or isn't generally accepted by AFD than WP:POLITICIAN currently does. It's very much a work in progress, so I'd welcome input and/or suggestions from anybody who's interested in participating — but it's important to note that I'm not trying to create new rules or contribute to instruction creep, but simply to provide a much more detailed summary of where existing consensus actually stands. It's at User:Bearcat/Whatever for now, though I will eventually move it to another title once it's more developed. I'd welcome any comments or assistance that anybody is able to provide. Bearcat (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
RFC: Change "This page in a nutshell"
I don't think "this page in a nutshell" sums up WP:BIO correctly. The first line rephrases WP:GNG when it should be rephrasing the Basic Criteria. Proposed revision is as follows:
This page in a nutshell:
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.
Notability criteria also must be met for a person to be included in a list or general article; in this case, however, the criteria are less stringent.
Putting a shortcut to WP:BASIC pointing to Basic Criteria
WP:BASIC was created assigned as a redirect to the paragraph marked Basic criteria in BIO in November. That was over 3 months ago and neither the redirect page or myself has received any comments at all on their creation.
So now that the redirect is established, can we get a consensus to put the shortcut on the BIO page?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A layman's opinion here, but part of BLP1E reads "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." I'd say most playboy playmates to go on to do other things, but of course there's always the exception to the rule. Ironholds (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Nor is their modeling job for Playboy, portrayal in its magazine, and all that entails, an "event" within the meaning of BLP1E (or any usual meaning of that word; see my further comments on this issue at discussion linked to above). postdlf (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The problem is for some girls who have never been mentioned outside of the context of being a playmate. Your focusing on the definition of event derails the discussion from the merit of the assertion that "being a Playboy Playmate is enough to justify a biography on an encyclopedia" (I can her the "not-paper" arguments coming...). --Damiens.rf19:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
You asked the question of whether considering every Playmate presumptively notable was in conflict with BLP#1E, to which I (and others) replied that BLP#1E does not apply to Playmates. That doesn't alone answer the question of whether Playmates are notable, only that there's nothing presumptively tipping the scales to a negative answer. But you can't complain that people are focusing on BLP#1E after having raised the issue, unless you want to agree that it doesn't apply. postdlf (talk) 04:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
When judging if they remain "otherwise low-profile" (that's actually what the policy says), you're supposed to list her achievements beyond being a Playmate. By not doing so, you're begging the question: BLP1E does not applies to Playmates because they are not low-profile. This girl is not low-profile because she is a playmate. --Damiens.rf19:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure this RFC asks the right question. Whether 1E applies or not, my question is, "are Playboy Playmates presumptively notable?" Remember, there are worldwide versions of Playboy and each has its own population of Playmates, many of which don't overlap with the English-language magazine. My viewpoint is Playmates shouldn't be presumed notable because many of them don't receive coverage outside limited and temporary coverage of their Playmatehood / related PR appearances. It would not be unduly burdensome to require each Playmate article to be properly referenced, rather than auto-tagging all Playmates ever as notable pornstars merely because they posed nude once. Townlake (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Why the middle pages of Playboy and not the cover of Vogue or Harpers & Queen? Hmm. I dislike the whole idea of notability (for people, things, ideas; places are different) resting on anything other than the availability of coverage in reliable sources. And for living people, it has been decreed, rightly or wrongly, that someone notable for a single event may - may, not does - not belong here. There is really no call for these odd exceptions to the "notability is not subjective" GNG or policies popping up in a guideline somewhere. Some of these women are notable, some aren't. On the whole, I suspect they're no more, and perhaps less, notable as a group than people on the cover of Vogue or Harpers & Queen. Angus McLellan(Talk)00:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Also where is the long term coverage, oh she was a playboy centerfold in oct 1994, so? What value is that to a reader? Little or none imo, if someone is interested there s plenty of pornography on the internet, I say they are not notable unless they have other claims to fame and I think the exception should be removed, the section above is about how someone who is a major political candidate in a major election is not notable and yet some centerfold is? Clearly One event should apply. Off2riorob (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
What is often overlooked is that the many subsections of WP:BIO are just that, subsection and a list of additional criteria. They all still have to meet the basic criteria, "subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". Just "meeting one or more [of the additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included". J04n(talk page)10:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
As a practical matter, though, that's not how WP:BIO is used - it's used as a default to notability. Editors - especially new editors - rely on the guidance of WP:BIO in creating new articles and editing existing ones; as a volunteer project, we do need to have reliable standards that ensure the time people choose to use here is well spent, and I can't blame administrators who interpret WP:BIO with an inclusionistic mindset. Townlake (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Remove. As I previously said in the discussion above, I would favor removing this criterion. If the person satisfies GNG anyway, then they are notable. But if an individual fails GNG, this alone should not be an exemption. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Playmates are the crème de la crème of softcore modeling, and the very least Playmate of the Year should be kept. Any WP:BIO must meet general notability guidelinesBasic Criteria first, the idea that every Playmate is notable is not substantiated by this criteria. Stillwaterising (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I think everyone here would agree that being named Playmate of the Year results in sufficient, easy-to-find coverage. The issue here is more about Playmates like Michelle McLaughlin and Nicole Whitehead who (apparently) remain low profile after Playmatehood. In practice, this criteria is regularly used at AFD to substantiate the idea that every Playmate is notable, and it works. Townlake (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
While these two examples could be nominated for deletion, nobody has (that I can tell) making me wonder if Afd system is working the way it should. Stillwaterising (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Pointless to nominate because they'd be auto-kept under WP:PORNBIO. Should that happen? No. Is it an ironclad lock they would be? Yes. Townlake (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC) (Expanded to note that I actually used the Keep - Pornbio rationale in a recent AFD on Charlotte Kemp. I supported it because pornbio and past AFD results collectively establish the expectations for volunteer editors to work under, and I value Wikipedia having reliable standards for us to work with. I also value our potential to correct wrongs through avenues like RFCs, rather than a long succession of AFDs that could end in different results for similar articles. Townlake (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC))
Remove. Too much special pleading for single issue appearances in a given magazine, namely Playboy. With so much porn on the net, I doubt it has much real-world relevance today. This kind of (historical) info is much better suited for the article on Playboy Playmate. I see the proliferation of Playmate stubs as fancruft. Instead of aguing over these stubs, maybe someone can put some quality time into improving the article on Playboy, which is pretty crappy, and fails to give any market penetration figures. Pcapping07:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Remove I don't think this should be in the criteria at all in any way. The trouble with it is that people can also argue "yes X appeared on the cover of Playboy but was not a "Playmate" so is not notable". Appearence in Playboy is in my opinion half way there to notability, whether the individual was playmate or not. However, if the Playboy coverage is the only coverage then the person is not automatically notable as an individual without further coverage of them as an individual per WP:BLP1E. There is absolutely no need to state Playmate of the year as a specific criteria as this would automatically qualify the individual as having a notable award per WP:ANYBIO. Polargeo (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it would be obvious to everyone that Playmate of the Year is a notable award, while Playmate of the Month isn't. It certainly isn't obvious to me. Epbr123 (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Remove. Many or most Playmates (whether "of year" or not) are independently notable. But singling out a particular feature in one particular publication is silly. LotLE×talk18:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Remove per most of the reasons already stated above. Far to specific and gives a highly inappropriate blanket notability to a small class of people on a flimsy, at best, reason. If the playmates are notable, its notability can be established in the same way as any other living person or entertainer - through significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources and not just "here is the Playboy article that went with the pics". -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 18:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Remove as a significant number of Playmates will not meet WP:GNG. Although, I'm not keen on the double standards being applied here. There are much worse WP:BIO criteria (eg. WP:ENT), and several other criteria also violate WP:BLP1E (eg. WP:ANYBIO 1, WP:ATHLETE 2, WP:CREATIVE 2, 3, 4). Epbr123 (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Remove, special pleading. If a playmate disn't springboard her appearance into something more, then manifestly she is not notable. However, this appplies only to articles, not lists, such as Dead playmates. If somebody nominates Dead playmates for deletion, this change should not be used to bolster the case for deletion. Abductive (reasoning)20:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep - Notability is not temporary. This is a competitive award that has been bestowed monthly for more than 50 years. Even if its recipient never does anything else, it's still not a "1E"...it's one in a series of over 600 such similar events. Frank | talk 20:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Which begs the question of what the whole point of this is one way or the other. Even without independent notability criteria, every three sentence Playmate stub with an infobox would still get incorporated into a list of 12 such stub subjects, say List of 2009 Playboy Playmates. Compare to a TV episode list, or the formatting could resemble this case list I created. Each Playmate would still get covered to the extent sources allow, just not in stand-alone articles, though redirects could still be maintained for independent categorization of their names. If the sourced content on the Playmate grows larger than a paragraph, then add a {{main|Pamela Anderson}} link to the entry in the yearly list to a standalone article. It's certainly a better solution than outright deletion, and it doesn't tolerate a lot of three-sentence stubs that may never expand. postdlf (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. WP:NTEMP does still apply. This business about articles remaining stubs being a problem flies in the face of how the community has chosen to treat notability. This may look like WP:OSE but really, it's common practice around here: there are any number of minor league baseball players, association football players, WP:ACADEMICs, and yes - actors (pornographic or otherwise), whose articles are overwhelmingly likely to remain stubs. It may well be that most of those articles (along with some of these Playmate articles) ought to be deleted, but certainly not under current policy. And yes, this RFC is an attempt to change policy in a small way, but I disagree with it. More to the point, however, I don't see how it could be done without directly implying that stub articles aren't worth keeping around if we know they are probably always going to be stubs; I think that would apply to thousands of articles. Frank | talk 08:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The merge issue is irrelevant. A different discussion entirely. The notability of an individual which is what we have been discussing is not based on whether their name could be included in another article or even featured as a redirect, it is based on whether they are individually notable and should have automatic notability as an individual. At present they do have automatic notability per guidelines and this is what is being debated. Polargeo (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Pointless. If the Playboy Playmate has received non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties then she is notable. If she has not received such coverage, then notability ought to be questioned. I don't buy in that notability is instantly inherited if somehow the person is lacking other pertinent biographical coverage. JBsupreme (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
So? There looks to be a consensus to remove.. I prodded this one a few days ago Kelly Carrington and they improved it as much as they could, she played netball went to uni and was in playboy, without this playboy protection she is not notable. In the edit summary they proudly announced..meets WP:PORNSTAR . Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Who is this "they"? Aren't we all working on the same encyclopedia? Are you suggesting it's an us vs. them type situation? And to be more precise, what you did was not put a prod tag on the article but a notability tag. And the edit summary to remove that tag was not as short as you claim. To be exact it was "rm notability tag - meets WP:PORNSTAR with WP:RS refs"Dismas|(talk)23:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
They would be in the context the editors who think that she is notable enough for an article, you are correct when you say I only added a notability template, I wanted to prod the article but did not due to this exemption, I see the article was nominated for deletion which is a bit of a shame as this discussion was not over, but iimo there clearly is a consensus now to remove this exemption. Off2riorob (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Remove: As I understand it, this point is aksing the community to accept notability based on a company (Playboy) publishing an article/pictorial about one of its own employees, making any Playboy source a primary source. According to WP:PSTS, this is not enough to really establish the basis of an article, which is what this criteria is asking for; the ability to establish notability based on a single primary source. I would certainly support any article if there was significant secondary coverage beyond a single appearance as a model (including secondary coverage of a person over a modeling career), but I cannot see how this fits an exception to basic notability and verifiability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
That looks similar to "Sports Illustrated publishing an article about a baseball player is a primary source." The only difference is that baseball players work for MLB. But the women chosen come from wherever and whether or not they are employees is beside the point; they are chosen and awarded the honor. What happens after (the employment relationship being asserted to exist here) is beside the point. It's competitive; you can't just become a Playmate because you want to. And there have been barely (you'll pardon the pun) 650 or so in the last 55 or so years, in a country whose population exceeds 300 million today. In a magazine which is itself notable and has a fairly high circulation, that's pretty notable. Frank | talk 17:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
But, the Sports Illustrated analogy isn't the same. What would be the same is if the New York Yankees published an article about Derek Jeter. Jeter is a contracted employee of the Yankees; very close to the same relationship that Playboy has to their models. A Yankee report on Derek Jeter's baseball career or some aspect thereof would, I have to think, be considered a primary source. Sports Illustrated and Playboy may both be journals, but Sports Illustrated rarely does stories/pictorials about people under contract to them. I may be wrong, but I think it is rare for Sports Illustrated to enter into a contract with an athlete to write a story about them. I will admit that it is not the most black-and-white case of a primary source, but I think it is pretty darn close. Modeling itself is a competitive business. Sure, the centerfolds have to compete to become one of the 12 annual women who have that spot, but couldn't the same be said of the other women in the other pictorials? How many pictorials does a standard Playboy edition have (2-3 total?) I'm just not seeing how being a centerfold endows someone with automatic and special notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Remove. It's one event. If the person is marginally notable due to other accomplishments then being a playmate may be a factor of notability, but it is not sufficient by itself. For many playmates all we know about them is what was written in their profile, a single source of dubious reliability. (Playboy can be a good source for their editorial content, but the facts of the the playmate's lives are another matter). Furthermore, there are issues concerning the many non-English language editions, some of which may have substantially smaller circulations than the flagship edition. For most of these women it would be adequate to include them in a list rather than having stand-alone articles on them. Will Bebacktalk22:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep and expand presented list of genre specific publications that might show notability for genre-specific actors and models. Even if removed from PORNBIO, Playboy magazine is one of the sources currently accepted to show genre-specific notability. And yes, as pointed out a few times above, the playmates often go on to do other things that receive other coverage. Being the Playboy cover story, or the cover story of Playgirl or Penthouse of even Hustler, meets the criteria of WP:GNG... whether listed at PORNBIO or not. As Wikipedia recognizes that not all notable subjects receive coverage in the Times or Washington Post, far better to have accepted genre-specific publications listed to diffuse the inevitable future arguments at AFD. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.22:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Remove. There's no hint that having your photo here is recognition (by the Playboy company) of notability. Rather, having it here is, I infer, supposed to show the conferring by Playboy of notability. This seems an extraordinary notion to me. Playgirls are a subcategory not of some species of people who have appeared in photographs but instead of Category:American female adult models, who presumably have reliable sources for their notability in their careers, or at the very least evidence of more activity than displaying their "assets" for a single published set of photos. Indeed, there's not even a proper category for people who have appeared in photographs; the closest is Category:Photographs (people), which includes a very small number of people notable for being photographed, e.g. Phan Thị Kim Phúc (who "gave a speech at the United States Vietnam Veterans Memorial on Veterans Day" as a result of her photographed experience) and Federico Borrell García (whose photograph has led to about as much discussion). We read above that Playmates are the crème de la crème of softcore modeling but (i) no evidence is adduced for this claim, and (ii) if the claim were true one would expect to find the buzz in the mass media that is taken in Wikipedia to constitute "notability" for other minor slebs (reality show contestants and the like). -- Hoary (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Consensus in this discussion may well be clear; calling that community consensus on the basis of less than two dozen opinions is another matter. Frank | talk 20:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a clear consensus here to remove the exemption, that is how the wikipedia works over these small issues, do you dispute the comments here represent a support for removal of the exception? Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
a) Nothing I wrote in any way implied I dispute what the consensus is here thus far. My dispute is with what conclusion to draw from what is shown here.
b) As for how Wikipedia "works over these small issues", I dispute that this is a small issue. The consensus I am seeing is that a Playmate is not notable because as a single criterion for notability, what results is some number of stub articles. The problem is that there are many thousands of such stub articles; this RFC seems to be establishing a precedent that an individual is non notable if the resulting article is a stub, as would be created if we "decide" that being a Playmate remains sufficient. As I described above, I think that deciding against notability for Playmates on this basis just about wipes out a significant portion of association football players, many Major League Baseball players and even more minor leaguers, as well as many minor movie folks (including actors). Whether this consensus would be extended to those others is questionable, of course, and I am neither inclusionist nor deletionist. But I think this establishes (or begins to establish) a precedent that is not in keeping with past policies and community consensus.
This RFC still has more than two weeks to run. No need for anyone to declare it complete or to protest perceived results at this point. Townlake (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep oddly those citing special pleading are employing it, apparently based on snobbishness towards the subject matter. There is no requirement to pass both the basically useless GNG and additional criteria. There are people under every additional criteria whose articles don't show that they would meet the general guideline. Those supporting removal haven't shown evidence that the percentage of violators is worse for this additional than any other, and the total number of articles under the criterium is ridiculously small in comparison to most of the additionals.Horrorshowj (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep or at the least, Listify into something like "Playboy Playmates of 2010". There is competition in becoming a Playmate. Additionally, I think I should point out that several Playmate articles have gone through AFD and all have been kept. You can see all of them (I think) listed here. Also, the statistics related to Playmates (their measurements) have been used in at least threedifferentstudies. So, their information is worth keeping. Dismas|(talk)23:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep Let's be frank about what all this "tightening" of individual notability definitions is about (or weakening of Wikipedia coverage, if you look at the large picture): It is about applying WP:GNG "equally" to all subjects. The reason for the growth in "Notability" definitions in the first place was because GNG is inherently flawed, biased, elitist, and subjective. First, not all subjects worthy of coverage have been subjects of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I'm sorry to fart in your church here, but this is an entirely artificial definition created by a few Wikipedia editors and stamped "consensus" only because anyone who would object was busy elsewhere. Second, many-- if not most on a global/historical scale-- subjects that have been the subject of this sort of sourcing are not readily available on the Internet. So applying GNG "equally" is about intentionally biasing Wikipedia to the current and the Anglophone. Just from my work on Japanese subjects I know that sourcing comes on and off the Internet rapidly-- meaning that even the relatively little sourcing that is available on the Internet is only there for a short time, after which a "notable" subject (according to Wikipedia), is, as far as anyone can show "unencyclopedic". These inherently subjective "Notability" criteria weaken Wikipedia by intentionally and unnecessarily making Wikipedia's coverage narrower and shallower than they could be, and by wasting editor time in endless argument in the process. Censorship is about: "examin[ing] [material] for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds". "Other grounds" in this case being a self-constructed, biased definition of "notability". It says, "We know what people should and should not read". It is completely the opposite of what Wikipedia should be about. Also: Playboy and the Playmate feature are icons in US popular culture and have been for decades. And anyone who asks me to waste time sourcing that obvious statement can take a flying fuck at a donut. Dekkappai (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I love ya, 'Ppai, and I'm always up for a flying fuck. Yes, Playboy is a well known magazine. Yes, many "playmates" went on to C-list celebrity, notably by starring or anyway appearing in the terrible drive-in movies that you and I both so enjoy. Yes, any that went on to C-list celebrity merit articles. Indeed, I'm temperamentally in favor of blanket inclusion of "playmates" per WP:HOTTIE. Any "playmate" who has an article with just about any independently sourced assertion beyond having her tits out for that one time and "making appearances" for that one corporation merits an article. But really, does more than a tiny percentage of any nation's male (let alone female) population know who the current "playmate" is or who her recent predecessors were? What I object to is the blanket statement that an article on a "playmate" is merited simply by being a "playmate". Just to look at the US and A, there must be 500 or so of them; what do you do when somebody insists on an article on Pixieta Froufroukova for her "appearance" as the Playmate for Slovakian Playboy for Vendémiaire 2006 (source for this assertion Slovakian Playboy Vendémiaire 2006)? For me at least this has nothing to do with any moral panic. In a thread lower down this very talk page I briefly discuss "Mia Banggs", apparently renowned for her encounters with male organs (not something that's in the repertory of most "playgirls"); I'd never heard of her till today but if her AfD were taking place now and I could be bothered to participate I'd probably vote ("!vote") "keep" for her. -- Hoary (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment Many of those kept articles on playmates were argued based on the very policy under discussion here. I cannot be sure if those articles' AFDs were argued before or after this point was added to the criteria, but if they were, that is circular reasoning (apologies if those deletion debates happened beforehand). Dekkappai notes that These inherently subjective "Notability" criteria weaken Wikipedia by intentionally and unnecessarily making Wikipedia's coverage narrower and shallower, however the GNG requirement is rather broad, and in no way precludes including subjects whose coverage came about before the internet. It seems by including "special" points (like playmates) is subjective ... Why Playboy Playmates, but not Penthouse Pets? That seems subjective as I understand the word. And on that point, speaking only for myself, I am a bit resentful about being labeled a "censor". Just because my opinion differs from yours, and favors a restriction does not make me a "censor". Not all restrictions are about suppression. Turning this into a "good guy"/"bad guy" discussion is not a healthy way to have a discussion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Penthouse Pet failed at a few AfDs. Thus the Porn Project took the initiative to change the guidelines based on what appeared to be consensus. There really wasn't any dissent to the removal. Playmate, however, has consistently held up at AfD even when it wasn't an explicit standard as an additional criteria. Horrorshowj (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Pets are often already adult models (e.g. Silvia Saint, Victoria Zdrok, Vicca, etc) and the appearance is more or less another modeling gig. The text accompanying the layout is often called into question as to whether it came from the model or from the editors. Meanwhile, Playmates are chosen through a vetting process. Everyday women have to go through a process to be chosen. The text that accompanies the layout is actually about the real life of the model and the Playmate Data Sheet is filled out by the model herself in her own handwriting. So, Playmate has been seen as an award whereas Pet is often a marketing tool for the magazine, i.e. they see a rising star and go out to get her to be a Pet. Dismas|(talk)13:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Please explain where "Playmate has been seen as an award." My opinion is that Playmate of the Month is not a pornographic award suitable for WP:PORNBIO, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Townlake (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick search while I had a minute turned this up where it's "of the Year" that is being awarded. I'll look again later to see where I can find a mention of "of the Month" being an award. Dismas|(talk)02:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Remove as insufficient. But I would go with Playmate or Pet of the Year, except where WP:BIO1E is violated. While implicit, that should be expressly stated in any portemanteau criteria. --Bejnar (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep' per Frank. I find it difficult to believe this discussion exists. It is my view that some of those in the 'remove' camp are headed down a very slippery slope regarding Wikipedia, and reveals an attitude regarding 'notability' that is emblematic of a type of mindset that like to dictate to others. If we err, let it be on the side of caution when it comes to judgements about who can and can't be in an on-line encyclopedia. Jusdafax17:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Remove this line has bothered me for some time and I'm glad its up for discussion again. It asserts inherited notability due to one event in a model's life, which is not enough to write a comprehensive article out of. It is easy to imagine subjects that get permastub articles because all we can write about is their appearance in Playboy. We have to be able to write more than "X was a Playboy playmate" in our articles. Being a playmate certainly helps a subject gain notability; but it shouldn't guarantee an article in itself. I also think that having lists of Playmates per year is a good suggestion but which ones get get individual articles should be left up broader notability guidelines such as WP:N. ThemFromSpace21:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
It looks to me like you are suggesting (as others have above) that if an article is or is likely to be a "permastub" article, that means its subject is not notable. That's a perfectly valid opinion to have, and feel free to correct me if I'm interpreting incorrectly. However, I think that is the sort of policy change that is far outside of this RfC. To me, support for such a point of view directly implies that articles in categories such as these are also unworthy:
The list goes on: Minor league baseball players who played two (or 12) games, Hollywood people who worked as a key grip on three movies, people who published a single volume of poetry...you get the idea. I'm not saying that all of these people are necessarily notable, but the community consensus on the topic has fallen on the side of a minimum threshold of notability for each of these categories of people. If we are discussing this individual criterion and saying that it should be removed because the articles it engenders are stubs, then that kind of reasoning necessarily affects other similar groups of people. Frank | talk 21:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, generally if there isn't enough information to create a comprehensive article about a subject we shouldn't have an article about it. The wording here permits, and has been used to encourage, articles about subjects with very little publicized information. Writing about what we don't know smacks to me of arrogance and foolishness: we can't write about what we don't know! I'm not saying that we should delete entire categories of articles; each article should be selectively looked at to see if the subject meets the relevant notability guidelines. If the guidelines themselves permit articles which cannot be expanded beyond a mere stub they should be reevaluated (as we're doing here). ThemFromSpace04:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Exceptions, additions, it just depends how you look at them. But either way, this is yet more instruction creep, creating another exception to the simple, durable general and throughly NPOV principle of WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Frankly we could do with a few more well considered additions to the inconsistent, subjective and near-infinitely abusible general guideline. Horrorshowj (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
D'oh. I am so sorry. I was looking at the three subsection above with the "outcome" and failed to realize there was an ongoing RfC. My bad. So if we are going through yet another round: remove. Being a Playmate alone no longer offers the level of notoriety it once did. Girls that get features online (which I assume is viewed more than the magazine) and other magazines with not that much less circulation are not considered inherently notable. The General Notability Guidelines may still apply and most of the girls will receive significant coverage from other sources making this not an issue.Cptnono (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, your assumption about whether or not the online version is viewed more than the magazine is not the point; it cries out for a {{cn}} tag. Nevertheless, let's assume you're correct. Publishing has changed significantly in the last 20 years or so, as the Internet has grown in accessibility, so that literally anyone can publish nekkid pics of her- (or him-) self for the cost of a dinner at Outback Steakhouse. Nevertheless, some magazines have endured and still manage to achieve impressive print circulations. In fact, according to List_of_magazines_by_circulation#United_States, Playboy (at #39 on the list) has higher circulation than Newsweek, Money (magazine), Men's Health (magazine), Rolling Stone, Golf Magazine, Vanity Fair (magazine), Vogue (magazine), Popular Mechanics, U.S. News & World Report, and many others. For a slightly different perspective, according to List of newspapers in the United States by circulation, Playboy's monthly circulation exceeds the daily circulation of 99 out of the 100 top newspapers in the United States, and is more than double that of 98 of those 100. It seems to me - more so as I consider this - that being chosen to be the centerfold of this magazine is most definitely inherently notable. Attempts to claim otherwise because the Internet is so ubiquitous in the United States ignore the enduring status and continued popularity of the magazine, and the iconic nature of the brand itself. Frank | talk 15:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
It seems like a decent assumption. I will try to track down how many hits it receives. We did track down the numbers for Penthouse v Playboy several months ago and Penthouse was not far behind. Playboy does have more circulation but I don't feel that a girl who is one of several naked girls shown in a month is notable. Being a playmate doesn't event guarantee the cover. The brand is iconic and already has an article.Cptnono (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
This isn't quoting any policy, but I'd prefer to see this RFC run for a full 30 days before any action is taken. I believe there's a consensus to remove, but (1) I'm clearly biased, and (2) I can only assume Dismas and perhaps other editors are still in the process of seeking backup for the argument that "Playmate of the Month" is an award instead of a Playboy modeling job title. I do hope the conversation will stay focused - the human beings who appear in Playboy, under the Playmate of the Month designation, are the only entities described in the disputed criterion. Townlake (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Remove - I hadn't actually added my !vote here. As for the question as to how long this is to be kept open, let's count the opinions to see what we have. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
We have imo 17 Remove and 7 keep . This discussion has been open 20 days, I would say considering the tally that unless there is a coach arrives from the playboy appreciation society that consensus at this point is clear enough. Off2riorob (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I know a tally was requested, but...when was WP:CONSENSUS tossed out the window? There are "remove" opinions that call it "silly" (but no link to a policy against silly), "pointless" (same), and wording similar to "not automatically notable" which is essentially saying "delete because...delete". However, I think (with all appropriate humility, of course) that I've raised several policy-based discussion points that have not been refuted. If you take out the "vote"-type removes, it's much more of an even discussion, with equally strong numbers on both sides, and (again, in all humility) less convincing arguments on the delete side. The WP:IDONTLIKEIT observation seems apt, but last I checked, that's not a policy-based reason to alter something or declare consensus. Frank | talk 22:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you really saying that as an admin you would close this discussion as Keep? Sorry I disagree with you. If thats your thought on the issue then lets find an uninvolved admin to close it now, there has been plenty of discussion over such a minor exemption. Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Certainly I'm not saying that, and answering your own question as if I were saying that casts my opinion in the wrong light. Furthermore, adding as an admin as if it confers some measure of additional weight is an unnecessary twist, especially as that's not how I behave around here. I have an opinion, as others do; that's the extent of it for purposes of this discussion. I think no consensus to remove may turn out to be a reasonable determination. I'm not saying I expect that, but I really do feel that this discussion has consequence outside this one line-item (which, by itself, isn't so important), and I personally am not seeing much recognition of that in this discussion. My concern is that it will then be used to move through several other categories (described above) with the same logic. At any rate, there's no need to rush to judgment...there is a process here that generally runs 30 days. Frank | talk 14:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thirty days here, I didn't get that point but I see its value now, i'm slow but once I get something I never forget. Sorry if you feel I misrepresented your comment as regards consensus, I think we will have to disagree on that one for the time being. Its true that all decisions create waves that is part of their very nature.Off2riorob (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Remove with a change to Playmate of the Year (hopefully there's less of a debate that this higher standard presumes notability). As Frank (an endorser) said earlier it "it's one in a series of over 600 such similar events" (emphasis added) and so WP:BLP1E clearly applies. I reserved judgement until now as I was searching for news articles regarding Playmates in general, and have come to the conclusion that while certainly a substantial number of them generate additional coverage I don't feel comfortable with a mandate that all of them are notable, as their PMOM award is not a significant event per WP:BLP1E since it does not generate persistent coverage. For what it's worth I also happen to be a believer in waiting a full 30 days for the RFC since it's a significant policy, to allow other editors (like me) who need extra time to think about things before weighing in. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I disagree with simply changing the line to PMOY; adding PMOY to this standard should be a separate discussion. Arguing for the notability of PMOY is an easy way to blur the real subject of this RFC, the Playmates of the Month who are mentioned in the disputed criterion. Townlake (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with it being a separate discussion, I just feel that it's one that should be had should the consensus finalize as remove. From my perspective the reason PMOM doesn't imply notability is that it's a single event and with PMOY there's at least two events (the second one more significant) so WP:BLP1E no longer applies. I suppose it doesn't really matter as I doubt any PMOY would fall at AfD, but unambiguous guidelines are always nice. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Remove. Presumably the purpose of having a notability threshhold for inclusion is so that there is enough reliable information on a subject for a neutral article to be written. Neutral in the case of biographies meaning a well rounded selection of facts about the person. Knowledge of only a single fact (XYZ was a Playmate) does not provide that information. The purpose of these types of guidelines (WP:AUTH, WP:PORNBIO etc) is to give us a class of subjects where we would generally expect that sufficient reliable information exists, but has not yet come to light. Their purpose is not to provide an end run around WP:GNG and allow biographies where we simply don't have enough information to write a decent bio. For those lesser known Playmates, a list entry is a good solution. Kevin (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Want to point out that some conversation continued at the last round of talks on this page (where it says "outcome" up above because it was presumed that it was ready for removal) after this RfC was started. The ratio offering opinions for removal is high if just reading this RfC but is even higher with even more reasoning if reading the other section as well. I really don't see how it could not be removed unless some amazing shift in opinion or some wonderfully perfect argument comes up while this is open. Will anyone besides Frank (only pointing you out since you made it clear where you stand) continue to dispute this if there is no drastic change in the next few days?Cptnono (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My impression is the criterion 4(d) of WP:AUTH is too weak in its present form and needs to be made a bit more restrictive. Currently it reads:
"The person's work [...] (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries. "
I don't like the idea of declaring an author notable simply on the basis of the fact that a particular book of that author is held by many libraries, and in the absence of additional evidence such as multiple published reviews of the book in question. For example, in the academic world there are many decent but not all that prestigious book series such that most good university libraries automatically get all books in that series. For example, in my own subject, math, most books published by the American Mathematical Society fall into this category (the quality of AMS books is presumed to be fairly good, and their prices are relatively cheap). However, in practice, many of these books turn out to be fairly average and not at all "big hits". Yet they are widely subscribed to by university libraries. I do not think it is reasonable to confer automatic notability on the authors of such books in the absence of additional evidence, such as high citability of a particular book in the work of others and/or multiple independent published reviews of it. I would prefer for the part "or had works in many significant libraries" to be removed from 4(d) in WP:AUTH. Nsk92 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I have a different question. In Criterion 3 of WP:AUTH we say "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." I have always interpreted this as meaning "ie one that has been the subject...", so if the work has been "the subject of ...multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" the criterion is met. But to my astonishment in an AfD (about me, so I must declare an interest!), people were arguing that although the work had been "the subject of ...multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" it was nevertheless not "significant or well-known". It seems to me that if we allow this, the whole thing becomes incredibly vague and subjective, and based on whether we WP:LIKE the subject. What do people think? Should we clarify by inserting "ie"? NBeale (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I made an edit in the article as it seems discussion without an edit and revert will not happen. Beale, I'm sorry, but the overwhelming majority of established editors voted delete, so the conclusion is not that this guideline is to be clarified to prove them wrong, but rather make sure this guideline encodes what the community really thinks. In any case, we both agree WP:AUTH #3 is completely useless as it is currently is written. Vesal (talk) 12:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Vesal, I don't see why it was necessary to make an edit just to support Nicholas Beale's ego. First of all, this is only a guideline so it's ok for there to be exceptions (I've already pointed out one, Harvard Girl, where the book is incredibly famous but the authors probably not notable). And guidelines like these are meant to have some wiggle room, for just these reasons. In Beale's case, it was clearly argued at the AfD that 1) he appears to have had only a marginal role in the book (and also in his presentations with Polkinghorne, if this is anything to go by); 2) the book is not even as notable as he makes it out to be, given that he's on a campaign to promote it on Wikipedia; and 3) the refs that are about the book are not about him personally. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs12:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Well there were a number of lies told to induce people at the AfD to vote delete. But in fact I wrote c60% of the book, the hostile review from Grayling refers to the "author" as Beale-Polkinghorne and Polkinghorne also explains that I wrote the "Three long appendices which give techically careful discussions of three topics of central importance to our argument" (QoT p xiii) and represent over 1/3rd of the content. So if this is a genuine concern, open to reason, it is easy to address. NBeale (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't object to your revert and reasoning, but I do object to your implications that I did this to satisfy Beale. In fact, he placed his comment here three days later than my comment below. Please leave Beale aside for a moment, and comment on my reasoning below. While I can understand that wiggle-room and common sense are important, having ridiculously low secondary criteria that will inevitably be over-ridden by the primary notability criterion doesn't make much sense. Vesal (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:AUTHOR #3 is unclear
The third criteria is almost useless in its vagueness:
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.
There is a huge difference between being the subject of an independent book, being subject of full-length research articles in academic journals, and having multiple reviews in newspapers. The sentence here leaves everything open. The only thing preventing any co-author of any book with a couple of reviews to satisfy this criterion is the vague modifier "significant or well-known", but this could mean anything from being part of the classical canon to having received some media coverage. This is not a very helpful guideline. Vesal (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the criterion is a little too loose, but your edit stipulating that only reviews in scholarly journals are enough is too strict, I think. There are probably plenty of unquestionably notable books that haven't attracted scholarly attention. Off the top of my head, Twilight might be one (although, glancing at the article, I see that it's been covered in Publishers Weekly, which appears to be more of a trade publication, and School Library Journal—but even if it wasn't, I'm sure no one would question its notability). The Time Traveler's Wife also doesn't appear to have any (nor does Her Fearful Symmetry, but it's pretty much guaranteed notability based on who wrote it). The authors of each of those books, however, are unquestionably notable.
Unfortunately, I don't think there's any black-and-white criterion that's going to work here, it just takes some judgment. In cases like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Beale (5th nomination), if the significance of the individual's role in creating that work is in doubt, and the work is of questionable notability, and the individual has done little other notable work, and there is no other substantial coverage of this individual, it can be argued that he's not notable.
That being said, perhaps what's needed is not a new criterion, but a specification of whether or not the criterion is sufficient. In cases like the ones I listed above, coverage in academic journals is clearly not a necessary criterion. At the same time, the AfD and your comment seem to show that the current version (reviews in periodical articles) is not in of itself a sufficient criterion. Perhaps it would help to specify that this criterion can contribute to notability (and clinch it, if there are other arguments for notability), but it alone can't confer notability in spite of other facts. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs13:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, my suggestion clearly set the bar too high for important authors in recent popular culture, but the more critical question is about your last paragraph. I assumed all additional criteria are sufficient for inclusion. (The section introducing them actually makes clear these criteria are neither sufficient nor necessary, but places more emphasis on saying that they are not necessary and can be overridden by WP:N.) Considering how independent coverage in reliable sources is the main deal, the only practical use of these additional criteria would be to ensure completeness and consistency, e.g., when a subject is so important that any decent encyclopaedia should at least include a stub even if substantial independent coverage is lacking. If I decided how things were done, I would take these criteria as sufficient for inclusion (although merely indicative), but more importantly, I would set the standard high enough that these should only be invoked for really important topics. This would avoid the kind of confusion we saw at the Beale deletion discussion. Still, I'm satisfied with your explanation and clearly there is never a substitute for common sense. Thanks, Vesal (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Without wanting to get bogged down in the specifics of N.B. it seems to me that the present wording still leaves it open to question whether someone a major role in co-creating... However to require in addition that "the individual has done lots of other notable work and there is other substantial coverage of the individual" is setting the bar far too high. I don't believe this "criterion" applies in policy and I'd be interested to see if it has ever been used in any other AfD. In addition "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" is a lot more than "a couple of reviews". The only thing that is even slightly unclear as far as I can see is whether it means "ie one that has been the subject..." NBeale (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Vesal that the concept of a "significant or well-known work" is too vague, and probably needs to be made more specific, in order to set the bar higher. But I think the answer to your question, NBeale, is very simple. Having been the subject of a book, a film, or multiple articles or reviews is not a definition of "significant" but an additional criterion. That is the way it is written at present: the only possible interpretation of the syntax is that it refers to a significant work that has also been the subject of x, y or z. And I think that is the way it should stay. But what exactly does "significant or well-known" mean? That is where the vagueness lies. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Addendum - maybe it would be clearer if it simply said "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work", and omitted the stuff about reviews etc altogether. That way, it relies on a simple concept called significance - which is subjective but at least does not add further potentially confusing words and open the door to the sort of (IMHO) misinterpretation suggested by NBeale. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the additional part was added to reflect book, as otherwise you have people wikilawyering over what constitutes significance. Personally, I'd say drop it all together, as a single "significant or well-known work" alone does not necessarily make the author notable, even if the book itself is. As with all topics, significant coverage of the author should be the defining factor. If he has created a historically significant, or highly recognized work, then most likely he has notability, but those are different from just "significant or well-known work". -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 17:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Snalwibma. The syntax isn't really quite so clear (see Fowler/Gowers on the subject of "that") and one wonders whether it makes sense to talk about a "significant or well known work that has not been subject..."? But in the case of a book we could perhaps approximate to significant/well known by considering library holdings and ghits? (PS "or had works in many significant libraries" had just been deleted from Author#4 - I have reverted since there was no consensus. NBeale (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
So we could specify "For a book this would mean being held in over 100 libraries, having over 10,000 ghits and being subject to multiple independent reviews in notable publications". This would have the advantage of precision. But I do think we should let people who were not involved in the NB AfD comment! NBeale (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd strongly disagree with such a specification. Google hits mean diddle squat and do not reflect notability. Neither does how many libraries hold a copy of a book. Author should NOT give an author notability for something the book itself can not get notability through from WP:BK. Author 4 should have the entire library mess removed all together as it is not a sign of significance at all. Significant coverage always has been, and always should be the primarily determiner of notability, and being in a library does not mean it is or is not significant. There are many significant authors with their works in few to no libraries, while many unnotable ones with them in many. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 17:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that ghits etc.. don't make the book notable. But how else might we "measure" "significant and well-known". We could of course simply say "a notable book" and that would be clear as well. NBeale (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
@Vesal: You are correct in your statement (way above) that much of the current wording is redundant with the GNG—the only difference being that here it applies not to the article subject itself, but to works by the article subject. Perhaps the whole wording could be simply replaced by something like "is the creator of a work which itself uncontroversially meets the GNG", with the caveats discussed above about necessity vs. sufficiency. (For what it's worth, I agree with you that it's safer to have a more restrictive guideline that is sufficient, rather than a more inclusive guideline that is necessary: basically the former would make articles that meet the guideline be deemed notable while articles that don't are up for discussion, whereas the latter would make articles that don't meet it be unnotable, and articles that do meet it be up for discussion. In other words, a more restrictive guideline can tell you uncontroversially what is notable, while a less restrictive guideline can tell you uncontroversially what is not notable.) rʨanaɢtalk/contribs22:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Out of interest can you produce 2-3 examples of people being deleted when they have played a major role in creating or co-creating a notable book, just so that we can see what the normal practice is. In every other AfD debate I have seen this would be enough for a keep. NBeale (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
(I have moved part of this comment from the section below, as it was not relevant to my proposal in that subsection).
I have already pointed to Harvard Girl several times, if you bothered to read my comments. The authors have not been deleted, but no article has ever been created for them because they are not notable by themselves. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs23:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Although nobody happens to have created an article for it yet, I would regard The Corrupting Sea as a notable book (cf. [7]) about whose co-authors we lack adequate sources for biographical articles. EALacey (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
In other words, not a single example of the co-author of a notable book being deleted. Even Jim Theis who apparently did nothing remotely notable since he wrote a sci-fi aged 16, gets a redirect. QED. NBeale (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Deletion was not required in any of the above cases because nobody was campaigning for Wikipedia to have biographical articles about the authors in question. I think the lack of controversy strengthens rather than weakens my case. Can you point to articles in which co-authorship of a single work has been considered a sufficient basis for an independent article? EALacey (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I would not enjoy a result that allowed articles about people who wrote only a single clearly notable volume and did nothing else. In that case the article should be about the book, and none is needed about the author. WP:BIO1E Multipe notable books, one notable book and an a reasonable academic career (say full professor), one notable book and a purple heart, one notable book which is an autobiography, all are acceptable, at least there is something notable to say. Without that we have articles empty of significance. --Bejnar (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the criterion is too loose. I've seen a number of cases where biographies were kept because Wikipedians held the opinion that such-and-such creation of some author entitles him/her for a bio. This is clearly a bad criterion, because it relies on subjective interpretation WP:OR. I suggest that only the work is recognized as of exceptional importance in reliable sources, this criterion may be used. Suggested removing "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", which qualify almost any author of a reviewed work. Any software that has a bunch of reviews qualifies its author that way. Clearly too loose Pcapping22:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Merge with AUTH #4?
The more I look at it, the more AUTH #3 seems to be redundant with #4:
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.
They are both, essentially, saying "the person might be notable if they created something super-notable". Perhaps we can find a way to merge them together (somewhere along the lines of the sentence I just wrote, but with more grown-up language). rʨanaɢtalk/contribs22:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
(out) I never really got a response on this (since User:NBeale seems to have commandeered the whole discussion and made it about himself), but I really was hoping to get some input on what I am hoping would be a constructive suggestion. My idea for a reformulation was something along these lines:
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work or collective body of work which itself meets the general notability guideline beyond reasonable doubt. Notability of the work may be demonstrated by the work's having either been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent scholarly reviews, or been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
This is a step forward but needs a bit more thought:
What does meeting GNG "beyond reasonable doubt" mean? The only thing that is clear is whether the work is indeed notable.
This is OK for someone who has created/co-created one notable work. But what about someone who has created/co-created a considerable body of work, no one item being notable?
Changing Author#4 to remove "libraries" without consensus
I note that some ingenious wikilawyers have changed WP:AUTHOR #4 to remove " or had works in many significant libraries." This has been present in some shape or form since at least 2007 ("(d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries." is arguably better but the idea has been there for ages). Ineteresting that people are so desperate to "justify" an absurd campaign of personal attacks that they are trying to remove long-standing parts of the guideline. Could some neutral third party restore it, until there is a consensus from people who don't have an axe to grind. NBeale (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
There are two separable issues here. First, you shouldn't be editing this guideline in your own favour, whether adding, removing, or restoring. You've already tried to change one policy, WP:NOR, to make it easier for yourself to have a BLP. That kind of thing really has to end.
On the issue of libraries, a book isn't notable just because it's held by notable libraries. A copy of every book published in England, for example, goes to the British Library, and most end up in Oxford and Cambridge too, and the other two copyright libraries, plus one in Dublin. Right there, you have several notable libraries, but it's meaningless. SlimVirginTALKcontribs23:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec)The people who removed it are not the ones who suggested it (both User:Nsk92 and User:AnmaFinotera suggested removal), and you're the only person who has disputed that removal. You yourself are in a COI regarding this page, given its relationship to your own deleted article, and really should not be editing it at all. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs23:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Obviously being in the Copyright libraraies does not constitute notability, but that is not what the guideline says. As for COI, since Rjanag and Slim apparently came here to justify retrospectively their strange vendetta they are equally COI on this matter - I will refrain from editing if and only if they do.
New restriction on Author#4 need revisiting
It looks like, late last month, 2 (or at most 3) editors intent on restricting notability removed the libraries clause. I attempted to restore this, but one of those two, AnmaFinotera, quickly reverted it. It is true that I had not seen the discussion here (all the way back on Jan 23) but 2-3 editors advocating a contentious restriction of a longstanding guideline because of such faux "consensus" really isn't a good thing. It's even worse since there was vocal opposition to the change, in fact the title of the discussion just above this. LotLE×talk23:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
No there is not a consensus, and the library point has been part of WP:AUTH in some form for at least 2 years. NBeale (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
And? Being there does not mean it should always stay or even that it is valid. How is an author's books being carried in a library a sign of notability? And why should it equal auto notability for the AUTHOR when its the books, not the author, who are carried. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 14:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The idea of WP:AUTHOR has always been that you are notable if you have created a sufficiently notable body of work. This is pretty clear if one of your books in notable, but what about the situation where you have written several which collectively make a substantial enough body but not necessarily individually? So the idea was (as I understand it) that if a great many important libraries had taken the trouble to buy your work and hold it in their permanement collections, this was a good inidication of notability. Obviously a work that is held in (say) almost every major university library is likelt to be more important than one which is not. NBeale (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
No, that is not "obvious" and how to do "prove" that every major university bought an author's books because he was so super notable in his eyes that it didn't and doesn't matter if no one ever reads it? It's a useless and unhelpful criteria at best. If an author is notable and has created multiple notable works, they should have the necessary coverage to not need some random "escape" clause just to throw out an article about them. Either they are notable or they are not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 13:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The big copyright libraries in the UK keep copies of most books published in the UK, among them the British Library and the University of Cambridge library. So there you have two notable libraries right there. But it is entirely meaningless. It tells us nothing about the notability of the book, and even less about the notability of the author. There is a general feeling in Wikipedia that notability for living people needs to be tightened to reduce the number of borderline notable and vanity BLPs. This has strong Foundation backing. AnmaFinotera is exactly right when he says that if an author is truly notable, he won't need to rely on a random escape clause or policy loophole. SlimVirginTALKcontribs17:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you have some pointers to Foundation policy or discussion in this regard? I would be interested in participating. --JWB (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
April 2009 meeting minutes has more of the discussion preceding the resolution. One person suggested "creating a level of notability based on the traffic an article receives", which did not make it into the resolution. Nobody even tried to propose restriction of notability based on other criteria. --JWB (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The resolution you linked to says: "Many people create articles that are overly promotional in tone: about themselves, people they admire, or those they are paid to represent. These are not neutral, and have no place in our projects. Generally, the Wikimedia community protects the projects well against this common problem by deleting or improving hagiographies." SlimVirginTALKcontribs20:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it says the community is dealing well with promotional articles. It does not say that notability tests need to be tightened. The tone of the resolution and discussion is very much towards intelligent editing, common sense, and humanism, rather than deletionism and the proliferation of arbitrary rules making legitimate contribution more difficult. --JWB (talk) 06:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
We set ourselves up as "The sum of human knowledge", and we-- well, a few of us-- create rules to consciously exclude books/authors/subject which libraries accept. Dekkappai (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Readership standard for WP:AUTH
For many years–since at least 2004–the WP:AUTH test included a commonsense standard that authors who are widely read are notable enough for WP articles. At some point more recently, that was removed, and the "creative professionals" section was replaced by something essentially duplicating the WP:PROF guidelines (which have themselves become drastically more restrictive over time).
<rant>This is bad! In particular, the revisions seem to be part of a mad deletionist trend in which more articles are being deleted than created nowadays. There is a faction of editors who seem not to want to allow Wikipedia to cover anything that is not included in Britannica, which destroys most of what is best about WP. I have had numerous friends/colleagues/acquaintances who have been active contributors to WP, but who have given up on WP precisely because of this deletion trend. I have also seen media discussions of exactly this destructive trend.</rant> Ok, I had to bitch, but let me get to a specific suggestion.
In my mind, wide readership should be sufficient for notability. The old 5k book sales "author test" was probably too low, but that just means that we should nudge the number up, not that we should have thrown away a readership standard in favor of mass deletion of author biographies. Probably something similar applies to musicians and other creative professionals, but I have not watched other categories very closely.
If 50k people have read works by an author, why on God's green earth shouldn't we have an article for some of those readers to find out biographical background on that author?! Or maybe some other number, but around this range we often have a substantial readership, but not necessarily a wide amount of "critical commentary" (depending on genre and other factors). The notability is true for any genre, e.g., even readers of schlock romance novels are perfectly right to want an article on their favorite authors, and no good comes of deleting good, existing biographies. Obviously, that does not mean that biographies that are just WP:ADVERT are still in need of deletion, or at least thorough repairs. And within those, we still need WP:RS sources to support whatever WP:V information is presented (including the fact of readership numbers). But we need not–and should not–delete every article of an author who isn't "preeminent" or "fundamentally original".
Obviously, this "readership test" is not necessary in all cases. For example, in a technical or academic area, a far smaller number of readers than this is not incompatible with a work/author being a major influence (and widely cited, etc). An academic writer about entomology might sell 1000 copies, and be the "standard work" in its field (there was a recent AfD bio like this). Such a low-selling book will be cited by numerous academic papers and the like, and its author becomes notable on that basis. On the other hand, a romance novelist might sell 100,000 and receive zero critical commentary, but still be plenty notable in a different way. The former case is somewhat addressed by WP:PROF, but the notability of more popular works is now essentially excluded from this guideline.
I believe we desperately need some additional clause in WP:AUTH that takes reasonable account of readership as a criterion of notability. LotLE×talk23:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
No such criteria is not appropriate. HOw do you know who read anything without actual significant coverage in reliable sources? A single claim from one source is not WP:V and is not enough to create anything close to approaching significant coverage. Randomly claiming "well, X number of people must have read it because we said so" is not any indication of notability. 100,000 readers out of 6 billion people in a planet, and no coverage? Not notable, its that simple. If its notable, tit will have sources. If a novelist is notable, they themselves will have significant coverage. If not, while they may be popular among a few niche areas, that doesn't make them notable for coverage in an encyclopedia. Popularity != notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 16:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
No. If they have not received mention in multiple reliable sources, then -- to borrow a phrase -- "why on God's green earth" should we have an article about then? UnitAnode12:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes It is perfectly sensible to put the definition of "notable" in the hands of authorities, not Wikipedia editors. In what parallel universe can an author be nationally-published, (or a film to be nationally-released) and yet not "notable". (I think we all know what parallel universe that is :-( My objection would be to the assigning of any random number of "readership", which is Original-Researchish. But for us as editors to step in front of a national publisher and say "No" this author is not worth writing about is even more Original Reasearch-ish in the worst way. This sense of authority/elitism should not be put into any guideline here, and it is unfortunate for the project and our readers that it has. It should stop. Dekkappai (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment I'm not sure what "nationally published" means. Surely any book that is published and available on Amazon is "nationally published". It seems to me (but I must declare an interest, since I meet this criterion) that if you have written/majorly co-written a notable book you are notable, but that you may be notable if you have written/majorly co-written a series of books that are significant enough taken together. NBeale (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment Hi, NBeale. I don't understand the "if so & so... then we would have a whole lot of articles!!!" argument, if that's what you are driving at. Yes, we could. So let's get to writing them instead of deleting perfectly reasonable stubs. Have you ever looked up a name of an author or performer on Wikipedia, and found no entry not because no one wrote anything on the person, but because some barstool know-it-all with online access managed to get it deleted? That tells me that Wikipedia has lost its way. And our editor-driven personal-opinion, Original Research definitions of "notability" are one of the main reasons for this. This should stop. Dekkappai (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi NBeale. I'm unaware of this particular vendetta, but I've seen "notability" used to fuel many similar things-- vendettas, crusades, biases-- and it convinces me all the more of the fundamental wrong-headedness of our "Notability" definitions. These are easily used as fig-leaves for vendettas/biases of all sorts. Above we see the Playboy Playmate criterion under a "discussion" which amounts to nothing but the personal opinions of individual Wikipedia editors. Whichever side gets the largest "consensus" during the short time-span of this discussion wins. Who says being a Playmate is notable? Who says it is not? No "reliable sources", no authorities or experts are cited, only personal opinions. Whoever is loudest wins out. In a way, I think the recent massacre of unsourced BLPs should be the way to go: Sourced? Stays, Unsourced? Goes. That simple. (Though an editor who attempts to delete an article for lack of sourcing without first showing evidence of attempting to source the article should be blocked ;-) "Notable" is inherently subjective, biased, Original Research, and has shown itself over and over to be a terrible tool for judging what should be deleted here. Stub or not should make absolutely no difference. Dekkappai (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Our current biographical guidelines are just fine. If a person has been the subject of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties then they should be covered by Wikipedia as well. If they have not received such coverage, then the same would apply to our encyclopedia. JBsupreme (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the principle-- i.e., anything in a Wikipedia article should be sourced. This is covered in WP:V. The idea behind this good policy is muddied, biased, "POV-ed" in every "notability" description. The concept of a Wikipedia-defined criteria of "notability(s)" was poor to begin with. But with the current draconian enforcing of WP:V, it is now completely unnecessary, and only a tool to spread bias through the encyclopedia through deletions of the articles on subjects which take a little more work than others. The fundamental error in WP:GNG is that the availability of all sources (even when they exist) on all subjects is equal. This biases our articles to the current, the on-line, and the English-language. Dekkappai (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
But there is no WP:DEADLINE. If someone later finds those sources, be it from an off-line source, or a non English-language source, we can always create the re-create the article at that time from those sources. I don't see this as an error in WP:GNG at all. JBsupreme (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
That's an elitist twisting of the fundamental concept behind Wikipedia: Start a sourced article, no matter how small, then everyone who can chips in to improve it. What you imply is that no one should start an article-- even a sourced one-- until it meets a subjective "notability" definition put in place by a group of editors who happened to be active at the time the definition was put together. And, more to the (last) point, it guarantees biased coverage to the current, the English-language and the on-line. In the spirit of WP:BIAS we should work against this, not ignore it, and certainly not actively promote it, which all forms of "notability" do. Dekkappai (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. We should not be writing articles about subjects which have not been documented in a non-trivial manner by reliable third party publications. If we, as Wikipedia editors, cannot locate said sources then we can and should wait until those sources become available or can be found. This is especially true when dealing with WP:BLP subjects. JBsupreme (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Remove the biased, subjective judgment and I'll agree with you: "We should not be writing articles about subjects which have not been documented by third party publications." WP:V covers this adequately. The rest is Wikipedia-editor-inflicted bias. Dekkappai (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment There are many reliable ways of establishing wide readership, it's not just "anything published on Amazon". For example, Amazon itself has sales rank data which give indication of sales numbers. Or other similar sales lists and the like. In some genres, you have a pretty good idea of sales based on publisher and series that a book might fall in. In many genres, however, quite broad popular sales are not generally accompanied by much, if any, critical commentary. Academic journals in genetics have a different readership than do space westerns, for example. What Wikipedia has turned into is a bunch of amateur gatekeepers of "official knowledge", and indeed as per Dekkappai, well-cited, reliable and informative articles are now as likely to have previously existed and been deleted as they are to have simply not yet been addressed. It is a sickening and destructive situation, that has turned Wikipedia from the "repository of human knowledge" into a politburo of "canon maintainers". LotLE×talk18:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, restore 'widely read' and any other recently deleted sufficient criteria for notability This inexplicable trend toward increasing arbitrary restriction is purely destructive to Wikipedia and must be stopped. --JWB (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
What happens (and I must declare an interest, this has happened to me) is that someone creates an article about X. It is then deleted, and that fact that "an article on X has been deleted" is used as an argument for deleting subsequent articles, even if the sources of X have substantially increased. Later X writes a notable book. The article is then deleted "second nomination" and a major argument used is "we deleted this last time". Some third party who knows nothing of this sees that there is no article about X, thinks there should be, writes one, and it is snow deleted "because it is worse than the last time". This creates a gap, which another person fills and the article is nominated "N-th nomination". This time it worked on by a dedicated editor. there has been a full page article in a major newspaper mainly about X's work. But it is still deleted, the main argumement being "we have deleted this article many times before". NBeale (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Yep-- "Somebody salt it so it never comes back!" And all the while this sourced stub has been deleted, someone who happens to have interest/sourcing in the subject could have substantially improved it. It all works against the interest of Wikipedia and its readers. You said it well-- We as editors should not be gate-keepers sternly sending sourced information away, we should be hosts, humbly welcoming, arranging, assembling that information into useful articles for our readers. Somewhere along the line the self-importance of the Wiki-editing community became a bloated monster... Dekkappai (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Pcap mentions above an archive of the discussion where the so-called "hard 5000" rule was removed. Way back then–in 2006–the tenor was actually pretty reasonable. Observations were made that 5k sales/circulation was more than needed in some areas, and less than needed in others. However, at that same time, pretty good replacement language was suggested (and I think this version was in the guideline at some period, but I haven't traced through years of edits), e.g.:
Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work
Recording musicians with significant sales in a major market or genre or whose work is independently recognized for its influence (see WikiProject Music's Notability and Music Guidelines)
The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single news event only count as one coverage.)
The point is that while there are minor problems with any sort of hard threshold, it's really not difficult to find language that recognizes significance in a reasonable and encyclopedic way. Which is almost the opposite of what we now have. At this point, authors selling 50,000 or 500,000 are often deleted to it they don't meet elitist canon standards in a few narrow fields that fall under "approved knowledge". This is absurd. While I don't want a magic number of 50k, it is also pretty horrible that authors with that sort of sales–and sometimes much more–still have articles deleted, articles that are well-cited, verifiable, neutrally written, and so on.
What we need is simply guidelines that follow commonsense and that have a goal of actually providing information rather than restricting it. Abductive claims above that the deletionist mob are "well-meaning volunteers". This is false: they are certainly volunteers, but they don't come anywhere close to well-meaning. But sanctions are neither practicable nor efficient; what we need is clearer and better guidelines. LotLE×talk07:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Guidelines are fine right now. When articles get deleted due to failing WP:V that's nothing to do with a deletionist mob. Self-referencing and referncing to resumes shouldn't be acceptable, simple as that. COI on the other hand has no place on Wikipedia and those who edit with COI are the ones that aren't exactly well-meaning, and should be sanctioned. —SpacemanSpiff08:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I am a bit concerned that two of the people seeking to weaken WP:AUTHOR guidelines coincidentally published autobiographical articles on Wikipedia about themselves, articles which were eventually deleted. This is a serious conflict of interest in my view. :-/ JBsupreme (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
With regards to Wikipedia as a whole-- not this set of subjective standards based only on the personal opinions of a small group of editors-- you use the term "weaken" incorrectly. Allowing biased editors to put up subjective criteria to exclude coverage of what they do not want to see seriously weakens and damages a project that purports to represent the "sum of human knowledge". And if you have any concerns about the actions of individual editors, this is not the forum for it. Dekkappai (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Request. My learned friend Dekkappai, some way above: Have you ever looked up a name of an author or performer on Wikipedia, and found no entry not because no one wrote anything on the person, but because some barstool know-it-all with online access managed to get it deleted? Hi! Barstool know-it-all speaking. (A Chimay white, please.) No, not an author or performer. (Those areas aside, I do remember that happening once, with "Ghost Rider (motorcyclist)".) Can we have one or three examples of articles with content not criticized as unverifiable that were deleted because of non-notable productivity? I'd like to have my memory nudged. -- Hoary (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
This has happened to me dozens of times. I don't think there's any point of trying to rehash some specific AfD discussion, where deletionist might provide some ad hoc rejoinder about how such-and-such bio really should be deleted (and "the ground it lived on salted"). It is incredibly easy to find many, many examples of the same thing just by browsing the recent deletion sorting pages for Authors or Academics. In about 2/3 of those where the result is delete, there is absolutely no argument that the content is unverifiable (and not even usually that it is not concretely verified by WP:RS in the existing text). Rather, the argument is almost always exclusively that this academic/author is not of "extremely high prestige" (e.g. some high number H-index for citations), or that the sources that discuss the academic/author are not themselves high enough prestige (e.g. a review of works is accused of being a "blog" rather than a newspaper... which usually itself misses the point, since all reviews are editorial rather than objective in content).
Moreover, even in those AfD's the result in keep, the arguments made by the very same few deletionist editors are exactly the same, wholly about some bio subject not being "important enough", and almost never about the sources being absent (or even where absent, exceedingly rarely that efforts failed to locate such sources). It's just an accident of which 8 or 12 editors happened to come by a particular discussion, and which closing admin decided to close it (since the admins, often with deletionist bias), frequently ignore the general predominance of AfD comments in favor of deletion. LotLE×talk07:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Hoary, your erudite chum here. Not being an admin with access to deleted articles, nor an editor obsessed enough with the deletion of other people's work-- though it does bother me-- randomly typing in actor/author names for one that has been deleted would consume more time than I'm willing to put in here. So I'll have to pick a couple quick that have come across my watchlist: (let the tittering begin) Tiffany Towers, Julia Hayes, Mia Banggs, Chantelle Fontain, Alex Arden, Barbara Summer, Dominique Dane, the list could go on for pages, and pages, of course... and a lot of Playboy Playmates are soon to join their ranks, because a few barstool know-it-alls don't want them here. You'll have to take my word for it that I've come across "legit" actors/authors who have met a similar fate. Authors? Michael Tsarion? William Schnoebelen? (Not exactly "legit", and yes, it will be very easy to piss on each and every one of those examples above, proving my point-- that these criteria are based on elitism.) But surely you're not doubting that real, verifiable actors and authors with no (apparent) "significant coverage in third-party reliable sources" are put up for deletion based on editor-conceived "notability" criteria? We see that with Japanese subjects all the time. Dekkappai (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Ppai. First, I think I was sleepy yesterday: after all, "Ghost Rider (motorcyclist)" is himself a performer. On the "Playmates", no, this particular lounge lizard is not keen to run them out of Wikipedia. Instead, I oppose the notion that a single appearance in the centre of one particular magazine confers significance that overrides anything else. ("No need for pointy-head 'sourcing' of the article on Pixie Frou-Frou, dumbass: she was Playmate for Brumaire 2010!") We see the result in arguments over earlier, very bizarre versions of this article, where the mere fact that the biographee had been a "Playmate" seemed to be taken by certain SPAs and SP IPs as conferring significance on anything and everything she did. (Well, er, not everything. Not the embarrassing bits. But certainly all the vanity-published astrological stuff that her miscellaneous websites were hawking.) ¶ Let's turn to your list of articles. (I've only looked for four so far; I may or may not continue, and of course others are very welcome to do so.)
Tiffany Towers: deleting AfD, last version. Comment: Nomination for the second AfD seems to be for (alleged) lack of notability, but delete votes are on grounds of lack of sourcing/sourcability. The last version was completely unsourced.
Julia Hayes: No article so titled has ever existed.
I've therefore only looked at three. I have no reason to think that these three are representative, but for what it's worth I notice several things about the deletions. The AfDs have few participants, most (all?) of whom seem interested in porn. Within the AfDs, there are no disparaging or even tittering comments about porn in general, this porn in particular, or coverage thereof in WP. Indeed, there's hardly any visible dispute. (This could be because potential "keep" voters such as yourself weren't aware of the AfDs or because they thought their participation would be a waste of their time; I don't know.) But even my sample (?) of three of them shows some variety: rightly or wrongly, Banggs is deleted for lack of notability (there's no criticism of the sourcing of what the article does say), Towers more for lack of sourcing (the notability-related nomination is largely ignored). -- Hoary (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
In general I agree with JBsupreme above. Non objective or non measurable standards like the one proposed just lead to trouble. Namely the subjectivism described and decried above on both sides of the aisle. If a book is well enough read, then there will be a sufficient number of reviews in reliable sources. Given the nature of ephemera that appears in Wikipedia, I would almost ask for a five year moratorium on any event (music release, concert, explosion, book publication) before an article would be accepted. That would get rid of a lot of fan-cruft, but is not feasible, unless there were a companion Wikinews to absorb those articles and free up Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia. --Bejnar (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Hoary. Well, I feel like I was a bit "suckered in" by giving those examples-- you've got me at a disadvantage, since I'm unable to see what state the articles were in, I don't keep a record of what I perceive of as Wikipedia making wrong decisions, and I just grabbed a few that came to my eye easily, hoping that they didn't look unduly ridiculous. Since most were in the adult entertainment area, I can answer for myself as to why I gave no input at the AfDs. First: I have no interest in it. (Maybe a surprising admission, but I'm more interested in the (s)exploitation cinema, mainly the Japanese pink films, and US drive-in/grindhouse cinema.) Second: Once, a couple years ago, I did actually source many articles like these which were up for deletion on "notability" grounds, even though I had no interest in them. I found the experience to be an extremely frustrating waste of my time. Not only did sourcing and saving those articles take time away from work I wanted to do here, the effort of saving them was wasted when every one of them were re-nominated (again under "notability") and then, with my, and I presume other editor, patience worn out, deleted. I've seen articles which passed "notability" then get deleted en-masse once these purely subjective definitions were changed.
Forgive me if I'm being dense, but I'm not getting your point. Are you saying that an article that does not pass "notability" criteria will not be deleted as long as it is sourced? If so, then there is no reason for these criteria-- unless it's one of those harmless "Importance"-rating games the Wiki-projects engage in... But, if you are saying this, I think you are in error. I've come across AfDs on Japanese subjects several times where "consensus" was unanimously "Delete" until this barstool know-it-all suggested searching in the Japanese language... and lo and behold, even our own "notability" was sometimes passed. That's just in the rare areas and cases that I have looked into. So, I think sourced articles do get deleted regularly because they don't meet certain editor-created "notability" criteria. Particularly in areas outside the knowledge of the average English Wikipedia-editor demographic. Dekkappai (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
CommentLotLE proposal above seems to me to offer a very sensible approach. Understandable and allows for variations of the definition of "notable" in different fields, whereas arbitary numerical thresholds which suit one field are bound to fail another. It also allows for the experts in a particular field (who may well be active in a Project for that field) to set (by consensus) suitable further guidelines for articles which fall within their remit.--Plad2 (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:Athlete Amateurs vs. Professionals lines blurred
This comment is being made assuming that both a professional athlete and an amateur athlete do not make it under the standard WP:BIO. Now a days professionals can compete in the Olympics for many events. For some sports where amateurs and professionals mix throughout the highest level of competitions does it really make sense to have professionals considered more notable. Basically, why do we require amateurs to be the best in their sport (better than almost all professionals) in order to be considered notable. Take track and field or swimming, for example. Shouldn't making the finals of the the Olympic trials or national championships count for notability. Basically making the finals in these events means you are in the top 8 or 9 competitors in the respected country. How is this not notable. Of course the Olympics is the highest level of competition, but it seems like a huge double standard to compare the Olympics to the professionals in my opinion. I also think the equivalent to professional level event is confusing. Would a national championship count as a equivalent to a professional event. I just commented on an AfD for a strongwoman, who although seemed unnotable, fit the definition of WP:Athlete because she competed in the highest level professional league of strongwomen. How can we say that someone like this is more notable than someone who makes the finals of the national championships, who just happens to be not professional.MATThematical (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I expect that one could put forth several distinguishing characteristics between an amateur and a professional, but if the key basis of recognition of an individual is the relative performance in the sport itself, however measured, then it ought not matter whether the athlete is a professional or amateur, notwithstanding the difficulty in arriving at a concensus on the definitions of professional and amateur. If one ran a hundred yard dash in 8 seconds, it would be a notable athletic acheivement whether the person was a professional or amateur. Understanding the reasoning of the Olympic Organizing Committee in allowing professionals to compete might be informative.--Newwhist (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. There are obscure events that label themselves professional and auto-entitle someone to a biography, e.g. bodybuilding, (see a couple of sections below, I'm not talking about the well-known professional events that have wiki pages), while in other sports amateur events are more notable, but don't label themselves "professional" because they don't cross the line into entertainment as much. Pcapping22:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Participation in professional bodybuilding events
I suggest this be added as an exception to WP:ATHLETE. There a number of obscure BB events that label themselves "professional", but hardly qualify for a wiki page themselves, but are used to prop up some obscure biographies. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Lindquist for an example. Much of the bodybuilding stuff doesn't squarely fit into the athletic department, because much of the fame and money (at least in the female branch) comes from posing for various muscle magazines. I suggest that bodybuilding be treated more like WP:ENTERTAINER because of this. Pcapping21:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Disagree about treating them like entertainers, as there is a clearly defined level of fully professional. That said, I don't have the faintest idea why the hell anyone would think that article qualified.Horrorshowj (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:Athlete addition
Based on the comments above I would like to add something to the amateur section. Instead of it saying usually considered to be participation in the olympics or world championships, I would like it to read "Usually considered to be particiapation in the Olympics, World Championships, or finals of a respective country's National Championship. It seems bizare that for professionals we require only national recognition but for amateurs we require international recognition. Finals of a national championships is a very strict requirement, very few athletes would be added because of this as compared to participation in a notable professional league. I want to get some concensus before I change the article. MATThematical (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with the sentiment, but it would make the subguideline too broad. Some amateur sports are very notable; others are not. A finalist in Australian Rules Football in Russia is not inherently notable, nor is a swimming finalist in a country without an olympic swimming pool. I think its best to leave the inherent notability qualification of the subguideline narrow, and apply WP:GNG on a case-by-case basis for the narrow category of amateur athletes who may be notable despite not competing at international level. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. I too would have concerns about that. I'm already bothered about the way amateur "participation" is often a free pass for those who "participated" but never performed well, and this change would tend to make the resulting recentism worse. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure this means you are especially bothered that professionals get a free, pass. This is clearly a worse problem. I have rarely run into a page that featured an amateur who qualified under the exemption of competing in the Olympics or World Championships who did not meet WP:GNG. However, there are tons of pros who don't make GNG who get pages under the pro exemption.MATThematical (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Obviously you mean't what you said, I never insinuated you didn't, I was just pointing out that this line of logic should apply to all athletes both professionals and amateurs (which you seem to agree) if it is going to be applied. It is my view that the WP:N guidelines need not only be practical but also consistent and logical. Your concerns are certainly valid, and I actually agree with them to a point, hence the new proposal below. However, it seems like my proposal is being opposed based on a double standard. If we want to restrict the pro definition to say "professional games of the highest level, usually meant to mean the playoffs of the MLB, NHL etc. or the single most prestigious international tournament of the year" fine at least we are being consistent. From what I have seen people have given arguments based on the fact that WP:Athlete is too light as it is, and we shouldn't allow more people in. I agree it is light, but a notable national championship is at a higher level than a random mid season professional hockey game. In any one hockey or basketball game you are lucky to have 1 or 2 players be olympic caliber. Yet we hold amateurs to a different standard. It doesn't make sense. Of course the NFL is a more widely watched sport than gymnastics, but WP:GNG takes care of that, letting in all otherwise unotable pros, but not some of the top gymnasts in the world, who may not have substantial coverage, doesn't make sense. MATThematical (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Pornographic actors
I propose a slight refinement to this section after recent discussions in several AfDs where it has been argued that the pornographic actor met ARTIST but fails PORNBIO (e.g. WP:Articles_for_deletion/Michel_D'Amours and Talk:Alec Powers). These cases were due to an actor having a significant body of work (30, 50 and in one case 250+ films) with a number of these films (where they took a credited leading role) winning international awards (such as AVN awards) but without a specific award being found for the actor themselves. Consequently I suggest that "Has won a well-known award, such as ..." becomes "Has won a well-known award or had leading roles in a number of films winning well-known awards, such as ...". Ash (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Completely agree. PORNBIO is already a little broken in my eyes. This might help alleviate that since someone with a big role in a film that has been received by critics is a big deal. GNG would more than likely be met with this standard but not necessarily.Cptnono (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify that the phrasing above deliberately excludes someone only notable for appearing in one award-winning film. In such a case other supporting factors would have to be raised for notability to be achieved. In particular it would be more appropriate for an article about the notable film to be created and not separate articles about the leading actors within it. Ash (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Q: how would you define "leading role"? If we're going to place that into PORNBIO, I want it clearly spelled how it's defined. Tabercil (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
With the caveat that the film in question has won a well-known award, I suggest that either they are:
clearly noted in the cast list as "leading" (or equivalent, such as appearing in "Three Brothers" as one of the brothers),
they are one of a few actors in the cast (say, up to 4) and appear in a significant proportion of the film,
they feature as top-billing members of the cast in promotional material - for example Alec Powers is one of 4 "big-name" actors on the DVD cover of Glory Holes of Chicago when a total of 15 actors are on the cast list.
Obviously, such a definition automatically excludes compilation videos and anthologies and evidence of the above would require reliable sourcing (such as the printed DVD cover rubric or the publisher's on-line catalogue). Ash (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Rather than using the term "leading roles" in the proposed guidance, the phrase "top billing" may be a more accurate representation of the above. Ash (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
"Films winning well-known awards" would also need to be better defined. Would the AVN Awards for "Best Packaging", "Best DVD Menus" or "Best Solo Scene" count? Epbr123 (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The phrase is as currently used so you are suggesting additional refinement to the current text. I agree and suggest that "award" become something like "award (directly relevant to the subject of the biography)". If the biography were for an actor who is also the producer then production or marketing related awards may be relevant and it would be unfair to automatically exclude them. Ash (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not in favour of the proposal. Its definition is going to be too complicated and subjective, so will lead to a lot of arguments at AfD. Plus, if a performer genuinely is directly responsible for a films success, they should have received an award themselves. Also, there's no equivalent criterion for mainstream actors. As you can see from discussions above, people want the PORNBIO standards to be raised, rather than lowered. Epbr123 (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. With regard to creating more arguments, at the moment I'm seeing a lot of arguments in AfDs you have raised (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) due to interpreting PORNBIO when ARTIST is easily satisfied due to an existing notable body of work. The intent with this proposal is to avoid repeating that same debate from first principles in every similar deletion discussion. Ash (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Ash, with no slight intended, you are the only editor I can recall posing the WP:ARTIST criteria as applicable to porn performers rather than the specifically focused WP:PORNBIO. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
None taken. So far, nobody has pointed to any existing guideline that says that editors can and must only apply PORNBIO to a biography of a pornography actor. When it comes to judging their work and in a common-sense way they seem notable, yet that work does not seem to fit PORNBIO then ARTIST seems highly appropriate when considering notability of "collective body of work". Just because I am the first person you have noticed pointing this out (and to supply examples where the guidance seems inadequate), this does not make me automatically wrong. Ash (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
This is just the Playmate stuff again. But it's just as wrong here. Either there are independent, reliable sources to establish notability, or there aren't. And if those sources don't exist, we don't cover the subject. Either these notability sub-guidelines comply with N, NPOV, V and BLP, in which case they aren't harmful but probably aren't necessary, or they don't, in which case they are wrong and shouldn't be given any credence by anyone. Exceptions to policies need to be set out in the policy pages: start at WP:V and WP:BLP. Angus McLellan(Talk)15:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This appears to be a rationale to delete WP:PORNBIO altogether rather than a suggestion to improve it. Perhaps you would prefer to create a RfC to do exactly that? Ash (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Not at all: I don't care if there is or isn't a supplement to the GNG for any group of people, but I do care that it doesn't contradict the GNG or core policies. The policies are unlikely to change. Angus McLellan(Talk)17:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm forming the understanding that all sub-guidelines are supposed to be somewhat redundant to the general policy, intended to be used more or less like a local rule-of-thumb to determine notability according to our overriding policy. In this sense, the guidelines can always be contested in it's accordance with policy. Just like the "playmate criterion" is being contested as a valid rule-of-thumb for determining notability, any other criterion could be disputed just as well, without the implied need to eliminate the specific sub-guideline notability itself. --Damiens.rf18:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, in which case I do not see an issue. If an actor has had lead roles in a number of performances that have won established independent awards then the notabliity criteria of WP:ENT (point 1 and point 3) are met whether this is on stage or in film. I am proposing text that aligns PORNBIO with these criteria, not a contradiction to the GNG. At the moment there is a descrepency that is resulting in the spurious deletion of articles that otherwise meet WP:ENT and WP:ARTIST but fail to identify a reliable source for a well-known award to the individual rather than their works. Ash (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
In which case I honestly fail to understand your point. The assumption here was that the actor had appeared in films with well known awards. If reliable sources demonstrate that fact then NPOV, V and BLP are not an issue. Ash (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The point is that "appeared in films" is not part of the general notability guideline, nor is it mentioned in policies like verifiability, neutral point of view and biographies of living persons. It's coverage in independent, reliable sources that's needed to satisfy policy. One film could make someone notable, and allow an article to be written that met each and every applicable policy, if it led to the sources existing; a thousand might not make someone notable, nor let us write a neutral point of view encyclopedia article, if the sources didn't exist. Arbitrary criteria like awards or appearances don't really matter, independent reliable sources are what matter. Uncle G's essay remains as valid today as when he wrote it. Angus McLellan(Talk)19:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The proposed text is not "appeared in films" but a clarification that the actor had lead roles in several award-winning notable films, with records of the awards being reliably sourced. The clarification appears to address all the issues you have raised here. Ash (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The subject specific guidelines are a substitute for the general, but still have to meet WP:V. That's why the general says meet any of the guidelines at right. This is as it should be. The GNG inspires great ideological fervor, and sounds like a great idea, but in practical application it's ridiculously vague and easy to abuse. The additional criteria may be arbitrary, but at least applying them isn't completely subjective.Horrorshowj (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
There is no suggestion in the proposed wording that we ignore WP:V. I agree that PORNBIO is arbitrary, my proposal makes it slightly less so, particularly considering the Paul Carrigan deletion example. Ash (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Damien had incorrectly stated that only general mattered, and everything else was redundant. I was replying to his comment, which is why it's tabbed at that level. I'm not really sure that the proposed change improves anything, or if it just complicates things more.Horrorshowj (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Support the User:Ash modification. It adds clarity to this often disputed and muddied sub-guideline and would act to reduce arguments at AFD. Also, I advise clarification of the term "well-known" in PORNBIO #2, as it is a subjective term open to cultural and systemic bias. I further suggest adding a PORNBIO #6 that allows for consideration of an actor's historical contributions or impact in the porn genre for eras that predate the modern awards listed in PORNBIO #1 or the modern organizations listed in PORNBIO #4. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.04:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
There are many awards on the list that are no where near the general understood description well known, a promotional award given by a simple pornographic magazine is not imo a well known award , I would like to see this list discussed. Off2riorob (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence to support your claim that they aren't? It really seems like you're just arguing that anything you haven't heard of, or don't like, must not qualify. You appear to be talking specifically about the AVN, which has 1270 gnews hits [8], including NPR and the New York Times[9], and the award ceremony is televised on Showtime. Cat 1 has held up at several hundred afd, and there have been at least four discussions of the matter on either the project or the various notability pages. Horrorshowj (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not arguing anything, just commenting, a discussion is the most I would accept and I assure you it is not that I simply don't like it or I haven't heard of it, it is my position that the notability levels for articles in this field appear to be set a bit low. I thought the idea was that notability has to be asserted, it is not for me to provide evidence that they are not notable, notability is not the default position, actually I am not talking about any particular award as yet but there are couple I have looked at and thought them imo to be not well known awards,I simply wanted to get a clarification of what the level of expectation is presently set at and then look at the list and see if awards are there that are below the expectations and possibly adding a comment to the list or the policy setting a clear guideline as to what the phrase well known article actually represents. However, there is a lot under discussion here and I think it better to wait until a couple of other issues have been closed. Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between your claimed position and your actions on the guideline. Since you're challenging a repetitively discussed consensus, it actually is your responsibility to provide factual support for your position. At the very least, go through the archives and familiarize yourself with previous discussions. I will point out that last time Athlete came up somebody decided to use Pornbio as a strawman argument, so I actually counted them. There were roughly the same number of total articles in the categories for porn performers (male, female and transexual) as there were for American Football Linebackers (roughly 1200). There were 7000 screening tests for performers last year by AIM. Throw in international sites and you're looking at the entire industry's history being represented by about 1/9 the number of current performers, including a great many who are. On a percentage basis Pornbio is actually one of the hardest to pass based on the additional criteria, and became even harder with the changes earlier this year. If you are claiming that additional criterium is to easy to meet, exactly how difficult in comparison to the rest are you demanding?Horrorshowj (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you confusing me with somebody else? Which actions have I taken as regards this guideline? Your statistics are good but I don't see a connection, I am not also comparing anything also, as I said I just feel that the entry qualifications for this field are set a bit low in specific regards as I said to the point having won a well known award, thats all and I just think it is worth discussion, Other guidelines that I think are a bit low are professors or academics and perhaps athletes. Off2riorob (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment I think that the word "several" (in ANYBIO and ARTIST) should be redefined as "2 or more". The words "several" and "couple" have different meanings to different people. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
There was a redefinition of the sentence being proposed, this is not the same thing as claiming that "several" might mean "two". Ash (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
From m-w.com - "2 a : more than one b : more than two but fewer than many c: (chiefly dialect) being a great many", but that's beside the point. I'm proposing that the wording be changed, several be removed due to vagaries, and a specific number be set. I'm proposing it be two or more. Rationale: one nomination is BLP1E and three or more is too restrictive. Thoughts on this? - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see nominations removed from the criteria altogether. There are currently too many unexpandable stub articles on award winners, let alone nominees. Epbr123 (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
That appears an odd statement, wanting to delete all these stub articles. This would make "adult entertainment" a very special exception to the consensus on deletion of articles. I understood that the big issue on Talk:List_of_male_performers_in_gay_porn_films was that a large number of people did not want red-links (or in fact any mention of actors without articles created due to potentially defaming them by implying they might be gay) even when there were footnotes explaining what awards they had. Now you don't want stub articles either, does that mean that your objective is to purge any mention of actors who have won notable awards from Wikipedia just because they have been credited with gay pornography and they are not otherwise generally notable? If you don't want them mentioned on a list and don't want articles for them then I cannot think of where else they would be mentioned. I imagine there are very few actors both notable for pornography and that are generally notable. I think we should take care to apply the spirit of NOTCENSORED. Ash (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
You've already been warned about assuming bad faith. This discussion is about redefining ANYBIO and ARTIST, not PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) That's not very nice, you appear to be referring to an ANI discussion that is yet to complete. The section you are writing in is called "Pornographic actors" so if I missed the fact this thread had drifted off-topic, perhaps you could give me an ounce of good faith? If your objective is to scare me off you are doing a darn good job. With admins setting the example it has been made blatantly clear that people who attempt to create articles in this topic are going to encounter hard-line resistance at every turn. Since starting to create articles on actors in gay pornography I have been quizzed about possible COI with no supporting evidence, accused of making personal attacks and repeatedly threatened with admin action. Nothing has come of these threats but any editor must quickly tire of such nonsense. You will probably recommend that I need to take a break from this topic, it appears rather too toxic to contribute to for any length of time. Ash (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The Paul Carrigan example deletion
In order to support the above proposal of a refinement of wording of PORNBIO, I would like to highlight the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Carrigan where PORNBIO is being used as an extremely heavy blunt instrument. Corrigan happens to be the second most credited actor in the history gay pornography (with IAFD showing 250+ credited roles) and has had leading roles in many award winning films. Contrast his impact on the field with Christopher Ashlee who amazingly passes PORNBIO because he was once named (along with seven other actors) in a group scene award in a 2009 Grabby but is notable for absolutely nothing else and has been credited with just 2 not-particularly-notable films. The proposed deletion of this article about a notable veteran of gay pornography is being strongly defended and may well go through, which appears a triumph of literalness over common-sense. Ash (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
This could be taken as a non-neutral canvass-type note - as you clearly are not neutral in the AfD and are specifically claiming it is a "poor deletion nomination" despite current consensus there agreeing it is a valid one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 18:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Fair comment, thanks for pointing this out. I can see how it may have read as canvassing and I have removed the offending text in the sub-title. My intent was to highlight an example for the clarification of PORNBIO rather than canvass for comments in the linked AfD. Rational comments for deletion or to keep in any of the AfDs mentioned are welcome. Ash (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I know the hockey project has in the past taken WP:ATHLETE to include referees. Because atleast in hockey, you follow basically the same structure to get to the top referee positions as you do to get to the top level of play. And in hockey referees names become fairly notable as they are often mentioned in the press and different ones have different reputations etc. But in general, I would use WP:BIO to them anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
In hockey where referees develop a reputation from being mentioned in the press, they basically make wiki bio notability anyway. I agree with you that in general it is best to apply wiki bio standards here.MATThematical (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Every playmate is notable
Some recent afd discussion have raised attention to a notability guideline that says that every Playboy playmate is indisputably notable. This is item 3 of Wikipedia:PORNBIO.
That's a good point about 1E. If further notability beyond that "month" isn't there, I would agree that 1E should override it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
These things are never simple, are they? Isn't an award more like a kind of secondary source in itself, in that it is a determination of notability of what has come before? If an award is really "major", then wouldn't there always have been prior apparent notability? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
It certainly seems arbitrary. Being featured by one particular magazine once? Seems a relatively easy way to get automatic notability in comparison to other areas. Dougweller (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that earning or winning an major award based on an accomplishment would be grounded on a significant series of events or work. This is far different from an one time selection to be featured in a magazine, even a notable one such as Playboy. Playboy playmate of the months is much more like an one time event, so BLP1E would apply, yes. FloNight♥♥♥♥22:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not totally in favour of this part of PORNBIO, but there are many users who believe being chosen as a Playboy Playmate is equivalent to winning an award. Epbr123 (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
When someone wins an Oscar Awards or a Nobel Awards (or even some of many less-known-but-still-notable awards), it comes as an acknowledge of the person's outstanding work in some area. Strictly speaking, it's not the award, but the "work", that makes the person notable, the award being only a strong indictment of notability.
Being selected to be featured on the cover of Playboy is not an acknowledgement of outstanding work in any area. It's an acknowledgement of an outstanding body. This per itself does not makes anyone notable. --Damiens.rf14:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
A corollary problem is that there isn't just the American flagship version of Playboy to consider. Is every Playmate in every international version of Playboy notable? There are at least a dozen international versions currently in publication. (France, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Estonia, Greece, Romania, Colombia, Argentina, Mexico, Spain, Venezuela, etc.) Seems US-centric to me to deem US Playmates notable but not Colombian or Greek ones. Townlake (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Interesting observation. This somewhat dilutes the significance of the recognition since it localizes it.I agree that we would need to include all or none if we include the Playmates. As I state above, I don't think that a Playmate is an award that would mean the person is automatically notable. One for-profit publication highlighting a person is not indicative that they have accomplishments from outstanding work. It seems to me that this is much narrower type of recognition and would fall under BLP1E. FloNight♥♥♥♥17:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The American Playboy probably has a much higher circulation than the Colombian or Greek versions, so the American Playmates are more likely to be notable. Epbr123 (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree, but the current guideline doesn't say that. I would be perfectly happy if all Playmates worldwide were deemed notable, but I think this is a standard that ought to be clarified. Townlake (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) I'm not seeing the amount of circulation of the magazine as being tied to the notability of the person. The point of selecting the Playmate is magazine sales. So circulation is related to the notability of the magazine not the person. I'm still not convinced that an one time appearance in a notable magazine is more than BLP1E. FloNight♥♥♥♥20:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The notability of the magazine is related to notability of its model. It similar to how the star of a blockbuster film is more likely to be notable than the star of a B-movie. Epbr123 (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think circulation gets us anywhere here. The point above was that it is culturally narrow to assume that U.S. Playmates are more notable than those from smaller nations. The rebuttal was that, based on circulation, the U.S. Playmates are more likely to be notable. But none of that gets to whether any of them are notable. The original argument, that, absent other GNG evidence of notability, being selected is 1E, remains correct. It's very unconvincing to say that there is something notable about a particular Playmate that led the magazine to select her for that month, in a way that would be comparable to being selected for a major award. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The main reason for the criteria is that it's a fairly good indicator of whether a model passes WP:GNG, as Playmates tend to have received coverage. Penthouse Pets were recently removed from this criteria as it became clear that most didn't received much coverage. 1E would be an issue if the coverage received by Playmates mainly focused on them being chosen as Playmates. Epbr123 (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
In many occasions, this is exactly the case. For many playmates, there's nothing written about them that is not directly related to the cover appearance, and for some others, there's not really any coverage outside Playboy publications themselves. --Damiens.rf00:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I've just looked at the Google News hits for all the Playmates of the 1990s, and 85 out of 120 had significant coverage that didn't violate BLP1E. Epbr123 (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
You know this "playmate" thing didn't start at the 90s, right? By the way, congrats for the huge work! Checking the level of coverage of 120 people on Google news? Astonishing. --Damiens.rf13:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
If 85 pass GNG then let them stay. I personally feel that Playmates are not notable if Pets are not. Getting either is a good step towards meeting significant coverage. In regards to international versions mentioned above, the one Playboy I have from France has the same chick published in the States (Sung-Hi Lee is hot). Do different countries get different spreads? I assumed a Playmate in the US was a playmate in Greece.Cptnono (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Nope. There's possibly some overlap, but all the recent international versions I've seen lately have had none. A lot of the international versions strive to localize their content as much as possible to appeal to local markets; they'll sometimes have one-page one-picture articles on US Playmates, but won't use them in the centerfold. Townlake (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Playboy was at its peak in earlier decades, so the Playmates before the 90s should be even more notable, although the availability of online sources on them would be less. Epbr123 (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Like many of the WP:BIO criteria, its so we don't delete articles on people who probably have coverage somewhere, but the coverage is hard to find, such as Playmates in the 1960s. Epbr123 (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Then I guess the question is "why not?" That just seems to encourage people to do it wrong, i.e. to rely on subguidelines rather than actually finding the sourcing. Finding and citing the sourcing in every individual case is the requirement, not just asserting it's probably out there somewhere. And realistically, 80 of 120 is only a 2/3 success rate, so we're far from being able to say they're "all notable"—it seems a check showed only 2 of 3 even possibly are, and that's providing the remaining sourcing is actually reliable and in depth for those other 80. SeraphimbladeTalk to me14:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
That's an argument against WP:BIO in general, rather than this criteria. There are other WP:BIO criteria that would have a much lower than 2/3 success rate. Epbr123 (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The fact that other problem exists should not stop us from improving this one. We should concentrate the discussion on either or not this criterion is bad, and not on how it badly it compares to other (possibly just as bad) criteria. --Damiens.rf15:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
(Outdent)As people began writing the specific notability guidelines these guidelines began to take on a life of their own and now are seen by too many people as the main controlling factor about whether an article should remain on site. And it gets worse when people justify keeping one set of articles because another group are just as likely to be flawed about whether they are an good indication of our ability to write a comprehensive verifiable neutral article. We need to step back and look at the big picture by putting the notability guidelines into proper perspective as we make decisions about keeping a single article or set of articles.
If we are not able to craft an article that gives a comprehensive verifiable neutral account of the person then we are not writing an biographical article about the person. Instead we need to look for other ways to present the content so that it gives an accurate and complete presentation of the material that is available about the person. For example, pages with brief profiles about several Playmate would be more realistic way to cover most of these people. If they are notable beyond this and other information is readily available, then that person can have a separate entry. FloNight♥♥♥♥16:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Following up on this but admittedly tangentially, I once took a tiny radio station to AfD only to be told that there was an informal guideline by precedent that because it had an FCC licence it was automatically notable (a 2006 document was cited). I find this sort of "No, you can't AfD this because we didn't AfD such things in 2006" ridiculous, but have no idea what to do about it except moan occasionally. Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a fine balancing act, between WP:CCC and trying to provide shortcuts for editors to understand what's kept and not without having to find out the hard way. WP:OUTCOMES has been under attack recently by editors (well, primarily one) who doesn't like cataloging past outcomes--or at least not in any way that could be cited in future AfD's. Jclemens (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
My experience is that it is self-perpetuating and used as a fiat -- a trump card that overrules anything else. Which seems to be pretty inevitable. 'This is the way we did it last year so that's the way we do it now', despite the fact that our standards, guidelines and policies have changed. Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Personally, I think things would be better if the thing was deleted, but that will never happen. Instead, it is contiuiously used against its own instructions as a reason to keep. I've seen it as well for tiny radio stations, tiny high schools in little 300 people towns, etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 17:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
(outdent)This conversation seems to be dying, but I hope something will come of it. I don't think this piece of WP:BIO criteria should trump BLP1E, I don't think there's a rational argument that Playmate of the Month (American or otherwise) is an "award", and I don't think that all Playmates of all time should be labeled "pornstars" by Wikipedia. There are really a lot of problems with this criteria that deserve community attention beyond shot-at-the-bow AFDs. Townlake (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Bit of history
Just as a bit of history, the criteria has been created on April 2009, because it "reflects consensus of wikiproject pornography".
The change followed a internal discussion in the Wikiproject:Pornography. I didn't read it all but, by searching case-insensitive for "playmate" in the page and reading around the relevant discussion/context, I believe the criteria was added after a general belief that playmates will always be covered by multiple third party sources. Also, the criteria seemed to have evolved from a view that "being a playmate" is an award, what was disputed on the discussion, when some users noticed that playmates are almost always unknown faces "discovered" by the magazine.
Just for your information, the original notability criteria for porn stars, which included the Playmate criterion, was formed in 2006 after discussions here. Epbr123 (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see anything on that page that looks like a consensus to have this criterion. The criterion is proposed, but always refuted. --Damiens.rf02:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I am going to object because I want to review first the uncited recent AfD discussion that have demonstrated that community consensus on this issue has changed. This debate has been ongoing since at least 2008. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to oppose after reviewing what I believe is the afd that triggered this discussion.[10] I don't believe community consensus has changed on this notability issue. Per WP:VOTE, under the policies and guidelines header, guidelines describe current practice. Changing the guidelines on this issue is controversial and contentious as seen by the debate. Being BOLD and changing it despite this will result in a just as bold edit war to change it back. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Those AFDs used this criterion as a defense, and now the criterion is being defended based on the AFDs.This circular argument actually avoids a real discussion over the merits of this criterion. --Damiens.rf19:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Object to such a significant change at this point, as it would impact the viability of many articles and the work editors have put into them. Recommend RFC or a similar outlet with a broader audience. Townlake (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
"Impact the viability of many articles" is not exactly a great argument for not fixing a problematic guideline. The articles that become "inviable" are those which shouldn't have been created to begin with.
You misunderstand my point about the viability of articles. I'm not saying the criteria shouldn't be corrected because of editors' previous reliance on the criteria. I'm saying the criteria should be corrected through sustainable consensus-building because it'll change something editors have been relying on for a while. We are talking about removing a lot of work from WP; I think respect for the community indicates toward doing that in an orderly fashion (if it is to happen). Townlake (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Meh. I'm torn. On the one hand, I do tend to agree that being a Playmate in and of itself might not be sufficient for notability. On the other hand, we have events such as conventions where the primary draw are the Playmates (though the exact name is eluding me at the moment). Plus there is the fact that my fingerprints are on PORNBIO and to that small extent I do feel like it's my baby. And then I have this half-fear that if this criteria gets dropped, someone's gonna shove every Playmate through PROD and AFD at once... but the biggest gripe I have right now is that it seems to be a small number of editors trying to make a change to a notability criteria that was crafted by a project which (beyond Epbr123) they aren't a part of. If you can show consensus beyond the small group of people discussing above that Playmates are not notable, then I will fully support it as it will mean there is broad community support. Tabercil (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Be careful not to count heads instead of judging arguments. If you believe most playmates articles are PRODable without this criterion, then it's surely a BLP#1E case.
I'm trying not to count heads, I just to ensure that it's a community consensus and not the feedback from a very noisy subset of the larger whole. And I'm quite aware of Epbr123's report earlier of 85 out of 120 '90s Playmates being notable outside of Playboy; I guess I'm just cynical enough that some idiot's gonna take the removal of Playmate as a measure of notability and use that to try and purge all the Playboy stuff from Wikipedia. Tabercil (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose This additional criteria is pretty well supported at AfD. It was subdivided out from the main awards criteria after Pets were held insufficient in a few AfD's and discussions. Also, Tabercil is right, if it's not concretely listed somebody will try pushing the majority of these through prod or afd; counting on inattentiveness or I don't like it to kill ones that should pass gng. Horrorshowj (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Please, clarify a point, since I'm probably getting this wrong. Are you and Tabercil agreeing that most articles on playmates would be PRODable under lack of notability if it wasn't for a criterion explicitly stating that playmates are notable? --Damiens.rf15:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Not so fast there. Playmates are considered to be notable by the particpants of WP:P*, because we recognize that they tend to gather a good deal of publicity from that status. Someone gets into trouble with the law for assaulting someone at a club? Probably won't make the paper. If a Playmate gets in trouble with the law for the same thing? It stands a good chance of getting reported at some level: Carmella DeCesare as seen here. By explicitly stating that a Playmate is notable, we short-circuit a lot of contentiousness about the issue. Tabercil (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Any article that hasn't already survived a prod or AfD is theoretically PRODable by instruction. Even if it meets the GNG it can still be tagged for prod, and chances can be increased by claiming trivial coverage. If the article isn't on someone's watchlist... Unfortunately, overworked administrators usually don't verify claims about coverage even on AfDs. We're cynical about the nomination prospects, because dealing with a crusader is nearly a weekly occurrence for us.Horrorshowj (talk) 05:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Not a vote, but I do fully support changing this (and the comparatively ridiculous guidelines under athletes, but that's a different discussion and this is a good start). There is no inherent notability. If "all Playmates are notable", there's one way they can be—they've been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources. Is that true? Go source them. Why do you need to now? Sourcing is not a nicety or something to do when you get around to it, it is a requirement from the first edit, and that goes triple for biographies and ten times over for biographies making an inherently contentious claim (that someone was in a porn magazine). If you ensure to have reliable and in-depth sourcing in front of you before you start the article, as you should, and ensure to cite it, as you also should, you'll never even have to deal with a deletion discussion, let alone a successful one, unless they're poor or trivial sources (in which case we're back to the "Why did you start the article?" question.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphimblade (talk • contribs) 05:15, February 2, 2010
Yeah - the fact that many recent Playmates don't have coverage beyond the one modeling job and related PR appearances pretty much guts the argument that the sources exist but are just hard to find. If Playmates aren't easy to source in the Internet age, this criterion should fail. I'd start an RFC, but I don't understand the protocols involved in doing so. Townlake (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Let's see... it is somewhat tougher than the standard: the "any biography" standard states "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one." The PORNBIO standard states that only people who win in the specific categories are eligible, and nominations only count if in multiple years. For instance, a common accolade in the porn inductry is the "Twistys Treat of the Month" (as reported here), yet that was deemed non-notable. And the multiple years nominations is to ensure the focus is on notable porn stars, which are presumably those who have been in the business for some years. But we're talking about the Playmate criteria, not PORNBIO in general. And one last question: how is the "hundreds of awards" for porn any different from the Grammys which, by my count of the entries on List of Grammy Award categories, gave out 145 awards last Sunday night? Tabercil (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd support removing it. It is BLP1E, regardless of what an "honor" it is. Many Playmates do go on to establish notability, like appearing in movies etc. But notability solely based on a one time selection as a Playmate is wrongheaded. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. It's not an "award" nor is it an "event." Playmates are the subject of a monthly feature that is the very core of the Playboy magazine and brand identity, and they retain association with the Playboy brand and company long after the issue has left the newsstands, often through public appearances or modeling in other Playboy publications, and always through reprints of the centerfolds and pictorials in compilations. The company's motto is "Once a Playmate, Always a Playmate". Playboy in particular has been very successful at establishing this cultural identity far outside of the actual audience of Playboy (think of the jokes in Married...with Children, for example, about Ted's obsessive memory of Playmates from issues in his youth), and it invests a lot in nostalgic recaps of the history of Playmates (Penthouse Pets clearly less so). BLP1E is being stretched beyond all recognition in attempts to apply it here. postdlf (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
While your arguments validate the (undisputed) point that the concept of Playboy Playmate is notable, it does nothing to support that every playboy playmate is notable on herself. Being selected as a Playboy Playmate is an event, regardless of what you said. Reprints don't take away the WP:BLP#1E character of the issue. People famous for just one newsworthy event will be "remembered" every time the news-tory is reprinted as well, that won't make them any more notable.
Of course, it sometimes (often) happens that Playmates become celebrities, models, actress, whatever.... In this case, they will be notable due to third part coverage and will not need to rely on item #3 of WP:PORNBIO. This criterion can only help the playmates that didn't achieved any notability, and its omission will never damage a really notable playmate. --Damiens.rf17:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Reducing it all to an "event" of "selection" is a very strange way to characterize it; you'd have a point if all the company did was announce a name of a sexy woman every month. But the substance of it is a lasting, published product (the photos and profile in the issue), associated with the permanent branding of the model as a "Playmate" by the powers that be. If it can be reduced to anything, it's a modeling and public relations gig. Really, if that qualifies as an "event" under BLP1E than that criteria is beyond useless, but it seems clear to me that WP:BLP#1E is talking about one-off news stories, so as to protect people who are coincidentally involved in public incidents. It's not about people doing a job (which is what modeling for Playboy is) and producing a published, commercially marketed and sold product. postdlf (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you agree that item #3 can only be used to help playmates that could never be anything more that just a playmate? Even those that have become mediocre actress or models will be notable without relying on "I was a playmate". --Damiens.rf18:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Not according to Tabercil. I believe he says that every playmate ends up being notable beyond her playmate status, and this criterion exists only to "short-circuit" possible discussions. Experience, thought, shows that sometimes former playmates are never mentioned beyond her status of being a playmate. Do you see the issue just as him, or you believe that once you're a playmate, you don't need to do anything more to become notable (even if all third parts sources conspire to ignore your existence)? --Damiens.rf18:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
We could view notability as a matter of the inherent notability of certain subject matter, or solely as a matter of counting sources rather, but fact-based notability criteria would still be valid as presumptions that sufficient reliable sources exist (or will exist) for particular subjects, even if we don't have those sources at present. I'm quite comfortable with this criteria under either perspective. postdlf (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand your view. What I dispute here is that (1) being a Playboy Playmate is inherently notable (in the "spirit" of WP:N) and (2) that every Playboy Playmate will eventually become notable.
Saying that in a less formal way, if item #3 is correct, it's unnecessary. If its' necessary, then it's incorrect. --Damiens.rf19:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I support removal. Well, I would do, wouldn't I? See my comparison with Vogue covers below (postdlf's comments about reprints apply to these too). And my whiny remarks in the AfD would be relevant too. Angus McLellan(Talk)00:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Completely agree with removal. The almost double standard alone (Penthouse is not too far behind circulation wise) makes it an issue. Decades ago being a Playmate was relevant. Playboy Cyber Girl of the Month receives just as much attention with nowadays (dang kids and their new media) so cute girl from Kansas is really just another person we get to see naked. Many go on to receive significant coverage. They don't warrant an article here if not.Cptnono (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with the notion that Playmatehood has become irrelevant, and with the comparison of Cybergirls to Playmates (the former title isn't broadly known in pop culture, the latter title is the basis of numerous movies, songs, and long-term academic studies). I do agree with your destination - that there shouldn't be a notability exception here - but I disagree with how you get there. Townlake (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
"Irrelevant" might have been strong but being a Playmate now doesn't hold the same weight as it once did. And most of the big names are big for doing other things which means they satisfy GNG. But you are right, I wouldn't tell a friend if she got it "You suck and it isn't a big deal, sweetheart." :) .Cptnono (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Criterion #3 needs to be removed. Just being one isn't enough of a boost to notability, it's a BLP1E. Nor does it guarantee an eventual rise to the top in some celebrity based career. Nor is it an "award" except in the very loosest sense. Nor is it unique enough to be automatic. Time for this one to go. ++Lar: t/c04:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
New Point I'd like to start a different, but related train of thought that is a little less US-focussed. In the UK our big national newspapers regularly feature a topless model on Page Three. The largest circulation daily UK newspaper The Sun has a daily circulation of about 3 million - which is greater than the monthly circulation of US Playboy. I would argue that a regular Page Three model should be equal criteria for notability, if not greater on sheer circulation (and hence notability) terms.
Regular Page Three models often become reference points in UK culture (and further around the world. Again there is the perennial porn problem of finding information about their real lives rather than the descriptions given under their working name(s), but it is quite frustrating to find only deleted pages to refer to these people. 80.41.164.144 (talk) 08:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
NEW PROPOSAL Based on the comments in the above discussion, I am changing the proposal to "competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games, World Championships, or the finals of a notable National Championship". This does not change the requirement but just clarifies what the highest level of an amateur sport means. Another option is to use the current wording but remove the word usually, and replace it with for example. The main point of this proposal is that the highest level of competition very often (often enough to justify the removal of the word usually) is at a national and not necessarily only at the international level.
Take the women's 100 meters in track. Out of the top 25 athletes in the world 17 of them were from the USA. The 4th - 8th place finishers in the National championships may not make WP:GNG, but meet WP:Athlete, because they competed at the highest level of their sport, due to their particular country having a notable national championship. I am not really changing the exemption for amateurs at all, just clarifying the incorrect statement that for an amateur, usually the highest level of their sport means olympics or world championships. That is simply false. If the national championship of a given country is notable as an athletic event, then it is almost always at the highest level of the sport. To say the Olympics or world championships is usually considered to be the highest level of the sport, is like saying if a football player does not make WP:GNG he is only notable if he competes in the playoffs. I just think we should make the exception for professionals and amateurs consistent.MATThematical (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
No. If the standard is inherently controversial and requires mucho explanation, it shouldn't be added here. GNG is already full of too many end-arounds and is already too often misapplied without more stuff like this. Townlake (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Politely oppose - this opens the door to far too many non-notable athletes. Speaking from a strictly US-centric viewpoint, this opens up the possibility of articles for any collegiate athlete who competes in an NCAA national championship in football, soccer, cross country, softball, fencing, wrestling, skiing, shooting, bowling, etc. Not all of these athletes are notable. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
It does not open that possibility at all. An NCAA championship is not a national championship. It is a collegiate championship. A national championship is one that is open to the best athletes in the country regardless of whether they went to college. Some NCAA athletes make it to the finals of a national championship, but very few are good enough to do so. But you definitely point out something we have to be wary about, because we definitely don't want an NCAA championship working its way in here, because in my experience an NCAA championship is never at the highest level.MATThematical (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
That is a matter of opinion based on how the proposal is worded, as I suspect many people do consider collegiate championship as national championships ... The proposal would have to be very specific in excluding national collegiate championships. In many cases, the national collegiate championships are far more notable than the other amateur championships (for example, in wrestling, the NCAA championships are televised while the true national championships are hardly noted in any major newspapers or sports programs. Given this, I am not sure that national championships grant notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Interesting example. My guess is that depending on the wording both would not automatically grant notability since for wrestling the true national championships may not be considered a "notable national championship". I think that you might be right that some people would consider the NCAA champs a national championship, and careful wording might get lengthy. Do you think the compromise of removing "usually" and replacing it with "often" or "for example" is a good one. In my opinion "usually" is too strong, but perhaps it is necessary to set a high standard in people's mind when they create pages. My only concern is whether athletes in sports where national championships are the highest level of competition (equivalent or better than the Olympics) are being restricted here. Perhaps these athlete's pages would survive on a case by case basis, when accessing how high a level their national championship is. After all even "usually" doesn't mean always. So do you think the word "usually" still leaves enough room for personal judgment in an AfD discussion. MATThematical (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
A compromise: would be to abandon my proposal and just take out the word "usually" and replace it with something a little more accurate and a little less strong like "often", or "for example", the word usually is inherently controversial, because it is factually inaccurate. There are many sports where strong countries are limited to a couple of participants in the Olympics or world championships. Their national championships are at a higher level than the Olympics, this is actually very common. My guess is that highest level trumps the usually part, so perhaps in AfDs this could be done on a case by case basis. But I think "often" makes more sense here.MATThematical (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose. I am sure that this proposal is made in good faith, but really: enough is enough. The current looseness of the notability guidelines is leading to the creation and retention of far too many biographies of relatively obscure people who don't meet WP:GNG. They are likely to be hard to reference unless kept as tiny stubs, and the scale of the proliferation of makes them hard to patrol for BLP problems. Given the recent demonstrations of wikipedia's BLP vulnerability, we need this attempt to create a further class of GNG-exempt BLPs rather less than we need to be rubbing salt into a hole in our heads. And it's not as if sportspeople is exactly one of wikipedia's less-thoroughly-covered topics. We need fewer exemptions to GNG, not more of them, and even Jimbo has recently been bemoaning the current laxness of the notability thresholds. It's time to delete some of these GNG-end-runs, and since the nominator is concerned about consistency, I suggest a simple solution: remove WP:ATH, and keep only those sports biographies which comply with WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Your simple solution is perfect! In fact, it is the one I proposed a long time ago (at least a half a year ago), but if I remember correctly it didn't take too well. Getting rid of WP:Athlete has always been my preferred solution, way better than loosening the amateur requirement. I am a big fan of consistency and this would definitely be the most logical and consistent thing to do.MATThematical (talk) 04:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Agree with BHG above. WP:ATH is too prescriptive and wide as it is (covering anyone who's come off the sub bench in Football League Two is rather absurd). If a non-international amateur athlete is genuinely notable, there'll be coverage to get them past WP:GNG. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I think that Mkativerata hit the nail on the head. The change suggested is not necessary for the people that it indicates need to be included. The general guideline will be sufficient for that purpose. --Bejnar (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose The current guideline is already very broad. You're not considering how this will actually be applied at AfD. There are at least 3 Powerlifting organizations in the US with national championships. The NCAA has 4 divisions of athletics, and every athlete on every football team in divisions 1AA-III would suddenly qualify by virtue of being in a national championship tournament. Pretty sure that would apply to most other sports also. Every player on every team in any NCAA title tourney. International competition is a reasonably high bar for an exemption, to the vote stacking guideline.Horrorshowj (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Pornographic actors and models notability level
Pornographic actors and models notability level
This is regarding WP:PORNBIO specifically these conditions:-
(2) Has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years
It seems to me that we have a raft of article about what are basically not notable porn actors that are singe line stubs and have no chance of ever developing into a decent biography. These actors are gaining inclusion through what I feel is a very low notability threshold of being a recipient of what is supposed to be a well know industry award. There also appears to be no clear definition as to what conditions are met for inclusion on this list. I would like to see inclusion for this field of people raised to a decent level which would remove the possibility of these one line stubs that so and so has won some low level industry advertising award. For example this sort of thing, recently created, Adam Bristol and Bruce Hill . Please comment, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
This is a problem with WP:ANYBIO, not WP:PORNBIO. ANYBIO has allowed a raft of stubs on people of various professions, not just porn stars. I don't see why porn stars should be singled out. Epbr123 (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
It is not singling anything out apart from this specific two points that I have numbered above, the two articles I have linked to are not being allowed to be created because of ANYBIO but have been granted notability through as I said, the low level of inclusion through having won what is called a well known award and this what is at issue here. Off2riorob (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
As the creator of both these articles, I would like to point out that I only created these stubs because they were deleted from the List of male performers in gay porn films. The only way to make the list comprehensive (for award winners), in the current environment of hard-line interpretation of BLP, was to go ahead and create stub articles using the exact same references that had already been included in the list they were deleted from, in order to "prove" there were no BLP concerns. Perhaps you could suggest an alternative compromise? Ash (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I want to see the level for inclusion raised, so as to a level that for example the two articles I have linked to here become below the threshold for notability, lets face it, one link to a industry advertising award is a pretty worthless stub, the people that benefit the most through it are likely the pornographic magazine that is linked to the award, Ash himself has said of the two stubs I have linked to here, that he only created them so that he would then be allowed to re-add them to the pornographic actors list, which is not really a good reason to create BLP stubs. Off2riorob (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I do believe it would be highly odd for Wikipedia to have no mention of award winners (I can think of no non-industry sponsored awards for gay pornography). As to whether these articles have "no chance of ever developing into a decent biography" as you claim is less certain. I disagree with you as I have no idea how you would prove such a claim, particularly if improvement is impossible as the articles get deleted on sight and the barriers for creating a stub are so high that it becomes impossible to establish and then improve a new biography in this area. Generally, as stated before elsewhere, my concern is that Wikipedia is developing a natural bias against actors involved in gay pornography that is non-American and dating before 1995. Even where the work of such actors has well known significant cultural impact on gay identity of the 70s-90s decades (gay identity of the period being highly influenced by increasing sexual liberation) it would be remarkably difficult to identify sources (such as gay erotic magazines and reviews) to firmly substantiate this sort of notability if award winners are not an exception to the automatic delete-on-sight policies being lobbied for. Ash (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Well that a bit floral, we are not talking about that this actor has as you claim had a significant impact on sexual identity, those actors are few and far between and I can name most of them and they all qualify as notable in their own right, also this is not a anti homosexual bias, recently I was involved in the discussion that saw the level of notability rise for female playmates when the automatic centerfold inclusion was removed. What we are talking about here is a pretty much unknown porno actor that was given a industry self advertising award in 1993 for a great blowjob the stub says, Pornographic actor who won a grabby in 1995 for great blowjob , usually with a single industry citation. Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I have made no claim of anti-homosexual bias. If you read the bias guideline I referenced it primarily concerns geographic bias. Please do not characterize my comments in this way as it would easy to misinterpret as a claim of homophobia.
I made no claim that any actors mentioned here have significant impact on sexual identity, you appear to be attempting to make a parody of the point I was trying to make. I do not appreciate de-railing my comment in this way.
You are assuming that the awards mentioned in the stub articles are all that could ever be found for these actors. Your assumption is not based on anything but your personal speculation. As these articles have only existed for a short time, there have been barely any contributions apart from mine. Consequently I see little grounds for your presumption that they can never be improved.
From the way you are describing the awards ("great blowjob") you obviously feel that an award for best oral sex scene or best three-way are always going to be trivial by their nature. Consequently your viewpoint appears to be that no pornographic actor could ever be considered notable for their performance. Such performances by definition are going to be sexual, a fact you appear to have a problem with. If your viewpoint is that all such articles should always be deleted due to their fundamental nature, then we can have no common ground for agreement here and I see little value in you continuing to contribute to the discussion. Ash (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I am always willing to compromise, please don't over complicate the issues and personalize the discussion, it's not about you or about me, it's a simple discussion, there are multiple articles of a similar nature that have existed for lengthier periods of time that are similar stubs. I would like to see the level of notability acceptance through this well known award clause raised a little that is all. IMO a lot of these awards are not well known at all. The suggestion above to change the wording to notable award is a good reflection of the issue, any industry advertising award that can be cited to a few independent locations becomes notable, to be in receipt of one such award is not imo the level of general notability that is a worthy level of wikipedia entry. Off2riorob (talk) 18:33, 7 March
2010 (UTC)
You're not censoring articles on porn performers, you're just demanding a significantly higher standard of notability for them than any other category of bio? I've already pointed out numerically how few meet the existing standards compared to the other categories. The percentage of performers who meet the guidelines is minuscule. Your claim that this isn't driven by subject matter is ridiculous in light of your earlier removal of the entire category from the criteria. Horrorshowj (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
As Epbr123 points out, WP:ANYBIO states that a person who "has received a notable award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times" is deemed notable. The two requirements that Off2riorob point out are specific interpretations of ANYBIO in the porn context. (Remember, PORNBIO was first drafted back when to stand as a separate notability criteria before it got folded into the larger WP:BIO page same as all the other category-specific requirements.) If we drop those two rules from PORNBIO, then we must also drop them from the ANYBIO requirements, and that's a different debate altogether. So for now, I say no to the proposal. Tabercil (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Gay porn awards
With regard to gay porn performers specifically, I believe that clarifying which awards are considered notable would be a good first step. While the Grabby or GayVN awards would likely be considered notable, there are some more marginal awards like the Golden Dickie Awards which are unclear, and some like International Escort Awards which are used to bolster claims of meeting WP:PORNBIO although they are actually not porn-related. I attempted to raise this issue in a proposal I made to reduce the friction associated with gay porn BLPs but the discussion was not productive. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I think this is probably the most logical first step as well. We need to be specific about what awards are notable and what awards are not. MATThematical (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Taking the International Escort Awards point, these specifically include the award for Best Porn Star Escort, so to say they are not porn star related is a misinterpretation.
Some may get confused between an article for an award showing the award is notable enough for an article and whether the award itself would demonstrate notability of some sort when conferred on an actor (or studio or director). Conversely non-existence of an article is not a definitive indication of non-notability. Each award may have it's own issues and the Golden Dickie Awards are a case in point as they are a rare example of awards that were given to porn star actors and studios notable for bareback sex at a time in America when all other awards actively banned any studio or actor from getting awards who did not promote safer sex in their videos.
If this is a serious suggestion then the discussion may require some time to layout a case for any award being challenged and an individual RFC with time to gather comments, responses and evidence may be the way to go and avoid some of the sort of ongoing issues, repetition and disputes in this area. I do not believe that many would be challenged anyway, probably only 3 or 4, so this is not perilously burdensome. Perhaps PORN would be a better place to hold such a discussion rather than here. Ash (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with going to the project for a discussion would be wise. Golden Dickie award is definitely not a "notable" or "well known" award. It was awarded in a single year by a relatively minor retailer, and nobody appears to have covered it. I'm not entirely convinced it needs to be mentioned in an article that otherwise meets notability, but it definitely shouldn't qualify the article for it.Horrorshowj (talk) 08:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that the definition of a notable award is any award that meets WP:GNG. If the Golden Dickie Award has no coverage, then its not notable. Whether or not an award has its own article is a good indicator of whether it passes WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad for you, however your opinion is not a consensus. Just to clarify, are you arguing against having a more formal consensus process in order to reach a conclusion?
You appear to believe that because someone wins an award that has an article this always means they are notable. Perhaps someone would care to come up with example exceptions to Epbr123's rule of thumb, if not, I would be delighted to second this simple scenario for notability. Though I do wonder what would happen if an article about an award were to, say, merge, split or be deleted at some later stage. Retrospective propagation would be a bit of a nightmare. Ash (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
That definition of "notable" does actually have consensus. If an award was later deemed non-notable and merged or deleted, then all the stub articles relying on it would also need to be deleted or merged, similar to the above Playboy Playmate situation. Epbr123 (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, seems like even more good reason to have an established consensus on particular awards at issue. Presumably if an RFC on a particular award went ahead you would have no problem falling in line with the result as you have not given any reason to think such a process would not be acceptable. Ash (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Clearly any awards that do not have there own article should not qualify anyone for asserting their own notability, this is the point, I don't see that having won one of a multitude of what are nothing more than minor industry advertising awards is any sign of personal notability at all, it would strengthen the guidelines and raise the chance of a developed article being created if only the actual well known major awards qualified to assert personal notability. We should remember that at least some of the recent creations have only been created with the objective of being able to then reinsert the names onto the pornographic actor list and not what should be the idea that..This person is a notable person worthy of his own biography, I can write a decent biography of this person.Off2riorob (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Your earlier examples do not meet your statement here about what is "clear". For example the Men in Video Awards (Probies) would be considered notable but does not have its own article and the International Escort Awards (that you had a problem with) does have its own article. I repeat yet again, if the case is to be established then each award will have to be separately debated in an RFC before being dismissed as a suitable notable award for demonstrating a BLP as notable. Ash (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
How are you asserting the an award is notable if is has not even its own wikipedia article? The actual objective is to raise the standard of the automatic notability entry of the group, the major awards can be the automatic assertion of notability and the minor awards can be perhaps a starting point towards notability but requiring further independent assertion.This way there need not be excessive individual discussions about each and everyone of them but a single discussion to see from this collection of awards which are the well known major awards from amongst them. It appears to me to be exactly the same issue as Playboy playmates, that entry level for automatic entry was set too low, a very low percentage of the playmates was individually notable without the award, as is the case here, we have a multitude of essentially not notable people asserting their claim of notability from this low level of entry, thereby allowing the creation of a multitude of stubs which can never be developed are are of little or no value to the reader.Off2riorob (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
This is a wiki. There are many millions of things which are notable, but do not have their own Wikipedia article. In the case of a gay porn award, it could be that there are a limited number of people interested in fleshing out (so to speak) the topic of gay porn on Wikipedia, and nobody has bothered to write it yet. I, for example, watch plenty of it, but have no desire to write about it. The WordsmithCommunicate13:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Excessive individual discussions? We are talking about gay pornography here. So far I only see a maximum of maybe 3 awards that might be disputed one way or the other. I am suggesting an entirely standard consensus building process. You don't have to take part if it's too much hassle for you. Ash (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I know there are notable things that have not got articles but imo if you are going to use that notable thing to assert notability in other things then an article would be a requirement. Off2riorob (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Ash, your position comes from the standpoint that the majority of these awards infer a wikipedian level of notability and my position is that only the major awards from the list of awards are actually well know and notable enough in themselves to individually assert a person is wikipedia notable and through only the winning of such an award worthy his own article. Again Ash, please try not to personally direct comments at me, as in that this is to much hassle for me or that if such and such is my opinion I have nothing to add to this thread, please keep those personal opinions to yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
No, that is not a fair description of my position. I have not made any statement as to which awards I personally consider notable or why. Which list of awards are you referring to in your comment and what is the existing definition of "major" (and hence "minor") for these awards? I remain unclear if you are still against having RFCs to ensure a well established consensus exists for disputed awards. Ash (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I am not against anything as such, one thing I would like to discuss previous to anything else is in this porn bio section of notability and expressed as policy/guideline in the two points at the top of the section, what is the accepted consensus here regarding what exactly is a well know award? Off2riorob (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Restore Pornbio #3 with strikeouts
On a related topic, now that Pornbio#3 has been removed, #4 has become #3, #5 has become #4, and #5 ceases to exist. Now older Afds that use the old numbers may not make sense. I propose that #3 be reinserted with strikeouts in order to preserve existing numbers and provide a reference for older debates. - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary. The criteria have changed many times since they were originally composed [11], so a lot of older AfDs are already out of sync. Epbr123 (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Even back then #3 concerned Playmates. I'm not saying this is necessary rather it's desirable to preserve the existing numbering system instead of creating more confusion. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The Playmate criteria has also been at #1 and #2 at times [12][13]. I see your point, but WP:BIO changes so often that the whole page would end up covered in strikeouts. Epbr123 (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm looking for feedback on if interviews should be handled differently than feature articles on a person in terms of notability. What I had been doing was to to separate word counts or air time for the lead and question/answer session. The lead is usually the interview talking or writing about the subject and thus covering her while the question/answer section is material from the subject herself and thus more along the lines of WP:SELFPUB material though she gets to use the interviewer's space or air time to comment on herself (and sometimes to promote her product or service).
I've also seen that the lead is normally NPOV material. The interviewer is trying to hook reader or viewer interest. Thus, while I have used the existence of the interview as evidence that the subject was noticed I have often classed interview itself as "trivial coverage" unless it has an extensive lead.
Another editor wrote during an AFD, "when somebody is interviewed by a reliable source, that source is giving significant coverage to them." This seems to be a valid point and so I'm running it by here to see what the consensus is and if we should add something about this to WP:PEOPLE.
It's come up because in some AFD discussions in turns out that interviews are the only coverage a person has received.
While I have print interviews in mind this question would also apply to radio and television interviews. I'm making the assumption that the person interviewed is the interview subject, and that the source is reliable, independent, etc. --Marc Kupper|talk06:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
As with a lot of these notability questions, I think the answer is "it depends" - on the context, the genre, the content of the Q&A. If, as you describe above, the Q&As appear to have been supplied by the subject and roughly replicate material on the subject's own website, then I think we have to say "trivial". If, on the other hand, the publisher is a reputable source, the questions seem to be theirs and the answers are in a different style or clearly different or offering additional information than from the subject's own website, then I think they can be used. Finally, in my area of expertise, Children's Literature, Q&A interviews are often used as a way of imparting information to children in an informal manner. That format doesn't invalidate either the information or its reliability. So, in summary, I don't think there can be a hard and fast rule. As with so many issues here, one has to use a healthy dollop of common sense.--Plad2 (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
However, as a general rule, interviews should be depreciated since they do not contain analysis and evaluation. --Bejnar (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Any rational, actual, scholarly, published, biography uses interviews with the subject if they exist. Interviews present the subjective view/opinions/quotes of the subject of the biography, naturally, they are not "reliable" except for those views/opinions/quotes. But those views/opinions/quotes are invaluable to any real, fully-fleshed-out biography. That some Wikipedians carry "NPOV" "NOR" "RS"-- or whatever other alphabet soup they've cooked up-- so far as to suggest intentionally excluding interviews with the subject of a biography from his or her biography just shows how far off base some people can become when working in a mob-like atmosphere, such as WP rule-making boards like this one. Dekkappai (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The interviews I'm thinking of are the ones commonly seen in newspapers and web sites. For example, this interview of a book author. The usual structure is a one or two paragraph introduction or lead and then it's questions/answers. I see that WP:N is empathetic that material qualifying for notability be independent of the subject, that it be "works of their own" (by the person writing the article), and that it "address the subject directly in detail." What's troubling me about interviews are
Interview questions tend to not contain a significant amount of information "about" the subject or to address the subject in detail.
Interview answers tend to not be the interviewer's own work but are usually either the subject's words verbatim or with minor editing.
Also troublesome is that many interview leads are an extract of information from the subject's standard bio. For example, with the interview above all of it is from the bio in the book being discussed though it's restated in the interviewer's own words. Interviews like this are being used, in good faith, as the foundation for why a subject is notable.
Meeting either WP:BIO or WP:ATH would usually be sufficient, but note that neither criterion confers automatic notability. Satisfying WP:BIO confers a presumption of notability; same goes for WP:GNG. Those who meet WP:ATH are generally notable.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I've always viewed it as WP:BIO is the first check for athletes, if they meet that standard then they are notable. Surely tons of notable athletes didn't meet any of those requirements in WP:Athlete. However, in other cases like Academia WP:ACADEMIA limits notability since people in the academic world are constantly publishing and hence may be considered notable by the WP:GNG standpoint even if no one has ever heard of them. So the answer to your question is that it depends on the subject.MATThematical (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I use an informal point system for determining notability. If a person qualifies for WP:ATHLETE item 1 or 2 it counts as "points" towards possible notability. You'll find many articles that survive a deletion discussion as the subject has a collection of minor points. Thus to answer SunCreator's question it is that it's "and" but that a person does not need to have bullet-proof WP:BIO credentials if they qualify as WP:ATHLETE. If an athlete has a brief and undistinguished career the odds are low you'll be able to develop consensus that the person is notable based on their athletic career as there will be little or no WP:BIO material. --Marc Kupper|talk09:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I just thought of something else. WP:N has the core criteria and WP:PEOPLE adds more detail related to people. Within WP:PEOPLE is WP:ANYBIO where it could be argued that winning a state championship or selection by a semi-pro or college team is evidence of notability as that championship or college team is notable. WP:ATHLETE was developed to address this by raising the bar and so that it needs to be competition at the fully professional or highest amateur level to count. --Marc Kupper|talk09:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Proposed clarification of WP:PORNBIO
Section 2 of WP:PORNBIO, "Has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years," does not specifically address the situation where a performer receives nominations for the same film/video for different awards in different years. Typically this happens when a film/video appears late in the calendar year, and the award-givers have different standards for deciding which year a release is eligible in (eg, one goes by official release date, the other by the date its review appeared). I suggest either adding something like "for different releases" following "nominations"; or (preferably) adding more detailed language to footnote 9 making the point that, for release-specific nominations, at least two different releases must be involved. I don't think this should be controversial, but who knows? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
How often has this glitch come up already? I know this scenario arises due to the different award-giver's eligibility calendar but how many articles is this affecting? Even if this is put as a footnote, it seems complicated to have to explain the 2 release distinction. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I've never encountered this situation before, and if this ever arose at an AfD I think people would apply the criteria with common sense. Although, it wouldn't do any harm to add it to the footnote if it can be explained simply. Epbr123 (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm against the change as the assumption is that such a scenario would automatically be non-notable. If a performer has several nominations for the same performance, this may well be notable as different awards bodies have recognized the performance as notable enough for nomination. Taking the ad absurdum case, if an actor were nominated for 8 different notable awards by 8 different bodies, would anyone really think that the actor is non-notable, making insignificant impact in their field?
Well, I haven't checked who Hullaballoo was canvassing, but I suspect it's the active people who are in WP:P* who are those who are most likely to have an opinion on the topic. Tabercil (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe, though Morbidthoughts is not listed as a member of P* and they were canvassed, whilst I am listed as a member and I was not (both of us recently taking part of the P* talk page). I guess some opinions were more welcome than others but I have no way of knowing the selection criteria here. Ash (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I'm still on the list. Tabercil, Epbr, and I were the ones who pushed the multiple years of nomination criteria into PORNBIO. We're the ones who would have an opinion what it was meant to mean. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with that. I even thought he made the change to "multiple years" with questionable consensus so he for sure is someone who should be contacted if making changes.Cptnono (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a presumption that we know every award system in existence and have already weighted them and have created separate articles for just the notable ones. I don't think this is true. Wikipedia has systematic bias and I think even more important there is cultural bias. There is an entire Japanese gay porn industry but it remains all but invisible here, ditto with many countries, developed or not. The awards we have tend to be very US Centric and depending on the era are heavily weighted towards major companies, certain stars, away from bare-backing, etc. The more I was digging through the big list the more I was finding. Unfortunately that all got hijacked before a comprehensive look to see what we do and do not have. Frankly I'd rather house several of the awards in one longer article thus negating the need for a companion article about the history of gay porn awards et al. -- Banjeboi18:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I see Hullaballoo's point, but I think it's a solution in search of a problem. We can revisit the proposal if we do find in the future that the described problem does exist. Tabercil (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
As this actor's case may point out, if the major porn awards for a given country each nominate the same person in the same film it may make sense to footnote that that's a likely case of notability in itself. -- Banjeboi23:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
He was my grandpa. I know a bit about him, like b,d, war diary written in Archangel now given to Imperial War museum..
shall I write a bit about him? Wikipedia looks very difficult to learn and I dont want to spend lots of time on this only to get it deleted.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Given that you are related to the subject, it is important that you be certain that he really does meet the criteria for notability. Fortunately, you have come to exactly the right place. I urge you to carefully read the page associated with this talk page, and ask yourself whether he would satisfy these guidelines. I would particularly draw your attention to whether you could source the article to secondary sources that would establish notability. If not, then there would indeed be a significant risk of deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I know that there is a huge discussion above, and its results might have impacts on this, but I feel a need to introduce it. Under WP:ATHLETE, it 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, except for those that participated only in competitions that are themselves non-notable
People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships.
There are numerous large, heavily sponsored StarCraft leagues, none of which have developed articles on wikipedia. These are obviously notable, with tons of korean coverage, and I'll start expanding their articles fairly soon. The question comes in that are E-Sports a sport? Although many players meet GNG with tons of independent sources, many western players, although having coverage, they don't have 'significant coverage.' Of course WP:ATHLETE is simply a guideline, and not all articles under the criteria would meet inclusion. Summarily, my question is do players participating in the finals of the World Cyber Games qualify under WP:ATHLETE. Thanks, NativeForeignerTalk/Contribs05:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm no expert, but I would not be comfortable considering these kinds of activities as "athletic", any more than I would consider a singing competition to fall under ATH, simply because it is competitive. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
These are certainly not athletic competitions... I'd also question the assumption made by the user above that these gaming leagues are "obviously notable." I'd say they would need a ton of coverage to be notable. Spanneraol (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I would agree that they aren't athletic: it's why I asked. I'm busy right now, but I could give you thousands of pages of notable news hits for all of these leagues from korea. Plus credible coverage on the two stations that cover it (dedicated). NativeForeignerTalk/Contribs20:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
If you click on the note at the end of the first line it says "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." -DJSasso (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Well for starts I have a problem with the XRCO awards being present as they're among the oldest of the various porn awards, dating back to 1985 (well before porn-chic arose). And I note you've essentially tossed out everything except the AVN Awards and a couple of film festival awards. Why?? Tabercil (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Basically determined notability based on in depth coverage in sources not owned by the porn industry (i.e. "independent of the subject).Bali ultimate (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
You're scrutinising "independent of the subject" too closely. Subject in this case means the awards themselves, disqualifying sources that sponsor or own them. Pointing to the XRCO website to prove notability for the XRCO awards would not be independent. Further, AVN and XBIZ, the two main adult industry trade journal, are not owned by the producers of the adult industry. They are part of the adult industry only in that they report on the adult industry. Claiming that they are not independent is like claiming ESPN is not independent of the sports industry or the New York Times's story of some other news publication is not independent of the news industries. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Not really the "obvious ones". The Japanese Adult Broadcasting Awards are sponsored by the largest satellite TV provider in Japan (SKYPerfecTV) and is covered in several non-porn sources. As Dekkappai states above Japanese Adult Video Awards covers a number of awards given over the last 20 years - some are more important than others but these are the major awards given out in the Japanese adult video scene and they are recognized by Japanese commentators and the major adult video companies. With the Japanese porn industry generally thought to be as large or larger than the US industry and with a reach that includes most of East Asia, it would be just a bit culturally biased to conclude that their awards are not "notable" while US awards are. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
And that was part of why the folks in WP:P* set the award notability criteria to reflect what's in ... so there's no talk of cultural bias. Tabercil (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, let's see if we can try and get some traction on this one topic. So how does this look for "notable/well-known":
I can only speak for the Japanese awards, knowing nothing about the others. I second Adult Broadcasting Awards-- It was just an oversight that I didn't mention it above. I'll repeat that the Pinky Ribbon Awards are notable as sponsored by the main journal covering the genre in the Kansai region, and that the awards are covered in P*G the leading journal on the pink film for the past quarter century. (Perhaps worth pointing out too that P*G is Tokyo-based-- not Kansai region-- making its coverage of this Kansai award more significant.) Dekkappai (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Whether an award is notable or not should be decided at AfD, not here, and the proposed list has omitted awards that have been kept at AfD. All the awards in Category:Pornographic film awards should be presumed notable until AfD says they aren't. Epbr123 (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... now that I think about it, pointing to a cat is cleaner than pointing to a list. Besides, ANYBIO (which is arguably a broader set of criteria than the focused PORNBIO) states "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." (emphasis mine) That's all it says; it doesn't bother trying to get into details.... Tabercil (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I got the impression the list at the top of this section was a target list for potential Prods/AfDs. But Epbr123's right-- These discussions are for creating our own OR/POV/crackpot definitions of "notability", not for deciding whether certain articles pass those home-made definitions... Dekkappai (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
If a group manages to get together enough "consensus" to say so, yep. That's how it works around these talk-pages, and that's how bias is spread throughout WP. Dekkappai (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
With respects to User:Bali ultimate and efforts to address a throrny and ongoing dilemma, a perceived problem with this proposal is that creating a list of "notable" or "non-notable" awards might seem chosen through opinion, or reflecting WP:OR in its creation. My concern is that it could embed WP:UNKNOWNHERE as a reason to dismiss an award or deny a person's notability. If found, awards notable in counties such as Japan, or India, or Brazil, or Mexico, or Spain, or Russia, etc., should be fine for showing notability, without those awards themselves being covered in English sources. If enough information exists, even in non-English sources, that could support an article for such, and which sources could show the award's notability to its genre and in its country, the award might then itself be considered notable enough for en.Wikipedia. And still with respects for the efforts to all in attempting to address the concern, we should give deep and careful consideration of any proposal that might tend to restrict notability to only to subjects known to the English-reading-writing world. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.22:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This guideline is fairly stable. There doesn't seem to be any dispute, except possibly for the porn section. Because there is good agreement, let's consider making this a policy. If the porn part is too contentious, that whole section can be removed from the policy and a separate guideline or essay called "Wikipedia: Notability (people noted for porn)" can be created. Let's not let porn get in the way of this otherwise agreeable page! A request for comment is being started.
Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't see the need. The whole idea of having this as a guideline is to allow it to be applied with flexibility. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Good God No Home-cooked definitions of "notability" is not only an unbelievably bad idea, it's against all the good thought originally behind WP-- NPOV, OR, Bias, etc. Scrap the whole page rather than make it a policy. It's caused more harm than anything else, bar nothing, vandalism, edit-warring, biased editing, nothing. Dekkappai (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I did not notice that the definition of notability is "home-cooked". If so, this and other home cooked guidelines should be considered for demotion to essay, particularly if this guideline is worse than vandalism. I am not a violent proponent of making this a policy. For now, I am slightly in favor of making it policy but can be convinced to change my mind. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Didn't mean anything to you personally, Suomi, but I think the whole concept is needlessly exclusive and elitist, which is fatal to a project that aims to be an unbiased representation of "the sum of human knowledge"-- an obviously populist, anti-elitist goal. I've been contributing here for a few years, and I notice my view of this is not entirely unique among contributors, but it is one that is too often left out of these discussions, which tend to attract the more elitist-leaning. Dekkappai (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, Verifiability, NPOV, etc., these are good, objective standards. "Notability" is inherently subjective, as the endless discussions on this page clearly show. The recent explicit throwing out of Playboy Playmate-- a long-running, iconic feature of a major publication-- just shows how absurdly biased and POV these decisions have become. Dekkappai (talk)
Unless the general concept of notability is ever considered to be policy, there is no way this should be either. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per Masem. We should concentrate on the general notability guideline first, which will be hard enough to do. This guideline is fairly instable, considering the amount of RfCs it has recieved lately, with PORNBIO and ATHLETE being particularly contentious. ThemFromSpace21:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. The main difference between a policy and a guideline is that an editor can be blocked for violating a policy, but going against a guideline is permissible with a good reason. The policy issues related to people are already covered explicitly in WP:BLP and implicitly in other policies. Also, as pointed out by others, WP:N isn't a policy either, and the notability of certain occupations is being actively debated. Will Bebacktalk22:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
now Oppose Resolute's reasoning is very persuasive. I was slightly for support but now I oppose. However, I have also seen that some policies have gone beyond policies and have started to include what should be guidelines. They should revert back to policies and the guideline part of the policies should be taken out and placed as supporting guidelines. Any interest in helping me, let me know. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. There is enough argumentation and contention about "notability" which shows even at the guideline level. The whole concept of "notability" is just too subjective to be made into policy. Any attempts to define "notability" will always bring in unconscious personal prejudice and bias even in the most fair-minded. We have the core policies to guide us, we don't need to multiply them. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Additional criteria
There appears to be some ambiguity in the wording of Additional criteria. Do people feel that if a person meets the Additional criteria without meeting the Basic criteria they are still notable. For example, would an athlete who has "competed at the fully professional level of a sport", and is on a list, but has not been substantially "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" be notable? Would a pornographic actor who is listed as winning "a well-known award", but has not been substantially "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" be notable? Is it really a case of either/or? Either the person is notable enough to have been substantially written about, or they are listed as having a porn award, or been a late substitute in one long-forgotten match. Shouldn't people who are only on a list (of winners of awards, or for being in a sports team) only appear on Wikipedia in a similar list? So a porn actor who won an AVN Award should appear in this list AVN_Awards#AVN_Award_winners, but only get a standalone article if they also meet the Basic criteria; and a sports person should be listed as a player in a team, but only get a standalone article if they meet the Basic criteria. SilkTork *YES!00:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The answer to your question is a "sort of". The additional guidelines are supposed to represent at what point it is assumed sources are available. In otherwords people who "competed at the fully professional level of a sport" are likely to have the sources to meet the basic criteria. -DJSasso (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
That's how it should work. However it's also possible that the coverage of some professional athletes may be limited to basic data like their name, their position, and their team, which is not substantial information. Will Bebacktalk01:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Which sums up why its a guideline and not a policy, because it doesn't have to be strictly followed for the exceptions that occur. -DJSasso (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
But if we recognize that there are times when professional athletes and award-winning porn actors don't meet the general notability guideline then why don't we adjust the guidelines to say that they must? Why leave the problem to be resolved at every AfD? Will Bebacktalk20:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
History lesson. There was an attempt to have GNG only about 3 years ago, which was defeated soundly. Near the end of that riot, the same people who'd started it went to an abandoned thread on the WP:N and proposed the current language. 4 people commented that it was a good idea, and they stuck in said language. There was never any widespread consensus for this, and it amounted to backdooring the same change that the community had just rejected. However, they claimed that it was different because the guidelines still existed even if they were completely useless. Despite this, the GNG crusader types demand a consensus to get rid of it. Unfortunately, a lot of them have the notability pages on watchlist so it remains. Horrorshowj (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
To clarify that "additional" means additional to the basic criteria, and that therefore the basic requirements of Wikipedia:Notability and WP:V should be met, I propose amending the initial sentence of Additional criteria to read: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards, in addition to the Basic criteria." SilkTork *YES!09:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
That time of year again? Better idea, why don't you acknowledge the long consensus against your proposal and stop trying to push it through?Horrorshowj (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I Feel I Need To Bring This Up
I was told to bring this up here. I'm having a big problem with WP:ATHLETE. I am being told that I cannot create an article for NFL players even if they make the practice squad of a team. I think this is ridiculous. I think you should be able to create an article for a player if they play in any game, even preseason. I think the rules should be changed to allow this. And I also have a second idea. I think NFL-related articles are deleted too soon. I think we should wait at least a full year or two before deleting an article of a player. That way, we can be almost certain that he will never play again before deleting the article. Tell me if you agree or disagree with my ideas and thoughts. RevanFan (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No way that an NFL practice squad player is automatically notable. That said, if you can make a good article about that person based on meeting WP:GNG or WP:BIO, then no one will stop you. Also, WP:CRYSTAL explicitly eliminates having an article based on assumed future notability, so keeping a non-compliant article for a year on the assumption that they will become notable is a violation of policy. —Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)03:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
So, if I create an article with sources, references, external links, and enough well-written, quality information, it won't be deleted? RevanFan (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec) That's fairly accurate, but it would need to meet the notability guideline as well. Notability requires significant coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources, so if the article has that, it should be safe. —Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)04:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
In general, you are correct. People might make noise about it, but those arguments will be rejected. Notability generally comes down to sourcing. Incidentally, you may wish to take a look at a draft of my essay on when you should consider not writing an article. It is currently located at User:The Wordsmith/Sandbox. The WordsmithCommunicate04:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
So, say I want to make an article about a player the coaches are really high on. I gather as many articles on him as I can, like college and pro bios, proof of his signing, etc. I use those articles as links and sources. Then, I write the page, putting as much info in as I can, while making sure it maintains high quality. Would that be good? Also, on an unrelated note, I suck at doing references, so if someone could teach me, I'd like that. I want to be able to contribute good, solid articles. RevanFan (talk)
That would probably be fine. Just remember that to establish notability, you need sources that are independent of the subject. Think more like newspaper/magazine than official college/team bio. You can use the bios, but you need independent ones to establish notability. For information on references, read WP:CITE. Good luck!—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wordsmith (talk • contribs) 04:27, 26 April 2010
I think the standards are way too tight. Football players in the full first team squad of top level teams are being deleted because they haven't started a game for their club- yet. However these are players who often are talented youth internationals, playing in tournament matches with a far higher profile than even the professional football league itself! It is a notable achievement even to be signed to a contract for a top level team, even if you have not played for them yet. And chances are most players in the squad will get capped at some point during the season anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.89.125 (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
These guidelines don't determine if an article should be deleted or not, they only state when its likely that the player meets WP:GNG which is what determines if the article gets deleted or not. If you can find enough sources on the player in your example that meet GNG then the article won't be deleted due to this guideline. -DJSasso (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
RFC: WP:Athlete Professional Clause Needs Improvement
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose we make the inclusiveness of professionals in WP athlete a little tougher. I do not think it emphasizes enough that they have to compete in notable professional events (for example in some sports there are multiple professional leagues but only one is notable/prestigious). I also think that an extended period of time would be a good addition. In other words, you should not be notable because you competed in a single professional tournament. Random people get to play in a single professional competition all the time, but often do not perform well enough and never return to the pros (e.g. a local qualifier in a PGA golf tournament, a minor leaguer who played one inning in the MLB, etc). These people should not be notable unless they meet WP:GNG. In addition, the wording in this section is sloppy, and includes a single run on sentence. So lets open the floors as to how we can improve this section. Here are some options I can think of (1)remove the first condition and append the old second condition so it includes prestigious pro competition as an example. Basically something like this for WP:Athlete, "People who have competed at the highest level of a sport, for example competition in the Olympic Games, or extended competition in the most prestigious Professional Leagues." I think this edit is less inclusive, more elegant, and allows for AfDs to rule on an individual basis, the only disadvantage is that it is less concrete (which we can be worked out in this discussion). Basically in deciding an AfD one only has to ask two questions, does the athlete meet WP:GNG and if not do they compete at the highest level of their sport *for an extended period of time* (the examples of Olympics and most prestigious pro leagues emphasizes that this must be a super high level). (2)The other option is to delete WP:Athlete altogether, and do athlete notability checks based on WP:GNG. What are people's thoughts? MATThematical (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment. Broadly, I'm sympathetic to a change of this sort (but not deleting ATH), although I find this proposal a little vague. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting a change not only to the professional part, but to both the professional and amateur parts, by combining them into a single clause. I have long been concerned that "competing at the highest level" can mean just showing up but performing in a completely non-notable way, to which the counter-argument has been that just showing up at these highest levels is a notable accomplishment in itself. Perhaps your idea of "extended" competition as a way of evidence that the accomplishment was not a one-off (while allowing, as you do, for notable individual events to be governed by GNG), is a very useful idea that we could build upon. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Your point about just showing up is a valid one. I think extended competition does help here. One example you mentioned in a thread long ago was an athlete making it to the Olympics but because they came from a country that rarely participates in the given sport this person was not Olympic caliber. Yet, this person is automatically deemed notable by the Olympics standard. If we were to require "highest level" for at least 2 years then this person would have to make either 2 Olympics or an Olympics and a world championships. This would seem very unlikely for an athlete of this caliber. I looked at the track and field record and almost always these athletes only compete in one Olympics and zero world championships. (I think the Olympics has some sort of inclusion rule that WCs don't necessarily have)MATThematical (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
"Olympics has some sort of inclusion rule" - rather, it's simply money. An athlete from some atoll in the ocean can raise enough for a once-in-a-lifetime event, but he can't do it every year. East of Borschov (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment. I agree that the standards are too loose. Part of the problem is, as you note, that some people have competed at a "fully professional" level yet not in a notable way. A ten game threshold (e.g.) might be one answer. That would get rid of the outliers. We have numerical thresholds elsewhere, like WP:MUSIC. There is also the problem that some sports have "fully professional" leagues that are only of local significance. The Uninvited Co., Inc.19:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree. I would say a single participation in almost any event, perhaps with the exclusion of the Olympics, is not necessarily notable. My thoughts about numerics is that a good cut off number may vary between sports, in football there are only 16 games to a season, in baseball there are over a hundred, in amateur sports the top athletes may only compete in a few events a year. So a single number may not be good in this regard. Perhaps a better idea would be participation in multiple years or multiple seasons. A star who is competing in their first year will make GNG anyway, but requiring non GNG athletes to have multiple years of competition at the highest level gives one hope that there is some information on them to expand their page to a decent article. MATThematical (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Recommendation - I suggest you seek input from the many Wikiprojects covering these areas of sport and athletics. I am a member of WP:FOOTY and would be supportive of tightening the standard a bit (I remember an AfD where 1 minute of play in a football match was agreed to be sufficient to satisfy WP:ATHLETE because it is a bright-line test). However, if you plan to tighten the standard, it needs to take into consideration the unique aspects of various sports (e.g., notable participation in cricket may not be the same as notable participation in basketball). Jogurney (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
God yes I've been hoping someone would propose something like this for a long time. A very large number of these unsourced BLPs that we have a problem with are barely-notable athletes who would no longer pass the new criteria. I like the "extended" part more than a bright line test, because it allows both for differences between sports and editors' discretion at AFD. The WordsmithCommunicate03:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I would support tighter restrictions on athletes (among others). I would certainly like to see it tightened to see only the athletes competing at the highest professional levels ... I think some kind of input from the various projects is a good idea. But I have a question: why do Olympians get an automatic pass? Medalists .... absolutely! Athletes at multiple Olympics ... great .... but being an Olympian is sometimes just a matter of timing ... a person could win a world championship for three years, get injured in an Olympic year, but still be worthy of being noted. Also, if I may dip into an American-centric approach: while most collegiate athletes are, IMO, not worthy of an article, there may be some (record breakers, big trophy winners, etc) that still do. I would very much like to see a specific exclusion on high school athletes unless they are somehow notable beyond play at the high school ... I cannot believe that high school athletes that would never be included in any encyclopedia for that sport are not only getting articles here for nothing more than being a high school player, but are getting strong enough support at AfDs to stay around. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
How about "in depth coverage of a person (who may or may not be an athlete) in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject is required to establish notabilty in a wikipedia sense and to allow for the construction of a proper biography. If no independent sources provide background on their family life, general biographical background, and some indication of significance and impact, a subject should not have a BLP. In the case of football players and other athletes, while specialized almanacs can usually be found that provide dates of birth and statistics on numbers of appearances, goals scored and so forth, these are not sufficient for inclusion since they do not allow for the construction of a true biography." This sensible approach will of course never be adopted. This gets away from the subjective question of "highest level" of the sport (for instance, someone could play in the Latvian Premier League but is far less important in a footballing sense than a player in the British Championship (Old second division). The level at which someone competed should be irrelevant to a project like Wikipedia. Either sufficient in depth sources exist to allow for the construction of a useful biography or they do not. That should be the sensible definition of a "notable athlete."Bali ultimate (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
You've chosen a poor example. The Latvian top flight is not fully-pro, so from a WP:ATHLETE standpoint, players competing in it are less important that the English second level (which is fully-pro). I don't support eliminating WP:ATHLETE in its entirety because it is useful in minimizing AfD debates about every sportsperson imaginable, but the current treshold could certainly be refined (although past attempts have failed). Jogurney (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment I think the "highest level of a sport" formulation is one I can support. That said, it is very vague, and likely to unleash extended squabbling at AfD as the community moves towards a formulation of it. I think it might be a better idea to flesh this out more, and make ATH a separate notability guideline along the lines of PROF. RayTalk13:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It was probably a mistake for me to use any football or sports comparatives. My position can be boiled down to this: "Either high quality, in depth sources exist or they do not." Their existence or absence should determine inclusion, not the subjective question of "full professional" and "top flight." There are fewer professional journalists than people paid to play football. Should all "professional journalists" have two line stubs? Of course not. Should everyone who as ever had a "major" role in a "big film" be included? No. Only if they've been covered in depth.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
So pretty much what you're saying is only the very most famous sports people and those who speak to the press a lot are the ones who deserve articles? You have to understand that sportspeople are going to have fewer in-depth biographical coverage than, say, an actor or similar. BigDom19:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
If you don't have the material for a decent article, then how the hell do you expect to write one? Yes, only those athletes who have biographical coverage should have biographical articles. The WordsmithCommunicate19:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
But sportspeople generally aren't notable for their biographical infotmation or what they do outside their sport. I think that more of a problem than the ATHLETE guideline is WP:NTEMP, which stops editors being able to write perfectly detailed articles that concentrate on a person's sporting achievements. BigDom20:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
What is your opinion on articles like this one or this one, which are decent length articles, but have very limited biographical info, owing to the fact that they were notable for football and nothing else? They both played hundreds of matches in the top tier of English football and both appeared in FA Cup finals so I don't think your point really stands up. BigDom12:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I wondered when we would get another RFC on this. We have them about every 3 months. And it always comes down to no consensus. There are a number of failed proposal pages trying to lay out all the differences between the sports. -DJSasso (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
While there isn't consensus on specific wording, it seems like there is consensus that the current guidelines are not strict enough. While the details of how everything works between sports is not agreed upon in detail, we can at least edit the current guideline to include vague statements like "extended period of play" in a sport at the "highest level". Its a start, we already have a "highest level" qualification for amateurs anyway, it only makes sense to also include this for the professionals. I really don't see anyone not agreeing with this in a big picture sense. The disagreement about what counts as what for each sport, could be in the mean time be done on AfD pages while we try and reach a consensus on the details. We could have the details of each specific sport worked out in a sub section. We do not have to have specific statements that try and pin all the sports down at onceMATThematical (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that the guideline is outdated and we should allow separate Wikiprojects to set appropriate inclusion and notability guidelines for their own sport. For example, I honestly cannot see what the community had against the proposed WP:FOOTYN guideline that was specific to association football and had been defined by consensus on that Project. I don't agree that ATHLETE is responsible for a high number of unreferenced BLPs, surely they are the fault of the editors who create them. In my humble opinion, one professional match or appearance is generally enough to establish sporting notability. However, like Jogurney above I remember the AfD where a footballer was kept for playing one minute of pro football in the second tier of England. I voted delete in that discussion and made known my dislike of ATHLETE. So my proposal is as follows: let the WikiProjects decide who is notable for their sport, but ensure that specific guidelines are checked through by the wider community before enforcing them. BigDom16:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I support the idea of making WP:ATHLETE into sport-specific guidelines that are developed by Wikiprojects and reviewed here. Jogurney (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I also agree with the need to make notability guidelines sport specific especially given the differences between individual and team sports. As I see it, the logical thing to do would be to retain a revised version of WP:ATHLETE as general guideline for all sports, but have it play a more secondary role to sport specific notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this up for discussion, since this guideline is problematic. I also agree that the athlete guidelines need a complete overhaul or removal altogether. They permit thousands of articles of nonnotable figures which are barely sourceable. If we must have guidelines for athletes, I would support basing them off of WP:N instead of being a professional. We need coverage of each individual in reliable sources. Articles on figures which do not meet this could be merged to list-type articles (of team rosters, for example) or deleted. ThemFromSpace17:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Another way to put it is, "If you don't have the sources to write a decent article, then we shouldn't have one" Articles which remain as stubs for years should be merged into lists. The WordsmithCommunicate18:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
There's absolutely nothing wrong with stubs - as long as they are well sourced. Wikipedia has always had a place for stubs, as they can still be very informative. The real problem is articles with reams of unsourced content which can't be verified. There are plenty of sources for articles on most professional footballers that can verify their clubs, apps, goals, place of birth etc. – Toon18:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
There most certainly is a problem if they don't have the potential to become decent articles. According to WP:STUB, "Per our deletion policy, stubs that cannot possibly be expanded beyond perpetual stub status should be either renamed, merged, or refactored into articles with wider scope, that can be expanded beyond perpetual stub status, or deleted or speedy deleted if it cannot be renamed, merged, or refactored." The WordsmithCommunicate19:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Given that the section was added yesterday, after being removed from WP:NAD for misrepresentation of policies, I've removed it again. If you read the deletion policy, you'll see that it does, in fact misrepresent it. It looks like complete opinion to me, it's certainly not grounded in policy and there's no consensus for it. – Toon20:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I fully agree with The Wordsmith. The point of a stub is a placeholder for an article prior to it being expanded. If there is not enough material for an article in the future, then the content should be merge into one or more articles, and or the article redirected which ever best serves the situation. There is maintenance quality control issues that need to be considered for these stale and perpetually incomplete works. FloNight♥♥♥♥19:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, FloNight. Though, what would we do with these articles? I'd say something akin to the final solution to the WP:Pokémon test test. Maybe merge into "List of (nationality) (sport) players"? The WordsmithCommunicate19:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The problem with that is you would end up with some ridiculously long lists for some sports and nationalities. Imagine a world where we have articles like "List of American baseball players" or "List of English footballers", it would be madness. BigDom19:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I would include them in multiple Rosters similar to this one with their current team. The last team appearance would be the final roster in which they show up on Wikipedia. The information provided would be by year, season, or other appropriate designation depending on the sport. For these people we don't need to provide more coverage. FloNight♥♥♥♥20:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see why we would not be best served by providing as much verifiable coverage as possible. And your proposed classification system is a nightmare, in that it requires a reader looking for information on a player (with whom they are likely at least somewhat unfamiliar, or they would not be looking for an article on him in the first place) to determine the team for which the player played in order to locate the info from his former stub. To say nothing of the dubious value of creating a large, unreferenced agglomeration of information about subjects who in many cases have only tangential connections to one another, supported by 20 kajillion redirects. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)16:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I can't see there being any more than three options here to judge whether an athlete merits a stand-alone article:
1. Keep WP:ATH as it is: for all its faults it is a clear objective criterion that serves most sports well.
2. Abolish WP:ATH and rely on the WP:GNG: the best option for reliable content but likely to ensure chaos at AfD.
3. Restrict WP:ATH to "top professional level" or something similar. I think if we do this we have to enable wikiprojects to define, subject to community-wide veto, what the "top professional level" of their sport is. Otherwise, again, chaos will ensue at AfD.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
That's not true, that those are the only options. The option from which this thread started, and might do well to get back to, is to, yes, restrict ATH a bit, but to do so by defining a need for "extended" competition. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
That's what I meant by "something similar" in option 3 (ie a restriction to WP:ATH). My point is I think any furter restriction of WP:ATH would need to be defined by individual wikiprojects, subject to community-wide overview. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your summary. The idea of listifying thousands of articles is not practical or desirable (I can't see how having dozens of "roster pages" with Maradona on them gives any idea of the scope of his career or achievements). Jogurney (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
One point: if we do change the criteria so that thousands of articles currently considered notable are subjectable to deletion, nobody should take that as license to flood AfD or Prod with thousands of deletions in a short time period. It's sad that this needs to be said, but ... RayTalk20:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I think Based on everyones comments it sounds like most (if not all) would support some version of option 3 posted by Mkativerata, where specific details were defined by each sports community. I do see that some don't think it goes far enough (preferring options 2 or something very similar to it), but I assume those people would support the compromise. How about something like "People who have competed at the highest level of a sport for an extended period of time, where for each sport "highest level" and "extended" are defined by the following sport specific pages (link the last 3 words to a list of pages)". The pages that are linked to would be created by each sports community. MATThematical (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with this. I'm inclined to option 2 as well but I'll support a well-defined option 3 as a compromise. I should say I do have some reservations with giving wikiprojects the ability to set their own notability criteria. We will need to give thought to the extent to which the community at large is to have oversight over these criteria and how that will work in practice. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
How would we deal with a (likely) situation in which one project sets much lower/higher criteria than another? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I fully agree, that's why there would need to be community-at-large oversight. If we can't come up with a sensible mechanism for that, I wouldn't support it. "Highest level of sport" and "extended period of time" are hopefully firm enough high-level guidance that there won't be too much difference between projects, but loose enough that appropriate differences between sports are taken care of. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, the idea is that guidelines would be checked by the wider community before being brought into practice. So if a project's criteria were deemed too lenient, they would be changed before being approved. BigDom21:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I just want to put a fly into the ointment ... I participated in an AfD a short time ago regarding a high school athlete. To me, it was a clear cut case of failing ATHLETE. As it was explained to me: WP:BIO can't really be used to exclude too many people, and is instead an instrument for getting people articles who otherwise might not have them. In other words: a high school athlete may fail ATHLETE, but if he meets the GNG, then he gets an article, no matter what ATHLETE says. I was incredulous, but enough people agreed to keep the article. So here is my concern: while I support this idea, in the end, will it make a difference? LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you on this one – I've never been able to see for the life in me how high school athletes are deemed notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. BigDom21:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the new WP:ATH should say that as a general rule an athlete must meet WP:ATH, as verified by reliable sources. That will do two things: exclude those high school and college athletes who might get coverage; and also exclude those who might meet WP:ATH but there's no reliable sources to confirm it. By setting that as a general rule, we would be able to let in truly notable college/high school athletes, but only in genuinely exceptional cases. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not so sure I agree with this. For the most part I think that AfDs have gotten to lax in the GNG rulings, allowing local media to count far more than it should for ahtletes (and especially high school athletes who almost automatically get some coverage in local media). This is the major problem as to why too many high school athletes are included, the problem is not WP:GNG in general. In some cases, like WP:ACADEMIC, it makes sense that it excludes people who would make it under WP:GNG. However, for an Athlete I am not sure it should be exclusionary to WP:GNG. For example take the high school athlete Jordan Hasay. She has seen a ton of coverage from national magazines, newspapers, TV shows, etc. as the best US high school distance runner to ever come along. She has not necessarily competed at the highest level (unless you count making the finals of the U.S. Olympic trials or finishing top 2 at the world jr. championships), but the long term and continuous flow of coverage has made her a notable national icon, well beyond some of the most notable distance runners. I think we need to keep WP:GNG as the first rule of thumb here, but be very strict with it making sure that for athletes local coverage does not count, it must be media on a much larger scale. *Perhaps the best solution to this is add a condition to WP:Ath that basically says as a first condition "meets WP:GNG without using articles from local media" then says "or" followed by our revised WP:athlete definition as defined by the discussion above. MATThematical (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe that the proposed changes are misguided, and I oppose them. I am most familiar with baseball, so I am most qualified to speak about matters relating to that sport, but there is virtually no baseball player with even one game of MLB experience who would not be able to meet WP:GNG after sufficient research. Even most one-game players from 100 years ago can be reliably sourced, if editors are willing to take the time to do so (the archives of The Sporting News are a good first step). For an example of this, see Ed McLane and the associated AFD - McLane appeared in one game in 1907. If we start relying on an arbitrary standard of games played (10 games in MLB, say), then articles that could be brought into compliance with GNG will inevitably be deleted out of pure laziness on the part of AFD participants. Matt's main issue seems to be with poorly-sourced articles, and to address that problem, he would be better off trying to encourage editors who create articles on sportspeople to do a better job of it. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)16:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I think this ignores the fact WP:Athlete is trumped by WP:GNG. If a pro baseball player makes WP:GNG then the player is eligible for a page regardless of WP:Athlete. MATThematical (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps that needs to be rectified, then. Some specific notability guidelines, such as WP:EVENT, require that both GNG and that specific guideline are met. There's no reason this one can't do the same. GNG is like a crowbar. It is remarkable useful for a wide range of purposes, but if you have a crowbar and a hammer, you should drive nails with the hammer because that's more tailored to your task. The WordsmithCommunicate19:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this. It is time we thought about whether WP:GNG should be a free pass for biographies, instead of merely one condition that needs to be satisfied. WP:ATH seems to me to be a perfect place to start. Athletes can get significant coverage in a range of sources and yet still be thoroughly unnotable by any reasonable standard. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Why, exactly, would we be well-served by deleting biographies that meet WP:GNG? If you intend to pursue such a plan, then the issue should probably be raised on GNG's talk page... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)00:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't ignore GNG, but it does raise the question as to why bother to create a guideline that is more strict than GNG (as the standard proposed at the head of this section would be), since GNG will always trump it. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)00:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Meeting GNG currenlty only gives rise to a presumption of notability, so the possibility of meeting GNG but not being notable is not a new thing. As pointed out above, WP:BLP1E is one firm policy exception. But I don't doubt that circumscribing WP:GNG in the way that I'm tossing around here would be controversial. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Reading that discussion makes me more inclined the view that the community should consider devolving a bit of responsibility here to wikiprojects. If experts in wikiprojects have difficulty determining what standards like "fully professional" mean in their sports, the community at large has no chance of applying the standards sensible at AfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I oppose the proposed changes. The guidelines as they currently exist are simple and concise.. the proposed changes have too much subjective nature to them... picking an arbitrary number of games for example... Why is someone notable after they play in 10 games as opposed to 8? If someone plays in Major League Baseball or the National Football League or NBA or some other top level sport then they have achieved a significant accomplishment and are notable. We dont want to encourage deleting wholesale articles of notable players based on some arbitrary # that people come up with here. Spanneraol (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
One game at MLB is way more than is required to meet WP:ATHLETE - one game in Rookie League, or in the Independent Minor Leagues is enough. Michael Jordan could be included purely on his baseball career, for example. Fully professional does not mean "top level sport" - it means that the players did not have to earn an income from other sources (as distinct from semi-professional where the pay isn't high enough so the players need a day job as well. Richard Gadsden (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Proposal: Require sportsplayers who meet WP:ATHLETE to also meet WP:GNG
Thoughts on the title proposal, which I proposed to refocus discussion? It would require someone like Mohd Razman Roslan, who apparently meets WP:ATHLETE, to also have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." NW(Talk)01:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Support requiring meeting both GNG and ATH Any notability standard that allows someone to be notable regardless of secondary source coverage is fundamentally flawed. (e/c, heh!) Gigs (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Support per my comments above. I've come to the view that neitherWP:ATH nor WP:GNG should alone be sufficient. However, it should still be noted that this is a guideline so there is room for very exceptional athletes who don't meet WP:ATH but sail through WP:GNG (eg college stars) to get across the line. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Mohd Razman Roslan doesn't appear to pass WP:ATHLETE (I can see he played in a continental competition, but it was the second-tier AFC Cup). The point of WP:ATHLETE as I understand it is to avoid endless WP:GNG discussions. Take Mohd Razman Roslan, who reads Malay well enough to have an effective GNG discussion about the degree of his coverage in reliable sources? Instead, if he had satisfied WP:ATHLETE, we would assume he would pass GNG since most fully-pro athletes have oodles of significant coverage in reliable sources (whether they are in Malay or not). Jogurney (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the example was poor (I know very little about football). But this business of assumption is dangerous. We don't assume for negative BLPs that there might be sources out there somewhere; we speedily delete it. We should be extending the practice of requiring proof rather than assuming that sources exist somewhere.
And definitely not on your point; there are a myriad of sportsplayers who pass WP:ATHLETE because they played as a pinch hitter in one MLB game and who have no coverage anywhere. NW(Talk)01:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, way off-topic now but I think Selangor FA plays in a fully professional league so it was a good example. I might just try to fix this as I have passable Malay and most Malaysian sources are actually in English. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we need to be careful about making assumptions, but pure reliance on the GNG will produce a Wikipedia that is biased towards inclusion of Internet Age athletes from the UK and US. I don't think that's desirable either. Jogurney (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't care what content we have about biographies of living person, as long as it follows all all Wikipedia content policies. Systemic bias, while important and an oft-overlooked issue, does not matter if we cannot get the articles to follow basicpolicy. NW(Talk)02:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting we stop following V or BLP. I'm suggesting that GNG is a difficult standard to apply to sources that are not online or in English. ATHLETE provides a shortcut to minimize that difficulty. Jogurney (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
In regards to your comment about a pinch hitter in one MLB game. Anyone in that situation would most likely pass GNG anyways because they would have news coverage of their minor league career. -DJSasso (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, most likely local papers to where they played high school or college baseball would have covered them. At which point they are lower than the threshold of ATHLETE and would fall under GNG. Or any of many prospect magazines/websites that have existed over the years. -DJSasso (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Really? Find me some of these players. I've yet to find a one-game MLB player from the last 100 years who couldn't be sourced - though it admittedly sometimes requires paper sources, which are anathema to the lazy. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)17:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Support - though, and I hate to seem pessimistic, the words "guideline" can far too often be interpretable to mean "not a good enough excuse to delete". LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Support. Encyclopedias are written from existing sources. If the sources don't exist, we have nothing to write from. Lara02:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
To clarify, you are of the opinion that just statistics/routing coverage aren't substantial enough for an article, right? I feel the same way, I just want to make sure that's what you're saying. The WordsmithCommunicate02:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose The guidelines are written the way they are to avoid recentism in sports because almost any athlete can pass GNG right down to highschool athletes and even some youth players. In alot of areas wp:athlete is actually harder to meet than gng. It also takes into account players who played at a top level in their sport 100 years ago when sports writing wasn't the overwhelming thing it is today. I think the guideline is fine as it is until one can be written that takes into account the nuances of each individual sport. -DJSasso (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
If you think GNG is so easy to pass, then why are you opposed? If nothing was written about an athlete from 1910, how are we supposed to get information to build an article from? Gigs (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Not all sports projects use WP:ATHLETE as inclusionist. Some use it as exclusionist. And because players who played 100 years ago might have had sources, they are just harder to find. But creating a guideline like this stifles a persons desire to search those out if they know articles will just be deleted before they get a chance to take off. Creating a guideline like this will bias the wiki to players from the last 20 years of the internet age and remove players from the previous 100 or so years. If there are no sources for a player then likely an article won't get created in the first place cause there would be no information about them. But if someone found information about them, then there are obviously sources. You just have to find them. -DJSasso (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with that. Creating an article and then looking for sources is an inversion of proper editing practice.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Not exactly what I meant, the strength of a source is wide open to interpretation and subjectivity. If someone found enough information to start the article in the first place, then they obviously got the information from a source. Yes, they should list where they got it from. A stats page for example, some people wouldn't call that a good source. However, it meets WP:RS (assuming it was from major publisher or whatnot) in that it significantly covers the subject him/herself. And almost anyone who meets the current version of wp:ath can pull that kind of source. (not that I would prefer that to be the only source) -DJSasso (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Any editor can tag a page as "editing in progress", and that will generally prevent a fast deletion, if for any reason they are not putting in their sources until later. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Athlete as it stands is clear and concise and stops the endless arguing that would ensue on what exactly is enough. And is local good enough. Which already happens to some degree and would only get worse with this. -DJSasso (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I may agree that "extended period of time" seems arbitrary (and I'm not 100% sure its a great idea), but adding "at the highest level" seems like the only logical thing to do as far as keeping WP:Athlete consistent. Currently Amateurs are required to compete at the highest level in WP:Athlete. Do you really think it makes sense that professionals can compete in obscure low level professional leagues while amateurs are forced to compete at the highest level (ie. the Olympics). I think it is important to at least add the "highest level" clause to the professional section, even if we don't end up adding the extended period of time clauseMATThematical (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I can't think of a single sport individual or team that has a professional level where this is not true. As for sports that don't have a pro level, well likely most players don't have the sources required for an article below the top level. Athlete as it is written is based on the assumption that once you cross this bright red line, there are likely enough sources for them, you just have to find them. Of course there will always be a few below and a few above the line that are exceptions (which is why athlete is a guideline, you can be deleted if you meet it, almost all minor league baseball players are for example). But as bad as the current line currently is, its better than any other alternative that has been brought up the 10s if not 100s of times this has been debated. -DJSasso (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Take track and field for example, in the Olympics there are a mix of pros and amateurs. In track the IAAF keeps track of all top quality athletes whether they are pro or amateur, and many of the amateurs that have not made the Olympics (or world championships) have several articles on them, including stats pages and bibliographies. Being a pro in track is almost meaningless there are several pros who can not even think about making the Olympics, it makes no sense that they get pages while the more notable and better amateur athletes do not. We require amateurs to be top 3 (amongst pros and amateurs) in the US (or their respective country) and pros just to exist. In my opinion WP:ATH is currently very flawed and illogical. Its not more concise or consistent than any of the proposed changes. The proposed change "highest level" just makes sure that people don't automatically get pages for being in non notable pro leagues, and participating in non-notable pro events.MATThematical (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Week Oppose to W:ATH & GNG requirement:While I am sympathetic to requiring WP:GNG and WP:ATH, I think there are some athletes who become notable because they become an icon, not because they meet WP:ATH. This is especially true of age group prodigy athletes who at a very young age compete at a level well beyond their norm. They may not make the Olympics or go pro at age 12, but someone who makes the finals of the olympic trials, who destroys age group records by inconceivable margins, and who gets a ton of media coverage becomes very notable. By a ton of media coverage I mean coverage from national papers and broadcast interviews over an extended period of time. How would this person fit into getting a page if we required them to meet WP:ATH. Perhaps they become a celebrity and they can fit in that way, but in general I think GNG needs to trump athlete. That being said I also think that for Athletes GNG needs to be interpreted as only reliable regional/national secondary sources (not local papers, or local sections of major papers).MATThematical (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Because this is a guideline, there may be exceptional cases. I don't think it is a good idea to throw wide open the guideline as a whole just to protect exceptional cases that would be protected anyway. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Weak oppose while I understand the need for reliable sources, etc. people have to understand that sportspeople are going to mainly get coverage for their endeavours in their chosen sport and not for their personal life. It's only natural that an article about, say, a cricketer would mostly contain details about that person's cricket career, and not as much biographical information and I can't see why such an article should be deleted because of this. However, if we were to get rid of the sports coverage clause in WP:NTEMP that does not allow routine journalism to be used as significant coverage, I would be inclined to support the proposal. On another note, I have recentism issues with this proposal because anyone from before about 1995 would automatically become non-notable if this motion were to pass. BigDom06:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not following how an athlete's personal life has anything to do with this. Surely an athlete can receive significant coverage in reliable sources related only to his or her athletic pursuits, and pass WP:GNG? Am I missing something here? I think WP:NTEMP refers to transient sports coverage; I would not read it as precluding the use of sports news articles about an athlete to form the sole basis for a biography. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I meant that athletes rarely have in-depth newspaper/magazine articles written about them that include much biographical detail. The main reason I decided to oppose was that I believe that most sportspeople are mentioned so often in reliable sources that decent articles can be written about them, even though there isn't much that could be considered significant in a GNG sense. BigDom07:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
How do you plan to write articles from passing mentions, like "Player X did Y in the game last night"? If there is no biographical information on them, we can't make a biography. See how that works? The WordsmithCommunicate16:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
All it takes to write an article is a name and birthdate, who they played for and some stats. All of which are easily found for pretty much any athlete. They might never be FAs but you can write an article from small mentions and stats pages quite easily. -DJSasso (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Djsasso, that's my point exactly. There are plenty of GAs that have very little biographical information – this one, for example, has only one sentence about his life outside football, but nobody would argue that he doesn't pass GNG. The Wordsmith, it's not my fault that you come across as having some kind of vendetta against athletes, but you have to admit that perfectly decent articles (just look around, there are many of them on Wikipedia) can be created documenting a person's sporting career without going into in-depth biographical detail. If it were up to you, would athletes' articles only contain information about their family and personal life and have nothing about their sporting exploits? Because it seems like that's what you are striving for. Don't get me wrong, I'm not having a go at you, I'm just really struggling to understand your angle. BigDom19:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll explain further. Having material about his career is perfectly fine, but it needs to be more than just statistics. What did a player actually contribute to a team other than scores? Was he liked by the public? Why was he traded from team X to team Y? Who did they get in return? How did the deal work out for them? If he changed positions, why did he do that? If his stats declined, why? Did he have any important sponsorships? In order to have a biographical article, especially on a living person, we need for other people to actually care about the person enough to write details about their career or their life in general. We shouldn't have an article with just an infobox and stats. Athletes are no different than professors, CEOs, authors etc in that their biography needs to be a reasonably complete description of their life. Its fine if it focuses on their career, but you need to actually say something about their career then aside from raw numbers. The WordsmithCommunicate20:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, I see where you're coming from a bit more now but that's not to say that I'm taking the same view as you. I think you and me are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I've never been an advocate of deleting articles willy-nilly and in the past I have often given articles the benefit of the doubt that the sources do exist, even if they haven't been added yet. BigDom20:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's where you and I differ. Since so many of these are BLPs, they simply can't be allowed to sit there for years without sources, which is what many of them are doing. When a BLP is four years old and has no real sourced content, it should be eliminated quietly and without sorrow. The WordsmithCommunicate20:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
That's fair enough, I understand the ongoing problems editors have with unsourced BLPs and would have no qualms about deleting one that was four years old. However, I've made my stance on the BLP issue known in the past, that uncontroversial articles aren't going to get Wikipedia sued and as such aren't as much of a priority as other people argue. Anyway, we're digressing from this proposal now... my weak opposal still stands. BigDom20:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Tens of thousands of unsourced or poorly sourced BLPs written about marginally notable athletes aren't a problem? The fact that these articles are routinely kept at AFD is not a problem? The WordsmithCommunicate17:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure, they're a problem. And the solution to that problem is to improve the friggin' articles, plus implementing some quality control measures like flagged revisions to ensure that they don't fall into disrepair (as with all BLPs). Unsourced does not equal unsourcable, no matter how much some people would like to pretend otherwise. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)17:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
For many of them, there aren't enough sources to write about anything more than statistics or to confirm that they exist. If we don't have the material to write a biography, and can't find the material to write a biography, we shouldn't have a biography. The WordsmithCommunicate17:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I found a number of sources for both this spelling and Donald Sweeny spelling with a simple google search. Likely there would be even more sources in news papers not online. -DJSasso (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Both of which are, of course, useless to me, since I don't know much about football or soccer and don't know how to research them. Find me some baseball players. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)17:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
If he is, I wonder if he actually checked Kenyan newspapers to ensure that you can't source it. As opposed to only a google search. -DJSasso (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I was able to verify Sholei's birth date and that he was a Kenyan international footballer in RS (and added them to the article). Beyond that, there are only pay-per-view articles about him from Kenyan papers and his own writing for the kenyanfootball website. I'm not sure the article would pass GNG, but I don't have access to Kenyan (or any African sources) from the time he played. However, as an international, I suspect he would. Jogurney (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
You suspect he would, yes. That doesn't mean that you or I or anyone else here can find sources for him, which means that his BLP will likely remain a poorly-sourced stub for years. there are thousands just like him. If there are maybe, potentially sources out there that are hard to find, that doesn't do us a damn bit of good if nobody can actually find them to write a biography. The WordsmithCommunicate19:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The difference is that we have extensive sources supporting the other content, it just that the subject of the article wrote them. I'm not sure we ought to have an article with such content, but it's obvious that he is a noted athlete. Jogurney (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
"Tens of thousands of unsourced or poorly sourced BLPs written about marginally notable athletes aren't a problem?" - You are begging the question, Wordsmith. Please show evidence that these are a problem. Resolute21:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I would also like to note, for the record, that it's contrary to policies/guidelines to delete an article for which sources exist, even if they have not yet been added to the article in question. From the general flow of discussion here, that seems to be some people's motivation in pursuing the change, so I figured I might as well cut it off at the pass. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)17:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Just to cite my work: Per WP:GNG, "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." Per WP:GD, "Before nominating an article for AFD, please...first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." So there you have it. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)17:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
He isn't opposing enforcing it, he is pointing out that wp:athlete already conforms to GNG. And that to word it in the way proposed will cause people to be lazy and delete articles instead of going to find the sources in paper settings etc. WP:ATHLETE was crafted in a way to make people who will most likely already meet GNG not be the subject of arguments on if sources exist or not. People just seem to always want to cut down on athlete articles because they deem there is too many, however, that is only because they are written about more than most subjects. -DJSasso (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
If the overlap is so extensive, then making an explicit requirement to satisfy both should not change much, right? Gigs (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Wrong, the whole point of WP:ATHLETE was to stop the constant arguing on what is a good enough source. Making this change would defeat the entire purpose of having wp:athlete. -DJSasso (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
So the point of WP:ATHLETE was to end arguments about such irrelevant things as "secondary source coverage"? You think this is a defensible position? Gigs (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, players who meet WP:ATHLETE are assumed to have the sources required for an article. This is why the levels are set where they are, people who don't meet them are less likely to have sources. This is pretty much the point of all the various Notability sub-pages. Its an acknowledgment that some sources will require digging through 100 year old news paper archives as opposed to a quick google search. It is basically an extension of "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate" in GNG. It is likely anyone who meets WP:ATHLETE has sources. -DJSasso (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Support Having thousands of poorly-referenced biographies of people who haven't been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources is a disaster waiting to happen, and this guideline is also overly permissive in a discriminate encyclopedia. Notability isn't inherited by being a professional, just as notability isn't inherited by being a professional in any other type of profession. Having figures and statistics of an athlete is not good enough without coverage of what those figures and statistics mean. ThemFromSpace19:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Weak Support. I basically agree with the argument that ATH should not be used for inclusion when GNG is failed, but I do not see this as addressing the real problem: as long as one says that sources like a minor blurb in a small local paper, touting a local, even high-school, athlete, satisfy GNG, then GNG is going to pass pretty much any athlete. For me, the real issue is making ATH more rigorous, to get away from the "just showing up" equals "competing at the highest level" fallacy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Support Either the sources exist to construct a proper encyclopedic biography or they do not. If they do not, then no encyclopedic biography.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
That is not the issue under discussion. The issue under discussion is whether we should be allowed to have articles on sportspeople who can pass WP:GNG (i.e. sportspoeple for whom the sources exist to construct an encyclopedic biography) but who do not pass certain arbitrarily-chosen standards of career longevity to be determined. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)21:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Strong support Wikipedia is overwhelmed with stale and low quality articles about athletes. There is a strong need to write a guideline that will give Wikipedia editors good guidance on this topic. A large number of the people with articles are mentioned in passing in numerous newspaper articles about the sporting event or game. The frequency of the mention of their name gives a false sense that the person is notable when actually the game (or event) is the main focus of the coverage. So, we are left with little information about them as people and no ability to write an individual article about the person. This applies across the board to most sports. Being a professional athlete or Olympian should not automatically mean that an article is created. The person needs to have enough in depth coverage in secondary sources to write a true article. FloNight♥♥♥♥20:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Why? It is highly likely that people would be searching for information about various athletes... why do they need to have information about other parts of their lives to warent articls? Spanneraol (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
You can always merge them down to lists. Having hundreds of thousands of tiny articles is a bad idea for many reasons. Gigs (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Quite the opposite actually, a small stub is better than a lack of an article or just a redirect to a list because someone is more likely to expand a stub than to create a whole new article. A drive by IP will expand before they create. And as a wiki we want to capitalize on that sort of editing. -DJSasso (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
If we are overwhelmed with low-quality articles on notable subjects, then it seems to me that the obvious solution would be to improve the low-quality articles until they are no longer low-quality, and to encourage editors who create low-quality articles to do a better job. For BLPs, some form of flagged revisions would also help. None of this has anything to do with revising notability standards, so I don't understand why that's being brought up as a solution. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)21:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The volume of biographical articles that Wikipedia English has on athletes is far more than what would ever be covered in an encyclopedia. The idea of what is encyclopedic has been stretched to the point of being meaningless if everyone that is paid for a type of work is covered under the that topic which is more or less what is happening now on the topic. There is simply on way that everyone that appears as a professional needs a separate article for Wikipedia to give good coverage to the topic. Our attempt to do more than we can possibly do well has left us with hundreds if not thousands of incomplete and stale articles with many of them not regularly checked for accuracy. We need to be forward looking and make a sensible plan about how to cover this topic over the next decade rather than hold on to the unrealistic guidelines that will never allow us to reach the potential of good coverage of the topic. FloNight♥♥♥♥22:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." Remeber when Der Jimbo said that? I do. And as noted, if accuracy is your primary concern, then this could be better addressed through the use of flagged revisions (as I've already noted on several occasions in this discussion, without response). It's a much better solution than deleting articles on notable topics out of the fear that someone, somewhere, might vandalize them. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)23:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment: It doesn't look like there is going to be a consensus on forcing WP:ATH and WP:GNG both be satisfied, and it also looks like there is not going to be consensus on adding an "extended period of play section." However, I still don't see an argument against "highest level" other than the pros are automatically considered to be the highest level. In this case it sounds like highest level is only going to affect sports that have multiple pro leagues per country where one league is at a lower level than the other. In this case I don't see the rational to assume that a reliable, "independent" source will automatically exist for those participating in the low level league, even if we looked hard enough for paper sources. I think User:Djsasso has given a very good argument as to why WP:ATH needs to exist and be independent from WP:GNG, but I don't see how adding highest level to the pros is a bad move. I think the highest level for almost all sports I can think of would be pretty well defined amongst any fan of the sport. Am I wrong on this, is there really going to be a ton of squabbling over what it meant by highest level? If so is it something that individual sports communities can't work out, giving us guidelines to point to in AfDs? MATThematical (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I strongly disagree with this comment. Your point about there not being reliable sources for lower league athletes is just plain wrong I'm afraid. In England, we have four levels of professional football, all of which gain endless pages of coverage in the national daily newspapers. Nobody would deny that the Premier League is the "highest level", but to say that players in the other divisions don't receive significant coverage is absolute lunacy. We also have two professional cricket divisions, between which the difference in standard is minimal and guess what... the papers report in-depth coverage of those as well. I could go on, but I think you can see my point. I can't speak for other countries, but I imagine the scenario will be fairly similar to say the least. BigDom22:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Passing GNG alone should be sufficient, as long as it's made clear routine coverage in local media isn't enough. Although, I'd be in favour of making WP:ATHLETE stricter or even abandoning it. Epbr123 (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment You could smack your head against a brick wall all night and still come up with an arrangement that only 51% of people are happy with. At present though the wording of the guidline is ambigious and slightly non-sensical. As for making the guidelines more strict that sounds like a receipe for disaster, we just need to clarify it. Like much of Wikipedia I've looked through articles suggested for nomination and a lot of it has to do with what country someone comes from. A prime example would be an association football player who plays in the second tier of the Ivory Coast league system and has played for their under 19s. There is a strong call for his page to be deleted, because no-one from the UK or USA has heard of him. But if it's a two bit association football player in the third of fourth tier of soccer in England or American football in America I'm sure no-one would question it. If we do make it stricter we should remember that notability doesn't just mean known in the UK and USA. Cls14 (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
So what? which means: is it really necessary to have such a proposal? I mean, WP:ATH is meant as an additional criteria to WP:BIO, whose basic criterion 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.". Is it that significantly different from WP:GNG? Do we really need to approve something that it is already in the books? Please note this is not a form of opposal, but just a way to say that in my opinion this discussion is only useless as things stand. --Angelo (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Like your thinking Angelo, although I still think that it needs to be re-written to make it clearer if it is to exist Cls14 (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, sort of.- I understand the motivation behind WP:ATHLETE and the view that insisting on the GNG will just lead to recentism and the exclusion of athletes who competed long ago. I also find myself persuaded by a good point raised by others- namely, without sources how can you write an article? However, I feel this last point is an issue for WP:V rather than WP:GNG. If an athlete for instance had just stats in an independent database proving they competed at the highest level, and stuff on the team website about them then that would be enough for me. Even though the substantial coverage isn't independent and the independent coverage isn't substantial you've got a reasonable assertion of notability and enough verifiable information to flesh out an article- so what exactly is the problem? If all there is is the bare stats, then probably a list is the best place for it. The issue that there is a big flood of unsourced articles about borderline notable athletes in violation of BLP, that's a matter primarily for the verifiability policy rather than the notability guideline. ReykYO!23:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Well that's the rub. We don't delete articles directly per WP:V or the inability to satisfy it. Gigs (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
New Idea: So basically as I understand it, there seems to be disagreement on just about every issue regarding WP:Athlete, its amazing that WP:Athlete was ever created. There seems to be no consensus either way. I guess that means it stays as is? Well here is one and perhaps the last try to reach some agreement on something. I have a new proposal, can we somewhere in WP:Athlete at least add the condition that the coverage can't just be local, but has to be national/regional (at least one article/writeup). Every high school in the nation has athletes mentioned in the local paper all the time. I agree that perhaps truly exceptional high school athletes may be notable (if they are the best in the nation/get national coverage) but can we at least agree that local articles alone are not grounds for notability for athletes. Its been brought up independently by at least a couple editors in this discussion, and no one has opposed it yet. Close to zero percent of high school/local athletes that get written up in a small local papers go on to be notable in any conceivable way. These Wikipedia pages are destined to be strandedMATThematical (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
In Other words, WP:ATH would read like this under the change, "Satisfies WP:GNG/WP:Bio, with the added condition that the coverage be national/regional" or "...current WP:ATH guidelines...". Im not sure whether WP:Bio or WP:GNG should be used, but this is just details that we can work out later if we agree on this. Can we all at least agree on this? or some variation? MATThematical (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that, here and above, you are being a little too quick to conclude that there is no consensus for anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Support as athletes can't be notable unless they have actually been "noted" in accordance with WP:GNG. I think treating professional athletes as a case apart has been a big mistake, because in the absence of any coverage, it is not possible to verify that an athlete is professional, let alone notable. Trivial coverage, mentions in passing, routine news reports or coverage from questionable sources is not not going to provide evidence of notability, even in the broadest sense of the word. Simply labelling someone as a professional athlete is a matter of opinion, not truth, and such opinions should supported by evidence. The argument that athletes are inherently notable is just another variation on WP:IKNOWIT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)21:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Support: I totally agree. I mean, I cover hockey articles, and the other day I came across an article for a female goalie who played for the Russian team this recent olympics....I mean, never played pro, no notability, but because Russia iced a team of amateurs in a sport that has virtually no support, fanbase, or competition, the person gets an article? I don't get it. There needs to be higher standards--Львівське (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Support: WP:ATHLETE is by far the most egregious sub-notability criteria for inclusion - just playing in the big leagues does not confer notability. Particularly in light of the recent issue with WP:BLP (and with the new WP:STICKY prod), an article on an athlete is going to need to be of a higher standard than just playing professionally, with the GNG being the best measure in light of the other points listed. --MASEM (t) 01:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Support - GNG simply says that reliable sources need to exist for us to be able to write an article that meets our minimal standards of verifiability. I'm always astonished to find that this idea is controversial. GNG really should be the minimum standard for all Wikipedia articles, not just those on athletes. BRMo (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose as only allowing athletes who pass GNG would lead to a bias towards recent athletes, whereas for some past athletes we may know they competed at a certain notable level but not have wider/significant details to hand. Eldumpo (talk) 07:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Support because this is already the case - The opposes above misunderstand GNG. WP:GNG is not an excluding guideline, but rather a bare minimum upon which other guidelines build. In practical terms, it gives benchmarks for meeting WP:N.
A project can't create a guideline that would include articles that fail encyclopedia-wide guidelines: e.g., the Sports project can't create an athlete criteria that allows T-ball players by default, without any sources because that guideline would violate WP:RS and WP:N. Those policies supersede any project guideline. I say superseding because it is intrinsic to WP and has much broader consensus than any single project's guidelines. GNG works much the same way.
I would like to see an example of a page that fails GNG but meets WP:N, WP:RS, and a project guideline. This is an important issue not because it has a practical effect, but because it provides a clearer understanding of how the tangled mess of policies fit together in a comprehensible way. Shadowjams (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose The existing guidelines are fine. In fact, the only problem is that they tend to be interpreted overly strictly, so many minor league baseball players get inappropriately deemed "non-notable". Rlendog (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose? ATH's purpose is to establish a line at which we know that GNG will be met. It therefore makes no sense to try to force meeting both standards, since that is already required. However, changing the wording will cause confusion, and possibly lead to recentism as harder-to-source, yet notable, athletes are deleted, while recent athlete articles multiply because you can source them from ESPN. —Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)01:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose due to Presentism. It will overrepresent current players. It's not the fault of people who played in the 1910s that media coverage is much more saturated and diverse now. Historical completeness dictates that there needs to be some range in acceptability for historical players. You can get thorough information about many players from the 6th division in English football now, but information on a more objectively notable player in say, Serie A in the 1950s might be much harder to find. matt91486 (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. If someone finds out that Albert Einstein did a bit of sports on the side, he is suddenly no longer notable? I don't think so. WP:ATHLETE should be a good approximation to what a detailed examination of whether an athlete satisfies the WP:GNG would return. But it isn't, and that's the problem that needs fixing. I support the fixing of WP:ATHLETE, but not this attempt to make it irrelevant. Then it would be better to just get rid of it. HansAdler17:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Support - WP:ATHLETE has just too low requirements. For example, anyone who has participated in the Olympics can have his or her own article. That's over 10,000 just for the Beijing Olympics. Most of these athletes have accomplished nothing of note beyond making it to the Olympic and have zero coverage, thus they lead to perma-stub, low quality articles that are nothing more than one line name and occupation. It's the same for many athletes in other sports/events. With WP:N, we can remove these permanent stubs no one will ever look at. Alternatively, WP:ATHLETE could be made more stringent without necessarily needing exactly WP:N, in order to be able to have some substance to all athlete articles.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose It defeats the whole purpose of having WP:ATHLETE if the person has to meet the WP:GNG guidelines anyway. If WP:ATHLETE casts too broad a net, then it should be narrowed. Although, admittedly, Wikipedia is top-heavy on articles about athletes, it's even more top-heavy on recentism. The intent of having inherent notability for pro athletes is to allow articles on people who had qualified for the major leagues of any pro sport (NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB, etc) particularly those who played in the early days. I think that there does need to be clarification about WP:ATHLETE applying to people who have made it into a register of players in a reference work (The Baseball Encyclopedia, Total Football, etc.). We have people who don't know crap about sports arguing that minor league players (International League baseball, American Hockey League, Continental Basketball Association, etc) also played in "fully professional leagues"; and we have people who have argued (unsuccessfully I'm glad to say), that anyone who plays on an NCAA Division I team in any sport is at the highest level of amateur competition. Mandsford (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Strong support - no subject-specific guideline should offer an excuse not to meet the WP:GNG. If an athlete can meet WP:ATHLETE in any form, it HAS to meet WP:GNG by simple nature of WP:V. You can't verify without coverage in sources, and you need said coverage to meet WP:GNG. WP:ATHLETE is one of many people specific guidelines that have let far too many unnotable people slide by with an article on the must minute of seemingly random criteria.-- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 17:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Wikipedia isn't Hello magazine. If there is verifiable evidence that a person meets ATHLETE, in whatever form that might be rewritten as to exclude too low a level, there is no need to also require evidence of the existence of vanity cruft to be able to presume they are notable. It is quite alarming to see people don't seem to care about the inherent recentism this will force into the pedia either. And this whole 'there are too many stubby people articles to maintain here, let's randomly clear some out to cope', is a rather short sighted way to compile an encyclopoedia too, all too typical of the various hamfisted perrennial BLP driven proposals that never take into account what Wikipedia is actually for. MickMacNee (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Strong Oppose Yeah there are a lot of Athlete stubs, but why exactly should they be held to a stricter notability standard than any other category of article in Wikipedia? Horrorshowj (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, that is actually what this proposal attempts to do. The issue is whether ATH, as worded, adequately describes at what point an athlete becomes notable. Resolute15:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Proposal:More than routine coverage is needed
Under this proposal, a requirement would be made for there to be significant coverage independent of the subject/his employer. That means there needs to be biographical information outside of his official team bio and trivial mentions in newspaper articles about the games they take part in. The reason for this proposal is that there are tens of thousands of unsourced or poorly sourced articles (BLPs even) consisting of nothing but an infobox and statistics, and have been sitting there for years. We don't need "articles" like that, for the same reason we don't need articles on individual television episodes that are nothing but plot summary. The WordsmithCommunicate02:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Weak oppose- as I said earlier, I don't really have a huge problem with the notability requirement coming from things like stats databases and the "meat" of the article coming from things like team websites. But I do think that if you can't expand the article beyond an infobox and statistics, merging to a list is probably the way to go. As for the BLP concerns, if Wikipedia is only presenting the athlete's career statistics and these are sourced to a reliable database then I don't think there's a problem at all. ReykYO!02:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Support. I agree with Reyk that there's not really a BLP problem here, but I think "significant coverage in reliable sources" always requires more than an amalgam of trivial independent mentions and self-published sources. A biography has to be reliable; reliability comes from significant coverage in reliable sources; and significant coverge in reliable sources requires what is proposed here.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I fail to see the problem with having articles that have an info box and statistics... obviously it is better to have more than that... but it is better to have a stub that can be expanded than to have no article at all. Spanneraol (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Can we at least agree to the much weaker "new idea", located above this proposal, it basically says you can either meet WP:Athlete as it is or WP:GNG with the additional requirement that there must at least be one non-local source. This is almost no change at all, just requires that high school and local athlete types have regional or national coverage. MATThematical (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Is their really a problem with local high school athletes getting pages? They would not be professional anyways so I dont see this as an issue. Spanneraol (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually it is a huge issue. While they don't meet WP:ATH many are claimed to meet WP:GNG because they get articles in local papers. Heck I know a boy who got an article who ran a 4:38 mile, which is a non-notable time even by high school standards. He hasn't created a page for himself yet, but he could since he meets GNG if we include local coverage. Currently the way it works is that you can meet WP:GNG or WP:ATH, either gets you a page. I think there are good reasons to keep both WP:ATH and WP:GNG for athletes. However, if neither excludes the other, we must require those who don't meet WP:ATH to at least have non-local coverage. There is a ton of pages on high school athletes, some of which are actually notable, but at lest 95% are not even close to being notable. MATThematical (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
That is a discussion for on GNG because GNG trumps Athlete and a change there would require a major cross wiki RFC which we all know would not go in favour of a change. Has nothing to do with changing how WP:ATHLETE works. As for your example a single article doesn't meet GNG. They also have to come from multiple sources. ie more than one paper. How many localities other than major cities have multiple news papers. I don't think this is as big an issue as people make it out to be. -DJSasso (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
No it isn't, I am proposing that we make WP:Ath say "meets one of the following conditions (1) meets WP:GNG with the added condition that the sources are not local, (2) the current professional clause, (3) the current amateur clause", and require WP:ATH be satisfied in order for one to be considered notable. It would be like Academic in this regard. However, because a form of GNG is in WP:Ath it is extremely similar. It does not require a change to WP:GNG at all. This is not an issue for GNG because Athletes are special in that non-notable local athletes are covered extensively and repeatedly in local articles. MATThematical (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Not currently as either WP:BIO/GNG or WP:ATH is enough to satisfy notability. WP:ATH is not like WP:ACADEMIC, it is not exclusive of WP:BIO. MATThematical (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
That's the thing though - nobody is improving them. There are articles i've seen stay like that for over five years, untouched. I know some people used scripts to create these articles automatically, so why do we want to keep them if nobody cares enough about them? The WordsmithCommunicate03:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline. If they go another five years without being improved, so what? Someone will get to them sooner or later. As long as they are protected against libel, they do no harm - and some good. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)03:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
BLPs are different. BLP trumps everything else. How do we know that the statistics aren't deliberately inaccurate, and therefore potentially damaging to the subject? If nobody cares about the article enough to source facts in it and watch over it, how do we know it is accurate? The WordsmithCommunicate03:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
If the statistics are wrong or unverifiable, they should be removed. However, if the biographical data and statistics can be verified, why delete the entire article if the person is a professional athlete? It seems we are confusing notability and lack of BLP sourcing - I fully agree with referencing unsourced BLPs (I've been doing it for years now). Jogurney (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The stats can easily be verified. Also most of the stubs that are purely statistical are for people from before the internet that are usually deceased.. BLP concerns should not be an issue for people who are no longer living. Spanneraol (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per what is mentioned above. I don't really see the issues you see, quite frankly I don't have issue with either of your examples of bad articles. Wikipedia has no deadline. Things can sit as long as they need to in order to be "finished". As long as they are protected against vandalism and libel then we are good. I have to agree that some of this seems people are worried about high school kids getting articles, well that wouldn't fall under ATHLETE since they are neither professional or playing at the highest amateur level. Also it just seems to be a bias against sports articles from not sports editors who fail to see that the number of athlete articles are just a reflection on the fact that sports is written about in society alot more than almost anything else. -DJSasso (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
It's because the standard is way too low. Suppose we did it for other fields? "Any doctor that has practiced at a fully professional level... Articles about doctors that merely list their school of graduation and current practice are fine, after all they provide a base to expand on" What about Engineers? What about plumbers? Electricians? Pretty much every licensed professional is going to have some published and verifiable information out there that we could make stubs with. We don't. Gigs (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
None of those professionals get written about for meerly being professional. Its very rare any of those professionals would have published and verifiable information out there. Athletes on the other hand do. When was the last time you read a news paper article about a professional in any of those fields who got the article based solely on doing their every day job and not because of some major event. -DJSasso (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The public pays to watch professional athletes, just like they do with other entertainers, which is not typical for other professionals (although I'll happily charge the public to watch me on a confererence call). Like it or not, the public has an unusual amount of interest in these people doing their "day jobs". Jogurney (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Not all jobs are created equal, as far as notability is concerned. And the idea that certain professionals in specific occupations are inherently notable is relatively un-controversial in and of itself - does anyone object to us having pages for all the members of the United States House of Representatives, for example? Even the political equivalents of the one-game baseball player, like Representative-for-two-weeks Shelley Sekula-Gibbs? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)17:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hit bull, win steak, that is not close to being an accurate comparison. Currently we encourage athletes to be written about that would be more similar to low level local politicians. Which is something that our guidelines do not support for politicians. We don't cover every member of a local city or town council even if they get local coverage and have available biographical material which politicians usual do make available. FloNight♥♥♥♥18:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
FloNight, are you seriously comparing Major League Baseball players to local politicans? That is ridiculous. Any MLB player will have more people searching for information on them than any local pol... that is a silly assertion you are making. Spanneraol (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Although it varies greatly from person to person, the monthly readership for both types of articles is often very low and since some of it is most likely internal maintenance and web crawlers rather than people searching out information, it is actually even lower. So, I don't think that cutting back on professional athlete articles in this way is going to harm readership. If I felt that we were offering a high quality content to a niche then I would not oppose keeping this material. But I think that it is hindering our ability to improve the overall quality of content. That is the reason that I suggest reducing the volume to a more manageable amount of material. FloNight♥♥♥♥22:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
So now the degree of a subject's notability can be accurately determined by pageviews? That's good to know... Someone should probably tell Wikiproject: Pokemon, so they can spin all of the entries on those lists back out into individual articles. And by the same logic, of course, Lady Gaga (2253542 pageviews in March) is significantly more notable than William Shakespeare (557270) or Barack Obama (711498). And As I Lay Dying (band) (56560) crushes As I Lay Dying (novel) (20337). And so forth... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)21:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
May as well keep going, while I've got my dander up. How about Nathan K. Hall? He's most definitely NOT just a "local politician": Member of the House of Representatives, US Postmaster General, US Secretary of the Interior... and his article got a whopping 393 pageviews last month. That's entierly comparable to the traffic for an obscure 19th-century baseball player (for example, Bill Blair (American Association pitcher), whose MLB career encompassed a grand total of four games in 1888, and who got 145 pageviews). If it's all about the traffic, why are we bothering with an article for Mr. Hall? Or is the idea of inherent notability less "controversial" when it's applied to Cabinet members? And why aren't people screaming blue murder about the total lack of citations in Hall's article? At least poor Mr. Blair has citations to a NYT obit in his... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)21:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Particular instances of "inherent notability" are controversial. The principle itself is not. For example, we have articles on all the Emperors of Japan, even though for some (like Emperor Keikō) historians don't have even basics like date and place of birth, date and place of death, length of reign, a physical description, or even a complete (contemporaneous) name. Yet they all have articles - and is anyone going to seriously argue that the Emperor of Japan is not inherently notable? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)20:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Strong Support. Even though I think there is a need to flesh out the meaning of " more" and "routine", I think that this gets to what is wrong with ATH currently. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Support somewhat tighter restrictions. I like restricting non-GNG-compliant athletes to those who have played professionally for more than one season. I would also like to see a statement to the effect that these standards are about a rebuttable presumption that sources are likely to exist for all pro athletes that have played for more than one season (even if said sources aren't currently named in the article or trivially found by your FWSE), and that if no sources that are (1) independent and (2) provide substantial/non-routine coverage can actually be found for a living athlete (after a suitable time period, which IMO is longer than one week), then the article should be deleted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I would like a better sense of what is meant by "routine" before supporting or opposing this proposal. Jogurney (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I think it's reasonable to have a set of criteria for athletes providing a guide as to their notability, and thus there may be occasions where minor references provide confirmation that a sportsperson played at a particular level/league, that may be deemed notable. This can be especially important for sports figures from the past where coverage is not so easy to find. Articles with no sources at all should be deleted (once an appropriate search has been made for sources). Eldumpo (talk) 10:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose vague "more than routine"; will reconsider if a clear definition arrives. However, I am strongly against requiring info that does not contribute to the person's real-life notability (in this case, anything besides sports achievements). Up above Bali Ultimate proposed mandatory verified research on family life. Get real and leave it to cheap tabloids. Who really cares about Bob Beamon's family? The guy could jump, and he did, it's all that matters. NVO (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Weak support As I understand it, this proposal is basically a requirement for articles on athletes to meet GNG and not violate WP:NOTNEWS. I'd support that, although I'd rather ATHLETE just be toughened, so that we don't delete stub articles on clearly notable people, such as Olympic gold medallists from 100 years ago. Epbr123 (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose We don't need articles like that? Speaking to MLB player articles, which is where much of my experience lies, we have thousands of stubs articles "like that". The reason that they are stubs isn't a lack of sources, but a shortage of manpower. With time, these articles will flesh out, especially as more of the earlier sources (Baseball Digest, for instance) become readily available online. caknuck°needs to be running more often14:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose The existing guidelines are fine. In fact, the only problem is that they tend to be interpreted overly strictly, so many minor league baseball players get inappropriately deemed "non-notable". Rlendog (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - why get into gray area about what is "routine" and what is "trivial." Consistent media coverage over the course of seasons indicates that people want to know about a person - the fact that they might not be profiled and might only have statistics available doesn't make them a less likely search function. Whether some people like it or not, athletes are going to be looked up by people on Wikipedia frequently. matt91486 (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Strong support - again, if you are notable you should have more coverage than just official sites and being listed in standard sports charts that list everyone's or nearly everyone's scores in a game. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 17:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Proposal: Require sufficient sourced material for more than a stub
Here is a another possible approach, not necessarily mutually exclusive with the others discussed. It occurred to me from reading the comments here about articles that have no chance of being more than stubs. It would be to add a third clause to the existing two clauses in WP:ATH:
3. In addition, there must be more reliably sourced material about the subject than could be adequately presented as entries in one or more lists.
Athletes who fail this third criterion would then be put in lists, with a redirect from the person's name. Subjects with extensive coverage would easily satisfy this criterion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Support. Agree this is not mutually exclusive with the above proposals. If the only material available on an athlete can be presented in a list, present it in a list. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm offering it as an alternative way of accomplishing much the same thing, perhaps with clearer wording. Let's see how the discussion goes. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose for the same reasons I've mentioned abov. I still do not understand this bias against professional athletes exhibited here. This proposal makes no sense. Spanneraol (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Question - why is it that only articles about an athlete cannot start as a stub? It seems bizarre (and unfair) to apply this "rule" to athletes only. Jogurney (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Opppose I have to agree with Jogurney. Why people think only athletes can't start as stubs like any other article on the wiki is allowed to is beyond me. -DJSasso (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I don't see why athlete articles should need to adhere to an additional condition that they require extensive sourcing from the start. I agree all new articles should have some sourcing, but I don't agree it needs to be more than could be presented in a list. Who would decide what can and can't be presented in a list anyway. Eldumpo (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: there are many other articles on Wikipedia that are stubs, not just the ones about sportspeople. There is no deadline for articles to be expanded, and no reason why athletes' articles cannot begin life as stubs. Of course there needs to be some sourcing from the start, but new sources come along all the time to allow expansion. Can't for the life in me imagine why the idea of lists is even being considered because they would just end up ridiculously long and unmanagable. This whole thing just seems to be a hobby horse for a few editors who dislike athletes with a vengeance. BigDom11:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
BigDom please assume good faith. Rather than "disliking athletes with a vengeance", perhaps these editors are keen to prevent the further proliferation of poorly sourced and maintained BLPs? Attacking the people who make these proposals serves no useful purpose. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
That being said, if that were the case, then there should be no issue, because the new BLP guidelines already take care of all the problems people keep bringing up. So far the only argument people keep having have basically come down to "Down with athletes." The new BLP guidelines cover all these issues people keep regurgitating. What we want to know is what new issue is there? -DJSasso (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, maybe I worded it a bit strongly, but I'm sure you can see my point. There are hundreds, probably thousands of other stubs on Wikipedia but nobody is making a big deal of deleting those. Athletes are just an easy target. BigDom21:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Actually the new BLPprod only deals with some of the problem. Creating a thinly-sourced stub is easy: remember, thinly sourced is all you need to get past the BLPprod. Keeping it up to date and well sourced is another. We have no policy mechanism to deal with that. In my view, one way that we can help is to prevent the proliferation of the stubs in the first place. Athletes are one of the largest, probably the largest area, in which these stubs arise. I understand your arguments to the contrary. But it is not helpful, and is downright wrong, to attack the my side of the argument as rampant sports-haters. As for singling out athletes: if there are other areas of the project that demonstrate the same extent of poorly sourced and marginally notable BLPs, I for one would be happy to consider sensible proposals to narrow the notability criteria. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment. This is a reply to all of the high-dudgeon opposes just above. The proposal does not say that stubs are, a priori, to be speedy-deleted on sight. Please comment on what it actually says. What it says is that stubs would be listified if more sourcing does not exist. If there is a stub, but sourcing exists for it to be more than a stub, then this criterion would be satisfied. For all the whining about bias against ATH pages, what the opponents really appear to be saying is that it is encyclopedic to have multiple one-sentence biographical pages that can never hope to be more than one sentence. Before my time at Wikipedia, I understand that there was a major discussion about Pokemon pages. It seems to me that, today, we have a dig-in-the-heels subpopulation of sports editors who see any attempt at making sports pages better quality as some kind of assault on their turf. Sigh. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
No one is saying articles shouldn't be better quality.. but simply deleting articles that aren't at whatever arbitrary level of quality you desire is ridiculous. You would be creating extremely long unmanageable lists which are a much much worse approach than the stubs we currently have. Who would determine if "enough sourcing exists"? This approach is very subjective and would lead to a disaster of tons of very hostile afd debates over professional athletes that have always been allowed in the past. Spanneraol (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, you are describing a fictitious scenario. They wouldn't be "simply" deleted. There would be an AfD; editors who favor keeping would click through to the search links at the top of the AfD page, find sourcing to extend the page beyond a stub (note that current policy says "keep" when there appears to be the existence of sourcing, regardless of whether the sourcing has yet been added to the page), and the page would be kept. If the sourcing does not exist, the page would go, rightly. Determining if "enough sourcing exists" is straightforward: does citing the sourcing that exists result in more than a stub? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, you are advocating long lists instead of stubs, which I think is a far inferior result. And you are setting up what would be very contentious afd debates. You have yet to give a real reason why long lists of names would be better than stubs? Spanneraol (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Let's make an example that is independent of the particular sport. Let's imagine that Joe Schmo was an undistinguished player for the Littletown Lugs, playing the position of fumbler in 1961, 1962, and 1963. At present, his bio page says only that (minus the "undistingushed"), and a search for sources turns up nothing more. (Please note that for a great many athletes, there is a lot more information out there, and this scenario does not apply.) The subject's name "Joe Schmo" would become a redirect to "Littletown Lugs (1961)", where there would be list including the entry "Joe Schmo, fumbler (1961, 1962, 1963)", as well as some encyclopedic information about the team that year and what they did. The years 1962 and 1963 would blue link to "Littletown Lugs (1962)" and "Littletown Lugs (1963)" respectively, where there would be reciprocal links. There could even be a link from "fumbler" to "Fumblers from Guatemala" if such a page exists. This way, there could be embedded lists within pages that could actually be interesting, and readers could still find the name of the person they wanted to know about. (I notice, when I look at the random articles link, an awful lot of ATH stubs come up. At present, I see a lot fewer low-quality pages overall than I did a year ago, and most stubs are either athletes or geographical locations.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
So in your hypothetical, people looking for information on Joe Schmo would need to look up three separate pages to find info on him... and what if he also played for the Gonzo Gonzos in 1964... then he would have to go to four pages for info.. how is that better than one page that says Joe Schmo played for littletown for three years and then Gonzo for one and here are his stats... seems much better than having to look around for the info. Spanneraol (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Not really. They would type his name in the search box and be redirected to the right place, and follow the links. Hyperlinking is how the system works, and clicking through a couple of times is not exactly exhausting. Readers who want to find out about players for a particular team or something similar have to look at multiple bio pages under the system that you prefer. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, of course, in that I've already rejected on several earlier occasions in the discussion the notion that the majority of these articles can never be more than stubs. Without that (false) premise, the whole proposal collapses. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)21:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you point to where it says, in the proposal (as opposed to the talk section header), that the article has to be more than a stub? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your question. In your proposal, you spoke of "articles that have no chance of being more than stubs". Since I do not believe this to be an accurate characterization of the articles in question, I am not inclined to support the proposal, which accordingly seems misguided. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)21:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I spoke of that by way of discussion, but the actual third clause that I propose is not based on whether the article can or cannot be more than a stub. It's based on whether everything in the article can be fit into a list entry. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
In which case, I still don't understand your point. Literally anything can be added to a list - that doesn't mean that doing so is the correct approach. I think that organizing literally thousands of largely-unrelated (and perfectly adequate) bio stubs into any kind of sensible, cohesive list would be a nightmarish undertaking, both in terms of maintenance and in terms of navigation. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)14:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
"Can be added to a list" is, once more, not what it says. Lists do not normally have entries where each individual entry is the length of a typical page. This is referring only to pages where all the information present, and all the additional information that can be found, fits into a list entry. That does not mean taking a lengthy sourced page and deleting most of it so that it can be crammed into a list. Alas, as for anything being "nightmarish", ATH is unfailingly defended by editors who do not want anyone to move their cheese. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any functional difference between the phrases "can be added to a list" and "can be fit into a list entry", and the latter is directly from your response on 21:27 on April 12. If I misunderstood you, would you care to clarify? As for dairy products and the location thereof, I'm fine with moving cheese - I'd just like to be satisfied that you want to move it somewhere that's better for the cheese (like a refrigerator) and not worse (like the dirty floor under the kitchen table), and right now, I see no evidence of this. Let's look at a concrete example. Right now, we've got an uncited bio stub on former MLB pitcher Ray Krawczyk. Under your proposal (as I understand it, to the extent that I understand it), this would be moved to a list. What list, and how would it be organized? By team? He pitched for three, for relatively small amounts of time - how do you pick one over the other, in a way that would make sense to casual users, and prevent accidental duplication and parallel editing on multiple lists? By place of birth or alpha by name? That would quickly generate a page of unmanageable length - just look at List of Major League Baseball players, and mentally adjust it so that it's ten times as long, due to the inclusion of bio stubs rather than just names. As such, I think it's better to give him his own stub, located under his own name, where it can be easily found (and improved) by anyone who is so inclined. (And yes, there are plenty of sources on Krawczyk that could be used to expand his article, such as this profile in the Pittsburgh Press and this one in the Los Angeles Times, so we're entirely justified in having an article on him.) -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)17:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
For the amount of sourcing for your example, the proposal would not apply. As I've said repeatedly, this isn't defined by whether the page currently matches the definition of a stub. From your description, there is enough sourced material about that person to justify a page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
In which case, can you please find me an example of a baseball bio stub that would fall under your proposal? Because if it's not talking about unsourced one-sentence stubs like Krawczyk's, then I sincerely don't know what you mean. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)18:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking specifically about baseball. For what it's worth, I became aware of this issue some time ago, in an AfD about an amateur runner who had "competed" in a national championship, but came in close to last, and that was it. The decision was "keep", because the person had "competed" and the national championship was considered "the highest level". I don't think the bio page was anything more than fancruft, but I could see some value in a page about that national championship, listing all the runners entered. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
In which case, if you only intend for your proposal to apply to high school athletics and the like, I'd suggest that you write it in such a way that it doesn't incorporate a bunch of other stuff (like pro baseball) as well. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)19:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
How would you propose changing it? I would intend for it to apply wherever applicable; what I was personally aware of was an amateur. I'm happy to revise the wording, of course. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - I'm concerned about how one determines whether enough adequate reliable sources exist to expand an article beyond a stub. I've seen stubs that contain several paragraphs and plenty of references, and these would appear to be listified under this proposal which would surely eliminate plenty of useful and verifiable content about notable athletes. We can do much better. Jogurney (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Not a problem. How would one condense "several paragraphs and plenty of references" into an entry in a list? It wouldn't happen. This section title uses the word "stub", but the proposed sentence does not. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I hope it wouldn't happen, but the "one or more lists" worries me. Make it "a single list", and you'd have my support. Jogurney (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, with possible qualification The existing guidelines are fine. In fact, the only problem is that they tend to be interpreted overly strictly, so many minor league baseball players get inappropriately deemed "non-notable". However, to the extent that statistics sites could be used to flesh out an article on a minor leaguer, and thus overcome this bias, I suppose I agree to that extent. Rlendog (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Proposal: tighten ATHLETE to require "one full season or more" of play in a fully professional league
It appears that many editors would support a tightening of the ATHLETE standard (as opposed to complete elimination). It also appears that there is support for allowing sports-related Wikiprojects to clarify the standard as it relates to their area of expertise. In order to minimize the likelihood that an article about a person whose career consisted of just one minute of play in a fully professional competition is considered to satisfy BIO (because it's somewhat unlikely that GNG would ever be satisfied for such an athlete), I propose that the fully-pro prong of the test be limited to an athlete who played for the equivalent of one season or more in a fully-pro competition. In some sports, this could be one match or tournament, while others might require a certain number of matches during a particular league or cup competition. Since ever sport is quite different, the relevant Wikiprojects should attempt to define this concept and report here for a broader review. Jogurney (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose as arbitrary standard. Why does one become notable after "one full season or more" as opposed to one day or one month? Who decides that? A made up standard for sure. They are notable if they played in a professional game, thats an easy standard.. one year is so subjective... how many games do they need to play in that year to meet your standard? Every game? Most of the games? This leaves way too much up to individual interpretation and thus fails as a standard. Spanneraol (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand your concern. However, my hope is that we can produce a bright-line test (playing once is just as much a bright-line as playing one season) that is closer to the likelihood of passing GNG. My experience is that athletes with less than a full season of fully-pro competition in their career will typically have nominal amounts of coverage (and those that do pass the GNG anyway). Every sport will need to interpret the meaning of "one full season" which is not an easy task, but hopefully this will limit assumed passage of GNG in many situations where it is unlikely to be met. Jogurney (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - this arbitrary standard is even less useful than the extant arbitrary standard. What exactly is a "full season"? Very few players play every game of a league season in football due to injuries, suspensions and squad rotation. So what - do they have to be on the books of a team for a whole season? Well, that would be far more players than ATHLETE currently allows. Loads of teams have youth players who play in all of their cup matches during a season, but make no league appearances. Who are currently (rightly IMO) do not meet the current ATHLETE. This seems an ill-fitting proposition for a team sport. – Toon14:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure that WP:FOOTY can come up with a workable idea of "full season" with respect to football. As you mention, less meaningful competitions should be discounted as would bench appearances. Maybe it's impossible, but I think we can come up with something workable for each sport. Jogurney (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose the use of the phrase fully-pro without some form of proviso - you have to remember that up to 20-40 years ago professional and amateurs competed completely separately in sports like tennis and many top-flight leagues were also amateur (ie cricket and Australia rules football for sure). Disagree with an arbitrary length, whether it's games, seasons, or time. Agree entirely with leaving it up to each sport to devise their own limits, based on whatever resources they have and consider reliable. But that has been tried before and failed - is it worth giving that another go? The-Pope (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment. I recognize the good intent of this proposal, but I see it as impractical. It only works for league sports, and I agree with some of the opponents that any specific time period is arbitrary. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose mainly due to the arbitrary nature of picking a year (or whatever is to be chosen). What it seems to be saying is that the particular competition is deemed to be notable really, but we've decided to put an artificial qualification limit. As a wider point I think WP:ATH would benefit from sorting the 'fully pro' wording/meaning. I agree that some input on any re-wording of Athlete should come from the sport-specific wiki projects, although it would need wider buy-in. Eldumpo (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose can we think of the readers here please? It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if people are interested in a sport or team they are going to want to know about the newly signed wunderkid who has already made a mark in their first couple of games. If we are going to find space for sport in an encyclopaedia, then only creating a bio after someone has already played a whole season seems to be missing the point - and means that we are going to continually be deleting this sort of teenage bio. (Now this). Also we've just made a huge change to BLPs with the sticky prod which means that loads of articles which pass athlete will now be deleted or sourced. I suggest we watch how this is changing things before reviewing athlete. ϢereSpielChequers09:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Those wunderkids will pass WP:GNG and the WP:ATHLETE criteria handily. For the other inside sports news there is no lack of alternative (mostly commercial) websites that can satisfy that need. With recent concern over BLP it's a wonder that the sports portals have taken this long to catch up. Shadowjams (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - Too weak. ATHLETE needs to be reduced to something that the player merits and not just being part of a team. --MASEM (t) 12:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I'm against chaining notability policy to arbitrary and vague guidelines. caknuck°needs to be running more often14:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose It's not the length of time that's the problem, it's the definition of "fully professional". If you've played at the highest level of your sport, then you are notable for that fact. At the highest level, every game is sufficiently documented that any player debuting will be mentioned in at least one match report - though, yes, you would need to go to paper archives to get more than the statistical record for pre-Internet Age players. The problem, rather, is that "fully professional" != "highest level". If you played a full season in Rookie League baseball, or Conference level association football, or AFL2, then you were fully professional in that sport; you earned your living exclusively or primarily from that sport. We should change "fully professional" to "highest level" and apply the same criteria to professional as to amateur players. The point, surely, is that we know that pre-Internet players at the highest level are notable, but that sources that go beyond their playing statistics are only on paper. But someone that played in the pre-1900 minor leagues of baseball probably isn't notable; someone that played in for the 1899 Cleveland Spiders is. Richard Gadsden (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose The existing guidelines are fine. In fact, the only problem is that they tend to be interpreted overly strictly, so many minor league baseball players get inappropriately deemed "non-notable". I don't see any purpose that this proposal would serve, other than create arbitrary cutoffs. Rlendog (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose as written, but support the idea. We really need to make this more specific to the different sports, as it's been demonstrated that sufficient sources can be found for an MLB player who played 1 game 100 years ago. We just need to work out where that bright line is for other sports. —Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)01:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - The way this is absurdly structured we couldn't have articles about active rookies like Jason Heyward because they wouldn't have completed a full season. matt91486 (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Support The current guidelines are far too lax, allowing a page on everyone who ever suited up. (In contrast to, say, the Entertainer standard where being "fully professional" isn't enough; they need to show significant independent coverage or out they go.) Matt91486's argument is invalid because GNG would trump the Athlete standard; any athlete (such as a phenomenal rookie) who has received significant independent coverage in reliable sources would qualify for an article under GNG, regardless of how long they have played, or even if they haven't played a professional day yet. After all, any person, of any profession, who meets GNG qualifies for an article. The Athlete standard exists to allow coverage for those who might not meet GNG - or (more likely) to prevent endless arguments about GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose It sounds good in theory. However, defining "full season" across multiple sports is going to be a nightmare in practice. There's the additional problem of sports like golf and tennis where the concept isn't applicable due to year round competitions. Technically I think it could be argued Steve Emtman wouldn't meet that criteria, due to finishing every season on IR. The current line annoys a lot of editors, but at least it's easy to apply.Horrorshowj (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
For those seeking alternate proposals beyond just the GNG...
Please keep in mind you need to find something that the player merits themselves, and not just a happenstance of being part of team. The reason ATHLETE is highly contentious is that the player does little themselves to be part of a team. (By this, I mean that while they may work hard to get paid to play in the majors, so do people that get other types of jobs; sports just have more visibility than CEOs, academic professors, politicians, etc., and we don't include these de facto either). Nearly every other non-GNG notability criteria is based on a merit or honor that the person or topic of interest gains due to their performance or actions and not simply due to membership, and that's the change that is needed here to bring this in line. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
ATHLETE has nothing to do with membership of an organization and everything to do with merit (playing in some kind of notable competition). One must accomplish a lot before ever being selected to play a game in the NHL. Jogurney (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Just as one has to do a lot to be a CEO or a college professor or a politician or .. Professional sports is a "profession", and that itself does not confer any special notability, even if it is at the highest level for that sport. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Being an athlete is a profession. Participating in the highest level of any given sport is a separate matter entirely. We are not saying that all athletes of any sort are notable, merely that the most notable subsection of athletes are notable. Which is the same as with most other professions. It's just that the notable athletes are kind enough to mostly self-segregate into top-level leagues, thus making it easier for us to determine at a glance who is a notable baseball player than, say, a notable professor, who might very well be working anywhere. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)14:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
That still doesn't fly. The same logic can be applied to other professions where an "elite" classification could be made (say, CEOs of the Fortune 500, or professors at Ive-league schools), which we don't use either. There are players that are on professional teams that never see the light of the field, either because they are replacement players in case of injuries that never happen, or that they are the 3rd string line, or have a skill set that is only need in unique situations that rarely occur. There's also players that may play all the time, but their position (such as defensive linesmen in American football) is just another man on the field and gives them little opportunity to gain the spotlight. There is no inherent notability in just being part of a professional team. That said, I no doubt believe that most players that are on the field most of the time for their team are likely going to gain notable by their performance as a player for that team during certain games or for the season overall. Not all, but most. We can't use inherent notability (being part of a professional team) here, but we can use normal GNG-type guidelines for this. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I think you are mis-reading ATHLETE. Simply being on the paid staff or even on the substitutes bench is not enough to pass ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The word "compete" at the most inclusive level could include that one punter that sees one or two plays in the 4th quarter of an NFL game because their main kicker suffered an injury. Again, that's not a notable person. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Since it is a bright-line test, I would support one that is tougher (e.g., more than a single late substitute's appearance for an entire career), but I don't think it invalidates the entire concept. Jogurney (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I think Masem is right. And it applies to amateurs as well as professionals, individual sports as well as team sports. Simply competing, just showing up, as opposed to performing or accomplishing at the highest level, is a lower bar for notability than what we apply to other areas of endeavor. And no, simply having been signed by a major league team is not a greater accomplishment than being a faculty member at a major research university, for just one of many examples. "Competing at the highest level" is used to mean just showing up, once. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
If that punter receives substantial media attention, and thus passes GNG, then yes, he is notable, despite whatever your own personal feelings on the subject may be. And in practice (at least as far as baseball, the sport with which I am most familiar, is concerned), players with even trivial amounts of playing time on the major league level routinely receive that level of media coverage. Would we be better off as a society if people cared less about sports? Maybe. But this really isn't the venue for that particular discussion... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)17:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
If that person passes GNG, then this discussion does not apply. And this is the right place to discuss the wording of ATH. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
In which case, this discussion is totally pointless (at least so far as it involves baseball - others could probably extend it to their sports of expertise in similar fashion), since as I noted earlier virtually every MLB player can fairly easily pass GNG once someone actually bothers to look for sources on him. So we're left with a huge, sweeping policy change... that potentially affects maybe a couple of dozen players from the 19th century, the vast majority of whom currently do not have standalone articles of any sort. So why are we taking the time and effort to argue about this? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)17:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm taking the time and effort because I see sports pages that are kept for what I feel are flawed reasons, based upon flawed wording of ATH. If what you care about is ML baseball, and you are confident that no pages in that subject area would be affected by the proposals under discussion, then I do not know why you are taking the time and effort. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec)There may be certain positions on some teams where by being at that position you are assured coverage (quarterback for an NFL team; starting pitcher for a NBA player), but basing a notability criteria simply on any type of membership is just not going to work.
The thing to remember is that professional sports are extremely well covered by reliable sources, compared to nearly any other profession above (outside of celebrities and politicians). It is nearly assured that any player on a professional team that spends a significant amount of time on the field and has individual contribution to the teams' success will be covered in these sources to satisfy the GNG. The problem is that codifying that into a bright-line test is going to be difficult ("If the player has spend x% of the time on the field for every game in their career, they are notable") because even in some sports, a significant player, like a relief pitcher or the punter may only be on the field for a brief time but their actions during that time lead to their notability, while other players may be playing a majority of the time but in a supporting role for the team (defensive linesmen) that they don't get the same type of coverage. This is a case where existing GNG and BIO guidelines work best instead of simply asserting, even selectively, membership as notability. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The difficulty with that approach, unfortunately, is that many editors here are inclined to delete first and ask questions later, at least as far as the GNG is concerned with regard to unsourced-but-sourceable articles, even though doing so violates policy. The bright-line one-game/match test is easy to understand and easy to check, it lines up with the requirements of GNG in the vast, vast majority of cases, and it prevents things that should (per policy) be kept from being deleted out of pure sloth and/or ignorance on the part of whatever random users show up in the daily commentariat at AFD on that given stretch of days. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)18:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The "one-game/match test" is missing the point about what notability should be doing for this. WP is not a collection of indiscriminate information, and given the vast number of sports games and people involved even at the professional level, the playing of a sport needs to be considered routine and thus indiscriminate if we included them all. Anything involving the notability of the athlete needs to be more than just routine participation, it has to be something that player does while playing the sport to merit attention and notability, or that the participation in the first place is considered notable (eg Jackie Robinson). Playing a sport, even professionally, needs to be thought of as routine, just like any other profession, and thus the notability of players needs to be far and above just a matter of them playing in a game. --MASEM (t) 18:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
That is your opinion, not a fact. Professional athletes are far from routine as they receive much more attention than standard job people.. millions of people attend their matches/games... I completely disagree with you that they are just routine worker bees. Spanneraol (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
This sounds like a debate between competing hyperboles. Many amateur and professional athletes are more than worker bees but less than truly notable. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
You're right that athletes, sports in general, get more attention than other professions. Which means it should very easy to demonstrate notability via the GNG without resorting to a participation metric. --MASEM (t) 18:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
For current players, yes.. the problem arises with oldtime players, like 19th-century baseball players, for whom only stats sites are usually available online. These players should have articles. Spanneraol (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I guess I just don't see the value of forcing people to take the long way around when you can get to exactly the same place using less time and effort by the current method (leaving more time for actually improving articles). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)19:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Online sources are not the extent of what we can use for coverage. You may need to take a trip to the library and other legwork, but I'm fairly certain that there is newspaper coverage of sports back more than a century. Yes, this disproportionally weighs more recent players than older ones, but that's also a reflection of the fact that there is just more media coverage in general as time has progressed.
The present version of ATHLETE, even one that requires one game/match, does not lead to the same place that the GNG is at. Nearly every other criteria in BIO is the type that if shown true, then I would expect in time a reasonable number of reliable sources to be found about that person. ATHLETE is the exception; there are numerous people that have participated in sports, have since retired and/or passed away, and did nothing of merit beyond being a participating member of that team, and thus have little more coverage than a row in a stat table. I know this is not true for all athletes, as there are some positions in sports like quarterback or starting pitcher that I can pretty much assure there will be coverage of that person - for better or worse depending on how they perform. But these are the exceptional case where I can say "if this is met, then assuredly there will be sources that can be added over time"; most professional athletes are hit or miss, making this a difficult criteria to continue to accept in light of every other notability guideline out there. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, I speak only about baseball because that is the sport with which I am familiar, but even one-game players in baseball have typically received substantial media coverage (regardless of their position, or the era in which they played). Ask anyone who works on baseball bios at Wikiproject:Baseball, and they will confirm that this is true, and provide numerous examples. That being the case, I don't see the added value in forcing editors to repeatedly travel to and from the library to demonstrate in an endless series of AFDs something which is already known to be true by anyone with any familiarity with the subject. It seems like a gigantic waste of time, which will inevitably result in articles on genuinely notable subjects being deleted out of a lack of time and attention, contrary to policy. If the situation is different in baseball than it is in other sports (and I can't speak confidently about that one way or the other), then my suggestion would be to form sport-specific notability standards that would do a better job of compensating for these differences between sports, along the lines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability. That way, if you don't think that we should have articles on D-level soccer players from Albania (and again, I have no opinion on whether we should or should not), you can attack that particular issue at its root. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)14:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
In the hypothetical situation where a player article is brought to AFD because notability isn't met (presuming no ATHLETE clause) but the authors know sources are exist, but they're just in microfilm down at a library 100 miles away and certainly can't be obtained in the 7 day AFD period, then as long as you know (that is, can at least provide the citations) that those sources exist, it won't likely be deleted. WP's based on the ability to show something, not actually showing something (we know it's a volunteer project). --MASEM (t) 15:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:ATHLETE is discriminating in that it has a clear set of standards to be met. People throw around that wp:not quote without actually realizing what it means. To violate it, would mean we would have to let anyone who ever played a sport have an article. Which we do not do. Nevermind the fact that being a professional athlete is not even remotely routine. -DJSasso (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Not really. Remember, the goal here is that we want to end up with high-quality articles in time (there is no deadline). A player playing one professional game (at minimum) is likely bound to always be a stub - the person's name, hometown, college, and team affiliation; barring any other events in their life, that will never grow further. Again, see the (ec) above, there are certain positions on sports teams that I am pretty much assured will gain coverage even if there's none to start.
The one thing to remember in all this is that for sports teams, there is an accepted standard of including the roster of the team on a per-season page for that team. If all that can be said about the player is the name, hometown, and college, and what role (no matter how little) he played, a roster list is sufficient to cover that. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Making it insanely hard for a person searching for that particular athelete especially if they were on more than one team. Wikipedia is not paper. A stub hurts nothing. -DJSasso (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec here too) Or, a blue link to the next page. And, as is coming out in the section two above this one, someone who would really appear on a lot of pages would qualify for a bio page in any case. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec)There's discrimination and then there's discrimination. A "list of people who's names begin with A" is a discrimination of the indiscriminate list "List of people", but obviously that list itself is not indiscriminate. I'd have to find the numbers, but I know people have pointed out factually that there are over 10,000 articles on football/soccer players simply created from roster lists. That's not discriminate. ATHLETE creates a class of articles that are also indiscriminate, for the purposes of what we are looking to build as the encyclopedia (if we can't, given plenty of time for sources to come about, write a high quality article about the topic, it is likely indiscriminate). I'll still also content the fact that playing sports professionally is equivalent to other highly desirable jobs like CEO and academic professor; only the fact of a higher level of media coverage is what makes a professional athlete seem more than just "routine" than these others.
I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but ATHLETE is the black sheep of notability. It makes it difficult to argue and explain how notability works when we have a low bar for inclusion for athletes and yet a much higher bar for any other topic. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
As for being like CEO or academic professor. Again people want to read about athletes and pay to read about athletes and watch them do their thing. This is what seperates them and makes them more notable than every day jobs like CEO or professor. -DJSasso (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Notability on WP is not based on fame or popularity; just because people want to read about it doesn't mean WP needs to cover it. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
And I'm under the impression that there are lots of people who want to read about and pay money for Pokemon characters, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The figure of 10,000 footballer articles created from nothing but roster links is probably invented, but there are far too many articles about athletes that are not WP:ATHLETE compliant (thousands at least) and these make people think ATHLETE is far too inclusive. However, ATHLETE itself if open to interpretation. I really doubt that many football competitions which have been asserted to be fully-pro (usually meaning that all players a full-time professionals) are indeed at that standard. This leads to hundreds of articles about athletes of questionable notability that are difficult to source. I think our time would be better spent tightening ATHLETE, not doing away with it. It seems that there is no support for requiring a time period of fully-pro competition, but we can make it clear that "fully-pro" is a stringent requirement. Jogurney (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
This is where I have a real problem with the direction these debates take. Guidelines like this should never be exclusionary by nature. They should be inclusionary. i.e.: at x point consensus has indicated that an athlete (painter, porn star, politician) is considered notable, however players not meeting these requirements can still be notable if they meet WP:GNG and the like." I routinelywritearticlesabout players who would technically fail WP:ATHLETE as written, but are still easily notable. Introducing wording like "fully-pro" will only muddy the waters and lead to more disputes. As far as I am concerned, minor league baseball is fully pro. Others disagree, and any AfD about a minor leaguer I've participated in falls into a debate on the definition of "fully-pro". I'd say that "top-level" is much easier to determine, as there are generally little controversy over what constitutes a nation's top level league. Nobody argues that the NHL is North America's top hockey league, that the KHL is Russia's, that the Elitserien is Sweden's, etc. This becomes the easy "bright line" test for the acceptance that any player of that level is notable. However, as I demonstrate above, players at the junior or minor pro level can still be notable, and no change to this guideline should attempt place unreasonable restrictions on players who don't meet whatever bar people set. Resolute23:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Fully-pro is already part of ATHLETE, and I'm not arguing that ATHLETE should exclude articles that pass the GNG from being created. My concern is that we have 70 articles about footballers who have only played in the Albanian top flight (and several similar countries) that are unreferenced BLPs and almost impossible to source beyond a minimum amount of information (name, position, current team, date of birth). I doubt these articles will ever pass the GNG, because I've looked through the Albanian sources that are online and they rarely cover sportspeople that are only playing in the local league. I suspect that local Albanian newspapers might give more coverage to the league and its players, but the creator of those articles must not have access to them, nor would most WP editors. Jogurney (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
If the main objection here is the way that the site currently treats soccer bios, then my suggestion would be for you to focus on notability for soccer players, rather than making changes that sweep up dozens if not hundreds of other sports as collateral damage. If your problem is with soccer, then make a soccer-specific solution. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)14:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Would all the opposition arising throughout this discussion disappear if, hypothetically, we were to exempt MLB from the various proposed changes? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think sport-specific guidance (much less league-specific) would be a good idea. This would lead to claims of favoritism and imbalance.
The point that I hope I'm trying to make here is that no other sub-notability guidance (see other parts of WP:BIO, WP:BK, WP:MUSIC, etc.) has a criteria that is simply based on being part of a certain profession, but instead, what the person or topic has merited (better or worse) for themselves as part of that profession. Winning an award, recording a high-selling album, considered as a core author of a genre, etc. If they have merited those aspects, there is nearly always secondary sources that either exist, or will exist, to cover that. Just being a signed band, a published author, or starring in a movie does not do it.
So when we go to sports and athletes, the same concept, just being on a team, doesn't cut it. And while I'm seeing things like "playing one full game/match" or other more narrowing aspects being stated as ways to reduce the issue, that's still not looking at what these players have merited. I do see value in certain positions on a team: starting QB for NFL, goalie for NHL or soccer, etc, simply because by nature of that position, they are going to get noted as a key element of the team. But not every position in every sport can be said the same thing; there are players that are there, and they play their part for the team, but their play is non-notable from others, possibly overshadows by the ones that have more critical roles. Every sport has those. Which is why any ATHLETE that is simply based on being on a pro team or appearing on the field for a game is difficult to accept - there's no assurance of notability; it is doubtful these players would be written up in secondary sources or the like. (They may be mentioned in coverage of games, but this is why it is important to remember that individual game coverage is routine and not sufficient for notability.)
Every way I can of providing a narrow allowance for ATHLETE based on simply being part of a team runs into either being too specific or too vague. Again, I think one can fairly say that every starting QB for a NFL team is likely going to be notable, since the QB is that central to a team's performance and is likely going to be pre-judged before the season starts. Same thing with goalies for hockey or soccer, and starting pitchers for baseball. But these are so specific to be unusable, and this is disingenuous to basketball or other sports that lack a central player that is critical to the gameplay. And I can't find a way that to say "a player that plays a key position in a professional sport" without it sounding vague and leaving it up for question.
Basically, I cannot think of any good way of defining a non-GNG for atheletes that isn't already covered by the two general BIO statements, unless you want to include "Played in an All-Star game or equivalent" and "Inducted into that sport's Hall of Fame", but again, if they've done that, they're likely notable already. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
For what little it's worth, I wasn't seriously proposing to exempt a specific sport. I agree with you. Unfortunately, the reality is that we have wording in ATH, "competing at the highest level", that gives a pass to anyone who has just shown up at that level, even if they otherwise would not pass notability, and that suits some sports fan editors just fine. We aren't going to convince them to change ATH, but maybe over time, the editor community as a whole will come to be persuaded that ATH needs to be tightened. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Well, given the !vote majority support of the proposal above to require the GNG in addition to ATH, there is clearly a desire to change ATH, regardless of what editors involved in sports-related articles want. There's enough momentum here than it would be reasonable to put forth a full RFC to nix ATH in favor of letting the GNG guide the notability of athletes, pending if there are further proposals to replace ATH with a narrower scope that is more akin to other the BIO criteria. I'd love to see an alternate proposal to replace ATH first, but as I've said, I can't think of one that is bright-line, fair across the board for all professional sports, and yet would also be nearly equivalent to the other BIO criteria. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any consensus for change here... the debate has been split fairly evenly among the pro and con sides... I dont see how you see this as momentum for you to start an RFC. Spanneraol (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I was actually thinking the same thing. This is a textbook case of non-consensus if I have ever seen one. Which of course defaults to stay the same. -DJSasso (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say there was consensus to change, but that there is sufficient disagreement to see a higher level of discussion (a full RFC) to discuss a change. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree competing at the highest level should read competing notably at the highest level. Also some people compete notably at the highest level without actually competing in a high level competition. For example a swimmer, cyclist, marathoner who sets a record in a non olympics or world championships meet. Perhaps the time she ran/swam/cycled determines whether she competed at the highest level as opposed to the competition she ran/swam/cycled against. I think just showing up should not be a pass for notability, but similarly an athlete who has consistently notable performances but does not necessarily compete against the best should be notable. This is obviously a statement about individual sports where an athlete has an objective mark, in team sports where the notability of ones performance is determined directly by the competition this does not apply.MATThematical (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
"...competing notably at the highest level." Now you are just layering POV on top of POV. IMO, competing at the highest level is itself establishment of notability. 500,000 Canadians are registered hockey players in this country. Far less than 1% of them of them compete in leagues at the highest level. Simply making the top level is more than enough. Resolute16:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's difficult to word that in a proper way. I think that a lot of the problem comes from the difference between "competing" at the highest level, and "performing" at a high, or highest, or notable, level. The current wording seems to imply that competing means "performing with distinction", but at Afds it is construed to mean "having participated in the competition." The "highest level", ambiguously, can refer to the highest league of membership, or to the highest level of achievement, and those are two different things. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
There never really has been ambiguity in that phrase, it has always been taken at AFD to mean actually playing at the highest level of membership. The only time the other meaning (highest level of achievement) is even mentioned is when we are here debating about how athlete should be changed and people are trying to make the guideline tighter. But what I recall from when it was created and I may be misremembering I would have to search through archives, but I do believe it was always meant to mean litterally playing at the top level (highest league of membership). Not being the top of the top level. -DJSasso (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
You've been here longer than I have, but that is also my understanding of the history. My point is that I think the guideline should change. The first time I read ATH, I honestly thought that it meant the other (achievement) meaning, and I was taken aback to discover that other editors did not interpret it that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose The existing guidelines are fine. In fact, the only problem is that they tend to be interpreted overly strictly, so many minor league baseball players get inappropriately deemed "non-notable". As for this proposal, a notable athlete becomes notable by playing well enough to qualify for a professional team or notable competition, i.e., the membership itself is based on accomplishment. Rlendog (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Proposal: Abolish ATHLETE, rely on the GNG (optionally Projects)
I didn't see this proposal, despite several similar, more complicated proposals above that either go too far (use both) or try to tiptoe around it (the rest), so I made it myself so it can be specifically discussed. The GNG is an already-in-use measure of article potential. If we can write a competent BLP, then ATHLETE shouldn't prevent that article from being written, so I don't like the option of using both. ANYBIO, of course, still applies. If a sport-specific Project wants to fill the void with their own guideline, we can't stop them from trying; whether we want to leave in a courtesy line directing editors to consult their local WikiProject is optional. Nifboy (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I totally support the intent, but it won't have the desired result. The problem is that there is a bottomless well of attempted bios of high school athletes that get arguably GNG coverage in local media, and ATH does something good by helping keep those out. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The GNG outlines (or should outline, if that's a deficancy) that local/regional coverage is not sufficient for notability in a global work. We recently had a discussion on this at WT:N and I know that no one disagreed that local coverage is inappropriate as a sole source of notability, but I think came down to identifying what are routine sources (coverage of local games) verse significant coverage. --MASEM (t) 23:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
It's kind of a stretch either way. An explicit non-local clause would be fine, but ideally whatever we replace ATHLETE with is one sentence maximum. Nifboy (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
We cannot let projects decide on project-specific guidelines unless they go through a global review, otherwise you're back at the walled garden again that ATHLETE currently is, but now dealing with dozens of smaller ones. --MASEM (t) 23:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
It's easier to identify and correct a Project-level walled garden, especially one that's new and untested at AfD. ATHLETE is a walled garden with perceived legitimacy due to its age, despite its outdatedness being the exact problem. Nifboy (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd only be careful about this as I can see (coming from fiction) that certain projects would want a similar allowance to bypass the GNG, a fact that certainly can be tested at AFD but could also develop into a whack-a-mole game. If this is the easiest way to eliminate ATHLETE with good-faith assumptions that project-specific guidelines will not be as lenient, great. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I think kicking down the ATHLETE wall would clue everyone in that trying to replace it with something equally as, if not more inclusive is a bad idea. Nifboy (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Begging the question, imo. I have yet to see it actually demonstrated that the current guidelines are a problem, or "a bad idea". I also don't see any issue with being inclusive, even in noting that the hockey project's guidelines are already more restrictive relative to some other projects. Resolute00:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Have you checked how many of these stubs are actually BLPs? I suspect a good many of them are of deceased people and thus not applicable to BLP rules. Spanneraol (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
That demonstrates only that so many articles are tagged as stubs. It does not demonstrate that a problem exists. This strikes me as an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Resolute01:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're aware the recognized standards on BLPs went way up in the past four months or so, culminating in the BLP RFC. Being a stub is not a crime, but enough of these BLPs are not able to be improved at all. Previously this was acceptable, now it is not. Nifboy (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I am very much aware, and was heavily involved in both the initial discussion, the aborted Arbcom cases and the first RFC. That is, however irrelevant to the issue. The new BLP rules centre around sourcing and reliability, not notability. Once again, I will ask you to demonstrate that the existence of stub biographical articles is a problem. Resolute01:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, to me, it is not (directly) a problem with the existing stubs. It is the fact that ATH can lead to the creation of stubs that do not have a high likelihood of gaining more (non-local) coverage necessary to build out an encyclopedic article. As I've argued, being a pro player is by no means a magical assurance that that player will be covered, and there is no single test that can be easily applies across all pro sports at the same time to narrow it down. All other BIO and other notability guidelines that allow for a topic to be notable without meeting the GNG are cases where there is nearly assuredly non-local coverage of the topic because they have done something above and beyond others in the same profession or field to merit coverage. ATH simply asserts a very easy bar to pass that is indiscriminate and thus can lead to , for example, 10,000 stubs on footballers. Again, stubs are fine as long as we have reasonable expectations they can grow into better articles; it is just not the case for pro athletes. --MASEM (t) 05:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
It's clearly a problem, and if the project can't fix it then some other solution needs to be found. Right now, if you click "random article" a hundred times, athlete bios appear to be the second most common subject matter after communities and most of them are just stub articles with no prospect of growth. Will Bebacktalk23:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
How about replacing the current ATH with a short sentence saying clearly that GNG must be met with non-local coverage, or something like that? (And I strongly agree with Will!) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
If you want to modify WP:GNG I suggest you make a separate proposal proposal. I would categorically oppose any proposal that intends to hold one subset of articles to a different GNG standard than anything else. Resolute00:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
But doesn't Academic, for example, set a specific GNG standard? Just as Academic has the effect of excluding promotional pages on early-career assistant professors based upon a lot of publications that might satisfy GNG if interpreted broadly, a clarification for ATH would have the effect intended for ATH, by excluding high school athletes while holding higher-level amateurs and pros to GNG, without the problematic "competed"/showed up issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I thought the point of oversight was to prevent ATHLETE from being rewritten across a dozen sports projects' guidelines. I don't especially care, since I figure AfD can tell if a project is overreaching. Nifboy (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with Resolutes above comments. I still dont see what the problem with the stubs is other than a few people dont like them. Provided they are reliably sourced I dont see a problem. The whole local/non local sidebar has nothing at all to do with ATHLETE and is a distracting sidebar.. The rules should remain as inclusive as possible. Spanneraol (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: Nothing but another load of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in my opinion. There is no need to get rid of stubs, because there is no deadline for expanding articles into encyclopedic entries. We can't hold athletes to a different GNG standard than anyone else. BigDom06:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
OpposeWP:GNG alone is not enough. We should provide additional criterions for people whose notability is bound exclusively to their athlete career, otherwise we would even allow inclusion for the next 14-year old "football wonderkid". --Angelo (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Support as I don't think any subject matter should get special treatment as it leads to low quality and poorly written articles. WP:GNG is not just a good set of inclusion criteria, it is also a quality check second to none. I would much rather see one good article about a professional athlete that provides the reader with the context needed to understand their achievements, rather than 100,000 stubs that tell you little or nothing about them as athletes or their place in the sport they have chosen to compete in. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)07:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't see any convincing arguments to eliminate ATHLETE. It helps prevent AfD debates over GNG from getting out of hand, and restricts articles about athletes of dubious notability. As to the comments about thousands of BLP athlete stubs that will never be improved, I wish I could read the future so well. I see them being improved all the time, and realize it is just a matter of manpower and time before they are. Jogurney (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Personally I would like to see more discussion about the GNG at AfD, because that entails discussing sourcing, which equally entails discussing improving the article. Nifboy (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I think he is referring to the fact that WP:ATHLETE is actually used as a reason to delete at AFD more than they do as a reason to keep. Which is why I am always amused when people complain about it letting in too many athletes. Because people use some of the wording as a way to try and delete notable athletes (hence there being no minor league baseball players etc on the wiki)....not to keep some player who played part of one game. Removing it would lead to a flood of minor league baseball players because there is no longer wording in it that can be used to push an argument of having to play in the major leagues, and in the US a very large number of minor league players would easily pass GNG who currently get deleted because of the wording of ATHLETE. -DJSasso (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, I don't understand. If something fails ATHLETE but meets the GNG, it is included period. If this is truly the case, there have been two major errors in how ATHLETE is being applied. First, BIO's overall criteria is "either one of the following is met, or the GNG is met, to have an article on a person". This suggestion that GNG-notable people are excluded because they don't play in the majors is laughable wrong (seriously, this is a very very bad argument and even more reason to dump ATHLETE if it is interpreted this way). Second, if it is the case that minor league and less-than-professional players are being included because they fail ATHLETE but happen to meet GNG on the existence of local sources, that is also wrong. I have a feeling many of these athlete based AFDs are only visited by editors involved in sports to make this walled garden so out of sync with every other field. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not personally using it as an argument. I am just pointing out that athlete is more often used to delete than to keep. I don't like it being used to delete. -DJSasso (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, did not mean to articulate at you, but just this general concept. The GNG is a fallback for any topic on WP - if it meets that, it is presumed notable. I can understand that there's a level of difference of coverage between majors and minors (and anything less), as the coverage goes from more global to local. But we shouldn't restrict based on what level they play at , simply the coverage available. If the minor league player is only covered by local rags or as routine game coverage, sure, that's non-notable by GNG standards. But if that player, say, pitched 20 winning games against 0 with a <1 ERA over a season, better than any major league pitcher , certainly SI and ESPN will provide coverage and would make that person notable by the GNG, even if failing ATH. There's no need to force a requirement in addition to the GNG. --MASEM (t) 22:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Support With Caveat Athletes are really not so special that they need specific exemptions to the standard notability guidelines. Let them be covered under WP:GNG and the general guidelines of WP:BIO instead of this random criteria that seems more choosen by sports lovers than any kind of neutral, unbiased, and usable standard of what makes an athlete notable. That said, no project can or should ever try to create their own notability standard. That is not kosher. If a project wants to help new members figure out how to find information with resource libraries, that's great, but they cannot, on their own, decide what makes their own topics notable.-- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 17:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Support I was substantially the author and broker of compromise several years ago who brought WP:BIO together into its current form. At that time it was recognized that we had CREEP into attempts to overly define every type of vocation and avocation. It just doesn't work. If we just intelligently apply the GNC, it works beautifully -- it's really all that we need. Even BIO is too much complication, but a necessary compromise at the time. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Support - If people want standalone articles on barely notable athletes, they should do the research and find the sources before writing the article, like we require for every other subject. If all the information we have about a person is basic information from a stats website, it can be merged into a list. As for high school athletes with local media coverage, this is addressed in WP:N already – "routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article." I would oppose letting projects set their own guidelines, this would likely lead to a situation worse than now. Some projects would still allow any pro player to have an article, but others wouldn't, and we'd end up with a combination of over-inclusiveness and inconsistency. And yes, the vast majority (110,928) of the 136,240 athlete stubs are BLPs or contain enough BLP material to have {{BLP}} on the talk page. Mr.Z-man00:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I'd suggest those claiming CREEP read the essay. There isn't an outcry over how difficult Athlete is to apply, nor are editors required to use it in preference to the GNG. Athlete is easier to apply, and simple to judge. Status Quo prevents having to pursue AfDs on all 136,240 stubs in a month. Most of which will be deletes on sourceable articles, because there isn't enough time to fix that many problems under the time clock. Horrorshowj (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Proposal: Keep WP:ATH but in the meantime develop sport specific guidelines
Comment - I like the idea of keeping WP:ATH as of now, but simultaneously working on sport specific pages. Who said we have to make these pages in the community project. Lets make them easily accessible to all, so there is some oversight. Sport specific notability makes sense. This way we can have very specific cut offs at AfD. I really like WP:Academic, it is super specific and has a list of criteria which satisfying can make someone notable. Imagine something like this for track and field
1. Competed in an Olympic games or world championships
2. Has a mark in the top 25 on the world leading list at the end of a calendar year (as published by the iaaf)
3. Currently has a mark on the all time list (as published by the iaaf)
4. Was at one time a world record holder in a particular event
(Note that this is just an example, don't take the details too seriously. My point is that we can create very clear cut off standards for AfDs if we go sport specific. It would help a lot)
Competing in a professional race in track and field is a meaningless statement, there are so many non-notable professionals and yet so many notable amateurs. Each Sport would have specific guidelines sponsored discussed by the whole wiki community (although people interested in each sport would likely participate the most). MATThematical (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Care to elaborate. I don't think this falls into Creep. The fact is that WP:ATh does not make sense for many sports as it is currently written. CREEP applies to specific guidelines, meaning it would apply to each sports specific page. Having separate guidelines for each sport does not imply CREEP in itself.MATThematical (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
How many sports are there? The fact that WP:ATH as it currently is written has a few places, or even a lot of places, where it doesnt work well does not mean that it should have 1496 (just a guess, I didnt actually count) other independent subclause guidelines that would never be able to be managed in a way that would keep them "equivilent" - what a horrendous nightmare! Active Banana (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Support - It's worth exploring ways to improve ATHLETE, and I believe getting input from sports-related Wikiprojects is a way forward. Jogurney (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Support: I suggested the same thing about a week ago. I think the best way forward is to let the WikiProjects decide who is notable for their sport and then let the proposed guidelines go through some kind of review before being put in practice. BigDom18:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment believe most sports already have their own specific notability guidelines.. I'm not sure what this proposal really does. Spanneraol (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The existing sport-specific notability essays currently act as baselines for each sport's WikiProject and are often useful and respected at AfD. However, they don't carry the same weight as an actual guideline that's gone through wider community vetting and that's linked to within WP:N. For those sports projects that already have standards, they'd just come here for further review and comment. Other sports may need standards developed. Mlaffs (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
So you want every single sport WikiProject to come here and engage in debate about their notability standards? That sounds like utter chaos. Spanneraol (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
It would be chaos if it were all done at once, but most likely they would be added one at a time. We could start by popular sports that particularly do not work well under WP:ATH, or start with sports that already have essays.MATThematical (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Thats true.. I was a part of those discussions that went into that essay. That would probably be a good place to start if you want to reopen this whole thing. Spanneraol (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Support. I would like to see ATH become its own guideline separate from WP:PEOPLE, with sections for each sport. The purpose of ATH is to establish a bright line beyond which there is no doubt that GNG will be met with sufficient research. ATH as written seems to work well for some of the more popular and well-covered sports, such as football, baseball, or Olympic competition. For less covered sports, there may need to be different guidelines written to ensure that we are keeping the same purpose. —Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)01:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I really like this. I think even for olympic sports (and other sports that only have one huge competition a year) WP:ATH may not make sense. After all a good athlete might miss the Olympics or world championships for many reasons, in fact it would be kind of like requiring Amerian Football players compete in a playoff game. Perhaps thats not such a great analogy but anyways for these sports world rankings and top performance might be a claim to notability. I'm not sure, it depends on the sport, but I was thinking of things like track, swimming and weightlifting. In these sports you have objective marks and it only makes sense to somehow use them to warrant notability.The idea would be if someone achieved a high level mark, the person would be significantly covered and one would be able to write a good article if they did enough research. MATThematical (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Support - rather than picking over-general standards to apply to all athletes in very different competitions, it makes the most sense to differ based on sport. The people who can best do this are the appropriate wikiprojects. It also makes sense for the people who know the most about a subject to determine the bright line. This solution I'm sure will not be amenable to those who have long standing vendettas against athlete pages in general - of which there are many - but it will result in the best determination of standards. matt91486 (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I was substantially the author and broker of compromise several years ago who brought WP:BIO together into its current form. At that time it was recognized that we had CREEP into attempts to overly define every type of vocation and avocation. It just doesn't work. If we just intelligently apply the GNC, it works beautifully -- it's really all that we need. Even BIO is too much complication, but a necessary compromise at the time. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Support - See the WP:FOOTYN guideline which was developed over weeks of discussion and consensus building amongst experts in the subject area (Association football) but then shot down by WP:BIO people. A considered and consensus based guideline is surely better than WP:ATHLETE which was just invented one day in 2005 by a sole long retired user and has kept its position as the holy grail of sports notability through WP:BIO resistance to change. As far as I know around 3% of Wikipedia articles are about footballers, such a large body of articles should have their own notability guidelines. The real problem is the existence of 10s of thousands of innacurate biographies because nobody has properly updated them since the day they were created, we should concentrate on doing something about that rather than trying to make Wikipedia more recentist by making the GNG the only guideline for notability. King of the NorthEast13:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
A hypothetical situation
This is mostly to those that are concerned about keeping ATH. Let me propose the following hypothetical situation:
There is no ATH guidance at all.
It is presumed athletes would have to meet the GNG to be considered notable.
The GNG is crystal-clear that coverage by only local or regional sources would not be sufficient for asserting notability.
Would this be an acceptable or unacceptable situation? If unacceptable, why? That is, what fears of article deletion or article creation (or anything else) would this situation not prevent? --MASEM (t) 14:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Given consensus appears to be against eliminating ATH (indeed, if you are going to target one, target all such guidelines), I fail to see the point in debating a hypothetical situation that presumes to follow a rejected course of action. Moreover, WP:GNG presently makes no statements at all that local or regional sources only are insufficient. Again, if you wish to change that, you will have to engage in a separate discussion on the matter. Resolute14:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
No, consensus is split, so discussion is still appropriate. I'm trying to figure out this seemingly big disconnect between the idea that ATH it too encompassing , while the GNG is not restrictive enough that suggests the need for it. I will say that while the GNG doesn't anything exacting about local sources, it has always been presumed that local sources aren't sufficient, and the fact that's not clear is a deficiency there. But that seems to be part of why ATH seems to be necessary, so the question is, if that was fixed, do we still need ATH? --MASEM (t) 15:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Again if you have an issue with local sources you really need to bring that up at GNG and not here. And as for if that was fixed do we still need it? Yes, see mine and Mattematical's comments down a couple comments for why. I would also comment, consensus is split against changing ATH. But it seems to be clearly against eliminating it. -DJSasso (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
First of all, GNG does already talk about local sources (see its footnote #3), but its not 100% crystal, it's not changing anything. And no, I think there's a mixed (read: not yet clear) consensus for its removal. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually it is talking about "an occurrence" not multiple occurrences which would be the case for athletes as they would be likely written about multiple times. -DJSasso (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
That's one way of reading it, I read it a different way. WHich is why as I've said, the intent is not crystal and needs to be spelled out better. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
And that is my point, if you have an issue with its clarity you need to take it there. But as of right now it is crystal clear black and white written with the word "an" and even mentions "single" in the same footnote. So in my reading its quite clear that it means a single local event does not make one noteworthy. Which is why mayors and city councilors of towns get articles despite the fact they are probably only sourced to local newspapers. -DJSasso (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's why I presumed it in the hypothetical situation. I am working now to clear that up to make sure that is the case (because regardless if ATH is kept or not, it is something that needs addressing). I only raised that point because arguments above suggest that ATH exceeds the requirements of the GNG as to prevent minor league players or the like from being automatically notable, since they perceive the GNG to lack the "local coverage is not sufficient for notability" language; the hypothetical case presumes its there so that we can move past that issue. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the major issue after reading the other side is that notable athletes will be up for deletion simply because editors are lazy and don't want to do the research (which is often in print only, not on the web) to establish the notability. WP:ATH tries to protect these athletes by establishing a test that likely means the athlete meets WP:GNG even if no immediate sources are obvious on the web. Doing a google search and not finding anything is not convincing evidence against notability, and the concern is that this is how WP:GNG checks are run. I actually like WP:ATH for this reason, but think it must be tightened to make it a better test for notability, but getting rid of it all together is a bit too extreme.MATThematical (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
This pretty much sums up the issue with removing it. Editors are generally lazy and throw up an article to AFD without making a search of print media offline and only do a google search. Athlete is needed to stop this from happening and to enforce the line in GNG that mentions if sources are likely to exist do not delete based on lack of notability, and for the most part anyone who meets athlete will have sources. There are of course always exceptions which is why this is a guideline not a policy. If someone can find another bright line position to make the cut off I am certainly open to it. But as it stands the current position seems to be the best bright line test. -DJSasso (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm in 100% agreement with DJSasso. This is also why we have WP:PROF, so that we can keep an article on an academic, even if web sources are not immediately found. These two criteria are inclusive, rather than the other WP:BIO criteria, which are exclusive, thus I feel that WP:ATH should be broken off into a more complete guideline. —Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)16:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Remember, WP's policy is that those wishing to keep information are the ones that need to demonstrate it; it is a good faith assumption (but not a requirement) that those wishing to send an article to AFD search for sources first.
Again, when you put PROF next to ATH, there is a huge difference in those two that should make it clear why ATH as it is does not work. PROF's criteria are alla bout what the person has merited as noted by others. ATH is based on getting a job in a pro league. I'm sorry, but sports and athletes, despite the wide media attention they get, should not be considered any better than academics or the like. This is the fundamental problem with ATH; it elevates sports above any other field that presumes strict involvement is appropriate. Now, that's not to say that stronger guidelines for athlete inclusion that are modeled after PROF wouldn't help. Anyone admits to a Hall of FAme, anyone playing on an All-Star team, positions in certain sports, etc; head coaches of major teams, etc. All these aspects, I can presume will have sources. I cannot presume simple participation will have sources beyond local papers, since we don't presume that for any other field.
Now, I understand the issue of older athletes. My guess that if there was a consensus to remove ATH, it would be aided by a grandfather clause; articles on atheletes that have not played since, oh, Jan 1 2000 would be temporarily exempt from the GNG (or more specifically, would be allowed to be called notable by what ATH presently is) for a year or longer though not indefinitely - at some point we need to prune out stubs that can't grow. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
You keep equating playing in a pro level league as just being a job. What athlete lays out are the "what the person has merited as noted by others". Becoming a professional athlete is worthy of note. As can be seen by the enormous amount of coverage it receives. Athlete does not elevate sports above the others, the sheer amount of coverage is what does that. An athlete is simply covered more in the media than a professor. A few million people play sports in a given year. A few thousand make it to the pro level. If anything the number of athletes percentage wise that make it to the level of "pro" is lower than the percentage of professors or indeed many of the other bio sub pages that get articles. -DJSasso (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the truth is the case. There's a reason it is called "professional" sports it is because it is a chosen vocation. Just like being a CEO or profession. (And the same logic of the "eliteness" of pro sports also applies) And the amount of work to get to those positions is just as much if not more, but the fact we don't automatically include them points out the inconsistencies with ATH. The fact of the matter: playing a professional sport does not make a person notable. Playing a professional sport well, on the other hand, is what makes that person notable, and will be reflected in the fact that that person's performance gains coverage. (There's also the case of a person playing terribly to the point of still be considered notable). That's why I can support changing ATH to match PROF in terms of having merits as indicators of notability. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Just because it is a chosen profession does not make it the same as any old profession. The achievement to get to the point of being a professional athlete is noteworthy in that you have surpass a very large number of people to get to that point. It is the equivalent of being the professor who has been published numerous times. 500,000 people are registered to play hockey in Canada every year. Only 185 give or take a couple play on a professional team in Canada. That is extremely noteworthy. Unlike a give job such as CEO. These people are noteworthy for playing hockey well. You don't become a professional athlete without being extraordinarily above your peers. Unlike a CEO which just has to create their own company or work for a small company. -DJSasso (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Any old CEO may be a bad example, though if I narrowed it down to what would be "professional sports" like publicly traded companies or Fortune 500 ones, that's as grueling of a process to get their (whether brought into the company, or having taken the company there). Or for academics, you have to first get your PhD which is just as intense as training to be an athlete, and the pool of available spaces is rather limited as well. The point is still this: getting into a professional team - which is a limited number of positions - can be considered a major triumph for that person, but that doesn't mean in terms of notability. The question to be asked is: are we assured, simply by being on the team, that person will have coverage that can be used to make a good WP article about them? As best as I can tell, the answer is no. Which is why an inclusion simply based on reaching a certain professional level is not sufficient. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Depends on the level of the league. If its the top level league like the NHL, NBA, NFL etc. Then yes, we can guarantee that the player will have been covered because most sports at least in North America and probably the rest of the world. Have multiple magazines that do beginning of season bios for all the players on a given team and for most of the top level minor league team. There are also multiple magazines that cover the minor leagues of these various sports and run the same sorts of bios at the beginning of the year for the players on the minor league teams. This isn't even getting into the daily and weekly papers and magazines that cover the two levels regularly. This is sort of the point of the whole argument. It is probably harder to find an athlete that doesn't have coverage in multiple sources than it is to find someone who does. And then there is coverage of the various drafts into these leagues. Pretty much any player who gets drafted (except maybe in baseball where their draft is so enormous) gets multiple stories on them before they even play a professional game. People underestimate how much coverage athletes get I think. Basketball and football players in the NCAA probably even meet GNG before they even play a professional game in alot of cases. -DJSasso (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Now we start getting into another issue. Are those bios, posted for every player of every American major league sport, possibly "routine", aka "trivial"? If they are simply stating thing like hometown, college, age, etc., that's just a data stream, and is not secondary coverage - again, its covered because that player's on the team, but it doesn't give us anything to go on to make a good article. On the other hand, the bios may be critical (pos&neg) of the player, determining if they will be an asset to the team or not, in which case I see less of an issue. In either case, this also may call into question, if this is done every year for every team, a matter of "routine" reporting, and thus not sufficient for notability, which should be of topics that are "worthy of note"? And is this type of coverage done for every professional US Sport (and does this form a national systematic bias)? is this done for every international professional sport? The way ATH is written makes a lot of assumptions about what, at the end of the day, we would be able to write about that person; assumptions that work great in some cases, but terrible in others. --MASEM (t) 18:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree entirely with DJSasso. Anyone who has played a game for a top level league has demonstrated adequate achievement to be notable. That is somewhat different than a professor, given the level of media attention that professional athletes receive - even minor league athletes receive more media attention than most professors. And more than most CEOs, for that matter. And all that media attention means that (a) Wikipedia readers care a lot more about the most trivial major league baseball player (I assume soccer/football would be similar outside North America) than about virtually any professor or CEO, and (b) there is plenty of information that exists (although the older information may not be readily accessable) to write a decent, though possibly short, article about every single one. Rlendog (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with a lot of what has been said in this discussion. The fundamental flaw with WP:ATH is that the test of just participating once in a professional game frequently leads to no significant national/regional coverage (even in print). Something like played in an all star game, played in the playoffs, played for a full season, competed in the Olympics, won an award, set a record playing in a pro game, etc. are all that likely prove notability regardless of web coverage, but it would be hard to set these kind of specific statements for all sports at once without getting extremely vague or going sport specific. In my opinion going sport specific with some oversight from the general community is the best way to go. It may lead to chaos but it can completely be done on a separate page as an essay until it has reached enough of a consensus. If its too chaotic it doesn't have to turn into a guideline/policy.MATThematical (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it is possible to write some general lines that are like "the person has entered that sport's Hall of Fame or equivalent" to apply to all sports, with individual projects specifying what qualifies there, if they need to specify further. That would at least normalize the types of recognizition that are appropriate across all sports without too many walled gardens. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
This guideline will not prevent Keli McGregor-type articles. McGregor was a pro football player, but he played six games and recorded no statistics whatsoever in those games. There's no indication that he was notable as president of the Colorado Rockies, because nobody ever heard of him until news outlets reported his death, despite his holding the position for almost ten years. It also will not prevent the claim that college athletes are notable if they play for an NCAA Div 1 team (see Dylan Meier for that one, specifically in football). I think a definite threshold needs to be in place considering coverage and length of playing career. MSJapan (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I would say McGregor is definitely notable as President of the Rockies... and just because you havent heard of him doesnt mean "nobody ever heard of him". He received coverage as president of the Rockies, a major professional organization. I had heard of him. Spanneraol (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but he doesn't meet ATHLETE, which is my point here. He is an example of a non-notable athlete who became a somewhat notable something else. What I mean by "never heard of him" is that no one created the article until he died, and the initial one was copyvio. I find that to be an interesting and common phenomenon here on WP, which really brings inot question what constitutes notability in general. MSJapan (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Granted this is only an essay, and perhaps it does not need to be official policy, but I think getting a consensus on this page, and perhaps streamlining the sections would be a good start. Since it still looks like there may not be enough consensus to make it guideline we can at least make it a well respected essay. I recently added an athletics/track and field section, along with a high school athletes section. Feel free to edit this. For those of you who want less vague or sport specific guidelines this can be a start in the right direction. --MATThematical (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree, that's a good idea. I looked at NSPORT the other day, and it struck me that it frequently does a better job of setting the right standard than ATH does. Perhaps this may become, over time, a better way of accomplishing what the proposal to have each sports project develop a guideline was intended to achieve. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Proposal: develop WP:NSPORT into a guideline.
ATH is broken. This table shows that we have over 112,000 "unknown importance" sports biography stubs. This is almost 67% of sports biographies. It's safe to say this is a little out of control. We should create bright-line tests on a sport-by-sport basis that will ensure that we are meeting the GNG for these sports bio articles. —Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)19:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Support. I'm assuming that you mean that it would take the place of ATH, and also be subject to editing that is currently in process now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose for now Support per clarification This is the general way I would like to go, but its premature to turn it into a guideline. It would need to finish being developed first. It was abandoned part way through last time it was proposed for guideline status. -DJSasso (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm all for improving WP:NSPORT because it puts all the different project guidelines in one easy to locate place. I'd rather have it be in addition to ATHLETE rather than replacing it completely. Spanneraol (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I think having it replace WP:ATH makes the most sense, but of course in the sports where WP:ATH makes sense you could add the WP:ATH clause to that sport (for many sports this is probably a good idea). My concern is that while competing in a fully pro competition guarantees notability in many sports, in others there are fully pro meets that don't have good athletes in them or the sport itself is not notable enough that most pros get national coverage. I think many individual sports fall into this category. I would like to keep WP:ATH in the meantime. MATThematical (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree NSPORT should replace ATH for the sports it covers, rather than supplement it. Otherwise NSPORT would serve no useful purpose. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Support: I really like this proposal, if it means wait a little bit to develop WP:NSPORT then make it guideline. As it stands now I am not sure if it is quite guideline material, but I think it is very close. MATThematical (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Support - though I do recommend a new , separate RFC or a vitalizing re-announcement of this RFC to check this once it's been cleaned up. There's a few of the ones in NSPORT I'm not 100% thrilled with, but this is tons better than the blanket one for ATH. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Support - I am embarrassed to admit that I had never seen this essay, which does a heck of a lot more than ATH. Nonetheless, I am still concerned that at the end of the day, it will do little to keep out the endless stubs with little to no chance of improvement beyond a statline and a biographic blurb. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I think he is referring to the fact that no one has actually offered any evidence that it is broken. Just opinons that it is. Which is true, no one has done the legwork and actually provided any numbers or even a few articles which meet ath that can't be sourced. The few mentioned above were all able to be sourced. -DJSasso (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose in principle. I have yet to see evidence that the existence of a lot of stubs is prima facie evidence that a problem exists. That said, efforts to develop NSPORT can occur independent of the existence of ATH. If it should gain consensus to become a guideline, we can retarget WP:ATHLETE at that time. Resolute00:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
My short-term goal would be to get NSPORT to a guideline-level quality, then move ahead with wider community consensus to replace ATH. I can't see what the harm is in having a more specific guideline, considering the varying levels of notability of the different sports. —Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)04:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
My opposition is rooted simply in the belief that NSPORT should be developed fully before it is considered a replacement or retarget for ATH. This isn't the first time this suggestion has come around, and I prefer not to put the cart before the horse. Lets go through the motions, and if NSPORT gains consensus, then we can look at changing ATH. Incidentally, I already launched a discussion at WT:HOCKEY on these lines on the expectation that this was how the process would move forward. I wasn't expecting your notification to arrive barely two hours after. ;o) Resolute04:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I put one of those on all the sports wikiprojects (there are a lot of them!) and I didn't check to see if another discussion had started before I added the notice.
I think we are in agreement: I would like to encourage refinement of NSPORT, and in the meantime we still use ATH. Once NSPORT is in a semi-stable state, we can go through the motions to get it promoted to a guideline. I think I could have worded my initial proposal better, but that is the general goal. —Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)21:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Support individual sports differ to each other, and we really need a sportsman-related notability guideline; therefore, WP:NSPORT would be a step in the proper direction. --Angelo (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm OK with the way that it treats baseball (big surprise, since I helped write it). No opinion on other sports, since I'm not an expert on those. In general, however, I think the idea of sport-specific guidelines developed hand-in-glove with the relevant Wikiprojects is the correct way to go, and that's the approach taken in the page in question. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!)12:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Support the sport by sport approach (as I suggested it a few days ago above), but there is a lot of work to be done on WP:NSPORT - it is self-contradictory at the moment, and I fear that most of the above arguments will be repeated for each sport, rather than just once. Also, I think the focus is a bit misleading. 112,000 unknown importance stubs to me just shows that we aren't very good at assigning priorities to articles using the WP:BIO template.The-Pope (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Support I think this is the best solution proposed, as long as everyone can stick to task and see NSPORT developed through to completion as a guideline. It would be fantastic to have a single resource outlining the notability thresholds/requirements for the various sports with input from the related wikiproject experts. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh17:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Support - I don't think a catch-all guideline is feasable; sport-specific is the only workable solution. – Toon17:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Support: don't see the problem with having a lot of unknown-importance articles, but developing NSPORT is definitely the way forward. BigDom17:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Noting that I'm the proposer, I'm seeing fairly good consensus for this, and some have already begun refining WP:NSPORT. In the interest of full disclosure, I've also canvassed the sports wikiprojects talk pages, notifying them of this (the overall WP:ATH) discussion, and asking for input on refining WP:NSPORT. —Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)04:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Support: - Whilst I have no problem with the current number of low content articles I agree that each sport needs its own guidelines and believe these should be decided upon by editors with knowledge of that sport. As an a member of WP:OLY I would also like to see the guideline expanded in the area of teams, games/matches etc; specifically to include our guidelines on the notability of Olympic sport, team and event articles Basement12(T.C)09:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Support - WP:NSPORT is much clearer and less ambiguous than WP:ATHLETE. I would wholeheartedly support developing this and then eventually ditching WP:ATHLETE. Bettia(talk)11:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Support - Couldn't be happier to see this happening. That someone was able to grab hold of Wikipedia's third rail firmly with both hands and survive I find quite literally amazing. That the discussion has remained civil throughout as near as I can see, and that editors from all sides of the issue are coalescing around a solution, I find greatly encouraging. Full marks to everyone involved. Mlaffs (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Support, but only as long as NSPORTS gets some sort of makeover. To explain, the reason I believe WP:ATH is disliked by many is because it gives rise to the following sort of articles: Ronald Eckersley, George Blackmore. The whole point of notability guidelines is that they are supposed to be a guide as to whether something would be expected to meet the GNG. They are not an extension (or reduction) of notability, but a shortcut to avoid long winded debates every time something is brought up. At present WP:ATH is a massive failure as it leads to articles on subjects who manifestly come nowhere near close to meeting the GNG. I would support any amendment (or abolition) of WP:ATH that gives better guidance as to whether a subject would reasonably meet the GNG. Quantpole (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes they do have a tiny bit of a text, but they are purely based on directory listings (see [15]). A similarly small but slightly more descriptive article could be constructed for the article you mention using the info here. However, I would think that any changes to WP:ATH would still be bound to include 'competed at the Olympics' as an automatic keeper, so that article would still be around. Quantpole (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Weak oppose - As it stands, NSPORT isn't much better than what we have now. It still allows an article on pretty much any athlete who appears in a single professional game. Mr.Z-man17:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
That isn't really accurate. Right now any pro athlete who played a single game down in the 5th level of a pro sport can have an article, however most of the sport guidelines on NSPORT now require you to be at the top level league or have played a significant number of games/seasons or won major awards etc at levels below that. There is a vast difference between the two. -DJSasso (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Regardless, its still overly inclusive. It would still encourage perma-stubs like Ronald Eckersley. We need real, substantial content from sources to write real articles, not just a few sentences of prose-ified statistics. Mr.Z-man02:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
But there's no reason for that to be a "perma-stub", whatever one of those is. It could be expanded, but it's hard to do in the Internet age. If someone had the time or the inclination, they could easily look through the Yorkshire Post archives to find some sources about his first-class career and possibly his personal life, then travel to Accrington library and check through six years worth of microfiche to uncover some newspaper articles about his Lancashire League exploits. For some reason though, nobody has bothered to do this yet? Anyway, I hope you can see my point. There is no doubt that the sources do exist to create "real articles", but they are just hard to find. The whole point of this is to create a minimum guideline beyond which we can be almost certain that sufficient sources do exist to establish notability, even if these sources are not readily available. We don't need to delete these sports articles simply because they are stubs at the moment; Wikipedia has no deadline and it's not like we're running out of storage space either. BigDom18:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
"it's hard to do in the Internet age" - I think you mean "it is hard to do even in the Internet age from free easy to access internet sites". The Internet age is NOT making sourcing content of any kind any more difficult than it ever was. (or else you may have meant "it is hard to do in the Internet age when people are too fat, lazy and/or stupid to get off their butts to find a hard copy source in a library or archive.") Active Banana (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
A combination of both of those probably, but you can see what I mean. Just because nobody has bothered to go and actually do some work to find sources, rather than just a quick Google search, it doesn't mean that the sources don't exist so there's no reason to go round deleting articles just because of this. BigDom18:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that almost no one is doing that kind of work, there are thousands of articles like that one, and it will take hours of work to expand each one. They could easily be merged into a comprehensive list or set of lists without losing any information, but no, people would rather have thousands of stubs than a more useful list (that could potentially be FL quality with no additional research), because quantity is more important than quality on the English Wikipedia. Mr.Z-man17:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment. Looking at the start of this talk thread, it begins with the complaint that ATH is broken. I think many of us who have supported this proposal did so in the hope that NSPORT would fix that brokenness, not just become a wordier version of ATH that retains the same problems. As discussion at NSPORT is going along, I'm seeing evidence of pushback against efforts to be more rigorous than ATH. I'd encourage editors to look closely there. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
As I mentioned right above, I am not sure what it is you are seeing. The new page is 100x more rigorous than ATH currently is. What exactly is it you are looking for if this is not enough? -DJSasso (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Just recently, you commented in talk there that you and I should agree to disagree on something. Rather than have the two of us leaving it at that, I'm inviting more editors to examine that issue and anything else they'd like to, and we'll see what they agree or disagree with. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Right but that still doesn't answer my question. And the comment also wasn't about how strict ATH was to be, it was about where talk about local sources belongs. So again? What strictness are you not seeing that you want to see? -DJSasso (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
(Sigh.) ATH is silent on whether local sources, and compendia of statistics, are sufficient to establish notability. I favor having NSPORT say they generally are insufficient, and you disagree with me. I have a feeling that many of the editors who said "support" here will be dissatisfied with the outcome if NSPORT remains silent on the matter. I was going to leave that unsaid here, at let editors see for themselves, but I thank you for giving me the opportunity to spell it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Right, but there is a discussion on going at GNG about this topic. I have been trying to point you to it. Secondly these notability subpages are supposed to be about saying when the subject is likely to have coverage to meet GNG. They aren't meant to determine what a good source is. Many people who supported this would likely not support if that language was introduced. Reading the conversation above it looks like most people just want the bar raised from any pro to a higher level, which NSPORT is doing quite well. -DJSasso (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
It was the fact you were canvassing that I had issue with here. "I'm seeing evidence of pushback against efforts to be more rigorous than ATH" is not neutral. So I was trying to get you to back up your accusation. -DJSasso (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Not really. I don't see where I have tried to keep NSPORT just as loose as ATH. I want to see where people are trying to say that any pro athlete should still be allowed considered good to go. You completely misrepresented the situation, which is exactly why you aren't supposed to canvas. -DJSasso (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
You are making a disagreement about content sound like a policy violation, which it is not. This thread stopped being helpful quite a while ago. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Right, because it is. You violated canvass. If you had stuck to disagreeing on the page it was happening on then it would just be a disagreement. When you go to another page and push your side in order to try and get people to go over and support you. That is canvassing. -DJSasso (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure whats going on here. Is there talk going on outside of this and WP:NSPORT. Suggesting people edit the NSPORT page in a section titled help out and edit WP:NSPORT is not canvassing. However, if he is going on community forums and user pages I guess that would be canvassing. MATThematical (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Matt, for saying that. Let's be very clear about this: no, I am not saying anything whatsoever on user talk pages nor off-wiki about any of this. Absolutely not! What DJSasso is hyperventilating about here is, in its entirety, what I said, and then partly struck out (which is overkill) in this thread of this talk section, right here. As someone correctly noted a little higher up in this talk, athletic bios are one of the third rails of Wikipedia editing, and it appears that I stepped on that rail. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Support NSPORT seems like the only way to make ATH more restrictive (as I believe it allows too many stubs who fail GNG) without completely ruling out certain sports. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose It seems that the problem is local coverage being used to satisfy the GNG. I suggest that the fix belongs there. There are some very good ideas being proposed here, but why not propose these for all of WP so that the project is consistent? Many of us consolidated many individual guidelines together several years ago, the result being BIO substantially in its current form. The problem was discontinuity across vocations, where a yacht designer might qualify as an engineer, but others argued that he was a yachtsman thus not qualified as an athlete. Then you have the argument over whether to use the stricter or looser rule. Sadly BIO now has so many special circumstances, that the continuity is lost. But at least it is all in one place where many people see it and can watch the CREEP. The GNG needs strengthening and the AfD process needs more intelligent and consistent application.--Kevin Murray (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - Some notable sports such as the Olympics and rugby union were ostensibly amateur until a few years ago, so this is not helpful.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Since having played in the Olympic are mentioned as a qualifying criteria in the basic criteria section and the Rugby Union specific guidelines make no mention of differentiation between amateur and professional players (simply stating that they should have played 1st class RU), I'm not really sure what you are objecting to? King of the NorthEast01:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Up until the mid 1990s, rugby union was entirely amateur. Professionalisation is still ongoing and sporadic, even within major rugby nations such as Scotland. There are also a number of notable rugby teams which are still amateur. There are other sports which are probably in the same position.--MacRusgail (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposal:clarification of "province" for the purpose of WP:POLITICIAN
WP:POLITICIAN currently states that: "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 judges" are generally considered to be notable. It's been pointed out in this deletion discussion that the definition of state or province for this purpose is vague.
The case in point is a local politician who sits on a smaller city council. It is being argued that as only one of the Regions of England has a local assembly, the next tier of government by default becomes "the province" for the purpose of WP:POLITICIAN. I don't consider this to be the case.
There were in the past unelected regional assemblies in England and proposals to create directly elected assemblies which were scrapped as a result of a negative vote in a referendum. In the absence of such assemblies, I don't believe that the next tier of government automatically becomes "the province." This would lead to an illogical situation whereby local councillors would be considered notable now but would then cease to be notable in the event of regional assemblies being set up in the future. This would breach the principle that notability is not temporary. Additionally it would lead to the administrative headache of millions of articles on nondescript local councillors, something which I think WP:POLITICIAN is designed to avoid.
Does one have to take part in a FIFA World Cup match to be meet notability guidelines, or does merely being part of the 23-man World Cup squad count? Perry (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I would be willing to bet that anyone on a World Cup roster is already notable via their regular careers. Resolute20:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
You would normally be right, I'd imagine, but North Korea's qualification this time around has caused some issues regarding player information. Perry (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Automatic notability from a New York Times Obituary
It is asserted in some biography article AFDs that having had a "full obituary" in the New York Times automatically makes the person notable in Wikipedia. I have not seen that claim before, and wonder if there is any precedent or if that is in fact the consensus. If true, then what other newspapers or newsmagazines around the world also confer this automatic notability? Edison (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
In one of the AFDs you kindly pointed out, there was the contrary statementby one editor "getting a NYT obituary isn't even close to being "prima facie evidence of notability": 99.9 percent of the people who get NYT obituaries do not have Wikipedia articles and never will." In archives of this talk page, I find some claims that an obituaru in one of the 6 or so main British papers or the NY Times is prima facie evidence of notability, but some commentors said it should be a staff written obituary (not family contributed, or paid, or submitted by the funeral home based on family information), or that it should be a wire service obituary (common for public figures of more than local importance), or that it should be nonidentical obits in more than one major paper. The NY Times would have obits of world and nationally notable people, but they also serve as a local paper and will publish long obituaries of persons of only local interest, which might include family members of notable people, socialites, or politicians or businessmen known only locally, or who are chums of the publisher. This is likely true of most big city papers. If notability is inherent for those with staff written obits in the NY Times, then is the same true of the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, the New Orleans Times Picayune, the Nashville Tennessean, or the Louisville Courier Journal? Edison (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It appears that when it comes to "full" obituaries published by the NYTs, the proposition advanced by at least some editors over time is that they are all notable, and that the hypotheticals you posted about how the NYT selects who gets full obituaries is not actual practice.--Milowent (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The New York Times publishes two categories of obituaries. There are small-print paid obituaries that are essentially like paid classified advertisements, and these should never be considered to confer notability. However, when the obituary is formatted like any other news article, with a byline by a Times reporter, then there has been a newsroom determination that the person is notable for the Times' purposes, a very high standard that I think would be evidence of notability for our purposes as well. It is not possible to purchase the latter kind of obituary. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Effectively it would represent significant, non-trivial coverage of that individual, and does imply that such an individual would easily meet WP:GNG, because if the NYT took notice, finding other significant sources should be fairly easily for such people. Resolute20:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I have found NY Times obituaries to be goldmines of information, and if staff written and lengthy have taken them as one of the "multiple reliable sources with significant coverage," but have never felt that one such obit was sufficient. For one thing, major papers in the US also have, right next to a lengthy obit of an internationally known artist, an equally long obit which is merely of human interest, such as someone who operated an elevator for 40 years. A staff written bio in a major paper only should be sufficient evidence of notability if it was written because the person is generally considered notable, not merely because it is a touching human interest story or an instance of the internationally known paper acting as the local paper and publishing an obit of someone of only local importance or interest, whose obit would not be published by a paper in any other city. Edison (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I strongly concur with Edison: "long obituaries of persons of only local interest, which might include family members of notable people, socialites, or politicians or businessmen known only locally, or who are chums of the publisher" are common in any paper. A longish N.Y. Times (or Grauniad) obit is evidence of possible notability, but does not in and itself constitute proof barring further substantial coverage in some other venue(s). --Orange Mike | Talk16:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
"Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Does "significant" require an actual review somewhere saying their role was significant? A major character in a single episode, someone the plot revolves around like the villain of the week, is significant, even if they only appeared in one episode. If they were just standing in the background, or had one line, then it wouldn't be significant. Can we reword things to be specific to prevent misinterpretations? How about saying if the character was a major plot point, or had more than a few lines, their appearance is considered significant? DreamFocus05:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Pornbio no longer describes practice at AFD. Wining a dubious "well-known award," no longer reflects on the notability of the actor. I have removed this from the guideline. If it is reinserted, please tag the section as disputed and we can discuss it here. Hipocrite (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
One AfD that still has not been closed does not establish current practice. If there is issue about what is considered a "well-known award", that can be interpreted at the AfD level. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
How does this kind of garbage even get written, let along accepted as a policy/guideline? "Has won a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Pornographic film awards or Category:Film awards." This defines the bar for well-known as having a wikipedia article written by a member of the wanking community (at least as long as its been appropriately categorized). Having looked into this recently, one of the awards -- the "Grabby" -- is run by a tiny free weekly in Chicago called Grab magazine. The magazine appears to largely live off of advertising by porn companies and gay hookers. They have a promotional event every year -- the "Grabby Awards" -- for gay porn and fans of gay hookers, and this is all used to create stubs on almost universally pseudonymous porn performers, i.e. "Ram Stabber is a pornographic actor who shared the 2008 Grabby award for best rimming scene with Rock Hardon." Sometimes these stubs also have links to the IMDB page edited by the porn company they work for. And that's about it. Oh, yeah, the stubs also frequently include links to the porn retail sites. I suspect many more of these "well-known" (stretching the boundary of well-known to "it's been heard of by some people") awards are equally dubious.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I've edited the not-guideline to reflect that mere inclusion in that category does not make something well known. Hipocrite (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
PORNBIO criteria 1 was meant to be an interpretation of ANYBIO criteria 1. Perhaps the issue can be resolved by replacing the word "well-known" with notable. Ideally, an awards should be independently notable to have an article on wikipedia. I don't know much about the Grabbies in general, but if independent reliable sources report on them, they are notable. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
How would you define "notable" in this instance? Typically, notable in the wikipedia sense is determined by something like "multiple non-trivial coverage of X in reliable sources independent of the subject" with non-trivial taken to mean, generally, beyond passing mentions -- actual examinations of the subject of the article. But what's been sought for porn (and for athletes and a bunch of other "special" guidelines) is a way to bypass the GNG. So how would you define a "notable porn award" for the purpose of this discussion? (Ah: Just reread morbid's comment). It would appear we might be in agreement. Yes, if reliable sources establish something is notable (as its typically defined here) that works. Of course, the Grabby award is not notable in that way, nor are all but a handful of the 31 porn awards (really non-independent marketting vehicles) covered on wikipedia. Bali ultimate (talk)
I agree with your definition up to a point. If multiple and independent reliable sources report on something, especially over the years, it can add up to significant coverage by reliable sources even if it's just a brief mention each time. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Having an article on wikipedia does not mean that the award is exclusive enough to mean that winning it makes the winner automaticaly notable. For example, imagine the "Everyone in porn" award, where Notable Person started a movement to give anyone in porn an award. Because Notable Person can get press, especially if (s)he starting giving out porn awards, the "Everyone in porn" award would be notable. However, winning the "Everyone in porn"award does not make you notable. I am shocked, shocked, to find out, that awards like the "grabbies" are little more than the "Everyone in porn" award. Hipocrite (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
It's pointless removing Pornbio 1 and 2, as the same porn stars will still pass Anybio 1. To make a difference, you'll need to propose that Anybio be toughened first, and Pornbio can then follow. Epbr123 (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe it would be helpful to simply list the awards that are considered sufficiently well-known and significant for the purposes of meeting WP:PORNBIO. This would go a long way to reducing the number of AfDs for porn performers (gay or straight) and refocus AfD discussions for borderline performers on general notability guidelines (instead of the frequent arguments about meeting the threshold of WP:PORNBIO). There don't seem to be so many awards that we can't easily make a short-list of them for further discussion. I really do not know what is generally considered well-known or acceptable or I wold have started this process myself. Can someone please take this on? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be simplest if we could just establish a consensus to change "well known award" to "notable award". This was always the criteria's intended meaning and it will bring Pornbio in line with Anybio. If you want a list of awards considered sufficient for meeting Pornbio, it's those in Category:Pornographic film awards. Epbr123 (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll agree with that. And with that, we loop back to the original phrasing of the clause in PORNBIO. We cannot limit to just the AVN Awards as defined by Hipocrite as there are a number of equally valid awards within the X-rated business - XRCO Award and Hot d'Or would a pair for starts. Using just the AVN Awards would give PORNBIO an undue North American focus. Tabercil (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The awards in List of gay pornography awards are an exception as there are no notability requirements for inclusion in the list, and any reasonable person participating in an AfD would be aware of this. If most people think the Grabby awards aren't notable, its article can be deleted at AfD and will therefore no longer count towards Pornbio. If you're suggesting that some porn awards shouldn't count towards Pornbio despite being notable, then we'll have a situation where the notability standards for porn stars are higher than for anyone else. That may be acceptable if it can be shown the porn industry gives out relatively high amount of awards compared to other industries. Epbr123 (talk) 10:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Another issue is that the Grabbys, and perhaps similar awards, apparently honor all of the participants in a scene. "Best Duo Sex Scene", "Best Three-Way Sex Scene", etc. Since we're using Christopher Ashlee as an example, it's appropriate to note that his only claim to notability is sharing an award with eight other performers in a single scene. That's spreading the notability pretty thin. Will Bebacktalk11:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe a stipulation should be added to Anybio and Pornbio that the award has to be given to an individual rather than a group of people. Epbr123 (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that would be appropriate. We also should consider that just because an awards body or ceremony is notable, does not necessarily mean that every single award they grant is notable. Even if the (hypothetical) Wank Awards are somewhat notable, that does not mean that a one-time award they gave in 1987 for "Best Makeup in a Bisexual Fisting Scene" is notable. The way PORNBIO is written suggests that every award given by a notable ceremony is itself notable, because the linked categories contain mostly articles about ceremonies, not individual awards. What ANYBIO says is "a notable award or honor", suggesting specific awards that are notable. --RL0919 (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so how would this change to ANYBIO affect things like the article for Didier Lavergne, who won the Oscar for Best Make-up? What you're saying is that no-one who won for make-up since 1998 is notable. 1999 was the last year one person alone won, and 1999 was the last time one individual was nominated; ever since it has been two or three people nominated for each film... Tabercil (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'd say joint winners of Best Make-up awards aren't inherently notable. An award that has to be shared will confer less notability than an award given to an individual. Epbr123 (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Eh, I'm not so sure... I mean the more I think about this, the more awards which are notable that I can think of that would fall into this situation where they're shared among people: Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Drama Series (and the comedy equivalent), MTV Movie Award for Best Kiss. Heck, let's throw out a really notable award that is frequently split among people: Nobel Prizes. Every Nobel Prize for physics since 1993 went to multiple people, and there are articles for each person in those groups. Similar occurs for the awards in Chemistry, Medicine and Economics. If we're going to say that an award that is shared by multiple people is no longer notable, then we got problems. (Yes I know that's not precisely what you said Epbr123, but that's what someone is bound to argue...) Tabercil (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I admit the shared winners of very notable awards such as the Nobel Prize will be inherently notable, but those people should easily pass GNG anyway. Epbr123 (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
One way of looking at awards for porn scenes is that they are comparable to best picture awards - which go to the picture and not to the participants. Therefore, appearing in an award-winning scene would not confer notability on its own. Will Bebacktalk01:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
That's an inaccurate comparison. The scene awards list the actors by name as recipients, whereas best film awards technically win themselves. For that matter, if a scene award lists a single recipient we'd have a bit of a problem by the proposed standard. Horrorshowj (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry for jumping in late, after rereading the comments and the discussion on the mentioned AfD it seems that the whole thing can easily be summarised as "I don't like pornography, I know many people who don't like it either, therefore the consensus is that pornography awards are irrelevant". That is a very strange definition of what consensus is suppose to mean. Now, i do understand the reason why people don't want to have awards that are a purely commercial advertisement, but then things like Oscar or MTV Music Video award should also be discounted (don't tell me you believe that a very creative individual who is completely independant of the industry can win those); heck, even Nobel prises are often politically motivated (i have 3 words for you "George W Bush"). And i see that some people hide behind the rhetoric of "I believe that every rule must be made tougher", but then why being notable in the 'wanking community' is a bad thing, but being notable in 'dancing community' or 'reading community' is good? Beta M (talk) 06:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
In context of this, I want to ask why google hits do not count as indication for notability. Wouldn't be anything that has lots of webpages be basically notable? Currently it seems that regarding porn notability is only decided by at beeing at least nominated twice, won a specific award or was/is "playmate". I think that is not very satisfying. I will give an example: The article of Sophie Moone has been deleted because of not beeing notable. This model has been in porn for about 10 years, appeared in countless magazines and about 70 movies, was in the top 10 lists of many explicit sites for years and still has nearly 1 million of hits at google. Even the picky German Wikipedia kept her after several discussions. That's all because of not having won a "notable" award. WP:N also states "Notability is not temporary" but who would generally care about a porn star after like 10 or 20 years after their retirement? Especially if they have only been in business for less than 3 years. This also applies for many less-known entertainers and artists in general. Could it be a good idea to move all pornstars simply to a sister project? As I am obvously new here, I would like to know what is thought about this. :) Testales (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
One thing that it misses is the fact that counting hits is exceedingly naïve when it comes to pornography, even leaving aside the fact that the numbers are meaningless anyway. There are entire sections of the Internet pornography industry devoted to skewing search engine results in the porn industry's favour. Even if "1 million" were a count, which it isn't, it would probably be mostly "doorways", hyperlink farms, "cloaks", meta tag stuffing, external hyperlink vandalism on open wikis, and other such tricks. The porn industry has been doing this for a long time, it probably being the earliest user if not originator of many such tricks, and the fact that it does this should be widespread knowledge after so many years. Uncle G (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I've never liked PornBio for inclusion in WP:N guidelines and I'll tell you why: All someone has to do is take off their clothes, get their picture taken, and *boom*, they're notable??? Bullshit! We have people risking their lives every day in our police forces, fire departments, branches of military service, and unless someone wins the Medal of Honor or the Victoria Cross they won't pass the notability test. If someone has done something that is notable in of itself (i.e. the People v Larry Flynt, Jenna Jameson going from Starlet to top producer), then those particular individuals could be considered notable. Otherwise get rid of this idiotic inclusion that does nothing to add to the Wikipedia project. Rapier (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
PORNBIO is hardly as lenient as you say (and incidentally, they risk their lives too, but it's certainly not as noble a sacrifice!). It's an interesting question as to whether e.g. a police officer who achieved notability within that profession but not in the MSM merits an article. Perhaps they would. I suspect under MUSIC, for example, a band could be notable by virtue of notable coverage in SPIN, Rolling Stone, etc. and need not have been in the NY Times or on FOX News. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I've seen it happen where a police officer was awarded his departments highest award, received press for it in multiple sources, and the article was deleted for being single-issue and temporary. It's complete bullshit, and the criteria needs to go. Rapier (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I think an officer with national recognition in police-only publications could be considered notable, maybe even statewide, but if you're describing a local PD's highest award and various local publications, that's more problematic. Do you have a link for the AfD? Anyway, PORNBIO excludes the vast majority of porn performers, so I'm not sure why it's "complete bullshit." Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Not liking it isn't a valid reason for eliminating the guideline, any more than it is for deleting an article. Several things you should bear in mind. Without PORNBIO, they fall under ENTERTAINER. This would drastically increase the number of porn performers who met an additional criteria. Second, last time somebody tried throwing PORNBIO under the bus (oddly enough to protect ATHLETE) I eyeballed the categories. Female, Male, and Transsexual porn performers COMBINED had around 1200 articles. With the possible exception of Academics, I don't think PORNBIO is even making a respectable run at the 1% mark of articles allowed by the other categories. Third, the last annual figure I read for AIM was 6000+. So the entire 90 year history of the industry, including 40 years as a major segment of the entertainment industry in multiple countries, is represented by a number of articles equal to roughly 1/4 of the number of performers who worked in the US for that year. The guideline is difficult to meet from a practical standpoint.Horrorshowj (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
No. Local officials aren't automatically notable per WP:POLITICIAN. A state AG would qualify. Local office holders can qualify under WP:GNG, or by meeting one of the other additionals however. Horrorshowj (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Baronets
There is a significant discussion going on at Sir Oswald Mosley, 4th Baronet. Should we treat anyone who ever had an entry in Who's Who as inherently notable? One major implication of this is that we would treat all baronets as inherently notable, potentially several thousand people. Up until now I think we have treated all peers as inherently notable, but not all baronets. PatGallacher (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe Jimbo is attacking WP:BIO in general, not just WP:PORNBIO, as he's objecting to any bad biography "full of random trivia about non-notable people". Epbr123 (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Given his statement on "Kayfabe" and his link to Pornbio, I think he's being specific, in this case, that Pornbio is problematic. Hipocrite (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The supposed kayfabe problem and the reliability of certain sources is unrelated to the notability guideline. The purpose of Pornbio isn't to recommend which sources are reliable or how articles should be written. Epbr123 (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, regardless of whether it's right to single porn out, I do agree that Pornbio should be less inclusive. Since Anybio criteria 1 has now become meaninglessly vague (ie. "a well-known and significant award" rather than "a notable award"), there is scope to toughen up the Pornbio criteria related to awards. Epbr123 (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that PORNBIO can always be tightened, but I don't believe in the automatic outright dismissal of coverage by pornography trade journals based on prejudices about the reliability of the entire field. We don't outright dismiss other niche publications like wrestling websites (speaking of kayfabe). Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Jimbo apparently having a personal ("I think") problem with PORNBIO on his talk page in the context of a discussion of some unnamed "marginal porn guy" doesn't mean that PORNBIO "no longer reflects practice." "Practice" is the consensus in the editing of such articles and in the outcome of AfDs, is it not? That practice seems to adhere pretty well to PORNBIO. The conditions are already pretty exclusive. If he or anyone else can conceive of a better standard, please post! Though I disagree with the idea that "substantial mention in reliable secondary sources outside of pornographic trade publications" be mandatory. Clearly that would be one indicator of notability, one I think already reflected in point four "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." "Significant coverage" is already in theWP:GNG. Articles in "pornographic trade publications" can be RS; there is responsible journalism in at least some of them, free of "random trivia" and "kayfabe." One problem I see is that WP:SIGCOV (a shortcut I created, FWIW) gets ignored, or else there's widely varying ideas of what constitutes it. If a porn actor lacks SIGCOV in even pornographic trade publications, it's probably a good indicator that they're not terribly notable! Nevertheless, people do create articles on such individuals. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
There's an ongoing problem in the whole "policy reflects practice" line of thought, in that once you hit an AfD trying to argue against policy is largely (but not completely) a lost cause. I found it interesting in the AfD that triggered this again to see people arguing that they don't think the bio should be there, but it meets PORNBIO, so keep. That's not practice informing policy, but policy informing practice, making it difficult (until a number of people chimed in) to break away. Thus I find it difficult to point to what happens in AfDs and say that it reflects consensus. This isn't to say that PORNBIO wouldn't meet consensus, (although I'd argue against the AVN side of it, as written), just that we can't necessarily gauge that from how the policy is applied.
Part of the problem, and I think I'm agreeing with you here, is that there are still two concepts of notability in these debates: importance and coverage. The GNG largely addresses coverage. Winning an AVN award may indicate importance. But it doesn't indicate that there is sufficient coverage to write an NPOV article. - Bilby (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
What AfD are you referring to? But yes, it seems like there are some award-nominees and winners, even of multiple ones, who have little or nothing written about them such that all online sources get used and one still winds up with only a WP:Stub that's not really capable of expansion (and thus not really even a stub by definition). I don't think that harms WP as some might, but it's not really according to existing policies and guidelines. As an aside, some information that gets deleted from articles, or articles that get deleted have content that would be perfectly acceptable and even desirable for IMDb and IAFD, and it would be nice if that information made its way over there. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Within the industry, I think it would be difficult to identify many publications that would meet the general tenant of WP:RS of "having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy." Active Banana (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that was it. Sorry - it was being periodically courtesy blanked for a bit, so I wasn't sure that linking to it would be good if it was. Seems to have settled though.
The problem is whether or not GNG trumps PORNBIO. It seems that PORNBIO is used as a sufficient reason to keep, irrespective of the presence or otherwise of RS. Mostly because of the awards option. It seems that PORNBIO is being used to justify keeping without the presence of independent non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, as people are reading 1 & 2 as sufficient conditions, and thus overriding the GNG. - Bilby (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
All of Notability (people) supplements the GNG, does it not? "Trump" may not be the right word, but an article meeting PORNBIO (or PROF or whatever) but failing the GNG (or WP:BASIC) should not be kept. If it is, seemingly the closing admin did a poor job analyzing the arguments and making a decision according to policy and guidelines; that's not the fault of the guideline itself. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
That was my understanding, but it doesn't always seem to be the case. Looking at some of the AfDs, (for example, Brandon Manilow, Johan Volny, and Lexie Marie) there seems to be a tendency to either argue that someone meets GNG or that they have won an award and therefore meets PORNBIO. Meeting PORNBIO seems to be a sufficient condition, and that seems to follow with my reading of the current policy. "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards" seems to suggest that meeting the specific standards allows someone to be notable even if they would otherwise fail the GNG. It's not a specific PORNBIO problem, as you mentioned, but it seems to be an issue that might need clarification. - Bilby (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree, it's not a problem specific to PORNBIO and that the wording of the "Additional Criteria" and ANYBIO sections could use some rewording. In particular, "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards" that you quoted should at most say "A person may be generally notable..." and possibly be less emphatic than even that. It does tend to read like Notability (people) can override the GNG, even though it goes on to say "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." What a mess! Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
It is frequently argued and I think quite often successfully, that even if there are not third party sources, simply meeting the PORNBIO or other topic specific guidelines is, in and of itself, sufficient to show notability. I dont know what the intent was when the specific guidelines were written, but that is how some editors are using them; and if that broader usage is not widely backed by community consensus, I heartily endorse re-writing to be more clear. Active Banana (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe that discussion should take place under a broader discussion header. "Consensus" vs. policy/guidelines strike me as one of the continual problem areas of WP. If AfD consensus is that PORNBIO (or any NPeople subsection) overrides N/GNG, then maybe NPeople should be rewritten to reflect that consensus, rather than the guideline being rewritten in an attempt to alter that consensus. But for my own part, I think "[reliable] sources [that] address the subject directly in detail" is a pretty crucial element of notability. To settle matters, participation by a larger percentage of active editors here and there would be desirable, I think. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Some history for you who may not have been here all these years, or at least not as involved in the dank depths of deletion discussions. ☺ Prior to 2004/2005, when people first started explicitly employing the Primary Notability Criterion, we had various proposals for what qualifies as warranting a separate standalone article, one of which was, indeed Wikipedia:Importance, formulated as you can see in 2004. These proposals failed, most spectacularly on the occasion of "Jimbo's No". But their legacies live on in things like "has won awards" criteria. These criteria have gradually tightened over the years, because despite the fact that they fail so often, some people cannot quite grasp the nettle of getting rid of them altogether. These criteria are secondary notability criteria, subordinate to the PNC. We have them nowadays mainly as shorthands, rules of thumb for quickly determining cases where the PNC is almost certain to be satisfied, or as explicit extensions to the PNC to allow for cases where we want Wikipedia to be a bit like a directory. But we bear in mind that the shorthands sometimes yield the wrong answers, and we are careful to ensure that "a bit like a directory" doesn't turn into "is a directory".
Also note that in the first year or two of explicit acknowledgement of the PNC, I several times pointed out that it had even been in Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies, in lightly disguised form, all along, which gave several specific cases of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable published works that are independent of the subject (documented in the history books, covered by newspapers in depth, and so forth) without anyone realizing that there was an overarching general case criterion and actually writing that down on the wiki. See User talk:Uncle G/Archive/2007-01-01#Deleting candidates, for one example. It was, in similar partial and disguised forms, in a few other sets of criteria, too. As several people observed afterwards, the PNC is what a lot of people had been trying to express, in various ways and without quite coming up with the full formula, all along.
Jimbo's problem with "kayfabe" is, similarly, something that a lot of people have expressed in many discussions over the years. Some people in the pornography industry, for fairly obvious reasons, don't want their real names and biographies known. And much of the biographical information that circulates is pure fabrication, sometimes being solely the product of the imagination of an individual magazine editor. This is a standard reliability of sources issue. Although the source is there, one has to look at whether the person writing was attempting to tell the truth and provide accurate and factual reference material, or just making up a storyline for entertainment. (See User:Uncle G/On sources and content#Evaluating sources.) The motivations of a pornography site designer writing the purported biography on Hi My Name Is Maria I Am A Normal Young Woman And This Is My Own Personal But Yet Strangely Very Professionally Produced WWW Site.COM are not the same as the motivations of an encyclopaedist wanting to collate and systematize actual human knowledge. Uncle G (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Uncle G says it excellently well. WP:N also does. A subject is notable if and only if it is covered in substantial unaffiliated reliable source material. If the source is reliable, that means it is covering the person truthfully and accurately, not making stuff up. Sources about porn often unquestioningly accept "kayfabe" stuff, making them unreliable. A source about a porn star would need to cover the person, including but not limited to real name, and cover their real, not kayfabe, biography. If such sources don't exist, not appropriate for an article. That has nothing to do with "anti-porn", it has to do with pro-reliability and pro-reality. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:POLITICIAN says that "members and former members of a national ... legislature" are generally notable, and as far as electoral democracies are concerned, I don't have a disagreement with that. But what about rubber stamp legislatures? Say, the National Assembly of Iraq under Saddam, where a dissenting vote would surely lead to imprisonment or execution. Or the Supreme People's Assembly of North Korea, where much the same can be expected. Or the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union for much of its existence. And so forth.
By and large, this type of legislator is selected (and they are, in all but name, selected and not elected) based on one criterion alone: loyalty to the ruling party and/or dictator. Ability to raise one's hand and vote "aye" along with everyone else. They do not need to have political or campaigning skills. They need not have had notable careers prior to entering politics. They are not accountable to an electorate. Given that their legislatures often meet just a few days a year, and that the press organs of dictatorships tend to focus on the leadership, it is highly likely that even in their own countries, the press doesn't actually talk about their existence as individuals, much less highlight their legislative "careers" or "activities".
EN Wikipedia's position regarding people of non-english countries who are only locally known
I would like to ask how people (especially pornographic actors and actresses) are treated who are only known in their home country and if English is not an official language in this country. With "only locally known" I mean if there are little to no English sources, no reasonable international coverage and having won only prizes of questionable and local relevance. Is there a restriction for the inclusion of BLPs for those people or is there no limit other than the usual general and specialized guidelines? Testales (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
We cannot restrict notability because there are few sources in English. Or more specifically, if there are few reliable sources in English. The notability of a person that is known within the US, well covered by major US newspapers in English, is equivalent to a person in China well covered by major Chinese newspapers in Chinese. Yes, there is a translation issue to worry about but we presume that can be translated accurately. Now, there are issues with local papers in both English and foreign countries being the only source of notability, which can be a problem. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Gosh, I don't think the answer was at all clear. Just because a person is Notable in China does not mean he or she is Notable in another country. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Notability does not have national boundaries, what it has is "more than trivial coverage in reliable third party sources". The question comes down to "how significant is the coverage" not "where are the GPS coordinates of the coverage". ActiveBanana (bananaphone17:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Pornbio criterion 6
Criterion 6, "The child of a famous person", is without doubt the most ridiculous guideline on this entire project. It so blatantly violates WP:NOTINHERITED, I can't believe that it was ever passed as policy. BigDom22:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it doesn't matter now. I'd never looked at that guideline before so I thought it was actually one of the criteria. BigDom22:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Notability of young performers and child prodigies
The article Tom Holland (actor) was nominated for deletion because of the following concern: Non notable child actor. As its creator I’d objected and the following discussion Talk:Tom_Holland_(actor) raised matters about inflexibility of the guideline of WP:ENTERTAINER, which states:
Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:
Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, 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.
The 2nd and 3rd clauses are rather subjective criteria and as such are not reliable in most cases. The conclusion whether the subject of article is notable is heavily based on the first criteria which, I believe, is discriminating against some outstanding young performers actually banning articles about them. I think it’s worth to discuss it and hopefully change the criteria.
The subject of the problematic article is 14 y.o. British actor and dancer who had been playing the title role in Billy Elliot the Musical at West End for almost two years. Let me cite the editor who proposed to delete the article: “Notable? No, not yet... Maybe when the subject has finished school, been to college and ... has undertaken a number of major roles and demonstrated their lasting abilities then that criterion will be satisfied”.
So the emphasis is on the requirement of “significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions”, and “multiple” is a key word. In other words, only performers with rather established career can be “notable”. Let me outline why this requirement needs to be corrected.
It is obvious and unjust manifestation of age discrimination because young performers by definition cannot enjoy the established career with “multiple significant roles”. Actually almost no (with a few exceptions) child actors can then be subjects of Wiki articles. Should we wait quite a few years when they grow up and have “a career” to consider them as deserving to figure in Wiki? This is absurd and contradicts the reality as the most outstanding child actors are of public interest just at their prime as child actors.
Creative personalities such as actors cannot be judged on the basis of "numbers": sometimes one role can be recognised as more significant contribution to a field of entertainment than dozens others - this is a nature of the field. There is already guideline WP:SINGLEEVENT but it is not explicitly related to performers, and to young performers in particular.
So the main criteria should be significance and public resonance of the role even if some young performer's had just one to date. For instance, the title role in the Billy Elliot the Musical is characterised by some prominent experts as “doing Hamlet while running the New York marathon” and coined as "the most difficult role ever created for child". The most talented children with multiple skills usually need two-year comprehensive training before their 1 – 2 year run as leads. The entire process with full time commitment takes 3 – 4 years, so no opportunity to take another significant role. IMHO this fact alone should be enough to give young performers of that unique role (or other roles of a similar calibre) in the major shows at Broadway and West End a credit of being "notable".
Child prodigies (in general - not just performers in entertainment industry) are a modern phenomenon reflecting some interesting aspects of the present reality and representing the future, and as such the most outstanding of them should be present in Wiki irrespective of their successive career - otherwise we do not have a proper encyclopaedic reflection of that reality.
So I suggest introducing a special criterion for young performers and child prodigies taking into account the specifics of their trade. This will, in particular, prevent unnecessary discussions regarding deletion of articles on the basis of formal criteria contradicting to common sense.
AdVal (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree. It looks to me like a good faith PROD that was properly reverted. It seems to me that per WP:GNG we don't really need to change any criteria at WP:ENT, as the issues raised could certainly be discussed fairly at AfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I am grateful to all the editors who share my view that the PROD in question was not appropriate. I believe that it’s rather obvious in that particular case. However, the very fact that an experienced editor did prod it and was very certain that it was done according to Wiki policies and criteria speaks for itself: there is a problem, and it will surface time and again in less obvious cases. I presented the case for correction in detail; it would be nice to hear some arguments dismissing my points 1-4 in the initial note rather than just plain verdict “I don't see any reason”. Personally, I find puzzling that “former members of a provincial legislature”, “an unelected candidate for political office” and even "pornographic actors" deserve their own notability criteria while a rather large and distinctive group of child prodigies, especially in performing arts, some of whom may be known to millions people, don’t. Note that I am talking about just a small adding to WP:ENT like “young performers may have had a significant role even in one notable film, television show, stage performance, or other productions provided ...”.
I, for one, would probably oppose the change to ENT that you propose. The purpose of guidelines such as ENT is not to actually determine notability, but to provide guidance as to which pages are or are not likely to be notable, ie, likely to pass GNG. The wording you propose could be gamed to support notability for young people who, unlike the example you raised here, might not pass GNG. I and the other editors here who agreed with you about reverting the PROD did so on the basis of GNG, not ENT, and I'm pretty confident similar reasoning would have been applied at an AfD, had there been one. PROD is designed so that an editor, such as you, can simply revert and, thus, veto the PROD. That's what happened here, and it worked. You are assuming that it is likely that the one editor who (in good faith, I think) placed the PROD would be able to win that argument at AfD, and I think that assumption is not correct. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Tryptofish here. Passing GNG is not actually hard. The problem is adding all these extra sub-codicils, which convince people that someone who easily passes GNG is not notable because they don't pass some odd sub-codicil. john k (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
My take on this: BASIC and ANYBIO are simply sections within WP:BIO, the guideline page here. The bottom line is that WP:GNG is the criterion that must be passed to survive AfD. Full stop. The purpose of WP:BIO and related guidelines is to make it easier to understand how WP:GNG applies. BASIC and ANYBIO do not really stand on their own, but to satisfy BIO, a page has to satisfy BIO as a whole. Strictly speaking, sections within BIO should not contradict one another, but this being an imperfect world, there may be AfDs where editors will try to argue based on claiming contradictions.
I looked quickly at the AfD to which you linked, to get an idea of what is going on, but I'm going to try to answer in general terms, not necessarily about this particular AfD. You say that the subject of this page has coverage that passes GNG, but did not do anything notable. Such an analysis, on the face of it, does not make sense, the way Wikipedia defines "notable". If there are multiple reliablesecondary sources that say the subject is notable, then they are notable and should be kept at AfD. If there are multiple reliable sources that simply mention the person in some passing or trivial way, then the person may not be notable. The key is whether the sources say that what the person did is notable, not whether editors here think that the accomplishments are notable. I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Quick deleting for biographies
I feel this action is superfluous and unnecessary. I am disgusted by my article being labelled “irrelevant” by the High Lords of Wikipedia. I wish to inform you that I wrote this article to give you a small insight into the life of a truly magnificent woman. Your attempt to delete said article has deeply offended me and everybody who knows of this unsung hero, God rest her soul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LanyaaSnillum (talk • contribs) 19:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The article Lana Mullins, which is the only one that LanyaaSnillum has edited, seems at first glance to be highly vandalized; however, all of the substantive (non-tagging) edits are by LanyaaSnillum, the creator of the article. Either LanyaaSnillum is trying to prove a point by being disruptive, or, to assume the nobler motive, is ignorant of basic Wikipedia guidelines and article structure. Regardless, I think that LanyaaSnillum has proved the point that there is a place for speedy deletion of biographies. --Bejnar (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
One source sufficient?
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham Jennison, people are arguing that one source with some coverage is sufficient, and that it is no problem taht not a single otehr source about this person exists. My understanding of the notability guidelines was that multiple sources are always required, but this is currently not clearly written in WP:BIO, although it is clear in WP:N. Should this be clarified or corrected in either of the two? If consensus has changed somehow and one source is now sufficient, then fine by me, but then WP:N needs to change. Otherwise probably WP:BIO needs to change... Fram (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
GNG requires "significant coverage in multiple secondary sources"; however, I believe the reasoning being BIO is that if one of the conditions given as a presumption of notability is shown to be true, then we presume there will be sources about that person. Say if Joe Q Public who has never had an article on WP becomes Governor of New York state, and we can verify that premise per WP:POLITICIAN #1, we presume they are notable though expect secondary sources to be added over time, but until that, one single source demonstrating the governership should be acceptable. If the person matches no specific criteria, it should fall back to the GNG, which requires "significant coverage". Generally this is multiple sources, but say if a reliable author wrote a 500pg biography of a person, that would be in-of-itself significant coverage, and I would have no problem resting the notability on that single source. Mind you, that does depend a lot on the author of the biography as well. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
In relation to this, I would like to point out there is a conflict between WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE, namely the latter explicitly states multiple sources are needed in the basic criteria:
A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[1] non-trivial[2] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[3] and independent of the subject.[4]
No, (though I strongly disagree with the number of loose allowances at NSPORTS) the idea there is still the same, in that there's the basic, fallback that is reiterating the GNG, and then allowances by certain criteria that by association will lead to GNG-like sourcing, but need not have it immediately. But the same logic applies if we're looking at the basic criteria, where a single highly reliable bio of an athlete could easily serve as a single source to meet that. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
And a single historian spending "a few pages" in a book to a person only notable because a letter of him happens to be preserved meets the GNG? (that is the case currently being argued in an AFD based on the wording in wp:BIOYoenit (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm aware of the AFD. There's a vast difference between a whole book dedicated as a bio to one person, and a few pages of a larger topic discussing a letter and what the author found out about one person is huge. The former is "significant coverage", the latter, the equivalent of a newspaper obit, is not. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe that one source can be sufficient, and that criteria such as the section which follows are a guide to how to evaluate their inclusion. There are several persons from history about whom all we know comes from a single source and already have articles in Wikipedia. patsw (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
the afd is about the author of a letter, instead of referring to athlete, politician why just refer to WP:AUTHOR oh hang on that would be to simple. pt 1 Person is regarded as an important person, has created a major significant work(the letter is that) and is in the perminent collect of a museum oh its that too. Gnangarra04:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
As it falls under the sub-heading of "creative professionals", it's not clear to me that "author" in the context of WP:AUTHOR was intended to refer to the subject of the Afd. Location (talk) 06:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Proposed addition: Diarists and correspondents
“
The authors of dairies and letters whose works are used by historians to illuminate the period of history of which they write may be the subjects of articles. These articles can discuss any of the following: what is known of the author, what the author wrote or created as part of the historical record of the period, and how their primary source material is used in historical accounts of the period. The author in this case may not be a significant person of that historical period, in fact, their relative obscurity gives a unique perspective for that period in many cases. Examples of this type of article are found in the accounts of common soldiers like Joseph Plumb Martin or former captives like John R. Jewitt.
”
I think this addition reflects past practice and adds some clarity about when some apparently obscure historical figures merited a biographical article. patsw (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that this depends entirely on the ways in which those "works are used by historians to illuminate the period of history of which they write". If the historians, as reliable secondary sources, write about the subject in more than just a passing way, it seems to me that the subject already passes existing guidelines. On the other hand, if the mentions are just in passing, then the subject does not pass, and that should not be changed. So I guess I have to ask, what is the problem that this proposal is intended to fix? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
My intent is to provide a framework for editors to discuss just what a "passing way" is. I think if we have a first-hand account which is unique or rare from history (i.e. a war, a plague, captivity, shipwreck, etc.), it is likely to have some Wikisource material and we're also using the criterion that historians have noted it. The bar should be low for including such articles reflecting that for certain periods of time and for certain parts of the world, there may not be the abundance of material that we have at the present moment. patsw (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Strong disagreement with this. If the letter or work is not significant enough to be notable per GNG, who wrote it is not going necessarily be notable regardless of how much background a modern author had to look around for; as per the AFD that's in question, the act of writing a letter is just one event and BIO1E. This doesn't mean the person can't be notable by other means, or even by note of the letter in a modern book. We need however, more than just a name/age/gender-type statistical facts, but an understanding of why that person was important. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The author of one letter can be a significant contributor to our knowledge of history and anthropology. I am explicitly stating that there should be a guideline for inclusion of diarists and correspondents where historians put their collective finger on an authentic letter or a diary and says this is a witness of the past. I think applying tests based on what ought to be available for a proposed article for an person alive now should not be applied automatically and retrospectively to people who lived over a 100 years ago. patsw (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I disagree as well. In some cases, a given piece of correspondence may be notable. In others, its author may be. In a few cases (Anne Frank comes to mind), both the author and correspondence may be notable. But in the majority of cases, such things are probably more useful as sources but independent articles. If either one is notable, it can go in, but subguidelines can never "relax" notability standards anyway. SeraphimbladeTalk to me00:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree generally with Seraphimblade's comments, but I think Anne Frank is an example of a person who is notable only because of what she wrote. No one would ever have heard of her otherwise. WCCasey (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't move the discussion forward to define notability using the word notability. Unique first person accounts of slave life, volcanoes, plagues, famines, etc. are not likely to bring fame to the author in the sense covered by the other WP:BIO criteria, yet there's content not as famous as Anne Frank's which already have articles in Wikipedia. I hold that my proposal reflects past (and hopefully) current practice of including the authors of diaries and correspondence which are used to illuminate the place and period of which they write. Finally, the precedence of guidelines is determined by the text of the guidelines themselves: Wikipedia: Notability (people) is not a second set of tests above and beyond Wikipedia: Notability. patsw (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
"People", and all subguidelines, are tests of when people are likely notable (that is, an assertion of notability that would prevent speedy deletion). If, however, it turns out that the subject is not actually notable (by the fact that reliable sources have not significantly noted it), it cannot remain. Notability is verifiable by asking whether the subject has significantly been noted. SeraphimbladeTalk to me02:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
In order to avoid equivocation on the term "author", I would respectfully like to point out that WP:AUTHOR refers to "creative professionals". I guess we will find out from here whether a discussion parsing the definitions of "creative" and "professional" is necessary. Location (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
What part of my proposal is unclear? The author of the diary or letter is noted in a some other work covering the period or place of the author. Is anyone unfamiliar here with the distinction between a primary and secondary source? patsw (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The point that's being missed here is this: notability is not this tight set of rules to get as many topics covered within WP. It is a means of assuring that there is a good likelihood that a comprehensive quality encyclopedic article (one that meets our core policies of V, NOR, NPOV, and NOT) can be constructed in time regarding that topic. The GNG virtually assures that - wide coverage in many secondary sources is generally going to provide information that can be transformed into an encyclopedic article. The SNGs like BIO here are designed as "shortcuts" to the GNG - that because the person has attained a certain position or received a certain acknowledgment, there is a strong likelihood secondary sources do exist or will be forthcoming. When you look at the proposed language, clearly this is not in the same ballpark. Just because someone wrote a document that historians use to document the noted era, this doesn't mean that the person who wrote it is going to be discussed in any more depth beyond fundamental details. It may actually turn out to be that way in select cases, but it is far from a universal truth. Note that this doesn't mean the person can't be mentioned; if the document is so significant to historians, that means it is likely discussed somewhere on WP already in a notable topic, and that person can be identified and documented there; no information is lost. --MASEM (t) 13:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I recall an AFD about an early French minstrel about whom little is known except that certain works are attributed to him. IIRC, that was an uncontroversial Keep. There are numerous other authors of antiquity of a similar kind, such as Homer or Blind Harry. If their works are notable then a blue link for the author's name is appropriate too. If they produced several works then it is sensible to have a separate article for the author, even if it is a stubby one. We have no requirement of a minimum length for an article nor should we. "Enough is as good as a feast". Colonel Warden (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
There may not be explicit size requirements but we are seeking to ultimately (without a DEADLINE) make every article on a topic a comprehensive encyclopedic article. In the case of the article that sparked this discussion, there is little assurance that we will ever be able to add more to the article given the age and nature of sources around it. It is very different to see how this can be comprehensive or encyclopedic. At the same time, we have a larger topic, clearly able to eventually become a quality comprehensive article, where this information from the smaller article can be included without loss; we can still keep the person's name as a search term using redirects even. Based on the proposed language, I would argue that any historic "author" that is identified by historians today can always be included in the larger topic about that part of history instead of forcing the creation of a very short article that will have little chance of growing further. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I've thought this over, and I oppose this proposal. For me, the nub of the issue is whether secondary sources, independent of the subject, should determine whether the diarist or correspondent is notable (regardless of the size of the diary or correspondence), or whether Wikipedia editors should decide. Our existing policies clearly let the sources decide, but this policy would open the door for editors to do so. For the example of Anne Frank, raised above, there is an abundance of secondary sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
My proposal states that "historians" (i.e. secondary sources) determine which authors should be considered for stand-alone articles. The controversial part of the proposal is that one historian ought to be sufficient if there's a scarcity of first-person accounts for the place and time of the diary or letter. In the case that prompted this proposal, there's one historian Rica Erickson who noted one letter writer, perhaps the only letter that will ever be found written from Western Australia during the convict settlement period by a convict. It's history and it belongs in Wikipedia and I'm proposing to change the guidelines to let items like this in and keep junk out. The main argument that editors are making is that this proposal would admit junk - defining junk as content attested to by only one historian and not two or more historians. patsw (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Notability is something that comes from being to note to human knowledge overall. The designation of one person, regardless of what expertise, reputation, etc. that person has, of something being significant is generally not enough to make it notable. Otherwise, we start a slippery slope that anything written by someone of a reliable reputation becomes notable; eg every scientific idea from an establish scientist or researcher, any character written by a famous author, etc. etc. I will agree there are edge cases, a hypothetical one of being a biography book of an otherwise unknown long-dead person written by a noted historian, written not only to outline this person's live but to describe history around this person - if the book becomes significant, so likely will the person the book is about. But that is significant coverage. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Although I am a proponent of de facto notability in a few isolated instances, I generally agree with the "significant coverage in reliable sources" clause of WP:GNG for defining "notability". This proposal appears to over-ride the "signficant" and "sources" portions of it by effectively allowing notability for stand-alone articles to be determined by only one individual. As Masem has pointed out, this would be a terrible precedent in that it would open-up article creation for anything asserted by any "expert". Location (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment. Apart from my proposal, there's nothing that stops a consensus of editors from adding an article on anything, based upon content provided by a single secondary source (i.e. "expert"). Given the reception to my proposal here, I am reluctant to identify them as they might be targeted for Afd to prove a point. patsw (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I am not clear on the argument you are presenting in the above comment. Consensus determines Wikipedia content and we are all lending our opinions to help form that consensus. No argument from me.Location (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Although I believe Location disregards the importance - and is even wrong in the interpretation - of our basic criteria in notability, which have been accepted in consensus by our community to specifically provide guidelines for usage in deletion discussions when GNG is not evident, I have to accept the latter part of Location's argument alluding to the precedent. Tryptofish's too. My advice to Patsw would be that for notability criteria to be accepted in Notability (people), which is different from GNG, you need to word your proposal extremely precisely. I'll initiate a discussion later perhaps on your talk page on this. Take care. Wifione ....... Leave a message01:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think I think what you appear to think I think, but I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this on my talk page... I think. Location (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Solves no problem, adds confusion. It was an idea worthy of discussion, but I see no emerging consensus for adopting it. Townlake (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment. Actually, articles exist in the Wikipedia which de-facto conform to this guideline where there is a single source attesting the historical significance of the diarist/correspondent author. So the proposed guideline reflects a present (or a least a past) practice. I don't want to name these articles since that would be the equivalent of drawing a target saying "please Afd me" on them. The addition of new articles where an editor can identify one but not two historians attesting significance is going to be problematical as this discussion shows. patsw (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The fact that you don't want to name them for fear of AFD (which presuming the AFD nom came from someone involved in this discussion, would be incredibly WP:POINTy) demonstrates that you realize how weak this rationale is. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good reason to make up a new notability guideline - we need to determine how this will ultimately lead to inclusion of good encyclopedic articles built on a variety of sources. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Anyone paying attention would realize that I have not been persuasive in this proposal (i.e. what you characterize as weak). I think I am standing on precedent, certainly one that was broadly accepted at least through 2009. The authors of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS essay are making the case that precedent and consistency have limits in Wikipedia - as (obviously) demanding a second source is the new normal in Afds. I only hope I'm around as those good articles with a single source (non-hoax, non-erroneous, and non-trivial) come up for Afd, I can find a second source for them or failing in that, at least make the case for keep on a case by case basis. patsw (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, the argument that you're stating is "this is precedent, I've seen it in lots of articles, we should codify it". That's not a wrong approach, but it begs the question "where's the proof?" Remember, it is very easy to create an article that escapes editorial review for inclusion; the only checkpoint would be NPP and, more recently, the BLP cleanup project. Just virtue of existing only shows that these types of articles are something some editors want, but it doesn't mean they have consensus to stay unless they've been commented on before (most likely at AFD but there's other routes). The only reason to ask for examples is to affirm what you are saying actually happens, otherwise it seems like a desperate bid to keep articles that are already at the envelope of non-inclusion. But I do note the two articles you do cite as example I don't see as a problem since we're talking about whole books dedicated to one person, not brief mention in a larger work. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
As usually with such proposals, I don't see much point. My perspective is always that WP:GNG, and particularly the requirement for "Significant coverage" should be construed broadly so as to include most controversial cases. Adding individual exceptions doesn't seem useful to me; if the person can be reasonably construed to be the subject of "significant coverage" they already pass notability guidelines; if they don't, we shouldn't make an exception for them. I am generally opposed to the creation of special notability guidelines. john k (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Without codifying a guideline with some precision, long-standing articles about people whose historical significance is attested to by only one historian within the article will be be deleted - because editors want a strict test of multiple sources. I helped shape WP:GNG, so I am sympathetic to arguments I've made myself in the past, and I know that consensus can change. When a circa 2005-2009 article that is otherwise good (no errors, informative, a non-trivial, significant historical subject) gets deleted for the sole reason that there's a retrospective requirement for multiple sources, that's not helping Wikipedia. So, if anyone agrees with that, I invite anyone to offer a alternative proposal. patsw (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The simple answer is : consensus can change. There is a general trend of where the level of quality is (usually) always increasing, reflected on continued improvements in FA/GA article criteria, MOS and other general criteria that apply to all articles, and a bottom line for inclusion based on notability. Just because it was a good article in 2005 does not mean it may pass muster today. Of course, the key thing to try to do is identify if there's ways to merge or groups such articles when possible, that helps to retain information without causing notability problems. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not the first person to point out that the level of effort to delete an article is trivially small compared to the level of effort to improve an article. One could spend an entire day clicking on random links to turn up articles on people written prior to 2010 which will not pass a de novo WP:BIO review. A lot of these in my opinion should be left alone to wait for an improver and not a deleter to stumble upon them. patsw (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Right now, there is no special protection for such articles. Are they being deleted left and right? If you're not going to ID those that fall under this worried they might be AFD'd, this all seems like a knee-jerk reaction without strong merit based on one AFD. Arguably no, if such articles have been around a while, an AFD without attempt to improve is not desirable, but at the same time, they've been around for years and haven't improved. At some point, we have to recognize when the quality falls below a line that we have to delete the article if no one is willing to work at improving it to the base level it should be at. But again, I point out in most cases, merging seems like the right option over deletion, meaning we keep the article - or at least the redirect with historical contributions so that it could be created at a later date if more details arise - without losing the information. --MASEM (t) 21:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Author known for one work
Author James Hurst is notable (by Wikipedia standards) solely for his short strory The Scarlet Ibis. The only information in the article, other than the fact that he is the author of the Scarlet Ibis, consists of a couple of lines sourced to goodreads.com and an "about the author" blurb - there are no independent sources. As such, do we really need an article on the author? Or should it be redirected to our article on the short story? Current discussion can be found here and your input would be appreciated to determine whether we should maintain two distinct articles, redirect, or merge and redirect. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots17:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I question whether either are notable based only on what present sources are there but here's a prime cases where I think combining articles is better. If it is the story that is more well known (notability or whatnot), then there should be a page about the story, with the author as a section within in (using redirects to make him searchable); that would follow from WP:BIO1E (the act of writing one work is only one event) --MASEM (t) 17:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. The epiphany I've had recently is in uncomplicated questions of notability the question is rarely "should we have this info or not?" but "How and in what article should this information be presented?" Jclemens (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
My inclination is certainly to have a single article as well - unless size is an issue, the more inclusive an article, the better. I just don't see the benefit of having two distinct stub articles when one will do. I'll merge the author's info in to article on the short story and leave a redirect once complete. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots17:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The whole section is redundant. It basically repeats every guideline in its parent Entertainer section and therefore there is no reason for it. Seriously though, why is this class of actors and models singled out into their own section? One could argue that we need a section for black actors and models, gay actors and models, Bollywood actors and models, gay-black-Bollywood actors and models, ad nauseum. I suggest to delete the section. It just plain looks bad too and damages Wikipedia respectability across many cultures. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Criteria 4 is one of the most redundant items. Who is this criteria meant to cover? How would that person not already be notable? How is being "featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" any different from having had "significant roles in multiple notable" media? If you're "featured", it implies you've had a "significant role". Criteria 3 is redundant with Entertainer criteria 3. Who can argue that "specific pornographic genres" is not "a field of entertainment"? Both having "a large fan base or a significant cult following" and "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" are prerequisite for anyone to meet criteria 1 and 2. It is interesting that mainstream actors do not need to have won or been nominated for any industry awards in order to meet notability. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
You're misunderstanding criteria 4. It means a porn star is presumed notable if they have had multiple appearances, however minor, in non-pornographic films, TV programs or magazines. The rationale behind the criteria is that it's rare for a porn star to be able to do this. Epbr123 (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
If I misunderstood it, then others will too. The term "featured" has a specific meaning and it does not mean "minor". It would seem that more clarification of the criteria is needed. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Redundancy (to the degree it exists here) is better and more useful than conflicting information or lack of information. This page largely regards additional criteria that can be used to establish notability beyond WP:N. Many people look at it for clarification for what they consider to be "special" cases. If we don't have this section, I think there will be perennial questions about whether pornographic actors are, in fact, actors for purposes of notability. This section serves to document the community consensus regarding what circumstances under which pornographic actors are notable. Frank | talk 08:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
We could simply say "Pornographic actors and models follow the very same criteria of other entertainers, plus they are considered notable if featured in multiple mainstream media." --Cyclopiatalk11:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The idea of providing clarifying information to readers is valid, but still not enough justification for providing this separate section. Because the section is redundant, there's no real need to provide such clarification. A good example where there's enough differentiation to warrant clarification is with readers being directed to WP:MUSIC for guidelines to those "special" cases. As I asked above, do we give gay-black-Bollywood actors and models their own subsection? Does Ellen DeGeneres get her own notability criteria because of her sexuality? No, because she qualifies under the Entertainer criteria just as an entertainer in the pornographic industry would. Perennial questions about whether pornographic actors are actors is rhetorical. The "entertainer" has "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to _a_ field of entertainment." I believe such language is inclusive. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that if we remove the section, every Tom, Dick, and Harry in a skin flick (well, one of them maybe more than the others ;-) ) will be listed as meeting the general entertainment criteria. By specifying which specific awards, appearances, etc. meet the criteria, I think we can reduce discussion and more to the point, disagreements at AfD and DRV. WP:ACADEMIC is a similar example; not everyone thinks academics are inherently notable and the extra bit of criteria establish standards for a sub-category. Regarding very specific sub-sub-categories, I don't think they are necessary or useful; I think the top-level sub-category we are referring to here is. Frank | talk 21:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you conclude that every porn actor would meet the general criteria if the section were removed. The general criteria seem to operate well enough for not including every entertainer. The pornographic film industry is a field of entertainment. It is not much different in that regard from professional wrestling. I do not see anyone concerned over the general entertainment criteria leading to everyone in the wrestling industry to be notable. Additional criteria for purposes of reducing disagreement at AfD and DRV is an understandable goal. Certainly criteria 4 is also applicable to professional wrestlers. My point here is that what seems useful for one group could also be useful for other groups that are sub-classes of "entertainer" and therefore it suggests that the parent group is to be improved. I'm not seeing anything unique about the criteria for the porn industry that warrants its own section. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't conclude that every porn actor would meet general criteria. What I am saying is that without specific guidance to the contrary, people will create articles about them because they will say they meet criteria by having simply appeared in a film. Frank | talk 18:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I think porn is substantially different from wrestling! For one thing, porn is considerably more profitable as an industry, and for another porn is much more of a global phenomenon.
I do think that porn operates like a subculture and therefore there's something non-mainstream about it. In that respect, perhaps, it's like wrestling. (If it sounds odd for someone to say that wrestling isn't mainstream, then we probably need a passport count.)
But, unlike wrestling, porn is constantly surrounded by debates about ethics, morality, freedom, feminism, gender, sexuality, choice, abuse, law, religion... and almost all the other issues that people tend to have strong opinions about. It seems to me that this discussion of criteria will inevitably elicit a great deal of socio-political angst, even if it's not openly acknowledged.
So at one level, I'd like to argue a case for very strict criteria for porn actors in the hope that very few porn actors will be found sufficiently noteworthy for Wikipedia, and thus keep Wikipedia's pages from becoming hypersexualised. I would like Wikipedia to be safe for my vulnerable adolescent children, not to mention the vulnerable adolesents whose sexual identities are being twisted and distorted by the misogynist filth they find everywhere else on the internet.
On the other hand, if what we're really interested in here is whether actors are noteworthy, I think we have to accept that for a sizeable minority of the English speaking world (and of course elsewhere), porn is considered to be normal and acceptable. For people who consume it regularly, its actors are as well-known as Hollywood stars. In fact, porn is more successful commercially than Hollywood. So I suspect the main arguments against using the general criteria are likely to be arguments based in either (a) concerns about ethics and pornography; or (b) misunderstanding of just how very widespread pornography is.
If it were up to me, I'd keep all porn off Wikipedia. But if I consider the aims and ethos of Wikipedia as a project, I suspect the answer is to apply the general criteria to porn stars and let human nature take its course. Who knows - maybe it will lead to better, more acceptable, or more feminist porn!
Rant over. Sorchanicneacail (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. Indeed the discussion could revolve around ethics and I try to leave that out. I think the discussion really needs to be about why it needs to be included as a subsection, not as to why it needs to be excluded. What is it about that class of entertainment that has an overriding need to have additional and unique criteria above and beyond the general entertainer criteria? On the ethics point though, it looks really bad from a visual communications standpoint to be its own subsection. The larger and emboldened font of the subsection heading visually says we want users to focus more on porn than on, say, musicians, who are only represented by a small link embedded in the third general entertainer criteria. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
People have raised a couple of problematic arguments at many AfDs in trying to apply WP:ENTERTAINER to pornographic actors/models to show that they are notable. One common argument have been that the actor has a large fan base or a cult following. What is considered large or significant cult? What is the evidence required to demonstrate satisfaction of this criteria beyond some fan asserting that this is the case? Of course that problem extends to all entertainers in general. The other is that the majority of pornographic performers are prolific by the nature of the industry. They can easily make 100 movies/scenes in one year. I'd suggest prolific be removed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I've been involved in such a discussion myself. The term "cult following" has a rather specific meaning. There's an element of recognition that must have occurred for someone to be considered as such. That recognition always comes from what is considered mainstream and works similarly to how a pornstar can be notable by having made a minor appearance in multiple mainstream movies. I think adequate evidence can be provided via references that explicitly state that the person has a "cult" following. See also Cult film. So a slight adjustment to the wording of that specific criteria might help answer those questions. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'm on board with such an interpretation. I'll continue to insist at each related AfD that satisfying a criteria must be supported by a reliable source. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
So bascially you reduce this to "having made a minor appearance in multiple mainstream movies" and still leaving "having a large fan base" undefined. As of now in roughly estimated 95% of all cases the notabilitly of a pornographic actor is simply and quickly determined by verifiable notable awards and nominations for such. Additionally in some cases other factors like "has written a known book" or "had mainstream appearances" come in. But I've never seen that anybody even tried to prove the notability of a porn star with "has a large fan base". Furthermore let's be realistic, beeing and publically expressing to be a fan of a pornographic actor is somewhat obscene and people who do that anyway get easily called "wanking community", even editors here on Wikipedia contributing to related articles. So bascially it's much more unlikely that mainstream appearances occur due to a large fan base in this "wanking community" than in a similiar case with let's say a boygroup and their many girl groupies. That only changes a bit if the person in question declares herself or himself as also beeing a regular actor, host, musican or something else which is more publically accepted. I have also never seen that mainstream media brought news about a group of people who have a special clothing style and carry promo material if the adored subject was a porn star. Another point would be "stage performances". An actor could be with his or her show the main attraction of a notable 18+ clubs and still would nobody declare his or her shows as notable. So in conclusion this point is not applicable for pornographic actors and the "large fanbase" claim is even for regular entertainers hard to prove, if even possible. Moreover the "significant roles in multiple notable films" maybe applicable but increases the possibilies to declare a pornographic actor as notable. I personally don't mind this but I say this because to me it seems you would actually prefer the opposite. The reason is the following: I think you agree that a pornographic movie is notable if it either won notable awards or got mainstream attention. Now in such a movie there are usually a rather limited number of actors and in most cases you can not clearly say who not played a "significant" role. Therefore all or at least most of the actors can be seen as playing a significant role. So bascially an actor only must have a role in some (actually just 2+) movies which got an award to be notable. I am fine with this but I seriously doubt that there will be a clear consensus supporting this. Testales (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the fact that it's easy for porn stars to meet the "prolific contributions" and "multiple notable films" criteria was part of the reason why seperate criteria were created for porn stars in the first place. Although, the guideline is unclear about whether or not the entertainer criteria currently apply to porn stars, and occassionally some do claim in AfD that a porn star is notable if they've appeared in multiple notable porn films. Epbr123 (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Real life has been intruding... Anyway, "prolific" does seem problematic, but not only for pornstars. I can picture a situation where a relatively non-notable actor passes the "prolific" criteria for the reason of appearing in a large number of commercials (what's the bar for "prolific" anyway?). I'm not sure at the moment how to address that. It seems like the adjective "prolific" is used frequently in English with the noun "actor" to mean a notable actor, but does not itself indicate notability. Understand? A notable actor is often described as being prolific but being prolific does not mean the actor is notable. I could be prolific at editing Wikipedia articles and still remain non-notable :) Testales, since I don't watch porno movies, I could not tell you what differentiates a "significant" role from other roles. Maybe that would be a candidate for some specific criteria that is not redundant with the general criteria. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 06:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I feel that the problem of determining notability for porn stars is not consistent with the entertainers section. While it's clear that the section was created to deal with the "prolific contributions" problem, I feel the problem was attacked from the wrong angle. Using industry awards to determine notability is rife with inconsistencies and has the potential to leave out porn stars who truly have made non-trivial contributions to porn and thus should be considered notable. In general, I feel that notability for entertainers should apply to porn stars. To deal with the prolific contributions problem, it should be made clear that 1 featured role as a mainstream actor in a studio film has several orders of magnitude more weight than 1 featured role as a porn star when determining notability. Perhaps, replacing the "porn star" subsection with a note saying:
While the rules for an entertainer's notability apply to porn star, please note that, in the absence of industry awards or other clearly unique contributions to the pornography industry, the bar for prolific contributions is much higher than for mainstream actors. Pornographic actors should have credited, major appearances in at least 100 films for their contributions to be considered prolific enough to be notable.
WP:PORNBIO criteria 3 already deals with the fact that not only award-winning porn stars make significant contributions to porn. A proposal for a "100 films" criteria is likely to be rejected per WP:BIGNUMBER. Epbr123 (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The best example for this is the article Rachel Roxx (look discussion site and google "Rachel Roxxx""), she is well-known in the industry, has over 100 films, but only 1 nomination, but she was part of Big Tits at School 1 & 2 (award winning). So I think relevance is clearly given! --Hixteilchen (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
On a general point, why are we presuming that porn stars who have no independent reliable sources except AVN, which many users dispute as a source, have notability when the new BLP standards have made it quite clear that new BLPs can be deleted without decent sources. The whole point is that winning industry awards that are only reported by the awarder is should not be standard for inclusion unless there are otherwise decent sources. SpartazHumbug!13:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
It's way past time to address this problem. The idea that AVN and similar publishers qualify as reliable sources fror purposes of establishing notability comes entirely from this brief discussion at the pornography wikiproject [18], which cites the New York Times as describing AVN as "the Variety of the US porn industry." However, the piece in question actually says "sort of the Variety of the US porn industry" and goes on to say that "[its] articles are really more like infomercials." (It's also not a Times piece at all, but ran in Premiere; an excerpt was hosted on the Times website in connection with a review of its author's book of collected nonfiction.) There's been a consensus at AFD that niche-market trade magazines which function mainly as vehicles for product advertising (eg, video gaming) generally aren't sufficient to establish notability, and I think the same principle should be applied here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Proposed objective definition of a fringe candidate for WP:POLITICIAN
There have been ongoing debates as to whether solely being a candidate for major statewide or national office is sufficient for notability. Generally, the community consensus has been "not" for minor party candidates, or persons who lose primaries, or those who drop out before getting on the ballot. At WP:OUTCOMES, a major party candidate for United States governor, Congress, or Senator usually ranks. Bruce Blakeman has lost four elections for three positions, the most recently getting much less than 1 % of the vote. His highest office held was majority leader of a suburban county legislature, what is called the county court or county board in most US states. I proposed before the November 2, 2010 election, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Blakeman that, if he got at least 10 %, he might be notable. I would like to create a bright-line test of 1 % vote for a minor-party candidate for United States governor, Congress, or Senator. Below that, a candidate is a fringe candidate, and his or her article would be deleted, absent extraordinary circumstances. Above that, the community could consider major party status, the size of the state, or other evidence of general notability. In many states, almost anybody can get on the ballot. Having every fringe candidate with their own articles would turn Wikipedia into "facebook for fringe candidates". Bearian (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
If anything, I wonder if even that may be too inclusive. I think the spirit of GNG is that the person needs to have garnered some meaningful recognition. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm answering because you asked me, but I'm not really sure that I have an insightful answer, other than what I already said (which may not have been very insightful either!). Even 10% sounds rather low to me, and I'd probably go with delete on both examples you linked. (But at least I can say, as of today, congratulations about the candidate for whom you volunteered!) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Totally oppose such an idea. There should be no special rules for candidates running in one particular country. The current rules work just fine. Candidates elected to a certain level of office are generally considered notable, other political figures may be notable if they've achieved more than routine coverage. Valenciano (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
This whole issue is going to need to be revisited by the larger community in a true RFC, not in an discussion that is likely to be overlooked by the larger community. This discussion should also be held in a few weeks, not the day after the election. Let tempers/feelings/emotions die down before we delve into this issue. That being said, GNG supercede POLITICIAN. The fact that a person has not won a national position does not mean that they are not notable. All it takes is somebody to do a modicum of research and I suspect that each of those people cited by Berean above would be shown to meet GNG. Take the recent discussions where somebody actually did look into the issue rather than blindly citing POLITICIAN. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Murray (politician)---KEEP. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott M. Sipprelle (2nd nomination)---KEEP. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Potosnak---Keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Raby--KEEP. Assuming that each of the people mentioned by Berean was running for the US Congress or Governorship and was the Republican/Democratic candidate, I would be very surprised if there isn't sufficeint coverage for just about every person mentioned by Berean to substantiate their meeting GNG. But I do believe we should wait a few weeks before having this discussion and that it needs to be a full blown RfC.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!00:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The entire lot of those "keeps" was a pile of knee-jerk shit resulting from the massive QQ in the AN/I thread last week. All failed their bids for election. If anything here, WP:POLITICIAN needs to be strengthened, to set the bar higher and prevent these sorts of campaign ads posing as Wikipedia articles....go beyond the run-of-the-mill election coverage in the local rags and political websites. A Stephene Moore, who garnered national attention for running for her husband's old seat. A Christine O'Donnell for being a non-masturbating not-a-witch-anymore. An Alvin Greene for being waaaay out there. Tarc (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Although I agree with Balloonman that a failed candidate can be notable and that WP:POLITICIAN does not supercede WP:GNG, it also needs to be noted that WP:GNG does not supercede WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTNEWS. Unfortunately, a lot of the sources are reporting "routine election coverage" that merely fills in the following details:
"Candidate X is a [fill in occupation here] from [fill in state here]. Candidate X attended [fill in university here] before working for [fill in company here] and marrying [fill in spouse here]. Candidate X is representing political party Y in the Z election. Candidate X won the political party Y's primary election over candidate W with N percent of the vote. Candidate X has raised [fill in dollar amount here] from campaign contributors. Recent polling indicates that Candidate X trails Candidate A from political party B by N percent. Candidate X is for a strong defense and a strong economy; candidate X is against wasteful spending, having streets full of starving people, and child molestation."
If the coverage is merely, "Candidate John Doe participated in an debate" or "Candidate Jane Doe was campaigning at the YMCA" then you would have a point. The reality of the situation is that when we are talking about the major political positions, we are not talking about just brief news coverage, but rather articles about the persons in question, their political stances, views, and endorsements. NOTNEWS is relative to single events occuring at one time, political campaigns that span months is not a single news event. And I will once again state, this debate should probably wait a few weeks, let the aftermath of the elections calm down and then this needs to be discussed in a larger community (eg RfC.)---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!04:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
First, we're an encyclopedia. People come to us to learn about people, things and events of interest and notability. Whether or not Tarc 'approves' of their interest, or the reason for their interest, is really of no consequence. What irritates me no end is the game-playing of delete!delete!delete! as opposed to a rational discussion as to where the material should reside. Every time I suggest Scott Harper as an example of how to handle a perhaps-minor candidate, it's ignored. Why? Apparently because providing information isn't really what those 'arguing' here are interested in. Just today I had to ask for the history of the Allen McCulloch article to be restored because the Admin decided 'Redirect' meant 'Delete and redirect' - which of course destroyed all the history and thus contraverted the point of doing a redirect in the first place. Personally, I find the childishness here to be appalling. All this game-playing trying to destroy the record is hardly conducive to creating a respected encyclopedia. Perhaps some would be happier contributing to Conservapedia where opinions count for more than facts, but that's not what I signed up for. Flatterworld (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Being less than a month at Wiki editing I am still on a steep learning curve, please bear with me. I came across a may not meet the notability guidelines notice (not one of my articles) and through a series of links (mostly to learn) I ended up here. In my process of learning I clicked on the Bruce Blakeman link near the top of this discussion and ended up at United States Senate special election in New York, 2010 sub heading Republican Primary and the WWW page line read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Blakeman#Republican_primary. I do understand that this is some kind of redirect mechanism, but how does it work without the Redirected here message I am used to seeing? Besides wanting to look at the page to assess what everyone is talking about, I also wanted to put it on the hit counter at http://stats.grok.se/en/201010/Bruce_Blakeman to see if it had received many hits as I think that may have value to the argument. I did find a way to use the hit counter. So as I did not see the consensus to delete or redirect articles here is there someplace that is determined or listed? Also I noticed that the Christine O'Donnell link still functioned, although other examples on this page redirected similar to Bruce Blakeman's, why the inconsistency? Thanks to whoever can answer my questions. RifeIdeas Talk 01:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that there is an obvious lack of consensus and consistency on how to handle there articles, and I thought resolving that was part of the purpose of this discussion. I have no good explanation for why some Afds were closed with what is essentially "delete and redirect" and others as "merge and redirect" and still others as just "redirect". I don't understand your technical question about the "Redirected here" message. Can you give an example? Location (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is an example of the redirect message you get at the top of the page in small print just below the Article title (largest heading). Clicking on Public Domain instead of Public domain (be aware a bot may make an automatic change to the link [[Public Domain]] ) will get you to the same place but with the redirect message. In contrast the Bruce Blakeman link takes you to a point in the middle of an Article with no explanation of why.RifeIdeas Talk 17:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The November 6 AfD log lists 12 nominations by User:Wuhwuzdat. These are articles about newly elected members of the Ohio state legislature, who have not yet been sworn in. To begin, I am not claiming that these particular 12 articles are excellent, as the source for each appears to be the candidate's website or political party website. At the very least, these articles need to be expanded, improved and referenced properly. The issue here, as I see it, is whether a politician who will become indisputably notable upon being sworn in, is now notable after being elected to such an office but before being sworn in.
The section referenced as WP:POLITICIAN says the following are notable: "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 judges. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city."
As I see it, established policy is that it is useful for the encyclopedia to have articles about such officials. Over the coming weeks in the United States, thousands of such notable new officials will be sworn in. Accordingly, I think it wise to allow editors to begin creating articles now about such politicians when they have won an election and will soon be sworn in. It seems counterproductive to me to delete these articles when these officials will soon be seated. Perhaps we could add the following sentence to the notability guideline: "These politicians become notable upon winning election or appointment to such offices." Cullen328 (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I cannot see what the rationale would be for not having articles on people elected to political offices that we consider notable before they assume those offices. This is so not WP:CRYSTAL. We will eventually have articles; why not start them once they win. Even if, for some reason, they were not to take those offices, I think they would be notable as winners of elections to those offices. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Why not just determine if the coverage is sufficient or not? If it is, an article can be sustained regardless of their office. If it's not, it can't be sustained until it is, even if it remains inadequate once they take the office. A person (or other subject) is never notable "because they're a (Congressman|Senator|governor|what have you)." They're notable because they've been substantially covered in several reliable sources. That being said, most holders of major political offices (or holders-elect of same) do meet that standard. Such coverage would, however, not exist in some cases, and exist less often for more common and less prestigious offices. Should always be case by case, based solely upon source coverage. SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
To me, holders of de facto notable offices are de facto notable themselves regardless of what level of coverage exists. Teresa Sayward has been a member of the New York State Assembly from the deep Adirondacks for almost a decade. She has an article, albeit without any sourcing. She's never been written about in any of the state's major newspapers and probably isn't likely to, as a member of the minority party in that body from a remote, lightly populated area. Yet I doubt we'd delete the article for lack of sourcing. Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't see any reason not to delete it, or just to cover her on an appropriate list of members. I don't see the sourcing there to support a separate article. I'll take a look first, but it looks like it really needs to go. The only way to be notable is to be verifiably and extensively...well...noted. It's not inherited, from one's office or otherwise. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm pretty sure you could find sources aplenty (see here, for one, and her support for legalizing gay marriage] despite being from a very conservative district since her son is gay is probably enough to sustain notability) although you might have to stick with regional newspapers. But I would point out that NOTINHERITED generally applies to family members of notable people and that the last example re public positions (that being First Lady is enough to confer notability in its own right) offers the same logic by which I argue being a member of a state legislature, "a public position in its own right", confers notability regardless of whether anyone's bothered to do any research. Daniel Case (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Daniel Case, thanks for raising Teresa Sayward as an example. She seems pretty interesting and has plenty of press coverage. Hopefully my expansion of the article reveals the poverty and lack of thought behind of Seraphimblade's deletionist arguments. Anyone arguing that state legislature members aren't notable probably isn't very good at Googling. Fences&Windows00:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
(indent) On the one hand, I don't see why members of state legislatures are granted special notability. My guess would be that picking up any normal encyclopedia of notable politicians would not generally include the names of state legislators, except to list their membership. But, that's simply an opinion. On the other hand, given that WP:POLITICIAN has been around a while, I suspect this represents a certain level of consensus in the community. Further, while on-line sources may not be easy for all such people, I am sure at some point they are the subject of an article here or there in newspapers. If the sole issue is "they have not taken office yet", while I can see the technicality of the argument, I don't see a practical reason to stand in the way of starting the articles. Presumably, if some of these people die between the election and swearing in, an appropriate entry at AFD wouldn't be out of line. While I think [[WP:NOTINHERITED can go beyond relatives, I'm not sure that this applies here. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Politics are an ugly business, and the people on the losing side tend to carry a grudge {sometimes for very good reason} for a very long time. I can certainly see editors that were on the losing side of an election saying "Person X isn't an office-holder yet, so their article doesn't belong", simply as a way of venting frustration after a long campaign. However, WP:POLITICIAN is very clear, and given the sheer number of articles that need updating and creating, forcing the community to wait a a couple of months until everyone is formally sworn in is in the end nothing but petty bickering and it goes against the spirit of what this Project is all about. Rapier (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I suppose I can see waiting to create them until they are actually in office (if we are going by the strictest reading of the guideline) but putting the ones that were created up for deletion seems like a waste of time. I also think it is a good thing if people want to get it started early but understand that is not how the guideline is written.Cptnono (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The creation of the articles is inevitable for these Legislators-elect. If, by some chance, one of them manages not to actually take office (death, indictment, finding of ineligibility, or resignation) they would clearly become the most notable of the group. Waiting until they are sworn in certainly seems counter-productive and merely erases work already done in exchange for needing to re-create it later. Jim MillerSee me | Touch me01:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Rapier. These spiteful 'letter of the law, not spirit of the law' Afds are causing the loss of a lot of time which could be productive. Our readers are interested NOW in their Reps-elect, so of course the articles should be created asap - the election's over and they won. Get over it. We're an encyclopedia and the rules and guidelines are intended to help, not hinder, that mission. btw - the CongLinks template is usable for state-level congresspeople as well as US-level. The applicable fields are: votesmart (now), followthemoney (now) and surge (later). cspan and nyt may also be found for some people. See Dan Ramos for an example of how to use it. Obviously there will also be an entry later in this to add to External links as well. Flatterworld (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm willing to assume good faith on the part of User:Wuhwuzdat; but these nominations are absurd. (And that has nothing to do with whether they are my faves or not; my new senator is a total nobody: an idiot, a creep and a jerk; but he's gonna be a U.S. senator, so of course he should have an article, regardless of whether he is technically in office yet or not. --Orange Mike | Talk19:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
imo, 'good faith' would suggest a Wikipedian who tagged the articles as a stub, needing improvement or whatever, perhaps added some links, categories...that sort of thing. I'm very skeptical of anyone who suggests a whole strong of articles for deletion for the same iffy reason, especially when they realize it's going to be contentious. Perhaps it's an issue of having a poor role model. Flatterworld (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Regarding that "poor role model" comment, once again I must remind Fatterworld to comment on content, not on contributors. I consider that to be yet another personal attack. WuhWuzDat17:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Any issue you have with a particular editor you can take up with that editor on their talkpage or on WP:ANI. This is not the place for it. In the meantime, the consensus is clear that AfD's for these articles is not a cool idea, and I would suggest that you drop them. Rapier (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment. Consider the definition of 'notable': worthy of notice. I would suggest anyone who has a large, important effect on the lives of a lot of people (e.g., state and national officials) is notable by definition. (I would also expand that to include serious candidates for an office of same, but that's a bit off-topic right now.) Third-party coverage is one way to mark that, but should not be the yes/no cutoff. It's especially odd to claim that if this third-party coverage (which is so often erroneously considered a synonym for 'news coverage') isn't in the article, it doesn't exist - or that the article can't exist until it includes same, ignoring the concept of 'stub' articles. Why do you think we have those tags, if not to encourage improvement, as opposed to deletion? Flatterworld (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
It isn't clear ... my personal experience at AfD is that we've usually made Article III federal judges, and state supreme court (meaning highest court in a state - I'm aware of NY's weird nomenclature) judges notable, and others have to scramble under the GNG. RayTalk00:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
"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 judges."
to this:
"Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." ?
I can agree with this formulation. Although I think "Politicians (including judges)" might be more accurate, factually ;-) RayTalk22:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
That section's unsourced, and, IMO, dead wrong. The power to dispense life and death from the bench in the name of the state is pretty inseparable from political power. There has been a deliberate effort, in the past couple of centuries in the western liberal tradition, to separate judges, police, and the military from the regular cycles of electoral politics, with more success in some states, and less in others. But I think that merely placing the politics in another context does not remove the political nature of the job - after all, in most American states, judges are elected officials, and even where they are not, they attain office following the approval of the legislature. I don't insist on my wording, however. RayTalk03:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Best not to change the section heading, just in case there are links that way. I don't know how to make backlinks show direct links to sections - do you? I think redirecting WP:JUDGE makes sense, given that the law guideline is a failed one. RayTalk10:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Lists of student common room presidents in an article
WP:NLIST says "a list within an article of past school presidents can contain all past presidents, not just those who are independently notable." Does this mean academic heads of institutions, or student presidents? Are there any other relevant guidelines that help for or against the inclusion of the list of student presidents in the article? Please join the discussion at the article's talk page. Thank you. BencherliteTalk13:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused. Notability (people) seems to conflict with the general notability policy, because people who get awards don't necessarily have enough coverage to make a good article. Here's an example Klee Benally. The guy has little coverage but nevertheless seems to have an exhibit and other things which might qualify him. Is there some clarification you can give me on how Wikipedia makes sure there is enough information for a good article if the subject has "been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" but otherwise has very little coverage? I mean, it all depends on how you interpret words like "significant." And of course, whoever you happen to like... they're significant. So if they won an "award," you can include them in WP? I don't get it. Atneyak (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
It is a good question that has to understood that notability also needs to be seen in context. There are shades of gray concerning different situations and different scenarios and different professions. An article or a review in the NY Times might be apropos of certain fields; while on the other hand mention in the Albuquerque News might matter more in other fields of endeavor. It is ultimately an interpretable guideline...Modernist (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but you feel Benally is notable... and he has a lot less than the kinds of sources you mention here. I would think you'd have to have basic facts at least, birth date, etc. and some actually RS sources. I mean, we don't use Youtube do we (someone just put it in[19])? Does this which doesn't seem to have made the local paper establish notability? I'm just taking this article as an example. Atneyak (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me we might be confusing "real world notability" with Wikipedia notability. I was under the impression that for WP we had to have sources which met the reliability guidlines WP:RS. Is a person notable if covered in a lot of questionable sources, or don't they have to have at least one or two reliable ones? Atneyak (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Once again judgment needs to be applied; 2 reliable sources are desirable; however notability varies from differing situations and circumstances; and local sources in abundance as is the case here have to be taken into serious consideration, especially since the mainstream media does not cover that section of the country (USA) very often or very well...Modernist (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Well yeah... I guess that's a good reason for asking here. To me, he'd have at least have had to have a nice piece in the Arizona Daily Sun [25] or something [26]. So since it seems we just disagree on what makes for notability, I hope others will see this and comment. Atneyak (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Attempt to develop consensus on notability
After participating in AfDs of a model at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Cloutier, I've begun an attempt to develop an additional set of notability criteria for models to go along with the GNG. There appears to be no real consensus in this area, and as someone else has noted, similar problems existed in bios of athletes until WP:ATHLETE was developed to provide guidance. My work-in-progress is here [27]. I invite everyone here to drop in, provide feedback, discuss and make revisions as you see fit. I'm not an expert in this area so all of your input is most appreciated. Discussion can take place at the very bottom of the page. - Burpelson AFB✈13:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Must notability of X be established to mention X?
In a history of a major research laboratory, I wish to state "Members of the staff who made significant contributions to their fields include X, Y and Z" Must I provide verifiable data that qualify them for WP notability to do this, or is it sufficient if I provide verifiable data showing that each either (1) published a scientific monograph on the topic of a WP article, (2) became a senior administrator of a major (Ivy League) University, (3) published research papers on a topic essential to defense and industry that have been cited 400 times over the past 40 years? Michael P. Barnett (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that this guideline applies to writing an entire page about a person, not to mentioning them. The key thing to listing names (particularly about living persons) is that there must be reliable sourcing to support what you say about them. Strictly speaking, you just need, here, verifiable sourcing that each person was a member of the staff, and made significant contributions to their field. It sounds like, based on what you said here, that you've got that covered, so it should be OK. You might want to be careful not to make what you write sound like a promotion, so neutral language, and sourcing, will help a lot. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. (1) The people to be mentioned, who are still alive, will derive no tangible benefit. (2) The description of contribution will be a catch phrase for an area of scientific or administrative endeavour, and (3) the reference will be to a non-popular book or a research paper that the person wrote, or which mentions his/her work, or a formal announcement by a University. Nothing like statement in Lee Stafford article "In 2000 he opened his second hair salon in Wardour Street, London, W1." (remote from my interests, but I got to it from editing articles about places I lived in, for startup practice with WP). Would be nice if editors could flag articles like this asking someone to "tone it down". (Maybe there is a template already). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael P. Barnett (talk • contribs) 00:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
