WP:POLITICIAN is under "additional criteria", which provides criteria to help determine when someone is likely to be notable, as it says at the top. WP:POLITICIAN, to the contrary, sets its criteria apart as "presumed notable" if satisfied, without the need for significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Thus, for example, all past and present members of the Wyoming House of Representatives have biographies, mostly with no independent sources at all. Likewise, in lists of people, which require that all entries be notable, anyone who has spent any time as a US state representative is guaranteed inclusion because we "presume" they are notable. (It should be said that this contradiction exists in the sportsperson section as well, but that's a whole other can of worms I'm not looking to open at this time). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 20:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
SNGs are meant to include bios of people that wouldn't pass GNG. The assumption is that for those people, there would be coverage in other sources as written accounts naturally follow political leaders under the great man theory. The same is often true for subjects of other SNGs like NATHLETE because there's a market for stick-and-ball antics. Chris Troutman (talk)20:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I know a lot of people argue that this is true (that our policies and guidelines support the creation of biographies even if the person hasn't received significant coverage in reliable independent sources), but I'm yet to see anything supporting it other than the language of certain SNGs themselves. Closest I've seen is the line at N about something being notable if it satisfies an SNG or the GNG, but that doesn't mean the SNGs are exempt from what's written at WP:N. We have a central notability guideline at WP:N which summarizes it thusly: "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention." That's also basically the GNG ("significant coverage in reliable independent sources"). The only thing that doesn't make sense is that a couple fiercely protected SNGs are written as if to say "nevermind all that notability stuff you read elsewhere, or the confluence of V/NPOV/NOT that notability is based on". So we wind up with directory listings, biographies based only on primary sources, etc. Eh. I know this is ye olde GNG vs. SNG -- I guess I was just overly optimistic that we had largely moved past that chapter of SNG taking precedent over everything else. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 22:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
If you can show me a state or federal elected representative that doesn't pass WP:GNG, I'll be very surprised, then we can delete them. One problem with SNGs is that all too often, a person who would pass GNG is barely sourced in a rush to create the article. The problem with mandating GNG is that means we'd likely not have articles on notable people outside English-speaking areas as these are harder to research. SportingFlyerT·C02:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Step 2 only works if you're talking about starting articles. What brought me here was our endless lists of political endorsements. We had a successful RfC recently which resulted in them being limited to notable people, but because every single state-level lawmaker is "presumed notable" we still have lots of endorsements by people who are only technically notable (with no article to speak of until someone creates another database-style entry or alternative version of an official website because that's all that exists)... — Rhododendritestalk \\ 22:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Speaking personally, as a general rule, I don't start the articles, I don't improve them, I don't nominate them for deletion and I don't participate in the discussions when they are nominated for deletion. I don't get mired in the quasi-legal framework of SNGs the same way I basically entirely ignore the fact that discretionary sanctions exist. The sources should be the ones deciding who is notable and who isn't, not Wikipedia editors (just like the community is the one that should be writing our blocking and banning policy and not ArbCom). At the end of the day, many SNGs, especially NSPORTS are a fait accompli, and it would take more community effort to delete the articles than it would be worth, when nobody is really going to look at seven-word article on the 1936 underwater thumb wrestling gold medalist anyway.
There is a fundamental feedback look with SNGs in that Wikipedia has a complex set of rules, and so we tend to attract and retain people who like complex sets of rules, and who get some measure of joy out of defending those rules and citing them in quasi-legal arguments at AfD. At the moment, I'm content to hold the line and try to oppose more quasi-legal, "importance" rather than source-based, sets of SNGs from being made. Some day we might sort out the rest, but I don't know that any of us are going to be around when it happens. I don't expect it any time in the next ten years. GMGtalk22:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Do you have an issue with all the Wyoming House of Representatives having articles? Heck, not all Pennsylvania reps have articles and its a much bigger state. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 19:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:POLITICIAN is one of the more obvious SNG because state legislators do basically all get sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, even if it's not in the article. The only state legislators I've ever had to rely purely (or almost purely) on official sources for are ones where no or very little media from their era in their part of the country is digitised and thus easily accessible. The SNG saves everybody time and stress in avoiding having to waste time on people using the AfD process as enforced cleanup. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
If not everybody in the Pennsylvania state house has an article, that's not because they're not notable — it's because editors aren't doing the work of getting the missing articles started. Keep in mind that notability is based on the existence of suitable sourcing, not necessarily the quality of the article in its present form — state legislators virtually always have enough coverage to clear GNG, and we just don't always do a very thorough job of actually using that coverage to make their articles good. And further to that, articles about historical officeholders are very often even worse than articles about current incumbents are — but again, it's not that they didn't have reliable source coverage, it's that Wikipedians like to just source stuff to whatever they can find in a quick and easy Google search, and don't put nearly enough effort into locating the archived media coverage that would have existed in the person's own time. But either way, it's not that state legislators are being exempted from having to pass GNG, because they do pass GNG — we're just not always on the ball about actually writing substantive articles that include all of the potential sources, which is not the same thing as failing GNG.
I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about: Bud Germa, the provincial MPP (Canadian for "state legislator") for my hometown on the day I was born. From its creation in 2005 until July 2018, his article basically looked like this: a really cursory summary of his electoral record, with no non-primary sources and no substance about his actual career in politics to give the article any kind of context, basically the most generically bad article it's possible to write about every politician. Then I tackled it on July 24 last year, and now it looks like this: solid reliable sourcing, evincing a clear GNG pass, and supporting some genuine political context. I could still have done more, if I'd actually had access to the archives of the Sudbury Star — but I did the best I could with the resources I have access to, and it's certainly a much stronger article now than it was just 24 hours earlier. But the thing is, he's not special somehow: it's always possible to improve every article about a state or provincial legislator in a similar fashion, it just takes somebody actually putting in the time and effort to do it.
And, for that matter, even members of federal legislatures — the Canadian Parliament, the US House of Representatives, etc. — don't always have genuinely good articles that are effectively making maximum use of all the potential sources either. Even at that level, which you clearly haven't questioned the notability of, our articles are still frequently inadequate and minimally sourced. Again, it's not that they don't actually pass GNG — it's that people aren't always doing the work needed to make the articles as good as they could be. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2020 (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.
The text of the WP:ENTERTAINER section of this guideline currently containts the following sentence: "Previous criteria for pornographic actors and models were superseded by the above [i.e. by WP:ENTERTAINER] and the basic guidelines, after a March 2019 request for comment." (Disclaimer: As it happens, I have not been involved in the WP:PORNBIO RfC or in editing the guideline, so far.)
An editor wants it removed on the following grounds, as stated in the relevant edit summary: "[The] addition [of that sentence] was never discussed - RfC didn't propose this, closer didn't mention it, post-RfC discussion had consensus to do something else, and someone randomly added it here anyway."
The whole WP:PORNBIO deprecation was about removing a subject-specific notability guideline (aka SNG) about porn related persons. We should keep the above sentence because it actually, accurately reflects the consensus of the RfC, and because editors working on porn-related biographies can be directed to it. What say you, folks? Keep the sentence or Remove it? -The Gnome (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
As you said, it was about "removing a subject-specific notability guideline (aka SNG) about porn related persons". That isn't disputed. It did not go further than that, which the text does (the suggestion that it was superseded by WP:ENT). That doesn't reflect the consensus of the RfC at all: it wasn't proposed, was barely discussed except as a fringe issue, and wasn't mentioned by the closer. I documented the history of how it wound up here at all in the section directly above five minutes ago (essentially it was WP:BOLD placeholder text that stuck around). The Gnome has taken the most overwhelmingly hardline position of any editor in dealing with the post-PORNBIO-abolition cleanup (in which I'm still voting delete most of the time), which is where the enthusiasm for directing users to it comes from. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
CLOSED: Even though I started working on this question as soon as I reverted The Drover's Wife's edit, I see from the two timelines that the discussion initiated by The Drover's Wife was posted up before mine. The practical course, then, is to close down this discussion and continue in the other one. Take care, everyone. -The Gnome (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2020 (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.
Re live draft for prev.-deleted blp whose subject now notable
Before (see e.g Grant Hardy) I'd re-create a blp when it was obvious at least to me that its AfD-!voters hadn't accessed all of what pertinent sourcing had been available, but this may not be the most correct protocol. Might this be to have such an article's most recent AfD itself reviewed?The reason I ask is because there are now a number of sources (e.g see diff) w rgd with concern a book that's going to be released on Feb. 28 that's authored by a writer for whom I'd created a draft blp (Draft:Benjamin E. Park).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
AFD does not impose a permanent ban on a topic ever being allowed to have a Wikipedia article — it's simply a judgement of where things stand at the time of the discussion. Notability can change, as the person's accomplishments and the availability of reliable source coverage about them change, so it is entirely possible for a person who was not notable enough for a Wikipedia article at one point in time to become more notable a year or two later — we have lots of articles about people where a premature early version got deleted, but then they accomplished something that constituted a stronger notability claim and could be supported by improved sourcing and thus were allowed to be recreated.
Politicians who had "campaign brochure" articles posted to Wikipedia at a time when they were just unelected candidates for office do sometimes go on to actually win the election in the end; writers who didn't have a strong or sourceable WP:AUTHOR claim in 2015 do sometimes have one by 2020; musicians who had an article deleted at a time when they were just aspiring wannabes who hadn't even released their first album yet do sometimes go on to actually become pop stars for real; there have been cases where due to inadequate availability of the necessary sources we missed notability claims that the person actually already had and thus recreated the article once the better sources turned up; and on and so forth. So just because an article was deleted previously doesn't mean he can never have an article — if his notability claim and its sourceability have improved over what he had in the past, then an article about him is allowed to be recreated now, and deletion review does not have to overturn the original deletion before you're allowed to try.
So if you think Benjamin Park has a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it than he did at the time of the original discussion, then by all means submit your draft to the WP:AFC queue — it will be evaluated on its own merits, not automatically rejected just because another version of an article about him was deleted before. The only thing you're not allowed to do after an AFD discussion is recreate essentially the same article, with the same weak notability claim and the same weak sources — if he's gone on to amass a stronger notability claim and stronger sourcing for it than he had the first time, so that you can write a better article than the first version, then that can change things. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm unsure of the figures but wouldn't be surprised if Adventists have as many adherents as Latter-day Saints or, say, Judaism,(*) and don't know much bout Adventist studies but will not be surprised should the foregoing text there end up wp:Red linked after my pressing "Publish changes" below. So: years ago I'd typed in Mormon studies, found it red and a few years back & had whipped up a little something about it. Then along the way I'd started a stub for Mr. Park.
Wikipedia was not amused. Park was barely a PhD and untenured. Oops. Sorry. Shortly however his first book was published by Cambridge University Press and his next picked up by New York editor Robert Weil so I resubmitted, seemingly wp:CRYSTAL BALLing that someone published by a major research university and shortly to be by a major publisher of general audience histories will be garnering reliable independent sources with regard his work by way of reviews or mentions. So now we are here. I suppose I'll await publication of his second and re-resubmit. Thanks.
By the way, see this notice board discussion, an incredibly fun read, regarding another blp stub I'd contributed (I'm interested in the seemingly enlarging Venn diagram center between faith & reason within study of the LDS, known as "Mormon studies") with regard the guy brought on as inaugural director of publications for the Joseph Smith Papers, its bearing the question "Ought reviewers within some tiny subfield nominating & granting one or another awards to peer researchers within the same field be thought, for purposes of notability, examples of wp:GNG independent sourcing or of mere promotionalism?"
(You see, with regard that Venn center mentioned, the JSP project currently seemed to figure quite largely.) The initiator of the noticeboard discussion I think was arguing the Mormon studies subdiscipline wasn't much of one. (Which is probably right; within it there's but a couple fully-funded chairs. And inside baseball stuff within a marginally existent area of study will have certain hurdles to clear to prove its interest to average joes and janes perusing a general interest encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, granted. That said, I first became fascinated by new-medialogorrhic Mr. Park as really sort of a personified "metonym" for this Venn diagram center of which I've been talking. The secular Salt Lake City Trib's LDS church-beat reporter Peggy Stack became interested in him too, perhaps for similar reasons. Stack had been Sunstone's director, a skeptics-friendly enterprise trying to exist within that selfsame Venn center -- along with Sunstone's competitors within that space, the more thoroughly orthodix FAIR[ Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research ]Mormon & Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, which latter had been founded by Daniel C. Peterson. When editorial reigns of another of Peterson's babies, the journal published by BYU's also-Peterson-founded Maxwell Institute, was wrested away from him by Brigham Young's powers that be & given Spencer Fluhman, Stack's reporting was uber enthusiastic about this prospect of the Institute's trending towards joining ranks with the recently established Mormon studies chars at Utah State, Claremont and U. of Virginia. Fluhman, being of the BYU milieu, is a more circumspect. Mr. Park -- his then doing yoeman's work while a Cambridge graduate student in helping to establish Mormon Studies Review the Maxwell Institute under editor-in-chief Fluhman -- could provide Stack such pithy quotes as she needed, however, his becoming one of her go-to's for quotes about the newly burgeoning field of Mormon studies thereafter. ... --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
_____
(*) Okay I took a moment & googled this. US Adventist adherents number a fraction US LDS or US Jews; also, in not too distant future, Adventists worldwide to number that of worldwide LDS and worldwide Jews combined.Anyway, here (diff) is an old stub at "Adventist studies" (which material is no longer on Wikipedia; meanwhile, for what it's worth, here is a place discussing the subdiscipline).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Documenting history of WP:PORNBIO deprecation in this policy
Raising the topic here as I've been reverted by User:The Gnome. WP:ENT includes the text: "Previous criteria for pornographic actors and models were superseded by the above and the basic guidelines after a March 2019 request for comment." The linked Request for Comment proposal didn't mention WP:ENT and accordingly, the closer's comments didn't mention WP:ENT: the first version of it was included as temporary placeholder text to deal with the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO by User:SportingFlyerhere and the current version by User:Rotideypoc41352here. There's never been any discussion whatsoever proposing the idea that there is any kind of specific requirement for pornographic actors and models to meet WP:ENT, let alone any kind of consensus for it, and as User:Izno mentioned in a null edit after my initial removal, it's not usual practice to document guideline history in the actual text of guidelines. There's no basis for this text to be there: it needs to go. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Could we combine the two discussions. I suggest you move yours under mine as your suggestion, since I consider my presentation to be more neutral and fair on both sides. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 09:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I documented the history of how the text came to actually be here with diffs. I'm not sure how you "consider your presentation to be more neutral and fair on both sides", considering that you've attempted to misrepresent the RfC outcome in a way that is obvious to anyone who bothers to click through to the RfC and notice that you've been claiming it said things it didn't say. It's not even "revisiting" WP:PORNBIO, except in the sense that it's revisiting WP:BOLD placeholder text someone added later. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@The Drover's Wife: As the person who added it (and subsequently forgot about it), I added the text as a placeholder until the discussion about the redirect had come to a logical conclusion. As fate would have it, it looks as if I was the last person to respond to that discussion. It was never meant to be a permanent addition, but rather a note the tag had been recently deprecated. I think, or at least hope, I added it in the exact same place as WP:PORNBIO?, as discussion about what to do with the redirect appeared to still be ongoing and I think there were a few AfDs which may have linked to it. (WP:PORNBIO should still link to a now-historical page, somewhere? Editing and then checking). My memory on this is also a bit fuzzy (doesn't help that it's late) so feel free to throw facts at me if you need. In theory, it should have been removed only a couple weeks after I added it in. Please remove it. SportingFlyerT·C12:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I just checked WP:PORNBIO and looking at the history there's at least some confusion as to whether WP:ENT now applies. Common sense would dictate that it does, yes? If it doesn't, then there should probably be a note porn actors must meet WP:GNG directly? It was brought up at the RfC, but the RfC close was short and I don't think you can necessarily read any judgment from the close itself. SportingFlyerT·C13:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Do we need the note either way? It goes without saying that if there's no SNG subjects need to meet WP:GNG, and if someone wants to argue that a broader SNG applies they're welcome to do so. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@The Drover's Wife: The note I added can most definitely be removed regardless. I shouldn't have been on the page as long as it was per my intent (I don't think it harmed anything by being there, though). SportingFlyerT·C01:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Keep the sentence as it is. The whole WP:PORNBIO deprecation was about removing a subject-specific notability guideline (aka SNG) about porn related persons. We should keep the above sentence because it actually, accurately reflects the consensus of the RfC, and because editors working on porn-related biographies can be directed to the relevant, past discussiond and decisions. -The Gnome (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy ping for @Beeblebrox: as closer. Personally, I don't see any problem with documenting the depreciation. But the bit about what supersedes where is going beyond the scope of the RfC, which I intentionally worded to be as simple as possible. Whether pornographic biographies should be considered under ACTOR, or I dunno...whether it's particularly expressive fornication that should be considered under ARTIST...(or if we just decide to apply common sense and use GNG because that's what we should all really be doing anyway)... that's all things that should be decided on a case-by-case basis. The RfC did not directly address what ought to replace PORNBIO, only that PORNBIO should be done away with. GMGtalk13:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment: In a recent AFD folks noted the changed status of PORNBIO as a deletion reason, and I tried NARTIST for three quick plausibility tests. PORNBIO was not "replaced" by ENT with its odd large fan base or a significant "cult" following. –84.46.52.152 (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment. There are two types of SNGs, those who might give notability (e.g. support but not guarantee GNG), which is WP:ENT; and those who have a special over-ride/replace other basic GNG critera (like WP:NPROF). My understanding of the history, is PORNBIO started as an over-ride SNG because the concern was that normal RS would not cover the industry (same issue faced by professors, but for obviously different reasons). However, at the RfC, this special over-ride by PORNBIO was depreciated. Thus we are back to WP:ENT (which is not an over-ride SNG – E.g. basic GNG must be met). The wording could be improved to say "Previous criteria for pornographic actors and models, WP:PORNBIO, were depreciated in a march March 2019 request for comment, and therefore such cases now fall under WP:ENT". thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
That is what I say as well, however, as actresses/actors, they fall under ENT now – which per my comments below, is an almost irrelevant SNG as it must really meet basic GNG anyway. Britishfinance (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Keep Even if PORNBIO was still active, porn actors could still be considered under BIO/ENT as a relevant subject-specific guideline, if the GNG did not cover them; there is no other subject-specific guideline that a porn actor would have fallen into unless you can find me a reputed athlete or academic that also did porn work (/sarcasm). Since we don't remove old deletion discussions or similar from when PORNBIO was valid, it makes sense to link them to ENT and a brief history of the removal of PORNBIO to make it clear they no longer apply, but other ENT might do that. --Masem (t) 14:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I believe it's something to do with the slow disillusionment that our SNGs are somehow collectively coherent. GMGtalk15:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
The SNGs that can over-ride fails of basic GNG (e.g. NPROF) are important. PORNBIO used to have this status, but now it doesn't, so pornstars must meet basic GNG (whether they also meet ENT is almost irrelevant, as ENT is not an SNG that can unambigiously over-ride a fail of basic GNG). Britishfinance (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
To the extent that that's true, I don't have a problem (requiring that they meet GNG was the obvious and entirely sensible purpose of deprecating PORNBIO), but this text is effectively being used in practice by The Gnome to argue that meeting GNG isn't sufficient, which makes the lack of consensus for ever existing in the first place a problem. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Could you please produce chapter & verse? "Meeting GNG isn't sufficient"?! When exactly did I write these exact words you are putting in my mouth? (My hands, more accurately!) It may be that age is deleting most of my synapses but I do not recall arguing that. -The Gnome (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I have seen people trying to attribute ENT (and other SNGs) with the same quality of an NPROF, but it is not right. As GMG notes above, the SNGs are not coherently written. There are two effective types: SNG type 1 (can over-ride a fail of GNG, per NPROF), and SNG type 2 (does not automatically over-ride a fail of GNG, except by consensus at AfD). Porn actresses/actors enjoyed the over-ride (no pun intended) of PORNBIO, but no more. However, it is obvious that they fall under ENT (never had to be said as PORNBIO was preferred given its greater power), but it is not much of an SNG anyway. Britishfinance (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
It was my understanding that, unlike WP:PROF, which is an alternative to the GNG, the intent of the PORNBIO guideline was to further restrict the applicable GNG/ENT guidelines., motivated by the felling that we had altogether too many unimportant people in this field. Where that leaves us now, I'm not certain. As usual, we in practice make adjustments by how strictly we apply the guideline at AfDs. DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, this is a bit of my own personal Carthago delenda est, but in discussing NPROF, let us not forget that the exception to GNG was simply added one day in 2015 with no discussion and no broad community consensus, by an editor who is themselves a professor. So let's not act like that right there is anything other the people repeating something over again until others take it to be true. GMGtalk16:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete The discussion was to eliminate the subject specific guideline for pornography. I don't see any reason to make a note about it on the entertainment section. The part of WP:Entertainer that reads: Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. might be a problem when it comes to porn stars since then its how many people visit their websites or buy films of them. Also how large is a "large fan base"? Not sure what sort of person other than porn stars would meet that requirement and not pass other inclusion criteria instead. Also the other two things for Entertainer were not meant to apply to porn stars either. Someone gets an award for the first person to do something unusual "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Also some could argue they meet the first requirement of "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." based on how their porn films were reviewed. So best to not have porn mixed in with the Entertainment guideline at all. DreamFocus18:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with it. WP:ENT does clearly cover porn actors, as porn actors are entertainers and WP:ENT specifically covers actors. There is no requirement for porn actors to meet WP:ENT, just as there's no requirement for non-porn actors to meet WP:ENT. Hut 8.518:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment: The deprecated WP:PORNBIO SNG contained a certain wording; let's call the content 'x' (no pun intended ). Perhaps what x was could help us to understand more clearly what happens after the SNG is gone. -The Gnome (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
The deprecated text is as follows:
Pornographic actors and models
The following criteria are relevant only to people involved in pornography (and should not be raised with regard to actors and models outside the pornography industry):
1.The person has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration.
2.The person has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or being a member of an industry hall of fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent.
3.The person has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.
There are two topics mingling here, and I will address both. First I'll address the issue of actual-notability for porn actors. On one hand most Reliable Sources tend to avoid covering anything related to porn, and any such topic will often tend to go de facto un-noted by the world at large. On the other hand it is an unacceptable violation of our Neutrality policy, our Notability policy, and our Not Censored policy, if anyone denies diminishes or disparages the Notability of anyone because of their acting or other work related to porn. When seeking to establish or defend the Notability of a porn actor it is appropriate to appeal to WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:BIO, WP:GNG, or any other relevant guideline just as it would be appropriate to do so for any other actor. Regarding the disputed guideline text: The substance of the text is roughly accurate in that porn actors are covered as a subset of actors. However the text is awkward, and I would hope unnecessary. If there is a need to clarify that WP:ENT really does cover all actors and entertainers then we should have text that says so more cleanly. There's no need to refer to the deprecated guideline. Alsee (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Remove as WP:ENT does not include porn performers as for example it was decided at the old WP:PORNBIO that appearing in many films/shows does not qualify as a pass of WP:PORNBIO whereas it does apply to mainstream actors in criteria 3 of WP:ENT so the old pornbio criteria were stricter than the ENT guidelines and so this reference to WP:ENT should be removed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Remove I concur. I don't think it's necessary. Besides, I use general notability guidelines as a blanket evaluation for all the porn articles I am working on (saying this as probably one of the most active members of the project). Missvain (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
What exactly are we voting on? The single sentence I added as placeholder text?
My understanding is that already happened (the marked historical). This is just about the sentence you added as placeholder text and its guidance about WP:ENT applying instead. (To be clear, not suggesting you did anything wrong on your part whatsoever; it's just probably time to remove it given that it's now causing problems that were probably unintended.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:PORNBIO showed just a sentence blurb as of last night. I'd say there's a reasonable question as to whether WP:ENT applies, but it doesn't really have anything to do with that intended-to-be-a-placeholder sentence. Honestly don't really know how we got to this point, or why the removal would be at all controversial. SportingFlyerT·C02:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment, looking at my previous comment made at the original RfC, I still stand by my previous opinion that ENT can be interpreted vaguely, and that PORNBIO served to moderate such vague interpretations, thus restricting justifications under ENT for biographies of those in porn industry. I was then, and am still currently, OK with PORNBIO becoming a notability essay, but potential biography subjects would still have to meet GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Clarifying "sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office"
Surely that bit from WP:NPOL/WP:JUDGE is supposed to refer to federated states of countries with a federal form of government, where provincial/state governments are mostly independent and officeholders are much more likely to be subject to public scrutiny? It doesn't make sense for this to apply equally to unitary state countries where the highest sub-national offices operate on a lower level. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I think that's fairly self-explanatory: if you have provinces, states, or things that are equivalent to provinces or states, they're notable. If not, that doesn't apply. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I think the issue here is about defining what the equivalence is. Are English counties (some of which are larger than American states) equivalent? Are state level politicians in Micronesia notable? I don't think county councillors are notable, and we are probably too generous to state-level politicians. I suspect the guideline was designed with only a certain set of English speaking countries in mind. Number5722:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I think the guidance is generally sufficient even if there might need to be discussion around the edge cases. State level politicians in Micronesia absolutely are notable in my book, they're just affected by issues of systemic bias (as you would also know, that part of the Pacific is generally more of a bastard to source things than nearly any other geographic place I've ever come across due to a lack of much of digitised anything, but that's an access question, not a notability question). I would also say that much the same is true, given our previous interactions, for the now-abolished provincial governments of PNG. It certainly may not be the case that we ever actually get articles on many state legislators from those kinds of places, given the considerable source access issues, but if we do their notability shouldn't be arguable. As for English counties: I would still see them as a form of local government akin to their American peers: they might be geographically larger but they aren't more significant/notable than (on a good day) more notable non-county councils. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, when you say "State level politicians in Micronesia" do you mean national government politicians or sub government politicians? Perhaps what was meant here was The Federated States of Micronesia which maybe should've been obvious to me, and not the region of Micronesia, for whatever difference it makes. I would say it more has to do with how many people are served by the person, although not directly related to that. A California politician who serves 40 million people is generally more notable than one somewhere else who serves 500,000. Although there is a certain intrinsic notability to national positions even of small countries. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I meant politicians in the states of the FSM, as I said. Getting into population arguments is a pointless minefield that would result in years of pointless arguments over people who would still pass GNG and just stifle quality coverage: we have this rule because state MPs generally have abundant sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
"If you have provinces, states, or things that are equivalent to provinces or states..." The problem is that different countries' provinces are not nearly equivalent at all. I imagine the mention of province in the guideline's wording was primarily meant to refer to the provinces of Canada, which are federated states enjoying a level of sovereignty of their own. But in many other countries, there isn't such a federal system. Their largest administrative divisions may be called provinces, but these provinces usually have no independent executive, legislative or judicial powers, and instead directly come under the control of the central government. Regardless of the size of the polities, the inherent differences of their functions means that the guideline's rationale, "Biographers and historians will usually have already written about the past and present holders of major political offices," is unlikely to hold true for non-federated provinces. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Which country/countries are you referring to? Each country that I can think of which uses, or has used, provinces, had independent executive and legislative powers at least to some extent. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Quite. I don't think we should concentrate on the word used to describe these sub-national units, but on the powers that they have in each case. It is also not just a question of size. Swiss cantons have plenty of power, but most are smaller than English counties, which have very little power. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
My rather brief review identified at least Afghanistan, Angola, Armenia, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Iran, Laos, Panama, Turkey, Thailand, Vanuatu, and Zambia as countries whose first-level divisions are called provinces, but are subordinate to and have governors appointed by the central government, with minimal administrative independence. In addition, Belgium, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Fiji, Italy, Oman, Peru, the Philippines, and Spain have provinces as their second-level division, further illustrating how pointless it is to rely on the name alone. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest rewording the guideline to:
Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.
Hadn't seen your earlier post, but I think this needs a bit further work. This is a longstanding guideline but what I want to avoid is having arguments around the notability of state (or equivalent) legislators in places where the term "federal" isn't necessarily used but are nonetheless equivalent. For example, the former provincial governments of PNG operated on basically the same idea as their former colonial power Australia, but sources describe it as having been a "quasi-federal" system. I want to forestall these kinds of arguments with the clearest wording we can. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. Since these systems aren't always clear-cut in practice, I'm not sure it would be possible to prevent arguments without naming every single country. The best I can think of is "federal or similar systems", which isn't much clearer. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
To me I'm not sure this way this is being distinguished makes sense at all. As I have commented above, what is more important about a sub-national position is the number of people served, if GNG is not being used as the standard. A politician who serves 40 million people is much more "intrinsically" notable than one who serves 50 thousand. And if a politician who serves 50 thousand in one part of the world (e.g. a provincial position) is more notable than one who serves 500 thousand or 5 million in another part (e.g. a local position), potentially just miles away across a national border, that doesn't really make sense to me. There is an intrinsic notability to national politicians but sub-national? I'm not so sure. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
For me, I'm just not trying to upend the status quo, and will be happy to settle for this relatively minor clarification. I'd hate to go through a huge RfC for an SNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
The number of people served is irrelevant. I can write an article that comfortably passes WP:GNG on basically every state or territory legislator who has ever existed in my country, and, given access to equivalent quality of sources, on those in any other country with an even vaguely equivalent system. Having to repeatedly have stupid arguments about individual cases would just discourage people from doing the work for us to have good coverage. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
The Drover's Wife, you haven't responded to my comment regarding "federal or similar systems". Please suggest an alternative if you find the suggestion inadequate, but holding back the change would only retain the current confusing wording. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I've made the edit. From my reading, DIYeditor's objections are directed to the current guideline itself, and shouldn't preclude this minor change. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
All peers who sat in the House of Lords are clearly notable per WP:POLITICIAN as members of a national legislature. The tiny minority who have not done so since the 1999 act should be kept for consistency's sake. It makes no sense whatsoever to suddenly cut off the list of articles about peers at 1999. As for baronets, only the first is inherently notable per WP:ANYBIO #1. They received the title for a reason. Their successors are not and have never been held to be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
No. The vast majority of nobles across the world do not have wikipedia articles because they are not notable. For consistency, British nobility should be treated the same way. DrKay (talk) 06:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but it is not true that "tens of thousands of people over the centuries" are considered notable simply because they inherited their titles. The vast majority of British peers over the centuries have been members of the House of Lords, and are notable because of that. Only those who have inherited their titles in the last couple of decades, not "over the centuries", have doubtful notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
As you agree with me, I don't understand why you're arguing with me. I assume you meant to indent this as a response to Xxanthippe? DrKay (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not arguing with you, but discussing the issue with you and others. Discussions don't have to be adversarial. The "over the centuries" comment was made by the nominator. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
My first word, which was very important, was a reply to you, and I also replied to Reywas92's original post. For readability it was better to make one post rather than two. Now can we please get back to the topic at hand rather than this ridiculous pedantic nitpicking? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, if that's how DrKay (an admin no less) reacts when someone says "yes" I would hate to see the reaction when someone says "no". Phil Bridger (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
When someone complains about your abuse, don't continue it. This page is for discussing the guideline not editors. DrKay (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
It is you who shouldn't continue your abuse. Who exactly was it who deflected this into a discussion of editors rather than the guideline? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Neither is it false that "tens of thousands of people over the centuries are considered notable simply because they inherited their titles." They're notable because they were members of the House of Lords, but they were members only because they inherited titles. It's quite possible that many of them never actually exercised that right. While they might technically pass WP:NPOL, I'm not convinced they should be presumed notable for an inherited right. pburka (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Do we have any figures for the number of people over the centuries who have been entitled to a seat in the House of Lords but who have never actually taken part? I thought I would be able to find out at House of Lords but on a quick reading I can't see any indication there. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
In that case you would presumably advocate also removing every article on members of "legislatures" in totalitarian countries who are effectively appointed by the ruling party merely for rubber-stamping purposes. Yet we also consider every one of them notable per WP:POLITICIAN. At least members of the House of Lords have freedom of expression and play a genuine role in running the country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
A case might be made for that, but at least those members have achieved something! Being personally appointed to an unelected legislature (like the House of Lords or a totalitarian politburo) is itself "a significant honor" per WP:ANYBIO. I did find a book from 1907 claiming that "two-thirds of the whole number of our hereditary legislators...stand convicted by the records of their own House last Session of persistent neglect of the duties imposed upon them by the Writ of Summons, of flagrant disobedience to the explicit command of the King, and of habitual disregard of the honour of the King and the safety and defence of the United Kingdom." Whether these peers were less neglectful in other years I do not know, but it seems apparent that some significant number of peers never exercised their political power. Why should we presume such a person is notable? Why would they be the subject of significant coverage if they never obeyed the writ to appear in the House? pburka (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
So far as the British House of Lords is concerned, the situation is much different now because it is largely composed of Life Peers, appointed for their achievements in public life and invariably notable for those. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC).
Yes. I believe life peers are covered by WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO. I'm questioning the notability of historical hereditary peers who never answered a writ to attend the House of Lords. pburka (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Surely all they've "achieved" is being toadies of a totalitarian government trusted to do as they're told? In other words, in most cases utter non-entities incapable of thinking for themselves. Not really much of an achievement. At least British hereditary peers, whether they've regularly attended the Lords or not (and remember that many have done so and have played an active part in legislation and government), have very commonly been significant figures in British society and often very substantial landowners and influential figures in rural areas. There is a reason that all peers are included in Who's Who! -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm baffled by this distinction you're making between totalitarianism and monarchy. Were the peers created by James I more independent and therefore more notable than the members of the Politburo of the Workers' Party of Korea? While many hereditary peers may have been notable independent of the House of Lords, and many exercised power in the House of Lords, I'm arguing that those who didn't aren't inherently notable simply for having inherited a title from a notable male ancestor. Sitting in the House of Lords satisfies WP:NPOL, but simple possession of an unexercised right by birth to sit in the House of Lords does not. pburka (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm baffled that you apparently can't see the difference between the English/British Parliament (at any era) and the legislature of somewhere like the USSR, PRC or North Korea. Do remember that many members of the House of Lords supported Parliament in the English Civil War and not the King whose ancestors had appointed theirs. Looks pretty independent to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Life peers should be universally notable. Hereditary peers who inherited pre-1999 will (I believe) have had to have sat in parliament at least once (except maybe for very rare cases who died before they could fulfil their writ of summons) so keep per WP:NPOL even if a permastub (and might be happy to revisit this in another half a decade). For hereditary peers who inherited their titles post-1999, however, and who don't otherwise meet a notability guideline, redirect and cover at the title - the information in a permastub can be covered briefly there and WP:NOPAGE applies. I reject the necessity of the consistency argument for post-1999 -- we don't have articles on bit-part actors even if the rest of a film's cast is bluelinked, nor do we have articles every political candidate in an election, etc, etc. Where there is a fully suitable merge target, there is even less reason to keep an individual article on someone with at best marginal notability. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~06:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree that post-1999 hereditary peers don't satisfy WP:NPOL. Do we have evidence that, historically, most hereditary peers did respond to at least one writ of summons? Hereditary peers weren't even introduced after 1663. pburka (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I just wanted to add this as a point of information. There is no single source to determine what a peer contributed to the House of Lords, unless perhaps one used the records of debates in the Hansard database (which is extant from the early 19th century). However, this does not (to my knowledge) include voting records, which obviously make up a significant part of a peer's political profile. The best resource would be the volumes of the History of Parliament, a scholarly and authoritative project to produce comprehensive biographies of each member of Parliament; they are specifically interested in voting records, patronage, speeches, etc, and tend to include references to most of what is known about those aspects of a subject's career. The series began with the House of Commons, probably because it had never had such a systematic treatment (the Lords at least had peerage books like Burke's and Cokayne's which told us who held a peerage at any time). Over the last couple of decades, they editors and their research staff have been working on a version for the House of Lords; the first volumes (for 1660–1715) were released in 2016 and more are due out over the coming years for 1558–1603, 1604–29 and 1715–90. Unlike the House of Commons volumes, those for the Lords have not been made available online sadly (something they had promised some time ago, but the HoP does a thorough job, is under pressure budget-wise and probably can be forgiven for moving a bit slowly sometimes).
So, no, there is no good source of evidence, save for those 1660–1715 volumes and, for the medieval period perhaps, historical works like Cokayne's Complete Peerage (2nd ed.), Powell's history of the House of Lords, the ODNB, etc., which are not exhaustive. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC).
CREATIVE for individual architects OK, but what about an architect firm/company named after two architects?
Hi, WP:CREATIVE guidelines apply to "creative professionals" including architects. The topic of one article "Jakob & MacFarlane" currently at AfD is about the architect firm (linkedin reports 11-50 employees). There is no doubt that the two architects after which the company is named would each pass the notability requirements in their own right. The question is though, is an architect firm an exception to WP:NCORP and CREATIVE should instead apply as architects are creative professionals? Or (my own opinion) if the company fails to meet the criteria for establishing notability as per NCORP then since the topic is not notable, the article should be deleted but that people are free to create individual articles on individual creative people? Thank you. HighKing++ 17:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Common sense would dictate that the guidelines should provide some sort of direction, not necessarily spelt out exactly. It doesn't, but maybe it should. Hence why I politely asked here. Really though, there's no call for that response to a genuine question, if you've nothing useful to add, jog on. HighKing++ 19:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
My comment in the referenced AfD was that other kinds of creative collaborations (such as rock bands and rap groups) often have an underlying corporate form that governs the commercial and financial aspects of their activities. An architecture firm that basically produces large-scale artwork is not very different in that regard than a band, or a duo like Gilbert and Sullivan or The Wachowskis, and should be able to be evaluated separately under WP:NCORP and WP:CREATIVE. BD2412T20:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree but currently the guidelines don't provide any direction that editors can confidently follow. I think the suggestion that organizations that are synonymous with creative individuals (and the Jakob + MacFarlane example is a really good one) makes sense (common sense even :-) for the reasons you provided at the AfD. NCORP shouldn't be the applicable guidelines. Perhaps it would be a good idea to make this clearer in the CREATIVE guidelines? HighKing++ 15:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Does it make sense to add clarification to WP:CREATIVE along the lines of Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals or organizations synonymous with their creative output. ? HighKing++ 19:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with that. I would add "collaborations" ahead of organizations. BD2412T19:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I think the difficulty here is just that the organisation is named after two individually notable people. Notability, however, is not inherited, and a professional services organisation needs to be judged under NCORP - consider how this example would be resolved if Jakob + MacFarlane had instead named their company something dumb like "The Architecture Group" - it would be a non-issue. SportingFlyerT·C20:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Would you be less concerned if the page were named "Dominique Jakob and Brendan MacFarlane" and had a section about their architecture firm? If so, and if a joint biographical article is acceptable, wouldn't it be fair to say that the pair's WP:COMMONNAME is "Jakob + MacFarlane"? pburka (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
It could just as well be argued that Siegfried & Roy should be titled "Siegfried Fischbacher and Roy Horn". Aren't companies that provide entertainment professional services organisations? Surely they also have (or had) a corporate structure underlying their business concerns. BD2412T22:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The Siegfried & Roy argument would violate WP:COMMONNAME. That being said, I'm not sure why Siegfried and Roy don't have their own standalone biographies like say Mitchell and Webb just because they use their names in the act. The key to the puzzle though is entertainers receive coverage in different types of press than an architecture firm. I would expect to see the former in the entertainment section of a newspaper, and while an architecture firm might show up in the culture section of a newspaper bourgeoisie enough to have a culture section, I would expect architectural firms to be covered either in business or in professional trade magazines in a similar manner to other professional organisations. If Jakob or MacFarlane have individual notability, there's no issue with having them have their own article, but just because their firm designs something doesn't necessarily mean either Jakob or MacFarlane worked on it (a cursory search shows they have at least several employees.) SportingFlyerT·C23:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I would say, conversely, that having employees doesn't suggest that anything is designed by the firm without being worked on by the named architects. Certainly the interviews where their works are discussed and their views are expressed indicate the involvement of the two of them in every project they were interviewed about. I don't see that as being particularly different from a duo of musicians or filmmakers or indeed lion tamers having people who work for them and assist with their creative work. BD2412T00:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I simply don't view it in the same creative light as I do say a group of musicians, again based on the level of expected press. (To be fair, I also think Siegfried and Roy should have their own separate biographies a la Sonny & Cher.) This, to me, is clearly an article about a business, not a dual biography: a similar example would be Pei Cobb Freed & Partners, which a) needs to be improved a little bit, b) would not be deleted, and c) would definitively be subject to WP:NCORP if placed at AfD. SportingFlyerT·C01:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
The home_town parameter of Template:Infobox_person
As I know that changes to major infoboxes are often controversial (and many to that template in particular have been WP:VPPOL RfCs in their own right), it seemed pertinent to notify broadly of the proposal.
Summary: We removed |residence=, but kept this parameter for childhood non-birthplace residence, despite that being usually trivia. The proposal would repurpose this parameter for long-term residency places during the subject's period of notability. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Question on Pseudo-Biographies
Under WP:1E, it is stated that "Editors are advised to be aware of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people."
However, while this page describes a "generally accepted standard" for Wikipedia, WP:PSEUDO is categorized as a subsection of the WP:HARM, which was a principle that was considered, but ultimately rejected. Is WP:PSEUDO still a standard that editors should abide by, or is it not? --Pacack (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I do not think it even helps. These lists are prepared for multiple geographies and fields every year, and are essentially a PR tool. If the person is actually notable, & thearticle is not otherwise too promotional but just happens to include these, I remove them, because there's will be enough genuine material. If the person is borderline notable, and that's the best there is, I list for AfD; if the last few years, such articles almost always get deleted. I consider their presence in an article a sign of either utter naïvité, or deliberate promotionalism , usually, nowadays, paid promotionalism . . (And 30 under 30, is furthermore a good sign that the person is, at best, likely to not yet be notable. I've seen many articles deleted on that argument. for many years now ) These pseudo awards goes on my list of promotional terms that serve as a warning to check the rest of the content very carefully. . They don't always totally disqualify an article, but there's never a good reason to include them. Just to remind people, there is no pblication in the world, not even the NYT, that will not include promotional material if the PR agent is clever enough and can find a hook. The function of a PR agent, and the reason people hire them in thefirst place, is to get such "awards," and to get articles printed in as good a place as possible. The highest level of the profession can do surprisingly effective work, but it's still just PR from thes tandard of an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I've seen a lot of these kinds of lists, especially on articles about entrepreneurs and academics. I think that the problem with them is that they don't usually claim to be objective lists of "the 30 most important people", but instead try to include a variety of people from a range of industries and backgrounds who are interesting for their readers, or inspirational. I'd go as far as to say they often favour the unusual and the different over the obvious and established. I'd support establishing a principle that these lists of people are not an indication of notability in themselves Pi(Talk to me!)19:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Social media influencers, YouTubers, Instagramers, Vlogers etc
I apologize if this is perennial, but I'm seeing a lot of articles on such people at AfC, and I can't see clear guidance on what establishes notability of these kinds of people. Could specific guidance be added to WP:ENTERTAINER perhaps to cover them? Pi(Talk to me!)19:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Relevant discussion about NPOL at Village Pump idea lab
Does the wording "such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work" in WP:AUTHOR feel jarring to anyone else? All through the page, from {{guideline}} on down, we're saying "should," "presumed," "may be," "may not be," "likely to be," "not conclusive proof," "not guarantee[d]", etc. – then all of a sudden, having been caveating everything, we're declaring what must be the case. I think it should read "such work should have been the primary subject ..."; or, alternatively, the two sentences could be merged, with the additional benefit of concision: "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 primary subject of an independent and notable work ..." – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I would takje that to mean that unless a work was significantly covered in either a single notable work or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. then that criterion does not apply, which seems reasonable. and I don't see many uses of 'should" or the like in the other criteria. I see {{tqqi|has received a well-known and significant award, has made a widely recognized contribution, has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biograph, Has had significant roles in multiple notable films,, Has a large fan base, and Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions These are all statements of fact which the article in question must meet for the criterion to apply. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs22:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Requirements for entertainers: and/or?
Can it be clarified whether the three requirements on WP:ENT are meant to mean "at least one of this" or "all of this is required". I think only one is required:
Lacking a "large fan base" shouldn't disqualify anyone. This isn't a popularity contest.
"Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" can't be a requirement either, because that would exclude over 90% of all entertainers. Most of them really aren't that innovative.
"Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" would exclude nearly all YouTubers. - Alexis Jazz14:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The section header indicates "any" of the requirements is sufficent, but also indicates this only "likely" makes the subject notable. GreatCaesarsGhost22:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes. For me this is similar to the lemming principle on Wiktionary, i.e. if a book encyclopedia thinks the subject is important enough, then as an online encyclopedia with unlimited space surely we have room for them. I would waive our usual requirement for multiple RS, because we already have a single source which provides a neutral and balanced biography of the subject. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠03:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I would say so. We largely do the same for the Australian Dictionary of Biography, I think there is only one entry I couldn’t justify writing so far. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Australian magistrates
There are many local district magistrates in Australian States. Each had to be notable enough to become a magistrate, but I’m wondering if it is reasonable to have an article on them? Each of them dies significant judicial work, so I personally err on the side of yesz what are other’s opinions? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, a local district magistrate appears not to qualify for WP:NJUDGE, which only presumes notability for people who have held state/province–wide office. So magistrates would only be notable under WP:BASIC if I'm interpreting this correctly? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
No specifics in this page. There exists a guideline on notability in medical doctors - I wrote it a while ago - and it might be better if it were merged into this page than just marked expired inactive etc. Midgley (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Spiritual or Religious Leaders
Would it be fair to say that spiritual leaders, pastors, priests, gurus, imams etc, fall under the guidelines for ENTERTAINER (or in some cases POLITICIAN)? Or should there be guidelines for them specifically? --Paul Carpenter (talk) 10:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
The redirect brings to the chapter "Entertainers." Its criteria 2 says: "a large fan base." A porn star with billion views means a large fan base. There is a long list of porn stars with over billion views but defined by the English Wikipedia as not notable.
Wikipedia is not about discrimination or double standards applied to any group, porn actors included.
The existing standards of notability qualify, for example, thousand of sportsmen or musicians for one porn actor. Check how many porn stars under 25 year old have a page: ZERO --Maxaxax (talk) 11:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think number of views is a good metric for size of a fanbase - it's pretty much impossible to tell if a billion views is a billion people watching once (so not really fans) or fewer people watching several times over, which even then I think it's a lot to claim that is a fanbase. (A TV advertisement could have that many views and you'd have an article for the ad but not the star). And if there are indeed thousands with over a billion views, then how do you determine who is notable out of that group? Number of subscribers would be a more meaningful metric if you want to claim a large fan base but even then you'd need to show a difference from every other peer in their field (biggest fanbase, or biggest fanbase for their niche would be a good example). --Paul Carpenter (talk) 07:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@Maxaxax: A billion views where? More important, what independent reliable sources acknowledge the significance? Being the most searched performer on Pornhub failed in the case of Lana Rhodes for lack of reliable source support. Most porn claims against WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT fail for the same reason. Porn is about 30 percent of traffic on the Internet. Reliable sources note the exabytes moved. Mostly tabloids note which porn stars drive that traffic. The old PORNBIO guideline was a variant of ANYBIO which tended to excuse performers from the requirements for good references. Current consensus is that separate carve-out for porn stars is bad policy. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
A billion views where? Major porn sites give views for all videos of each star. There are some 100 stars exceeding billion views only on 3 major sites. They cannot be less notable than, for example, players in the Albanian football league. The current consensus is flawed. It precludes notability in theory for stars under 25 unless she commits a suicide.--Maxaxax (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
What makes you think that statistics reported by promotional sites are in any way meaningful, or even true? And where do you get this idea that current guidelines preclude notability for people under 25? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
The number of pages of porn actors under 25 is zero. The number ZERO gives a good idea. They exist in fact, there are even a couple of annual awards given to "starlet of the year," but all of them are blocked from the English Wikipedia.
Measured by the intensity of commercials, YouTube is more promotional than any porn site. Yet the views are considered true and we have the List of most-viewed YouTube videos.
For comparison, try to create a page of most viewed porn videos. Keep a stopper at hand if you do so. Probably, your page would beat the record for the most speedy deletion.
Thus, we can be frank. There is a convinced idealist in charge of porn on the English Wikipedia, pretending that porn stars are significantly less notable than they really are. This is neither encyclopedic, nor fair.--Maxaxax (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
YouTube is considered true for page views because it is the largest such site in the world and there are plenty of people who would love to catch them out telling lies. It would suffer severe reputational damage if it was caught doing so. Everyone expects porn sites to lie about their page views so they suffer no such reputational damage. And, once again, stop repeating the word "ZERO" in capital letters and give us some evidence. Nobody is in charge of any topic area on Wikipedia, but policies and guidelines are decided by consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Maxaxax, if such a list is properly referenced to multiple independent reliable sources discussing most-viewed porn actors as a group (see WP:LISTN), it would almost certainly be kept. CThomas3 (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
It is not about evidence. As evidence, we have a field of entertainment accounting for 30% of internet. After the mass deletions, we have some 800 survivors from the field, out of several hundreds of thousands entertainers. No amount of evidence helps when it contradicts a certain popular ideal. Whether one or several persons behind the consensus, the mission is to reduce the existing stars and preclude new ones from appearing. The mission defines the consensus.--Maxaxax (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
OK, I get it. You don't care about evidence. So you can say "ZERO" in capitals and everyone is supposed to believe you. Well, guess what, nobody will believe you on Wikipedia unless you provide good evidence, but, if you do, everybody, including me, will believe you. The only mission is to include people who have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, but not those who haven't. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
This guideline appears out of keeping with WP:V, and with other subject-specific notability guidelines
Most other subject-specific notability guidelines ("SSNG") explicitly conform with WP:V, and by extension, the fiber of WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST, WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE and WP:NRVE, by: i) placing an overarching, introductory note providing, in sum and substance, that the additional criteria given therein for assessing notability are not exemptions from reliable, third-party sourcing requirements, and that claims of meeting the additional criteria must themselves be verifiable in reliable sources—it is not enough to merely assert that an additional criterion provided in some SSNG (like this one) has been met; or ii) head the additional criteria themselves with such guidance; or (iii) do both. Examples, respectively, of (i), (ii) and (iii):
"To meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make unsourced or poorly sourced claims in the article, or to assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability through the use of reliable sources, and no criterion listed in this page confers an exemption from having to reliably source the article just because passage of the criterion has been claimed.";
(ii) Wikipedia:Notability (films), after dedicated sections explaining the GNG, reliable sourcing and independence of sources, introduces its "Other evidence of notability" film criteria with:
The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:" (emphasis added); and
"Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. It is not enough to simply assert that a book meets a criterion. Verifiable reliable sources that substantiate that claim must actually exist." —and incorporates that principle into its book criteria themselves: "A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:" (emphasis added).
This guideline has no similar guidance I see (neither introductory, nor heading its various criteria sections), and I don't think this is a matter that is at all tacit—certainly not to novice users who are most likely to be the creators of articles ending up at AfD, or other fora (such as discussing rejections at WP:AFC), where having to explain this to the creator(s), and having to say, in effect, "of course that's what the guideline actually means (but doesn't say), because verifiability/reliable sourcing is unwaivable", should be unnecessary.
Notability is ultimately about sources, nothing you suggest is about sourcing. BTW this is not the Yankopedia, so how will your proposed changes relate to candidates for elections in India, Moldova, Uganda, etc? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
There is an inherent bias on Wikipedia against candidates who do not win partisan office. Despite multiple, independent sources covering Shawn Moody in detail, his article was deleted because those sources primarily came during his campaign as the Republican nominee for Governor of Maine. Something should be done to avoid such deletions moving forward.--User:Namiba18:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
That "inherent bias" is based on the WP:SPAM policy, the overwelming majority of such articles are created by people involved in the subjects' campaigns. If the sources about a candidate owe their existence to the subject's candidacy, then per WP:BLP1E the person should be covered in an article about the campaign, no seperate biography article should be created. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Roger (Dodger67), you think every editor who creates an article on a statewide major party nominee is involved in the campaign? Why do you think an election, which stretches across several months to more than a year in the US context, is a "single event" but a book, a movie, participating in a sporting event like the Olympics etc. is not? When a candidate receives significant coverage in multiple (often national) sources, why does the reason matter? A major candidate for statewide office is almost always a high profile individual as evident through the fact that they have "given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, or television or radio program."--User:Namiba11:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
A couple of notes - relevant biographical details about any candidate could be added to the page about the election, such as 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa. I do believe many of these election pages can and should include more prose about the race, the candidates, and campaign themes (especially notable ones). And, while Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, there is an important threshold question about whether a candidate is notable for just being a candidate, and if not, can the standards articulated in WP:NPOL be adjusted to reflect that the standard must be broadly applicable in multiple electoral systems across the globe? I believe that the standards and interpretation do pretty well, even if there is contestation every two years. If a candidate receives broad global recognition, is known for (or an exemplar of) their innovative campaign tactics, or are featured in academic writings, they usually pass the bar. Most candidates fade into obscurity after an electoral defeat. --Enos733 (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The current wording of WP:NPOL serves us well because it stops partisan deletion nominations by political opponents by giving an easily understood guideline to follow that approximates well to the general notability guideline. Most failed candidates for political office do not pass the general notability guideline so there is no need to include them on that basis, but of course they can still be notable for other reasons. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The NPOL rule is ok for most offices (city councils, mayors, state legislatures, and even U.S. House of Representatives). There are hundreds, even thousands, of candidates for such offices in every election cycle. However, the presumption against notability makes no sense for the major party candidates for the U.S. Senate. There are typically only 35-45 non-incumbents running for such seats every two years. These 35-45 persons receive abundant media coverage, easily pass GNG, are inherently notable, and it is a disservice to our readers to exclude articles about them. Moreover, this is quantitatively discrete group that can readily be monitored for attempts to inject inaccuracies or undue promotionalism. As for the "Yankopedia" comment, I'm not aware of positions in other countries which universally garner such heavy coverage, but if there are, such issues can be addressed separate. In sum, though, the "Yankopedia" objection is no reason not to fix what clearly needs fixin'. Cbl62 (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Cbl62 If a subject, any subject, passes GNG it cannot be declined for notability, thus there is nothing to fix. AIUI, it is extremely rare for politicians with no previous track record (John Doe from Nowhereville) to stand for election to the US Senate, so sufficient sources for such would neccessarily exist. Please show us such declined drafts. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I would actually point to several "major party nominees" for US Senate that are close to John Doe from Nowhereville (Jerry Sturgill, Democrat, 2016, Jay Williams, Democrat, 2016, Matt Silverstein, Democrat 2014, Charlie Hardy, Democrat 2014, Ron Curtis, Republican 2018). --Enos733 (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
As it stands, NPOL allows literally anyone who gets elected to a single term in a state legislature. I don't think a major party U.S. Senate nominee is likely to be less notable than the low end of state legislators. BD2412T23:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
BD2412 makes an excellent point. There is something seriously wrong with a system that deems a one-term state legislator from Wyoming to be presumptively notable, but deems a major party candidate for the U.S. Senate like Theresa Greenfield to be non-notable. Cbl62 (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Without getting into a discussion of WP:OSE, there is near universal acceptance that a) there is global, encyclopedic value in having biographies of every federal and statewide (or province-wide) legislator and b) there is a presumption that there is independent news coverage of these legislators. --Enos733 (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
We agree it's not a question of OSE. It's more basic than that. We have to look at real-life examples in trying to craft sensible policy. And it's pretty clear, based on the real-life coverage, that the system is upside down when major-party candidates for the U.S. Senate (say, Theresa Greenfield or Kevin O'Connor) are deemed non-notable but the average Wyoming state legislator (say, David Asay or Sheila Arnold) are presumed notable. That's ludicrous ... it is a problem ... it should be fixed. Cbl62 (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
@Dodger67: I wish it were as you said, but it is not so. Many take the view that even U.S. Senate candidates may not have articles despite the existence of GNG level coverage, simply because the significant coverage they received in independent, reliable sources was during the course of their candidacy. Examples of major party candidates with no articles in 2020 (despite such GNG-level coverage) include Lauren Witzke (R-DE) (redirect), Theresa Greenfield (D-IA) (redirected on 6/15), Kevin O'Connor (R-MA) (redirected on 9/8 purportedly based on NPOL), Chris Janicek (D-NE) (redirect), Corky Messner (R-NH) (redirect), Mark Ronchetti (R-NM) (redirected on 6/19), Abby Broyles (D-OK) (redirect). Cbl62 (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Of course, the way we usually qualify that is that a non-notable person that runs for a US House/Senate seat and which fails to win and thus fades to obscurity is basically a BLP1E. You can certainly document that person the state's yearly election pages as those pages aren't going away, as the above examples show. --Masem (t) 14:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
The reality is that many elected representatives (that hypothetical "one-term state legislator from Wyoming") don't get much significant coverage in reliable sources outside of election campaigns, either. I'd rather see NPOL tightened to include fewer people than broadened to include everyone who appears on a ballot. In my experience, NPOL is most effective when used as an exclusionary argument, and I've advocated before that it should (mostly) be part of WP:NOT rather than WP:N. pburka (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I have done an inordinate amount of work on state senate members. There are many for whom no sources at all can be found except for a single state record listing members of the body for the year. BD2412T17:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd be happy to consider changes to NPOL to exclude state or provincial legislators from presumed notability. For regional electeds, we should require additional evidence of notability, just as we do for, e.g., mayors. pburka (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm also in agreement with this. If the current guidance for state and provincial politicians is a bad predictor of their notability, it should be either modified or removed. CThomas3 (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
While in agreement as well, I'd also strongly recommend making sure to stress where these type of people are not notable even if they may appear to meet the GNG, namely which may come down to just simple election coverage and little else. We want to know about what these people did in office or before and/or after that and not just the usual assure election-run-up articles that will cover them. This may require something akin to NCORP to be more exclusionary to the GNG, or being clear that election coverage is ROUTINE and thus outside the GNG's scope of notability. --Masem (t) 20:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I'll be a fourth (at least) agreement here. Automatic notability is not a thing, and people should not be mass-producing articles on long-dead legislators who may have served only one or two terms and did not necessarily have any major impact on legislation or significant coverage thereof. Reywas92Talk00:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't see a need to expand NPOL. An unsuccessful candidate who otherwise passes GNG is eligible for an article, full stop; NPOL isn't meant to supercede that. If we have cases where NPOL has been used to exclude otherwise notable candidates, we're using the guideline wrong. I'm in agreement that if the only coverage the candidate received was during the campaign and they were both unknown beforehand and faded into obscurity after, they very likely weren't really notable on their own, but some information about them could be added to an article on the election or their successful opponent. CThomas3 (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Notability is supposed to be an enduring property. If you are notable now then you're notable for all time, and if you won't be seen as significant some time in the future then you aren't notable today. Sure, Theresa Greenfield might be ahead in the polls, fundraising etc now, but will she have enduring significance years from now if she loses and never does anything significant ever again? Very unlikely. Note that these types of questions usually arise because of someone who's running for office now. We don't have people queueing up to write articles about people who lost US Senate elections decades ago and subsequently faded into obscurity. This suggests that, taking the long view, losing a US Senate election isn't significant. The best thing to do in those cases is redirect to some other article, likely the one on the election, unless the subject has some other claim to fame which is (or was) generating coverage. Hut 8.518:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
This. In a month, she will either win, in which case she will pass. Or she will lose and wait two years to run for a different office. Or she will lose and pass into political obscurity as a footnote to the 2020 election season. Political footnotes generally don’t pass. TastyPoutinetalk (if you dare)00:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I would argue that for the health of democracy, all candidates for any public office anywhere should be eligible for basic articles, as long as they are factual and consistent with BLP. Even a few sentences of who they are and what they stand for are a huge benefit for democracy, because voters look to Wikipedia for information and need to have it to make informed choices. This is especially the case for major party nominees for the United States Senate, such as Theresa Greenfield, who has clearly met the threshold for significant independent media coverage. She is the most egregious example of Wikipedia's denial of articles. This race is likely to determine the future of the US Senate, and thus shape federal policy for decades to come. This would apply equally for major party nominees for the federal office in India, or any other country. In India's next election, the BJP candidate running against Shashi Tharoor in Thiruvananthapuram and the Indian National Congress candidate running against Narendra Modi in Varanasi deserve articles, because voters should know who they are. Right now, notability guidelines are applied in completely arbitrary way. Marquita Bradshaw of Tennessee and Merav Ben-David of Wyoming, who are Democratic nominees in red states that independent analysts rate as solid Republican, have active articles, but Theresa Greenfield - who is the Democratic nominee in a race that is rated as a tossup - does not. Even though she has a draft with 62 references and clearly meets General notability guidelines and BLP. We must write clear guidelines that state that major party nominees for federal office in any country are notable. Narayansg (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Marquita Bradshaw and Merav Ben-David pass WP:GNG for two different reasons. Bradshaw was kept because it is verified that she is "first Black woman nominated for statewide office in Tennessee." Still, there was a split in the discussion between keeping the article and a redirect. Ben-David would likely pass WP:NPROF as an academic, not as a candidate (or at least it would be strongly debatable). --Enos733 (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
There are other projects that are better equipped for this specialized task, such as Ballotpedia in the United States. Importantly, it's not run by volunteers, so there's less risk of partisans successfully manipulating it. pburka (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
FYI for anyone watching this page who hasn't noticed, there is a lot more discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Theresa Greenfield of both the specific case of Greenfield's article and the general problem of there being multiple conflicting common perspectives on how to evaluate the notability of prominent candidates with significant independent coverage over time. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Exclusion of widely and nationally covered candidates for nationally relevant offices from having their own pages, combined with pretending their deletion is equivalent to deleting promotional articles is creating a recurrent problem that could easily be solved by simple criteria, such as in-depth, non-local coverage of their candidacy. The failure to do so (1) looks bad for the encyclopedia which is basically chanting ("I can't hear you") until the day of the election; (2) is a disservice to democracy given the encyclopedia's core role as an unbiased information provider of first resort; (3) fails to harvest the editing labor of interested volunteers during the time period when an article is most searched. Please, let's fix this.--Carwil (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Nothing to fix, because nothing is broken. As Pburka said above, the proper place for this is something like Ballotpedia. --Khajidha (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think anything is broken, either. It's possible unsuccessful candidates are notable under WP:GNG, but the problem with a candidate is that they generally only get covered in the context of their candidacy, i.e. they don't have lasting notability, and can easily be covered on the pages about the election. If the article is created about someone running in an upcoming election, who is only notable for the election, not only is there a WP:BLP1E concern but there are WP:PROMO concerns. We are concerned with enduring notability. Also, this is largely (but not entirely) a US-specific problem, and it does a disservice to our readers around the world to be filled with US campaign spam. SportingFlyerT·C12:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Wrong. PROMO applies to many notable topics and is an editing issue, not a reason to bar or delete material in its entirety. And those waving the BLP1E banner overlook the fact that it is a three-prong test where all three prongs must be met. Prong 2 requires that the person be "a low-profile individual" which by definition does not apply to a candidate for the U.S. Senate. Indeed, a candidate like Theresa Greenfield who thrusts herself into the public by running for the U.S. Senate is the antithesis of a "low-profile individual." Prong 3 provides that BLP1E does not apply where the event was significant and the person's role was both substantial and well documented. In Greenfield's case, the Senate race in Iowa is highly significant, and Greenfield is one of two major party candidates (i.e., her role is substantial and well documented). Cbl62 (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I think this argument would be more compelling if you were to present examples of historical failed candidates. My assumption is that most unsuccessful senatorial candidates disappear from the public eye pretty quickly unless they're notable in some other way. If Greenfield were to lose the election, what historical precedents can you point to which suggest that her candidacy would still have lasting notability? pburka (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Looking at the 2010 elections for US Senate, there are between two and four unsuccessful candidates that have articles that would not otherwise meet WP:NPOL by virtue of holding another office. Alvin Greene of South Carolina, who the first African-American to be nominated for U.S. Senate by a major party in South Carolina and was under indictment throughout most of the campaign, Joe Miller of Alaska, who defeated the incumbent Senator in the Republican primary, but lost to her as a write-in candidate in the general election, and two third-party candidates in New York, Colia Clark and Randy Credico, whose articles are largely about their other activities, rather than their Senate campaign. --Enos733 (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
While I agree it's a gray area that WP:BLP1E applies to an unsuccessful U.S. senatorial candidate, it is far more likely that WP:BIO1E would. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. Certainly one could claim that some candidacies may count as highly significant, but I would argue that would be the exception and not the rule. There are (at least) 33 Senate and 435 House races every two years. Individual races are rarely impactful except when they affect the balance of power, and even in those cases the significant element is the party name attached to the candidates and not the candidates themselves. Most races aren't well covered outside the state they are running in, and most Americans struggle to even name sitting senators of other states, let alone the unsuccessful candidates who ran against them. In my mind, the BIO1E individuals who should have their own articles are those covered in detail for at least some period of time post-event rather than just during, which is almost never the case with previously unknown failed candidates who don't go on to do something else. That's obviously impossible to determine until well after the election, which is, to my way of thinking, yet another reason to hit the pause button on an article for a candidate that may fall into that category. If we need to focus our energies on anything, let's make the election articles the best we can and then sort out the issue of an article on the losers once the dust settles and we have a clearer picture. CThomas3 (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree with most of the takes that SportingFlyer has made in their argument. Why do "low-profile state legislators" get an article and failed US Senate candidates don't? They won their seat! They actually serve as politicians. Full stop. If it were up to me, we largely wouldn't have the candidate articles we DO have. The compromise I have frequently suggested is for people to expand the candidate's biography in the article about the particular election (as Cthomas3 mentions in their comment above). The candidate articles I have dealt with on a regular basis from the US and elsewhere are nearly all candidates for WP:PROMO if anything, which makes sense if the subject is running for political office. It is not our role to be a avenue of political advertising or free web hosting for someone's campaign. If Wikipedia is the only thing holding democracy together, as some editors suggest, then democracy is in far worse shape than we think. Bkissin (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Every couple years or so, generally coinciding with the US elections, arguments over whether a candidate for political office is eligible for their own article dominate political AfDs. Generally, if a person has run for office and failed, and are not otherwise notable, their article will be deleted. However, it's getting exceptionally difficult to redirect articles about current candidates to the page of the election they're currently involved in, considering how easy it is for a candidate to be covered in the current news cycle. Furthermore, having an article on someone only notable for being an unelected candidate gives the candidate promotional credibility, and many of these articles are written promotionally. Our AfD history has shown losing candidates generally are not notable after the election they have contested has finished, further demonstrating a lack of lasting notability as required by our notability guidelines.
I propose the following addition to WP:NOT, specifically under "Wikipedia is not a newspaper".
5. A listing of political candidates. People who run for democratically elected office will typically receive news coverage about their candidacy in the current news cycle. However, most losing candidates do not have lasting notability beyond the campaign news cycle. Candidates may be covered on their election page and are only eligible for their own article if their campaign will have lasting notability or if they are notable for other reasons.
If the above is supported by the community, I also propose creating a redirect at WP:NOTCANDIDATE.
I simultaneously propose changing the guidance at WP:NPOL to read:
Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. Unelected candidates for office should generally be covered on the article about the election they are contesting, but such people can still be notable if their campaign has lasting notability or if they are notable for other reasons.
This does not mean we can never have an article on a candidate, but it should help clarify that candidates should be covered on the page of the election that they're currently contesting.
Oppose - I understand why, but I do not support limitations on the GNG. If there is significant coverage about a candidate outside the election or their positions even if the coverage is in an election news cycle, they should have an article about them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose (in its current form) - the current proposal seems to me to be malformed, in that it suggests prima facie that people who are otherwise notable but become candidates for political office are therefore no longer notable, and that repeatedly losing candidates cannot become notable because of the RS coverage of their losing campaigns. These are both cases where "cover the candidate with the campaign" fails as an ordering principle, which suggests a problem with the (proposed) principle itself. Newimpartial (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. WP:NOT is not a list of all the things that Wikipedia is not; it is only a list of things that people mistake Wikipedia for that it is, in fact, not. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Wikipedia is not not a list of political candidates, but I am saying that no reasonable person thinks that it isn't not that - we're an encyclopedia. That point is already covered under WP:IINFO - ironically, which applies here to adding this to WP:NOT. As regards the WP:NPOL change, I honestly don't see the difference between that and what's there already in its fundamentals, although perhaps I am misreading! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. If a person satisfies WP:GNG with significant (i.e., in depth) coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources, an article is appropriate. Our existing policies are adequate to address situations where candidates or their surrogates seek to create biased articles for promotional purposes. Cbl62 (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I've been troubled by the "one-size-fits-all" application of WP:NPOL in AfDs over the past couple years. For GNG purposes, there is a world of difference (and a vast gray area in the middle) between a major party candidate for U.S. Senate in a highly-populated state and an unsuccessful candidate for state legislature in Wyoming (no offense intended to the Cowboy State). GNG allows us to account for these differences on a case-by-case basis. Cbl62 (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. First, the first portion of this RfC should be taking place at WT:NOT, the talk page of the policy which it proposes to modify. That aside, I see no reason why we should refuse to have articles about losing candidates if there is sufficient reliable and independent source material to enable us to do so. Of course, that should be enough material for an article, not a permastub, but that's why we have GNG. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose in current form. There is certainly the germ of a good idea, but it's malformed here. WP:NOT seems to be the wrong place for something that is really a guideline. The NPOL addition is on the right track, but seems overly prescriptive with the "should generally". Something more along the lines of "Unelected candidates for office without other notability can often be covered fully on the article about the election they are contesting. Where a candidacy has notability beyond simply the particular election (e.g. being a demographic first, a candidacy being part of a larger social or political movement), or a candidate is otherwise notable, an independent article on that candidate may be warranted."
Reluctant oppose for two reasons. First, the change to WP:NOT has some flaws, largely because election pages often contain a list of candidates, both rumored or actual candidates. Second, the change to WP:NPOL should separate policies of local officials with unelected candidates. That said, I like the direction proposed by SportingFlyer. --Enos733 (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Both support result and procedural oppose - I don't really view this as a "NOT" issue, it either should be a general part of NPOL and/or a consideration about "ROUTINE" coverage. However, the effect is reasonably accurate, though some tailoring would probably have been worthwhile. I'd suggest closing and opening as a draft RfC. Like NORG, I don't think additional restrictions on GNG are inherently flawed. I also think the current approach is reasonable. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Indeed I would favor changing NPOL to make it clear that significant national-level or international coverage, even if solely in the context of the campaign, si sufficient for notability. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs22:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Candidates should have Wikipedia articles. It is crucial for democracy for voters to have information about the candidates. The purpose of Wikipedia is to enable the public to freely access information they need. Political candidates, especially major nominees for U.S. federal office, should be automatically considered notable. Given the fact that so many people go to Wikipedia for information, the notability criteria as applied today create a strong advantage for political incumbents. This is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.Narayansg (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose'—Existing cautions about candidates are leading to unwise deletions and this will only upgrade that Wikilawyering to a general rule. Wikipedia is also not made of paper, and hence the significance of individuals can be re-evaluated over time. IMHO, it's better for us (because it's better for our readers) to have well-developed articles about candidates during their candidacy, which if they prove to lack lasting notability, get folded back into their election articles later, than to attempt to crystal-ball out of existence articles for people who meet the general notability guideline. All of this with the proviso that non-routine/non-local coverage of candidates may be a pre-requisite to demonstrating notability.--Carwil (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Run of the mill election coverage in regional or national media is coverage and should count towards WP:GNG. Not every candidate receives WP:SIGCOV for their campaign, so if someone does, good for them, and they can have a Wikipedia article, as far as I am concerned. — Ad MelioraTalk∕Contribs19:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
The idea is right but I see numerous red flags in the approach, for one elevating notability into a policy page. This has been something we have been extremely cautious of because notability is a guideline. I want to say there's a better solution that involves the established principle that notability is about enduring coverage (already established at WP:N), as well as the more local the election the less notable we consider that (WP:AUD), but what that is I'm not sure. --Masem (t) 19:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I thought this referenced WP:N indirectly by using "lasting notability." What else would you suggest? This seemed to me to be the clearest way to settle the problem, considering that most candidates will pass GNG without actually achieving lasting notability. SportingFlyerT·C19:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it covers the "repeated loser" scenario at all, and also it seems to set a higher bar than a simple reference to the GNG, say, would achieve for candidates who meet WP:N without reference to their candidacy. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Not yet, but Nosebagear's "support result" !vote above gives a decent paraphrase of my concern, touted as a feature. I don't want to see standards set above GNG levels just because some people don't understand NOTTEMPORARY properly. I'm not even sure this is a Notability issue, to be honest: to me the rational kernel of the proposal is that people who are only notable for a single unsuccessful candidacy should probably be covered under the article for that election, for reasons similar to BLP1E. The way this proposal is worded goes at the issue in quite the opposite way IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Interviews in WP:RS/WP:IS as notability indicators
Interviews are considered primary sources, and we don't rely on primary sources for our facts. That is clear. However, there seems to be a degree of confusion when it comes to use of interviews to establish notability. It is a bit surprising that interviews have not been adequately dealt with in WP policy. My own view is that the principle of WP:OR applies to factual information, not notability. Common sense dictates that the fact that a subject has an interview published in a major WP:RS/WP:IS makes them notable (i.e. counts towards WP:SIGCOV requirement), same as a profile would. But should we take every piece of information provided in the interview as fact? Of course not! I would like to invite a discussion on this issue. — Ad MelioraTalk∕Contribs20:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Personally, although I would not rely on an interview for statements of fact except in the context of WP:ABOUTSELF, it has always seemed to me that major outlets choosing to interview someone should be at least a partial-point toward notability — they're not going to interview people who aren't of interest to the general public or current events. Except in the case of book authors, who are launched on interview circuits by their publishers and publicists; interviews of authors with new books is so routine as to be meaningless. Schazjmd(talk)21:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
It really depends on the kind of interview. Ultimately, our notability criteria are intended to be a way to assess our ability to collect enough material to write an article without resorting to original research. Thus, a Q&A interview with little-to-no independent analysis doesn't give us much to work with, even if the source is prestigious. signed, Rosguilltalk21:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Agree that interviews in notable publications should be considered a sign of notability even though they are primary sources. The secondary sources often rely on those interviews themselves without always crediting them, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
G'day, not usually my area, but I'm currently working on an article which mentions a bunch of French noblemen, so I am just wondering whether a French marquis or count (circa 1700) is likely to be notable? Is there an SNG or other guidance on this? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
What is the criteria for a person to be notable as a Youtuber. Does it imply that highest subscribing channel on a particular language is notable? And when to use "Youtube information" (or link facebook and other social medias) on {{Infobox person}}? Can anyone clarify? AdiBhai (talk) 08:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
We avoid using popularity directly as a metric, particularly with social media since that can be gamed ("Get me to a million subs so I can get a page on WP!"). Basically, the general requirements for a YouTuber fall to the generic requirements listed at WP:BASIC or the WP:GNG. --Masem (t) 15:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
@Masem: I see! Then what about Mamunul Haque using YouTube information on infobox and YouTube channel and Facebook as External Links despite being popular only as Islamic scholar? Does it not imply advertising? When should I use "Youtube and Social Media Information" modules (especially for celebritries and people who give religious sermons)? Meghmollar2017 • Talk • 06:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, links like that are typically inappropriate, per WP:ELNO. You can find when social media links for a person are appropriate to include over at that page, but yes, it should be when their importance as a Youtuber is part of their notability. --Masem (t) 15:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Request
Maybe this is the wrong place to ask for this, but could somebody link me to a well-formatted image gallery section within a biographical article of a person? I want to use it as a reference for another article I'm working on. Any help is appreciated. ~ Dissident93(talk)00:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
