The second paragraph of the lead includes "and informs decisions on whether an article about a person should be written, merged, deleted, or further developed." ---"and informs decisions" does not sit well on the tongue. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
In particular reference to India where some members to the Parliament and state legislatures are nominated rather than being elected. These hold the same status as the elected ones and have the same NPOL applicability. However, do we give the member presumed notability under NPOL if they are selected/nominated by the party/whoever and forwarded to the President/Governor for their signature to appoint them? Note that in India, the President/Governor is largely ceremonial and usually signs all the things altho they hold the authority to reject it thus the selected/nominated member ends up not being the member of legislature. (This is in reference to P. R. Ramesh) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
No, as the nomination may be still rejected. This is different to a member who was elected but has not yet been seated. Curbon7 (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
There's no hurry. If the process is just a rubber-stamp then just wait until the member is confirmed, which will happen pretty soon anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
It seems I've overlooked that this incident was from 2017 and assumed it was now. Either ways, this general question is still valid query :) Thanks to you both! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NPOL says "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.", it doesn't says that members of legislative bodies at those levels should be elected, appointed or nominated. So we can presume them notable as WP:NPOL says members are presumed notable not elected, appointed or nominated members are presumed notable. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️Let's Talk !05:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I think I jumped the gun. That page is still being discussed and edited, so it isn't stable. Perhaps another time — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
We presume notability of politicians who served as member of council at state/province level because they had federal or similar systems of government so member of autonomous district council should also be notable as they had federal or similar systems of government. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️Let's Talk !05:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
This AfD from a couple months ago found that there may be some consensus in support that members of Indian autonomous district councils are presumed notable under WP:NPOL, but I'm not sure that one instance displays a super strong definitive consensus. Curbon7 (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I remember this AfD. I also voted "Delete"
I have a question that what wikipedia mean by the term "subnational parliament"?
For any state with a federal system of government (states like the US, India, Russia, etc.), provincial politicians are presumed notable. For example, in India, members of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly pass WP:NPOL. In states with a unitary system of government (states like the UK, France, Japan), provincial politicians are not presumed notable. For example, in France, members of the Regional Council of Occitania do not automatically pass WP:NPOL. There are exceptions to the latter in the form of devolved or autonomous provinces in a unitary state (for example, Scotland, Karakalpakstan, etc.); thus, members of the Scottish Parliament pass NPOL, whereas members of the Kent County Council do not, even though they are in the same nation, because one is devolved/autonomous and the other is not. WP:NSUBPOL does a good job of compiling all of this together, including the exceptions, and is a good and well-maintained reference tool. There are still gray-areas where the consensus has not been fully determined yet; the Indian autonomous districts are one such case. Curbon7 (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I also think that WP:NSUBPOL does a good job of capturing current consensus (and areas where there may not be consensus). The question of autonomous regions has largely been unanswered in the community. And, the answer may vary nation-state to nation state (or within the state) depending on the source and type of power of the autonomous region. All of that said, I think it could be OK if we don't reach a definitive conclusion. WP:NPOL is a guideline, and ultimately, common sense should prevail. - Enos733 (talk) 07:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The above article had serious issues with BLP and promotional tone. I have taken a cut at trimming the objectionable content but would appreciate a second set of eyes on the article. Cbl62 (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
District judges don't pass WP:NPOL, so notability would rely on how strong the argument for WP:GNG is; I think the biggest hurdle would be WP:1E. A lot of coverage on newspapers.com, so don't forget to check there. Curbon7 (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
One option would be to frame the article as an event—maybe Impeachment of O. P. Carrillo. That would almost certainly be notable. I'd be inclined to say that there's enough biographical sourcing (e.g. this obituary) to get Carrillo himself over the notability threshold, but it's definitely less of a slam dunk. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Scifi convention guest of honourdom as "well-known award or honour"
Several editors at Talk:Greg Pickersgill hold that being a guest of honour at Worldcon counts as "a well-known and significant award or honor" for the purposes of notability. Given that e.g. CBE does not necessarily count as such, I was hoping for input from some uninvolved editors before potentially taking the article to AfD. Any thoughts? -Ljleppan (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
List of Worldcon Guests of Honor says While other conventions may select guests on the basis of popularity, Worldcons usually select Guests of Honor as an acknowledgement of significant lifetime contribution to the field; typically at least 25 years of activity. Selection as a Worldcon GoH is treated by authors, fans, and others in the SF field as a lifetime achievement award.Robert SilverbergwroteTo be Worldcon Guest of Honor is, I suppose, the summit of the science-fiction writer's course of accomplishment.Mike ResnickwroteIn our opinion--and it's shared by most people in the science fiction field--there is no higher honor than being named Guest of Honor at a Worldcon. The Cambridge History of Science Fiction considers it significant enough to mention in blurbs about authors. It contributes to notability, but I wouldn't say it's sufficient on its own. Schazjmd(talk)15:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Just a note that the bit from List of Worldcon Guests of Honor appears to be WP:OR. Maybe @DexDor: can fill us in on where it comes from? Also do you mean indicate or contribute to notability? Awards can only indicate the likely existence of coverage which counts towards notability, they don't actually contribute at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
What makes a family notable?
For some time I've wanted to make an article for the Niciota family. However, they appear to be of very marginal notability, or so I have judged. They were a rich family of Aromanian ethnicity based in Kruševo, now North Macedonia. They were one of the richest families in the town during the 19th century. I have access to several sources talking about them in different places (Serbia, Greece, Ottoman Empire, Iran) and due to several reasons. However, many of these actually feel anecdotal. I could add information on a member of the family having been found in Iran, which is very strange for this ethnicity and was the subject of an academic article [2] by one of the greatest authors on the Aromanians (Thede Kahl, this is said on his article), though he did not hold any relevant posts. I could also add that some members of this family were merchants in the Austrian Empire of some relevance (though definitively not enough for a standalone article for themselves), that they had a mansion in Kruševo said to be one of the best monuments in the town (I think there's some remains) and some more info about their presence in Greece and Serbia. Yiannis Boutaris, former mayor of Greece's second largest city, also appears to have origins from this family.
Still, it almost feels like much of the info available on this family is just trivia, however there is a modest amount of academic and reliable sources in several languages (not in English) discussing them. I am not sure what to do and I'd appreciate some advice, on what exactly would make a family notable here. SuperΨDro15:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
In short: when there is significant coverage of the family as a family (not just coverage of individual members) in independent reliable sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Could it be coverage of anything? And what could qualify as "significant"? I estimate some six to eight academic articles and books adding information about them, some would be the basis of the article while others would just be used for one single sentence. SuperΨDro15:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
All sources indeed talk about the family itself I think, though also obviously focusing at times on certain individuals. SuperΨDro15:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Scope of well-known and significant award or honor
Knighthoods/damehoods and such are borderline, its not a hill I would die on and there are certainly a large number of knights/dames who are not notable (the vast majority of them in fact). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I'd say no in general. Looking at some lists of people who've recently been awarded a CBE we usually have an article on the person if they're an academic or artist but we often don't if they're a military officer, civil servant, head of a business or other organisation or if it's for charity work. The lower grades of OBE and MBE can be awarded to unremarkable people for doing lots of charity work, they definitely don't count. Hut 8.517:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
It's certainly well-known, but it's only the third rank of the honor, so not clearly significant. However I would consider a CBE to contribute to notability, even if it's insufficient on its own. pburka (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
@Pburka: An award or honor can indicate the existence of coverage which contributes to notability but it can't contribute to it. You fundamentally misunderstand how notability works on wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
In practice, questions of notability at AfD come down to human judgment. We have to decide how significant coverage is and how much weight to give the sources. In cases where GNG or SNG notability might be borderline, an award like a CBE might push me towards a keep !vote. pburka (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Awards are not coverage, they have no significance in terms of notability. If it pushes you towards a keep vote based on the idea that significant coverage almost certainly exists but has not yet been found thats perfectly fine, but if it pushes you towards a keep despite a belief that all significant coverage has already been identified and doesn't push it over the bar that is not ok. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, and I'll add that I see the pushes you towards a keep despite a belief that all significant coverage has already been identified and doesn't push it over the bar rationale come out a lot when people are arguing that the mere fact a notable magazine published a straight Q&A interview (that they acknowledge does not contain sufficient secondary independent material) with someone means the interview contributes to GNG or some other notability metric. I also see it as part of the baffling argument that the meaning of a piece of coverage can be significant (and thus count toward GNG) regardless of how long and in-depth it is, e.g. an IRS source stating, in total, "[subject] is a remarkable and influential person" is "significant coverage" because it suggests the subject is significant. JoelleJay (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks people, but this isn't (yet) an AfD matter, because the person concerned doesn't have an article, but they do have some entries in the London Gazette. I just don't want to waste time making an article if it'll fail AfD at the first hurdle. Horse Eye's Back, this isn't somebody with a knighthood/damehood but a CBE, which is one grade lower. The CBE was conferred in the 2022 Birthday Honours "For Public Service." I guess that as they are still alive (as of BBC News, 29 May 2023) I need to wait until they do something more remarkable. Or at least get mentioned on more than the present three Wikipedia articles from which a link may be made. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I would say no, agreed with Hut.
But at this point I don't particularly understand what the point of ANYBIO even is. If it's intended to operate entirely separately from the SIGCOV requirements such that an article on a subject meeting ANYBIO is warranted even if we know there is no notability-demonstrating coverage in existence, then that seems rather antithetical to NOTDIRECTORY and sets us up for stubs sourced only to primary non-independent material. But if the criteria are supposed to serve as strong indicators that SIGCOV does exist (for 100% of subjects), then that should be made much clearer and such a presumption should be rebuttable. I just can't see how an award could be designated as an ANYBIO pass in the first place if we're ignoring SIGCOV; how would we demonstrate the award is well-known and significant without establishing it meets a much higher threshold than GNG? And how would an award reach that status without its coverage affording its recipients SIGCOV as well? I see ANYBIO #1 trotted out all the time for incredibly mundane achievements, like winning a one-off anonymous Google Docs poll held by a football league fan club's twitter or being inducted into a small county's Hall of Fame for running the local McDonald's real good, and yet how can those be rebutted as "not well-known or significant enough" if we can't point to lack of coverage? JoelleJay (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
For me its useful when evaluating notability for people from non-english speaking countries, if someone receives a significant award or honor that to me does in fact indicate that significant coverage is highly likely to exist in their native language even if it only passing mentions or a single case of significant coverage can be found in English. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
By coverage, if outlets around the world don't cover the award then it isn't well-known and significant. The hurdle this gets us over is the one I mentioned above, where the only real coverage in English is about them winning the award and the majority of the significant coverage is in a non-english language. Something like a Nobel Prize, a Nikkei Asia Prize, or KAIROS Prize (in descending order of significance, IMO something like KAIROS is the lowest bar). Something which isn't awarded unless there is a significant career behind it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, and that's the approach I use too, but it still treats ANYBIO #1 as a coverage predictor when the language of ANYBIO implies that the criteria are wholly separate from the SIGCOV requirements and therefore cannot be rebutted by demonstrating a comprehensive lack of coverage of the awardee. Which means for awards in internet-era Anglophone countries where SIGCOV of recipients should be accessible and where there's plenty of promotional material on the award itself (suggesting it is significant), we still can't point to "the only coverage of this person is press releases announcing they won the award" as evidence that they're not notable. This has been a recurring problem with some editors at athlete AfDs insisting winning some tournament etc. meets ANYBIO and therefore overrides the SIGCOV requirements of NSPORT/GNG (sometimes even when the tournament win in question has been deprecated from NSPORT). JoelleJay (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I think the problem with that is more people misreading "likely" as "always" than a problem with the language of ANYBIO per say. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Well if the "likely" wording is supposed to reference a likelihood of SIGCOV existing it should make that clear, otherwise under what circumstances would a subject meeting ANYBIO not pass the notability threshold? This is different from a subject being deemed notable but not warranting a page due to failing NOT or for NOPAGE reasons, since those are explicitly cited as exclusionary criteria at N. ANYBIO does not actually describe an avenue for rebutting a claim to notability-via-ANYBIO, and its language strongly suggests it is an alternative to coverage-based notability, so currently it is confusing and contradictory. JoelleJay (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Notability always references a likelihood of SIGCOV existing or their actual existence, how can you have notability without one of those? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I personally would say you can't, but some SNGs state otherwise. NPROF does not presume secondary SIGCOV at all for example (despite what the nutshell says). And if you're interpreting "SIGCOV" as "a source that has significant coverage", NBASIC dispenses with that requirement and apparently one can theoretically get by with solely trivial mentions (emph mine) trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.JoelleJay (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
The SNG can say whatever they want, none of it overrides WP:N "Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." yes it astounds some people that something can solidly pass an SNG but not be notable... Thats their problem not yours. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, a CBE very definitely meets WP:ANYBIO #1. Unlike OBEs and MBEs, they are rare. Only a couple of hundred are awarded every year in a country of nearly 70 million people. These are people who are already highly notable in their field. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Applying NACTOR to reality TV contestants
I've seen editors citing WP:NACTOR for reality TV contestants, especially winners. Why have they applied that? Is it an appropriate guideline for reality TV contestants? George Ho (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
@George Ho: NACTOR is a shortcut to the SNG for Entertainers, and doesn't actually require that the entertainer be an actor or playing a fictional character, so it looks appropriate for reality show participants (noting that the SNG is indicative and not presumptive, and that it specifies multiple shows, and not seasons or episodes). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~02:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Notability for Judge
Judge may have published court decisions where the judge's line of reasoning may be a source for applications to other court cases. The judge may have notability in the legal profession on a case that little to no media coverage.
An example could be a judge ruling on "obviousness" in patent law. An important product in everyday life could lose patent protection in a court ruling that gets large media coverage. However, the premise to the ruling could be based on the line of reasoning from a judge's decision in an earlier, "landmark" case that was not getting media coverage or even mention in Wikipedia/ Starlighsky (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
If a judge has rendered influential opinions, I would expect to see this covered in legal scholarship. BD2412T20:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks...That is exactly what I am trying to say.
Where I am going with this is that the guidelines for notability for legal professional like judges should be the notability in legal scholarship as opposed to the media notability of the a particular court case. Starlighsky (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
But notability guidelines already allow for this. Academic sources are perfectly acceptable, and, in many cases, better than newspapers. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I am trying to emphasize the importance of academic notability in the legal profession versus notability in a newspaper and so on. Starlighsky (talk) 10:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I would say that there are different aspects to this. Some judges are more notable as political figures who would be reported on in newspapers, and some are more notable as jurists who would be covered in academic publications. BD2412T21:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
That is true. My goal for bring this up is because the wording for notability here tends towards the former. However, there are decisions by judges that are published, and those decisions can affect us all with possible positive or negative results. Starlighsky (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Far from it. Remember what the underpinning of notability criteria is -- that notability criteria are shortcuts to gauge whether or not a subject can meet the GNG. A judge can be a well-respected legal scholar all he or she wants, but if the public doesn't notice, then an article on that judge cannot be sustained. If you want to demonstrate a link between articles in law journals to meeting the GNG, it's up to you to supply the evidence supporting such a claim. Ravenswing 19:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I am trying to point a line of reasoning. Legal scholarship is recognized among legal scholars. The notability, in that case, is among scholars. If it is left to public knowledge instead of scholarly knowledge of a topic, the tendency would be towards tabloid journalism Starlighsky (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Draft RfC to bring this guideline into alignment with prevailing practice for embedded lists of notable people
Although this guideline and WP:N state that notability doesn't govern the contents of articles, many editors nonetheless insist that entries in embedded list titled "Notable _" meet our notability standards. In a discussion in the Talk page for the main Notability guideline, editors were largely in agreement with this practice. So I have drafted an RfC seeking to bring these two guidelines into alignment with the prevailing practice. I welcome help with this draft and constructive criticism.
There is already an open (sub)section in the Talk page of the main notability guideline so it would probably be easiest to centralize discussion there. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I think this needs tweaking to acknowledge that for some people they are frequently cited in hundreds, even thousands of sources, but may not have an abundance of biographical sources about them. I think we should be more lenient in such cases. Martin Miller (actor) is a good example of somebody who is mentioned in a lot of sources but doesn't have an abundance of detailed sources written about him. If a person or a topic is mentioned in a lot of sources (and it's more than repeated information so you can glean together scraps for a reasonable starter article), I think it makes sense as a reference point to have an article on it, even if the coverage is sparse. ♦ Dr. Blofeld12:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from, but isn't the primary concern whether or not there is sufficient information with which to write a viable NPOV article? Large numbers of passing references could provide sufficient information, but it just dosen't seem to be an issue that quantity alone solves. - 13:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
And in such cases when there are biographical details readily available? I'm thinking specifically about political candidates who have hundreds or thousands of mentions in newspaper and TV archives, who (when they've achieved that level of coverage) frequently have multiple biographical profiles published independent of each other among those mentions. This was especially prevalent before the digitally-driven collapse of the newspaper industry (so roughly 1850-2004). No matter the level of coverage, most AfD commenters only consider the first half of this sentence: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." Anticipating a few questions: Even if you stretch the definition of 'one event' to include an entire campaign cycle, which seems like quite a stretch to me, many such candidates have more than one election with numerous mentions. Biographical profiles are often at least partially sourced to the candidate, which brings in the question of independence from the subject, but this is more a case of the candidate allowing a profile to be published, rather than the candidate causing the source to be published. Or is it simply preferable (or is it even allowed) to have a few-sentence bio blurb on the election page? E.g., rather than simply listing "Bill Smith, businessman" you might have "Bill Smith (date, city, state – date, city, state)[ref] was a coal businessman. He graduated from X university. He founded X company in city, state, and led the company from year to year.[ref] His platform emphasized X and X.[ref]" Star Garnet (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Political candidates pose unique problems - most losing candidates were not notable before their campaign, most were not notable after their campaign, and all of these only received coverage because they ran and lost in an election. You shouldn't be able to make yourself notable, and for recent candidates there are big promotional concerns. They can be best covered on their election page if we cover them at all (losing candidate for a hyper local American election for instance.) It's also good practice considering different countries have different political systems, but that is a much longer essay... SportingFlyerT·C16:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree that political candidates pose unique challenges to our fuzzy system of notability. I am working on an essay that I hope clarifies some of those challenges and makes some recommendations - largely that most unelected political candidates can be redirected to the race about the election (and those pages contain more than a single line about who is running). - Enos733 (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Many passing references do not add up to significant coverage, but there may be value in an entry for a person that is often mentioned because, for example, readers keep seeing "According to Fred Smith ....", and may want to know who Fred Smith is. Perhaps Fred Smith is the author of the voluminous Dictionary of Eminent Scientists (1867). Little else is known of him, but his book is an important source. There is value in providing what we know, given how often he is mentioned. A hatnote template on his article could note that he is not notable but the entry is provided because he is widely referenced. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
The basic criteria already states that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." If someone is cited in hundreds or thousands of citations then that guideline language provides enough flexibility to prove notability, assuming there is sufficient information to actually write the article (as Horse Eye's Back said). If there's not enough info in those citations to write the article, then no change to the notability guidelines is going to help. I'd actually say the Martin Miller (actor) article you mentioned is a perfect example of how all this is supposed to work, with that article using a large number of multiple independent sources to create a very good article about someone who meets our notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Martin Miller (actor) may be a bad example. I am interested in cases where there is not enough information to write more than a stub, but where the subject has been very widely mentioned. It may be useful to have an article that tells readers what little we know, even if the subject fails GNG. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
It may help to think of unsuccessful candidates for office as a special instance of WP:BLP1E: the coverage is not about the candidate, but about the race itself. Even one hundred instances of, "And perennial candidate Melvin Veeblefetzer came in 9th with 73 votes" are not going to make Melvin notable. --Orange Mike | Talk18:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
If, as Orangemike points out, hundreds of sources post-election parrot a single factoid, it is not possible to write a policy compliant biography. If, on the other hand, if dozens of sources independently of each other, provide brief coverage to a person over many years, covering many aspects of their career, then it may be possible to write an acceptable biography. Cullen328 (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
My point was that if the sparse coverage in sources can be compiled together to create a decent minimum start class encyclopedia article, and the coverage is far more than repeat instances as in Orange Mike's example, then I think there will be many cases where it will be worth having an article. It's just I often see AFDs where people will say it's not notable because there isn't detailed book or magazine coverage on them, yet the subject will be linked in a 1000 odd articles and will have scraps of info which can be compiled from many sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld17:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps a distinction is due between historical figures and living ones? I think that for someone like a movie star active in the 1940s we can safely say that there's almost certainly significant coverage in periodicals of the time which we simply do not have access to (and likely in languages other than English), an article can be kept with just the sources you describe if a consensus can be had that the assumption is safe to make. For living people I think we need to err on the side of privacy, if the article can not be done well it should not be done at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
If someone is mentioned a lot in passing but no RS has actually taken the effort of writing a substantial discussion about them, then that's a pretty solid indication they are not noteworthy as an individual and an NPOV article is likely not possible. If they're not attracting enough attention to have received multiple pieces of SIGCOV over a sustained period, then how can we expect there to be enough coverage of any contentious aspects of their lives to maintain neutrality? How can we know which content is encyclopedic and DUE in the context of their biography, as opposed to just being in the context of whichever unrelated circumstances they happened to be mentioned? Note that the case where we are directly conferring notability to someone where the only existing coverage of them is just "hundreds of passing mentions" is different from those hundreds of passing mentions being an indicator that SIGCOV exists and thus a presumption of notability. JoelleJay (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
How do you know that nobody has written more than a few lines about Martin Miller? Is it a guess or do you have a source for that assertion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
A source saying that "nobody has written more than a few lines about Martin Miller" is not going to exist - however, if Dr. Blofeld has done extensive research of Miller and has found nothing that's more than a few sentences on him (and I would believe so since he's the one who's written the article in the first place!), that would indicate to me that he's correct. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Of course it could, if Dr. Blofeld is basing it off of their own research the most they can say is "I can not locate..." they can't actually make an affirmative claim that it doesn't exist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to know, though, @Horse Eye's Back:, if Miller were nominated for deletion right now, would you suggest it be kept because "there could be SIGCOV sources, we just haven't found them"? I'd probably get topic-banned if I said that on a few NFL player AfDs! BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, especially give the likelihood of coverage existing in non-english language sources I would lean towards a WP:NEXIST based keep. NFL players are going have less wiggle room per NEXIST as the sources are likely to be both American and in English rendering them much easier to find. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: And what about for the numerous historical Olympian articles from foreign countries which have been AFDd recently (e.g. those from Tuvalu, Maldives, Kenya and Comoros from 70 years ago)? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
I was not involved in those AFDs, as always each case is different and consensus isn't a factor machine. Also 70 years ago is 1953 and those weren't countries in 1953, are you sure thats what happened? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
I do find it somewhat frustrating that we'd delete world champions in major sports because we can't magically get sources from the Netherlands from 1903 - or because we don't have tens of thousands of dollars to travel to Tuvalu to find the sources that are only located there - but I'm demonstrating that saying keep because "sources likely exist" is rarely an accepted argument (and I just thought it interesting coming from you, because back in January at ANI you said I was a net negative to this website for that exact reason). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
No matter what you argue consensus may be to keep or to delete, as I said before consensus isn't a factor machine... Its outcomes are not entirely predictable or logical. I don't remember saying that, mind linking me the diff? I remember you arguing that routine coverage counted towards notability which is a completely different argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
So it wasn't that exact reason, it wasn't even explicitly related to it. I will excuse the faulty memory but next time don't make it personal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
I read in the basic criteria: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability – this indicates to me that if there are enough mentions of a subject in various sources to write a decent biography, then it may be kept even if very in-depth sources are lacking. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
A similar case to Miller would be the 1920s American football player Stan Robb - I saved him from AfD back in January and was able to write a decent biography using only mentions of him, and have since had him featured at DYK and gotten his page to good article status. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Beanie's Stan Robb is another good example of what I'm talking about. Wikipedia would be worse off not having this article because it doesn't have "extensive coverage" written about him.♦ Dr. Blofeld16:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
A quick look at the sources and it seems they are mostly just mentions in local game summaries, which are almost always considered routine per NOTNEWS and NSPORT. We'd have hundreds of thousands more articles on (mostly white, male) athletes if that standard was applied consistently, especially for contemporary players and ones from the early 20th century. We'd probably have hundreds of thousands more articles on Americans in general if it was acceptable to just cobble together old-timey newspapers' hyper-local human interest stories detailing children's birthday parties and visits from relatives. That doesn't make that information encyclopedically valuable. JoelleJay (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Of course, I agree that we should have restrictions in the applications of NBASIC (i.e. not having an article on every HS athlete for which we can write a start-class+ article on) - but then we should also recognize that we should be more lenient in requirements for those of historical interest who actually had notable accomplishments (e.g. playing in the NFL). BeanieFan11 (talk)
State Legislators as a Whole
The way I read the guidance on politicians and judges, as members of legislative bodies at the state level, all state legislators in the history of the United States should ideally have Wikipedia pages. Is that right? My impression is that only a small fraction of that cohort actually does have a page. Cowboydan76 (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but of course that will require tens of thousands of collective hours of research and writing, so it is a gradual process. Besides that, there are well over a thousand statewide officials that still lack articles. Star Garnet (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I suspect you're going to see that drop off pretty darn quick once you get a little bit in the past...at the very least 1900 and prior, and then fall off a cliff once you get pre Civil War. GMGtalk19:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Not necessarily. It is the age that makes it harder to find sources (for example, few pre-CW newspapers in Florida are digitized on newspapers.com), but the coverage still usually exists. For example, I recently wrote an article on an 1830's Vermont state rep, had no issue finding plentiful sources, while this 1840's/50's Florida state rep and statewide officeholder had an entire journal article written about him. Usually is the keyword here. Curbon7 (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I think you probably have a bit of a drop off around 60 years ago but it picks up again as it gets older because you have a lot of academic coverage of, for lack of a better term, old politics. So many books have been written about state level 1700s and 1800s American politics that there is coverage for just about everyone. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
The vast majority. "This criterion ensures that our coverage of [holders of] major political offices...will be complete regardless [of whether they satisfy the primary criterion]." Basically as long as there's more info about them in RS than just their name and their term. Star Garnet (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Thats in a note, its one person's opinion and is not part of the formal guideline. Note that passing the SNG does not in any way guarantee inclusion "articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." so it wouldn't be possible for the SNG to ensure that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
That is my understanding, I don't think that the actual guideline would be allowed to conflict directly with WP:N in the way that the note does. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I've been working for years to achieve this ideal for Wisconsin. I've managed to do it for all the third party (the Progressives in Wisconsin were one of the two major parties) members of the legislature, and am going from the oldest sessions forward in an effort eventually to achieve this goal. Remember, there are lots of members of the English Parliament, the so-called "Mother of Parliaments" for whom not only is there not an article, but in some cases there is no record of who held a seat. --Orange Mike | Talk18:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Do two pieces of non-significant coverage meet BASIC?
What about one three-sentence source and one one-sentence source? Or a dozen appearances of one's name in roster lists or event results? Is something "trivial" only if it's literally a directory entry or an object of one clause in a sentence? JoelleJay (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Probably (and most likely) not, but it depends on the context and what the subject is known for. While we say that "primary sources ... do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject," the fuzzy system of notability we have means, to some degree, that we use some common sense to determine what combination of independent sourcing is necessary to keep an article. As an example, we want to see more independent, significant coverage of a League Two footballer compared with a player in the Premier League. Looking past sports, in general, there is skepticism that a stand alone article is needed if the subject would not be notable for one activity and not notable for another activity, even if there is non-trivial coverage of the subject in both activities (see WP:Articles for deletion/Ashleigh Udalovas). But, at the end of the day, our notability system works because it is fuzzy and can not be pinned down to simple yes and no statements. - Enos733 (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. This award was given by a reliable organization, the Massachusetts Humane Society, and the pilot received a well-known and significant award during the 19th century. The award is mentioned in the following links: The Humane Society of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and here, Pilots and pilot boats of Boston Harbor, as well as online newspaper accounts of the award. So, for me it falls under WP:ANYBIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award." He was recognized for numerous achievements, foremost among them his courage in rescuing the crew and saving lives. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
It is clearly not a well known and significant award. You are underestimating the gravity of the significance and notability we need by at least an order of magnitude. Again this award doesn't even appear notable enough to have a wiki page, let alone the notability of a Nobel or Tang prize. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
It may not be on the same league as an international award like the Nobel Prize, but it is significant and recognized as a Lifesaving Medal given by the Massachusetts Humane Society funded by Congress in 1848 and operated by the United States Coast Guard since 1915. These decorations are two of the oldest medals in the United States. Notable recipients were sea captains like Joshua James. Like others, James was a recipient of the gold Lifesaving Medal, awarded by the United States Government, along with four medals, a certificate, and numerous monetary awards from the Massachusetts Humane Society. Greg Henderson (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
You wanted to know whether this fell into WP:ANYBIO #1. You were told that it clearly did not. You are now arguing with the person who answered your solicitation for advice, I don't know what else I can offer you if you had your mind made up before you even asked. I hope someone else can offer you more help than I could. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Horse Eye's Back has been kind, patient, and thorough. The Massachusetts Humane Society's award award is not remotely close to qualifying for ANYBIO #1 status. It is certainly not well-known and its significance is not particularly high. There are perhaps a few hundred awards/honors that qualify for ANYBIO #1, if that. The route to demonstrating George W. Lawler's notability is through WP:BASIC. The coast guard's Lifesaving Medal is likelier to help confer notability on the event than it is on the individual, per WP:1E. Star Garnet (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate the assistance from Horse Eye's Back. I'm simply aiming to clarify the application of WP:ANYBIO for awards like the Lifesaving Medals presented by the Massachusetts Humane Society and other similar honors recognizing acts of heroism. Lawler and Joshua James serve as examples, not for a single event but for their numerous acts of heroism as lifesaving pilots. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Really? The "notable recipients" section is populated by numerous non-notable people, like Master Henry F. Page, age ten. Rescued another boy in Shenevus, New York on 8 August 1887. Please tell me how all of these people can be expected to have received sustained SIGCOV in IRS.Most awards that do have their own wikipedia articles (which does not include your Massachusetts lifesaving award) do not confer notability to recipients, even when the majority of recipients actually have received GNG coverage. ANYBIO is meant for the likes of Best Actress Oscar winners. JoelleJay (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
The Best Actress Oscar award did not exist in the 19th century. However, within the list of Notable recipients, there are several individuals who have Wikipedia articles, including Joshua James. James received the Gold Lifesaving Medal from the United States Government. It can be reasonably assumed that he meets the criteria outlined in WP:ANYBIO #1. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
By that logic every single award a notable person receives would become sufficient for ANYBIO #1, no matter how obscure or insignificant. You've also failed to address how on earth you can assume every single recipient has received SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate the two international examples you provided. However, I'm specifically looking for other examples within the United States, such as the Lifesaving Medal. Joshua James received the Gold Lifesaving Medal from the United States Government, in addition to four other medals, a certificate, and various monetary awards from the Massachusetts Humane Society. If WP:ANYBIO #1 mentions that "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor," we should determine whether the Lifesaving Medal qualifies as a well-known and significant award in the United States. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I concur with your point, although it appears you haven't directly addressed the previous query. The specific question at hand is whether the Lifesaving Medal qualifies as a significant distinction under the criteria outlined in Wikipedia's WP:ANYBIO guideline.
By the way, it's worth noting that the Massachusetts Humane Society served as the prototype for the United States Lifesaving Service, which received congressional funding in 1848. You can find more information about this at Lifesaving. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Neither the MHS or USCG awards would appear to qualify as a significant distinction under the criteria outlined in Wikipedia's WP:ANYBIO guideline, however the USCG award comes closer to meeting the standard than the MHS award does. Do you have any other questions? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
To my knowledge, the United States Coast Guard issued the Silver Lifesaving Medal, while individuals like Joshua James received the Gold Lifesaving Medal. The Massachusetts Humane Society served as the blueprint for the United States Life Saving Service, which Congress funded in 1848 and later operated under the United States Coast Guard. Hence, it can be concluded that the Lifesaving Medal aligns with the established Wikipedia standard. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Very confused, have you read and understood all of the responses to your questions here? We have a strong consensus that it does not align with the established Wikipedia standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I recommend reading the article Massachusetts Humane Society and paying attention to the passage: "The Massachusetts Humane Society became the model for the United States Life-Saving Service funded by Congress in 1848 and operated by the United States Coast Guard since 1915." Considering this information, would you agree that the USCG award aligns more closely with meeting the standard you mentioned earlier? Greg Henderson (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
@Melcous: you appear to have been involved in a discussion on this topic with Greghenderson2006 at Talk:Franklin Fowler#notability back on the 12th and 13th, they did not mention it here but it seems likely that your discussion there sparked this request so they should have pinged you when they made it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: thanks for the ping - I was notified by Graywalls on another talk page but decided to let other independent editors respond here as this is part of a much wider issue with COI/Paid editing and an essentially walled garden of local history type articles, with similar WP:IDHT conversations that have taken quite a bit of other editors time - as it seems this simple request has too. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Greg, you seem to be unable to take anything other than a very direct answer, just responding both here and on your talk page with the sort of platitudes that are indistinguishable from being AI-generated. So here is a direct answer to your original question: no. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for providing answers to my questions about the Massachusetts Humane Society (MHS) Award. I appreciate it. Takeaways are, the Nobel Prize and the Tang Prize are good examples of WP:ANYBIO #1 and that the United States Coast Guard (USCG) award comes closer to meeting the standard than the MHS award does. Greg Henderson (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Greg, takeaways are if an an article pivoting off of this award to assert notability is ruled in favor of deletion on the ground that this source fails to establish NBIO#1 based notability, similar articles relying on this kind of award are also likely to be ruled in favor of deletion. Courtesy ping to @Melcous:Graywalls (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
NPOL adjacent question...
Does the spouse of the losing Major Party nominee for President of the United States reach notability on its own? (similarly for wife of VP candidate in ticket). (for example Barry Goldwater's wife or Wendell Willkie's wife) Naraht (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Its going to depend on context, IMO the answer is some do and some don't. As a rule I would say no, most do not (especially pre-20th century). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:ARTIST #4: was this ever really intended to mean that if someone's work is listed among the millions of objects some museums have, they are automatically considered notable? We are having this discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Pocock, artist. I always thought that with "permanent collection" was meant, the works which are usually on display at a museum, not everything kept in storage. Fram (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I've been active in the visual arts, and in AfD discussions for about 10 years. I've never before heard the claim that a work has to be currently on exhibit in a notable museum to qualify, the guideline states that been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.. Most museums only show a small fraction of their collection at any given time due to spatial constraints. "Notable galleries" usually mean national galleries, and notable museums usually means Wikinotable museums (has an article). Also in prior discussions "several" collections means two or more museums, it does not matter if they are local or national, as long as they are Wikinotable. Netherzone (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
No doubt various other localities go through periodic refurbishments, such as is currently happening with Ipswich Museum which shut in 2022 and will only open at the earliest in 2025. However I don't really want to get into a discussion about the meaning of "usually" in an environment of ever shrinking budgets for public heritage organisations.Leutha (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I presume including somebody's work in a permanent collection is a deliberate choice by a professional curator and costs resources, time, money, storage space. This all means that an expert has decided that works of that individual are worthy of these resources, being included in multiple such collections means that this deliberate choice was performed multiple times by multiple experts. Relying on the consensus of multiple experts in the field seems like a very reasonable choice and I agree that relying on what is currently on exhibit would be a strange criterion and moving target as this changes consistently as a museum changes which part of its collection they exhibit. --hroest03:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Guidance on NAUTHOR
I had a question come up here about the application of WP:NAUTHOR to academic books that are edited instead of authored. In most fields I am aware of, the editor of a book (and I have seen this process from the inside) selects multiple people to contribute and usually contributes a single chapter to the book themselves, the chapter itself is generally as long as a single journal article. Therefore editing a book is very different from writing a book since editing one basically involves the conceptual work of identifying a theme but letting people express their own thoughts (usually there is very little editorial input on the text itself and the main contribution is selecting the contribution and contributing author to cover a topic in breadth and depth). Still, I would argue that the contribution for an edited volume is a bit more than a journal article but nowhere near comparable to a original book. I am therefore somewhat skeptical with regards to applying the notability rules from NAUTHOR to edited books in the same way as original works but I wanted to ask what other people think. I would argue that in the general case (with exceptions of course) editing a book should be considered a contribution similar to a journal article contribution and not on par with publishing a full length book. --hroest03:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Well, when it comes to the books you are talking about, the publisher has acted in a similar way as with an author, in effect the editor's name/niche-fame/work is important to the publishing and sales of the book, so I think I disagree, in general. (To put it another way, the publisher asks, 'will this editor draw eyes, in addition to the key framing of the subject'). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
I think in the case of that AfD the person appears to meet GNG as well as NAUTHOR (although I can't read the Chinese material). A widely quoted person in the media with published or edited books is worth having an article on. I would agree that being an editor may have lower weight than being a sole author but I don't know that we need to get into details of how to weight that. Would we then also start weighting co-authorship? There are a ton of books mentioned in Wikipedia that were co-authored. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
The problem is not with people in Wikipedia that have co-authored and edited work. The problem in my view is making a notability argument largely based on edited academic books. Generally, we dont "count" journal articles for NAUTHOR and my argument is that editing a book in academia is more like writing a journal article and less like writing a book by one-self. The resulting books are not just co-authored by 2 or 3 people but often by dozens of people where it does raise the question if they are all notable - again each persons contribution is more similar to a journal article. In the volume in question from the AfD above I counted 36 contributors and I would hesitate to count all of these as "co-authors". I think its important to see that the situation of edited academic volumes is quite unique and doesnt easily compare to books in other fields or even single author academic books. I dont really follow Alanscottwalker's argument which seems to be along the lines notability derived from the selection process of the editor in the first place, making them notable because they were selected. However, I would not put too much weight on this process to be honest and this process may be very selective or not selective at all depending on who the publisher is. I think if we look for selective criteria to presume notability, we should look for actual book awards or academic awards. --hroest18:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I think a useful comparison is to make is that of an academic journal's themed/special issue: there's an editor who invites contributions from other academics into a work with a specific theme. Those contributions are then combined into a single published work. I doubt anybody would argue that any person is notable solely by virtue of having edited two or three special issues in academic journals. Many academic books can be thought of as "long special issues". This is especially true for books in the style of "Handbook of X", which furthermore tend to summarize previous works rather than produce new knowledge (other than, perhaps, through synthesis). For books like that, I simply don't see why the editor would be somehow obviously and immediately notable.
That isn't to say, naturally, that some academic books might not be notability inducing. But that argument is much more palatable to me if it is not inherently based on the medium of work (i.e. it ignores whether editorial work that is identical in nature is published journal special issue or two vs. a book) but rather the person's contribution and its recognition by others. Ljleppan (talk) 07:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Should there be a Wikipedia:Notability (Social Media Influencers) page? Cause this is something I feel like we as Wikipedia editors can make its own discussion. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Nope, outside of what other NBIO criteria can provide (like NCREATIVE) or via the GNG. The only real metric that we could use for social media influencers would be number of followers or views, and those are extremely prone to artificial pushes. Masem (t) 20:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
That idea is almost certainly bad for a couple reasons: first, the community has turned against subject-specific notability guidelines like WP:NSOLDIER and WP:PORNSTAR and both of those had clear-cut guidance on who qualified. I have doubts you'd be able to grade social media people as easily. Second, so-called "influencers" are the LAST group of people who should ever be discussed in an encyclopedia. If those folks were noteworthy they would pass WP:GNG. There's no need for a lower bar. Finally, we already have too many condemnable fans bringing their fandoms here; we ought not invite any more. Chris Troutman (talk)04:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Totally agree, if an influencer is notable there will be significant coverage in reliable sources. There may be a discussion about what sources are appropriate (which should be held at WP:RS) but without such coverage there isnt really anything to write about --hroest14:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Like I am wondering specifically about certain youtubers like SuperMarioLogan. Cause I feel that he may be notable for Wikipedia. Are there any relaible sources out there that cover him. Cause it seems like there should be. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
If you think he is notable, then you can show this by finding in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Please read WP:RS in detail if you plan to answer this question. The easiest place to start is with Google News, I see a total of 19 mentions and most of them seem to concern an instance where he paid a large amount of money at a charity auction to have a meal with Tom Brady. However, at first glance I dont see in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. So at first glance, I would say he probably doesnt meet the notability guidelines. --hroest18:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Seems like he be just barely not notable for Wikipedia. I remember back in December 2017 his content was talked about throughout numerous different news outlets. But of course, notability on an encyclopedia is more than that. Just curious, did you ever hear of him before I asked that question above? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Just to check, the spouses of major party candidates who lost US Presidential Elections are not notable for that reason, correct? For example, Thomas Dewey the Republican who lost the US Presidential election in 1944 and 1948 is notable, but his wife Frances would not be notable for the fact that she would have been first lady if her husband had won.Naraht (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
She may well have been notable in her own right under the GNG if the coverage of her is sufficient, but I don't think any SNG presumes notability for the spouses of failed political candidates at any level. Jclemens (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
So by that logic, Margot Perot isn't notable on that basis. It does lead to the question as to whether Frances Dewey is notable for having been First Lady of New York though.Naraht (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of either case, but suspect that RS coverage of either may be sufficient to meet the GNG. My observation is that when an SNG is unclear, the next question is not "How do we clarify it?" but "What would the GNG say in this case?" Jclemens (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I would be frankly surprised if there is a losing major-party nominee whose spouse did not receive sufficient coverage to meet the GNG. BD2412T00:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that nearly a quarter of losing candidates for U.S. President later went on to become winning candidates for U.S. President, there are only 31 losing nominees who were never themselves President. Complicating this slightly is that, particularly in olden days, a lot of them had a first wife who died young, before they became their party's nominee. I'm making a list, and checking it twice. BD2412T01:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Excluding subjects for whom we already have articles (primarily because they were well-known socialites or second ladies of the U.S.), and noting that a few presidential nominees were never married, the list of presidential runners-up without articles on their spouses is as follows:
Note that all blue links on that list are other people who happen to share the name. A few of them have sufficient content in the articles on their husbands to create an article right away. BD2412T03:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
