There are sections listing criteria for politicians, athletes, entertainers, artists, but nothing geared toward measuring notability of religious leaders. The existing criteria fall short in that there are religious leaders who, by common sense, would seem notable by virtue of being the head/leader of a notable religious group, yet who would fail criteria such as "Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products". What criteria do others suggest for measuring notability of religious leaders, and do others agree with me that a section specifically addressing religious leaders is warranted? --MPerel 16:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I have proposed that the notability subguidelines be deprecated with the salient points being merged into the main notability guideline and the remaining subguidelines merged & deprecated to essay status. Please join the centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Merge proposal. Vassyana01:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Notability from Usenet
Elf Sternberg is currently up for deletion. On Usenet in the 90s, he was very well-known for his Journal Entries series, one of the largest erotica/sf series published online. However, since much of his work was online before the web, and since it's erotica, which isn't well-covered in mainstream sources, we're having trouble coming up with WP:RSs, although he's cited all over in forums and blog posts. Is it time to re-think the RS policy when it comes to people known only online?--SarekOfVulcan12:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll second that. More generally, I think there should be some weight given to extensive mentions in online sources, independent of traditional news outlets. More and more people are depending on these online sources, whether it be old-timers that relied on Usenet, newer semi-media sources such as Kuro5hin and Slashdot, large forums, or even personal blogs. "Extensive" could even be quantified: say, hundreds of separate sources, as counted by google, and tens of thousands of hits for what they're famous for. I'm sure there are problems with this suggestion, but I think there's a nugget in there that needs to be found and addressed. Pro crast in a tor21:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem is not that they are online sources, but that they are user-contributed sources and thus a different sort of notability than tho sort that relies on the screening by established authorities. It is basically add the concept of anything that people in a particular area talk much about is notable. there are obvious dangers in this approach, and we'd need some standards and safeguards--I well remember usenet, and how it was in many (most) areas wrecked by the potential in presented for outrageous and uncontrolled spamming. I think this development worth pursuing anyway, because for many areas of human activity these sort of places is where the discussion and the information is. WP should not really be tied to pre-21st century concepts. DGG (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
"Screening by established authorities" relies on the idea that if journalists don't write about notable topics, then they will go out of business, so there is a financial incentive to stay on topic. However, there are many online writers ("users") like Guy Kawasaki, Bruce Schneier, and Lawrence Lessig who do not need income from journalism to make ends meet, and what they write about is incontrovertibly notable based on their blog rankings (in the top 20 for Mr. Kawasaki, according to Technorati). It's not all about the money. Wikipedia is not written about for the money, why should wiki notability be solely based on monetary incentives? There just needs to be some wiggle room put in. Right now, there is no wiggle room, and I believe Wikipedia suffers as a result. Pro crast in a tor21:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge
Following the notability guideline merge proposal discussion, the consensus appeared to be that rather than going for a whole scale merge, that individual merges and rewrites might be more appropriate. As such the merge tags have changed, and rather than proposing that Notability (people), (pornographic actors) and (academics) be merged into Notability, it is proposed that (pornographic actors) and (academics) are merged into (people). The reasoning being that porn actors and academics are people, so one tidy set of guidelines can be drawn up to accommodate them. SilkTork *SilkyTalk23:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I support this as long as the combined page gives specific help to editors on academics (and porn actors) and does not try to get generalized statements that cover all types of people. The so-called Prof Test has been useful and it could be made more useful. --Bduke23:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how this is going to help anything. Merging WP:PROF into N:People will result in AfD suggestions based on the WP:PROF section of N:People(PROF) if the subjects fall under that rubric. Unless there's some intelligent proposal which will somehow replace WP:PROF with a simpler, or (let's dream big) better, streamlined criterion,then I just don't see any point in merging. If there's a better alternative to WP:PROF to apply to scientists, academics and educators on the horizon then lets get it done and apply it. But if there isn't, then merging does nothing. Pete.Hurd00:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
And I'm in agreement Pete.Hurd on the WP:PORNBIO front. We've spent a good deal of time hashing out the notability criteria (hell, we're still debating some of the fine points!) and I'm nervous that what Pete described happening with PROF if it's merged will happen to porn stars. As well, I'd also be concerned how a merged PORNBIO would interact with any notability criteria present for plain ol' actors. No merger please. Tabercil01:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
But why not just get rid of WP:PORNBIO, plain and simple? Why is good ol' WP:BIO not sufficient to cover this case? Again, what is it about porn actors that requires a separate guideline? And as a response to Pete Hurd's suggestion, why not work on finding a better alternative? mike4ty420:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is this specific help required? What makes academics and porn actors so special as to deserve this? If specific help is given for some things then what is to stop more guidelines from appearing? In either case WP:BIO would either become an insanely long list of all sorts of criteria, or there will be dozens and dozens of individual guidelines which will not only be hard to read and memorize but hard to maintain and will eventually become confusing enough that conflicts result. Why does one need hugely complicated Byzantine lists of guidelines for all this, anyway? I prefer a small set of clear and simple guidelines that cover all the broad, general topics encyclopedia articles fall into, which is about what we have, except for the weird anomaly of WP:PORNBIO. How is that a broad, general area so separate from the regime of WP:BIO? mike4ty420:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to be looking at specific criteria. For example Wikipedia:Notability (people) says "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." while Notability (pornographic actors) says "Performer has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards or Category:Film awards or from a major pornographic magazine, such as Penthouse, Playboy, or Playgirl, as well as their counterparts in other pornography genres." While the links to the awards are helpful, and such links could be useful in the (people) guideline, the actual porn criteria is lesser than the main people criteria. The main (people) says "received significant recognized awards", the (porn) one merely has "serious nominee for a well-known award". That can't be right, surely - allowing porn actors less notability than other people? SilkTork *SilkyTalk07:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a merge is not appropriate. Lets keep the discussions on the specialized pages separate. This has been suggested repeated, and always rejected. Remove the tag. If theres something wrong with either specialized part, then fix it.DGG (talk) 08:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd welcome links to previous discussions as that may be useful. But, as you know, discussions are allowed to run their course for various reasons. Removing the tag at this stage is not appropriate as the discussion has only just started. I'd prefer to hear logical reasons for keeping a lesser notable criteria for porn actors than any other people rather than demands to stifle debate before it has really started! SilkTork *SilkyTalk09:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
But once again, what is the point of havingWP:PORNBIO in the first place? That is what needs to be discussed, since that runs to the heart of the matter: why porn actors should be considered special enough to have their own guideline apart from the already existing notability of people (ie. "WP:BIO") guideline. mike4ty420:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
At the time, WP:BIO was extremely and horribly unspecific as to who is a "notable person" from Wikipedia's point of view. It was very much slanted against performers and thus the PORNBIO guideline was born. However, the WP:BIO guideline has matured since then... still, there are a few drawbacks to WP:BIO that make me leery of merging the two guidelines together. Mainly, the lack of "invalid criteria" which explicitly states what criteria should not be used to determine notability. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Think out loud21:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge. I think notability standards should be more consistent across Wikipedia. I had to give this a couple of days thought, because I think that some great work has been done by the folks working on WP:PORNBIO in establishing better guidelines; however, I'm not seeing much in the way of results as far as the actual bios go. Even the name of the category, "porn star," seems to award a specialness to individuals in this industry that isn't given to others. Not every actor on TV, stage, or in the movies is a star, but every porn actor is a "star". It creates the appearance that there is a bias in favor of porn actors, as does what seems to me to be a much less rigorous notability standard for them than for others. -Jmh12300:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Is it really less rigorous? It seems to me to be in some ways more rigorous. E.g., WP:PORNBIO specifically states that having a movie named after you or headlining in large numbers of films isn't good enough (and explains why they aren't enough), while for other types of actors that might be considered a sufficient sign of notability. —David Eppstein00:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, "porn star" is a bloated term, but is common slang to refer to people who are pornography actors. Since Wikipedia tends to go with what things are commonly referred to as, "porn star" stuck... I would venture to say that even mainstream television and movie personalities are given the title of "star" far more loosely than would have been the case a mere decade ago. Semantics aside, I don't really see how that's pertinent to the notability discussions; that's a "manual of style" choice. Or am I somehow sadly mistaken?
As for the rigorous nature of the guidelines, it's been my experience that people have feelings on both sides of the issue: some say it's not strict enough, others say it's too strict.
In reply to the comments and insinuations that WP:PORNBIO isn't necessary... it's necessary because articles on porn have been targeted by religious groups and people peddling an "anti-porn" agenda. The same can be said for the "pro-porn" people, where they want to crap-flood Wikipedia with porn articles on every conceivable actor and actress who has ever been in a pornography production. PORNBIO addresses a few key areas that, sadly, BIO doesn't. First, BIO (at present) doesn't really give any invalid criteria; it merely lists what is acceptable. PORNBIO does and explains the methods the adult film industry uses to enhance the visibility of its performers. I see no such thing on BIO. And I'm not merely talking for the porn performers, but for the "mainstream" performers as well. I see many non-notable actors have entires on Wikipedia, despite BIO's guidelines that would support their removal from Wikipedia.
Having said that, I can see WP:PORNBIO merged into the guidelines, if done correctly and if consensus supports it. Otherwise, it'll simply respawn and you'd be facing recursion of this issue ad nauseum. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Think out loud01:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You make some good points. I should make it clear that I would not want to see what is useful in PORNBIO lost in a merger. From my point of view it may be necessary to have certain things stated should the merger occur, because of the pro-porn contingent and the methods of enhancing visibility you describe, unless the common criteria are sufficiently clear as to eliminate playing the system. When I'm weighing these issues of notability in my own mind, I tend to move across categories, such as PORNBIO vs PROF vs artist for example, and my hope would be that a merger would encourage neutral criteria that don't favor one profession over another. -Jmh12301:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I support both mergers. I think that the best of both of those guidelines was incorporated here a few month bakc. There is no reason for having extra guidelines without a purpose. --Kevin Murray01:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This is something that I see as problematic, since a list of things which are not notable is virtually inexhaustible. If we say what is notable, then by default everything else is non-notable. What could be more simple? --Kevin Murray08:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
In a perfect world, that might be true... However, when faced with reality, I'm afraid that's not going to be enough to simply state that "by default everything else [not listed as notable] is non-notable". We need strong examples of what isn't notable, because not all contributors have the same ways of looking at things. It might be problematic, but I believe it might be worth it just to have a section that says "this is not notable, and here are the reasons why". -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Think out loud17:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose merger. PROF criteria spells out clearly what an academic needs to have done to be notable, and is extremely helpful. If merged, the criteria will be vague, or the talk page will be extremely long. Neither is satisfactory. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Notability (people) V Notability (pornographic actors) criteria
People:
A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
The person has been the subject of published[1]secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.[2]
If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability.
Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[3]
Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content.
The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography.
The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.
The person has demonstrable wide name recognition
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products
....
Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:
With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc.
See WP:PORNBIO for guidelines on erotic entertainers
Pornographic actors:
An erotic actor or actress generally meets this condition if they meet any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources:
Is the performer noted for beginning a trend in pornography?
Did the performer star in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature?
Performer has been the participant in a significant event or controversy reported by credible news media.
Performer has been featured multiple times in mainstream media.
Comment:
In both cases the guideline is that a person is notable is they meet "any of the following standards" / "any one of the following conditions". People then adds: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." That sentence underlines that these are guidelines not policies, and the information contained is there to help inform decisions based on previous discussions and general consensus. But it allows for consensus to change, and it allows for people to put forward good arguments, which may then be used to adjust the guidelines. That belief is present in PornBio in the sentence found later in the page: "Being a guideline, this is not an absolute policy, and exceptions should be recognized in individual discussions." So far both guidelines are saying the same thing, though using different words, and placing them in different locations. If a merge went ahead, agreement would need to be reached as to the preferable wording, and location of such wording.
People has a set of standard criteria that appears before the specific sections for politicans, entertainers, etc. PornBio does not repeat these criteria, though it does say "While the notability guideline for people has general criteria, this subset focuses on criteria most suitable to performers in this field." However, I'm not sure how much this statement is saying that the general (people) criteria also applies to porn stars. It would be to the advantage of porn stars to have this standard criteria. Criteria such as "The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography," are as valid for porn stars as any other person. A merge would bring porn stars more clearly under the umbrella of the general criteria. If a merge does not take place, then a rewrite of PornBio to make clear the inclusion of that general set of criteria might be in order.
People has the statement "significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions", while PornBio has "unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre" with the sub-sections "noted for beginning a trend in pornography" and "star in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature". How much difference is there between these criteria? People uses the word "notable", while PornBio has "specific". The second PornBio subsection does say "iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster", though "notable" could replace that phrase. "Noted for beginning a trend" would be "significant". Taken with the subsections, and reworded to be more explicit the statements are saying the same thing. However, the PornBio statement can be read without the subsections, and could present a lesser criteria with merely a "specific" video rather than a "notable" one.
I find the "serious nominee" for a well-known award criteria to be ridiculous with respect to pornography awards. The AVN Awards, considered the Oscars of Porn, is a complete joke in the abundance of nominations it dispenses. If you look at the 2008 nominees, there are over 50 categories with an average of 10 nominations for each year. That's at least 500 nominations and many nominations are group awards involving several people. That's just only for 2008! How do we discern a serious 'notable' nominee from a non-notable nominee? The argument that the idea that the nominees are all notable to be included in wikipedia is incredible. I think the only serious nominee is the winner. I think the criteria should be amended to include only winners of 'reputable' adult industry awards. Vinh1313 (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with AnonEMouse and Vinh1313. Winners only. When you think about it, how does pornography acting (for women) differ from prostitution? I'll won't get on the soapbox, but the fewer of these in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia, the better. Student7 (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Also tend to agree that the generalized standards for biography should be applied to porn stars as well. It should be noted that this is very much a niche market, and that I don't see a reason for including bios based on "trends". Articles on those trends, if they are significant, would make sense, but not necessarily bios of people involved in those trends. The only question I have to not including nominees is whether nominated individuals tend to be included in reliable secondary sources. The basic question there is probably whether magazines related to porn films which are likely to feature such nominees to a degree qualify as reliable secondary soureces, and I personally don't know the answer there. If we could clarify whether these magazines do qualify as reliable, secondary sources or not, then I think that the question of including nominees or winners would be moot. However, in general, I would say that nominees for any niche award should not be necessarily automatically given notability. If they are featured in Reliable secondary sources, that would be enough, but "one-hit wonders" appear in all industries, and aren't necessarily notable on the basis of a single action. John Carter (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
This should have been started as a new entry. This was a merger discussion that died over a month ago, and is really hard to find. Moving it down below to a new cat. Horrorshowj (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment How is it that Prof. Alfaro's advisor, Zohar Manna is so notable? Why are the people at WP:WWA or so many other categories such as Imposters, Criminals and Vandals so notable? I mean, at least Alfaro, like his advisor, is going to leave behind an intellectual and scholarly legacy for posterity, even if he got hit by a bus and killed tomorrow. See Brad Patrick talk (referenced above) for what I mean by the "bus story". Why not have an organized view into Alfaro's life? What is wrong with being inclusionist in the areas such as Category:Academics_by_subject, Category:Researchers and Category:Writers and perhaps even Category:Educators? At least those people by their studiousness and hard work are creating something that is potentially worth remembering and leading lives well-lived. At least they deeply understand and further expand that "knowledge" that we all implicitly is refered to when we refer to the knowledge that high-quality encyclopedias are typically filled with. Why are these people excluded? Because their lives lack hype and glamor? Because they are not celebrities? Because what they are doing is harder to understand than say, what cartoon characters do on TV (which Wikipedia extensively documents)? Is this deletionist attitude towards the creators and expanders of mankind's authentic intellectual legacy to the next generation a sound basis for the "educational" non-profit tax status the Foundation enjoys?--Mightyms23:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
And back to the point of this talk page: I do not think a merger is appropriate. Notable porno actor are a special case of an intellectual dead end because, like most criminals, they are, as a group, dumb. At least studying the biographies of academia might lead one to further fields of knowledge-rich study. For a non-Wikipedia example, see MacTutor History of Mathematics archive. These biographies implicitly lead one to study the mathematical concepts that they otherwise might find too dull to pursue. We should eventually take pedigological considerations into account when formulating our policies. We should be leading our readers to further knowledgeas well as to further masturbation. The former task requires more wisdom on our part than the latter. I mean, where is a hooker going to lead you? To the library or to the saloon? Again, many people who notable for their intellectual accomplishments represents ideas. OK, maybe not chess players or prodigious mental calculators, but people who created new knowledge represent that idea. They can also be a rich index into those concepts. Any person of average intelligence and curiosity wants to better understand how Einstein, Edison and Mozart came to their greatest accomplishments. We should remember the intellectually creative person and, the whole life in its major features. Who does not feel that they understand Jimmy Wales better once they see his W bio and see the details of his whole life? It is analogous to striving to include whole-grain foods in one's diet: biographies of the knowledge creators is better and richer pathway that leads to a deeper understand of "what happened" during the creative process.
I am an inclusionist. I do not really care if there are 10 or 100 times as many porn star bios as academic bios at Wikipedia. I am an adult and I can just ignore the porno stars. If the sexual maniacs get their rocks off on the porno, well... I cannot stop that. After all, there are those who claim that The internet is for porn. Are we just paying lip service to the notion that Wikipedia is about "education" (and not just sex eduation)? I just want a many more academic biographies simply because it is better pedagogy and leads to better education and greater acquisition of knowledge on the part of our readers.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John M. Culkin should also be kept because he studied and wrote about mass media and its effect on viewers, especially children. As Marshall Brain has advocated: Shoot your TV. Or at least try TV-B-Gone. I mean, when was the last time you went to library that had a TV on? When was the last time you went to a saloon that did not have a TV on? (OK, there are a few of the latter, but not many.) And while you might have a lively and socially satisfying discussion at a saloon, you might find upon reflection that while such a discussion was pleasant and thought-provoking, it might have amounted to little more than a bull session, while I assert that at a library, if you are an avid and effective reader of non-fiction, you are more likely to learn a useful fact that you did not previously know.--Mightyms15:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Forums and blogs? Absolutely not. We never use them for sources, except if they're run by the person themselves, in which case they certainly won't prove notability. Where did that come from? --AnonEMouse(squeak)16:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Other than that, I think there is something to be said for not making this page overly long with specific subject area criteria. Few porn stars are eligible for the Nobel Prize, and few physicists for the AVN Best New Starlet award. --AnonEMouse(squeak)16:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
With respect, Silk, you made a large sweeping edit, most of which I disagreed with. Not just a little, most of it. You reverted back, demanding that I make specific edits in your edit summary, but didn't discuss on this talk page. That's not what Wikipedia: Bold, revert, discuss is about. --AnonEMouse(squeak)18:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
But what the heck. Specific points:
You copied and pasted in a big chunk of Wikipedia:Notability. That's redundant, and will lead to confusion should either of these guidelines change. It's best to incorporate that by reference. Also the "worthy of notice" linie is a self-referential tautology, since this whole page is attempting to define that concept.
Basic criteria all points must be covered - strong assertion without consensus
If the subject is living, the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy must be followed. True, but irrelevant. You may as well write that every other Wikipedia policy such as NPOV must also be followed, this page is about notability. If WP:BLP is not followed, the page may be deleted for reasons that have nothing to do with notability.
how do you match "all points must be covered" with the points that use the word "may"? Self-contradiction there, either that point "may" be covered or it "must" be.
Widespread and sustained coverage in the media such as The BBC, The Times or other Newspaper of record - don't give examples of solely British media. Don't use the term Newspaper of record. In fact, don't give examples, since there is no requirement that only certain media outlets suffice for notability, it is usually considered that indepth coverage in any multiple unrelated Wikipedia:Reliable sources are sufficient. Also "sustained" is a highly debatable requirement; how much has been printed lately about Sirhan Sirhan, for example? A sufficiently widespread and indepth coverage for a sufficient time usually suffices, it doesn't have to be sustained indefinitely.
I have changed The Times for The New York Times (I had intended to use the NYT from the start, but typed The Times instead!), and changed the wording from "sustained" to "sufficient time" in line with your suggestion. I still feel that examples of the sort of media we feel are reliable is appropriate for a guideline. I would go further and suggest we could also have examples of the sorts of media that are NOT reliable. Concrete examples tend to be used in legal documents, often with some phrase such as "including but not limited to". SilkTork *SilkyTalk14:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Widespread and sustained coverage on the internet, resulting in demonstrable wide name recognition on several significant internet forums and blogs - no, no, and no. "The internet" is completely inapplicable, see Google bombing. Forums and blogs are usually considered unreliable. See previous point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonEMouse (talk • contribs) 19:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm giving up now because the diff is so huge it looks like you rewrote the whole thing, and it's impossible to see just what your changes are. I think I've cited enough blatant problems that it's justified to revert your whole change. If you want to make individual changes, please, make them individually small enough to be considered individually. --AnonEMouse(squeak)19:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The forums and blogs was one of just a few "interpretations" I admit I made. The interpretation came from the previous statement "The person has demonstrable wide name recognition." As this is in addition to the already stated notable sources, etc, I assumed that it meant something other than the normal reliable sources. I have noticed in Afd debates that people have sometimes used that statement and backed it up with reference to internet forums. What does "The person has demonstrable wide name recognition." actually mean? SilkTork *SilkyTalk19:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
"demonstrable name recognition" has nothing to do with the Internet. You can demonstrate it by citing books, newspapers, television, radio... or yes, Internet sites, but not forums and blogs, reliable sites. Not notable sites, reliable ones - many very notable sources are not at all reliable, for example the Weekly World News is very notable, but not at all reliable. --AnonEMouse(squeak)16:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
"worthy of notice" came from Wikipedia:Notability - if it doesn't fit here, then it doesn't fit there either. I copied in the lead section from Notability as it wasn't long, and seemed to sum up quite quickly the essential points. When a sub article is broken out from a parent there will be some repetition of material in order to give a context. The Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is worth stressing as it does over-ride the guideline and must be looked at before any other consideration on any Bio guideline page. It's not irrelevant - I was intending the page to be a useful guide with references to related material. And it's there in the previous version: "if the subject is living, we must follow the policy at our policy for biographies of living people." SilkTork *SilkyTalk19:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Another Approach
I agree that Silk tried to do too much at one time. However I do support the inclusion of a Porn Actor section here. The following is the crux of the current guideline:
That pretty much works, but what about the non-criteria section (e.g., G-counts)? I've long said that PORNBIO is perhaps more useful in terms of what cannot be used as valid measuring sticks for notability. Tabercil15:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, wrote before I saw the "Non valid general criteria" section. I'd want a little time to fully digest what's been put here but offhand I think the rewritten WP:BIO works. Tabercil15:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been racking my brains trying to find a good reason why WP:BLP1E was originally included in WP:BLP instead of here, and I've reached the conclusion that it was put there simply because it was thought of at the same time. WP:BLP is a content policy, where as BLP1E is an inclusion guideline, so it doesn't really belong inside BLP in any case. I also cannot find a good reason why BLP1E should only apply to living people. BLP1E makes a lot of sense, but it seems to me that it should be applied to all biographies, not just those of living people. I therefore propose that BLP1E be merged into BIO as a section called "Articles about people notable only for one event", and with a shortcut titled WP:BIO1E. —gorgan_almighty13:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't sure when I saw the tag, because WP:BLP is policy so has more weight than a guideline. However, I see your point that it is about what qualifies to be included, and that it could be expanded to included all people, not just living. Makes sense. SilkTork *SilkyTalk13:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed in principle. The notion that articles of people who enjoy flash-in-a-pan celebrity or interest from a current news story shouldn't have their own articles is a notability point, not in most cases an avoidance of insulting the living. However, BLP is in part a compendium of the "best of" policies and guidelines from elsewhere, with the added stamp of approval of making it a policy. It's worthwhile making the point forcefully in BLP, a bulwark that prevents the creation of a lot of useless articles. Both here and in BLP we have to be careful not to ban them outright; some people attain lasting notability from a single event, e.g. Sirhan Sirhan. Wikidemo14:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the wording needs to be looked at. Currently there is this sentence: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted," which implies that articles on people like Sirhan Sirhan are unwelcome. On the current version of Bio we have "Widespread and sustained coverage in the media such as the BBC, The Times or other newspapers of record." (though there is some dispute about this wording and "Widespread and in depth coverage for a sufficient time in the media such as the BBC, The New York Times or other newspapers of record." has been proposed.) The previous (undisputed) version of Bio had "The person has demonstrable wide name recognition". In all cases the Bio criteria is less than the BLP1E. Bringing in BLP1E to cover both living and dead would, in the current wording, make people who are notable for only one event - Edmund Hillary, Tenzing Norgay, Robert Peary, Mark David Chapman, Nick Leeson, etc - questionable. There is no actual criteria in BLP1E - it appears mainly a frowning about the idea without being helpful as to when a person can or can't be included. If a person is notable and has the appropriate sources, that the notability has come from multiple or singular events probably isn't that relevant. I think the guidance would need to be more specific and more helpful. Something like WP:PRODUCT, where the advice would be to deal with the person(s) within the event, such as Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann#Family, unless (or until) the material becomes too bulky, in which case it can be broken out in summary style. SilkTork *SilkyTalk18:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I think BLP1E is already quite specific and well-written, the idea of dealing with the person(s) within the event being implied, and obvious enough to not need implicitly stating. But if you think the wording needs fixing, then that's true no matter where BLP1E resides. As for the individuals you mention: Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay are notable because of their celebrity status (there are many reliable sources that cover their life history outside of the context of the event). Robert Peary as a person is more notable than the alleged event, especially since the accuracy of the alleged event is doubtful. Mark David Chapman is questionably notable because there are many reliable sources that cover his life history outside of the context of the event. Nick Leeson is only notable because we don't seem to have an article about the event itself (the event being dealt with within the biography). Of course if you want to scrape around looking for borderline BLP1E articles, you can do that with articles on living people as well as dead people. So it's hardly a good reason to say that we mustn't apply it to dead people. —gorgan_almighty08:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Too much too fast
I think that we are trying to do too much too fast. We tried to tackle a standardization of the general criterion across all of the notability pages a few months back and the whole thing just blew up. Mainly my fault for trying to do too much at once. I am afraid that bringing in BLP issues will exponentially complicate, since that by itself has been a bit of a thorny issue. Please take some baby steps while we try to bring all notability guidelines regarding people together. Let that happen and stabilize, please! --Kevin Murray22:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The standardization seems to be fairly complete now, so can we revive this proposal again? Nothing has changed in terms of the need for this proposal, and if we revive it now we wouldn't exactly be doing "too much too fast" any more. —gorgan_almighty13:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Diplomats
Are they treated as politicians for notability issues (which would make them notable)? I could not by myself decide whether Doğan Türkmen was notable enough to be on Wikipedia. He is a former Turkish diplomat who survived an attack of JCAG, an Armenian militant/terrorist org. People are suggesting a redirect to JCAG (possibly for something like WP:BLP1E), but I don't see the merits of it (would kinda understand if he was an operative of JCAG. As a wiki reader, I wouldn't expect to see JCAG, when I type in his name). Google scholar search returns three results. Probably all info on him on the web covers the attack, and most of them include him only for the attack. Please leave your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doğan Türkmen. He was an ambassador. Also currently we don't have an article for the attack. Thanks. DenizTC04:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
At least one editor is now treating as fact his interpretation of "has held international office" as including all ambassadors. I think that language is meant to cover officials of the United Nations, League of Nations, etc. Anyone else care to comment? --Orange Mike | Talk14:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I've recently nominated two Zimbabwe-related ambasssador articles for deletion on the basis that they are not notable in and of themselves and the position is not included in WP:BIO. I think the fact that there are thousands and thousands of ambassadors at any time, let alone throughout history, argues against treating them as automatically notable. One guy (Charles_John_Hodgson) has apparently only been an ambassador for a few weeks. AvruchTalk16:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
In my view diplomats are, prima facie, as notable as most elected national politicians, and I think that the "international office" phrase should be read to include them. The nature of their job makes for less media coverage, and hence less on google (unlike elected politicians they tend to try to keep out of the newspapers and off TV unless there's something really spectacular going on), and ultimately less in the history books (except the dry-as-dust speciality of diplomatic history, of course), but their impact on world affairs can easily be as large as an elected politician not of cabinet rank. Clearly, some ambassadors may be genuinely non-notable, but the initial assumption should be of notability. --Paularblaster13:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
No, per your own comments. Notability means not "are they important" (they are), but "have they been noted" (by reliable independent sources), which they often have not been. As with nearly everyone, initial assumption should be "not notable". Fram14:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree entirely with the principle, but your application of it is perverse. If the only question were whether they have been noted by reliable independent stories then it's a non-question. All diplomats can be verified as diplomats from reliable independent sources. The problem is that this apparently doesn't satisfy some editors as establishing notability. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
If this discussion doesn't proceed in a manner that conflicts with the current consensus against automatic notability for diplomats, the policy should be edited appropriately. AvruchTalk19:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any such consensus. The consensus is that diplomats should not be assumed to be notable unless there are reliable independent sources on them. On that basis very few diplomats are not notable (just don't expect the same number of google hits as even a failed candidate in an election would get). --Paularblaster (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Ambassadors
A distinction needs to be drawn between Ambassadors and other lowlier grades of diplomat.
Typically an ambassador will be the plenipotentiary for his state and, for the last century or so, it would be very rare to come across an ambassadorial appointment that has not been noted in more than one reliable, independent source. The default position for Ambassadors (as opposed to their underlings) should be a rebuttable presumption that there are sources out there to be found (not necessarily online, but in court circulars, official gazettes and the like) that will mean it is almost inevitable Ambassadors will pass both WP:V and WP:N.
It would be bizarre indeed to maintain guidelines that give a presumption in favour of (often ephemeral) elected sub-national politicians such as a former Iowa state legislator but deny that presumption to the official representatives of entire nations. Why should an accredited national representative of the largest country on earth, recognised in international law as such - but perhaps deliberately pursuing a low profile as a matter of national diplomatic strategy - be regarded as less worthy of a presumption of notability as the first starlet to have sex with a Chihuahua ?
There is also the argument for the efficacious use of Wikipedians time: arguments like this could be better spent researching sources and fleshing out biographical details.
Finally, none of this should be taken to imply that we should be creating one sentence articles such as this one, where the biographical details are simply too slender (and likely to remain anorexic unless the instigators of articles learn to spell the subject's name correctly) to justify an individual article - as opposed to a mention in some list of, for example, the "Ambassadors of Rwanda" Alice✉ 02:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Coupled with the fact that there have been no adverse comments in this sub-section, I propose to substantially cancel (I shall take into account comments elsewhere) this revert shortly. Alice✉ 04:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Addendum:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergey Kryukov may also be relevant; although the arguments did not seem to be expanded or developed there, the Afd itself may be an indication of the efficacy of avoiding Wikipedians' precious time on (pointless?) Afd's when some codified guidance here might be helpful... Alice✉ 21:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
And quite right too - I can see no consensus for considering ambassadors non-notable. The very idea is an example of wikipedia's systemic bias to whatever gets hits on google. Per WP:5 we should be including material that has it place in "general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs", and so should (at the very least in list form, but preferably as articles) include anything that would be found in the Repertorium der diplomatischen Vertreter aller Länder , or the pre-1987 Commonwealth Yearbook, or even Russian Diplomatic and Consular Officials in East Asia. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Adding: in fact, it turns out there was a discussion just a week or so before I registered here in which there are several clear statements that consensus at AfD is that heads of mission are to be treated as inherently notable. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I was beginning to think this was a conversation with myself (and I have not amended the guidelines according to my statement above since I was loath to take silence for acquiescence) so your comments are very welcome, Paul.
I was also very interested to see the comments of respected admin David Goodman (User:DGG): "Keep Ambassadors have consistently been regarded as notable here. That there is additional news coverage is another plus, but he would be worth an article regardless, even if it were a stub... I can not find an AfD in the last year that closed otherwise." which would seem to make my point about efficacy.
Dhartung's comments also added an interesting wrinkle: "Keep as sources indicate he was a full ambassador. It has never been part of a guideline or even WP:OUTCOMES but generally ambassadors and chiefs of mission (e.g. from the U.S. Liaison Office to China and ranking charge d'affaires have been kept. Mindful also of WP:CSB."
I wouldnt want to extend it much beyond ambassadors or other permanent chiefs of mission.. Temporary chargés are i think another matter, unless they happen to get involved in something really important. I need to say that since I wrote that comment, I think one article on an ambassador failed afd, mainly for lack of sufficient attention. Nonetheless, i wouldn't go wholesale into adding pages on everyone who we could find, but start with ones who come up in the news. DGG (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll concede that the consensus appears at the moment to favor notability for ambassadors. I'm not sure this is the right conclusion, but nevertheless it appears to have more support than the alternative. The wording of the guideline should be rewritten to include notability for ambassadors but exclude automatic notability for other diplomats. Avruchtalk21:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your gracious and timely concession. I'll propose the text of an amendment here shortly that makes clear that the rebuttable presumption is limited to Ambassadors and other permanent chiefs of mission, but excludes other diplomats (and, for the avoidance of doubt, chargés d’affaires ad interim). Alice✉ 21:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Following on from the discussion above, I now propose to
create a fourth level sub-section heading of "Ambassadors" subservient to the existing third level section title of "Diplomats"
place this text in the newly created sub-section: "There is a rebuttable presumption that Ambassadors and other permanent chiefs of mission (but excluding other diplomats and, for the avoidance of doubt, chargés d’affaires ad interim) are notable. However, many career diplomats strive to maintain a relatively low profile and this may mean fewer reports than might otherwise be expected for international officials of similar seniority."
delete the obsolete bulleted point "Simply being an ambassador does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons aside from his/her diplomatic career."
He's notable due to those newspaper articles, but you have to get those references into his article. Just a stats page doesn't say much, you need some writer to have written text that says "Smith is the #1".
I don't see any requirement that sources have to be geographically dispersed. It is, of course, nice if they are, but I don't know that it's required. They just have to be unrelated reliable sources, and a TV station and 2 newspapers usually are. --AnonEMouse(squeak)21:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
"Demonstrable wide name recognition from reliable sources."
I'm still not quite sure what this means. Who is recognising the name? I assumed the thought behind this statement was to cover the situation where there wasn't a reliable source established because the person in question had achieved a high level of recognition through alternative sources such as the internet. If we are to bring in the standard "reliable sources" to qualify it, then do we still need the statement? This ("The person must have been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.") already covers the notion of reliable sources. Either we need to be explicit about the situation of someone achieving notability not recognised by the normal sources, or take out the statement as being redundant. SilkTork *SilkyTalk16:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, say, Long Dong Silver. He's a person (sort of), and we have (some) actual information about him, his career, etc., but he hasn't been the subject of reliable sources per se; he was, however, national news during the Clarence_Thomas#Anita_Hill_controversy. (When Time magazine says someone is a household name, they're notable.[4]) Or whitehouse.com, which, again, reliable sources mentioned in very many places but not in depth - it's not a person, but you get the idea. It's not a common criterion, it's basically for the cases where the person is turned into a meme. In most cases like that, reliable sources think "I keep hearing this person's name about, that would make a good story", quickly research the person and write about them, so they end up meeting other criteria, but in a few cases they don't. --AnonEMouse(squeak)17:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. I think I'm getting there. But in the example you use, this Long Dong Silver has some kind of fame, or - as the statement says "wide name recognition" - but is "wide name recognition" the same as "worthy of notice"? The lead to WP:N, which is currently the lead to WP:BIO, says: The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity".Kate McCann has a global "wide name recognition" well supported by reliable sources, but is dealt with quite adequately within the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann article. I felt during the Afd debate that there could be a standalone article on Kate, but I understood the reasoning that people were using to merge with the main article. It has been suggested above that WP:BLP1E be included in Bio, and there's an element of the thinking behind WP:BLP1E that would suggest that using "wide name recognition" based on a single event as justification for a standalone article is not quite enough. I'm not quite clear on the thinking here, as it appears that "wide name recognition" could be a get out of jail free card, even with the "reliable sources" qualification. SilkTork *SilkyTalk20:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Time magazine has written that Kate McCann is a household name. Madeline McCann may be, but she does have her own article. --AnonEMouse(squeak)20:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a guideline not an article
Consensus has to be established before making major changes to a guideline. I'm a little dubious of the claim to consensus for the WP:PORNBIO merge, but not enough to contest it. Massive revision of other categories was never discussed, so it's impossible to claim a consensus exists for those changes. The entertainer one in particular changes the status of a lot of articles. The only time most people read WP:BIO is in regards to AfD, and they assume it's consensus when they read it. So it's especially important that notability guidelines not be changed without consensus.
Changing that eligibility back to where is should have been last time consensus can be claimed. Let's discuss the changes from standards from this point on, please. Horrorshowj02:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Understandable, SilkTork seems to have plowed ahead and done massive changes without achieving the needed consensus. In order to raise awareness to changes, may I be so bold as to recommend that discussion be promoted through the usual venues, such as the Village Pump? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Think out loud02:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Definitely a good idea when we have something for them to look at. Do the editors supporting making changes want to write up the bullets for discussion, or should I do it? Horrorshowj20:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I assume you are referring to the standardization of the notability guidelines, so that they all meet the minimum inclusion criteria of WP:N? If so, then you should note that discussion has been on-going on this issue for a long time, both on here and on Wikipedia talk:Notability (look through the archives to get the full discussion). The changes that SilkTork has made are the result of fairly wide consensus arising from those discussions. The issue has been brought up several times on the village pump, and the readers there have been directed to the discussions ongoing on the afore mentioned talk pages. In short, the changes were adequately discussed and consensus achieved before any changes were implemented. —gorgan_almighty13:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Where are these consensus building discussions exactly? The only discussion I'm finding on Wikipedia talk:Notability in the last 3 months about this change is after the merge everything to WP:N fell through last2 weeks ago. I didn't see that proposal listed on the pump, so it looks to be flying under the radar. There were 3 supporters, 2 of whom where the ones pushing the original merger in the first place. That's neither long-term discussion nor a "fairly wide consenus". In short, your argument appears lacking in factual basis Horrorshowj20:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I somewhat agree with points made by both Gorgan and Joe. I think that things moved a bit quickly recently, but unless someone is bold from time to time, the project stagnates. The evolution of the notability sub-guidelines has been inconsistent and resulted in confusion. At this point I support the changes made by Silk, but would suggest that we take a breather and assess the quality of the new product before making big shifts. Joe, do you have specific concerns that we can discuss? --Kevin Murray14:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This guide-line does not cover notable families. Two articles, to which I have contributed, have been recently challenged on Notability.
A family can be notable in a different way from an individual. As ODNB has recognised, one cannot show how influential a family is in an article focussed on only one of its members. This influence can continue over several generations, for instance, through a family-controlled company or through the members who follow one profession, e.g. physicians. A family can also have a sudden burst of extremely capable siblings and cousins. Perhaps some guide-lines could be erected, to prevent vainglorious genealogies masquerading as notables but to provide a valuable links between individual biographies. Vernon White. . . Talk 22:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I've recently started a series of AfDs on notorious sex offenders who have been widely featured in the tabloid press. I based the nominations on WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. However, as this is a disagreement that comes up frequently, and as people of this type are unique in the way that they may gain very widespread coverage in newspapers while remaining in themselves wholly unremarkable, I think it would be helpful to create a sublist of criteria for notability of people appearing in crime news.
Dybryd00:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Dybryd. Initially a bunch of women were selected pretty much at random by the tabloid press ("on a slow news day") and subjected to a LOT of scrutiny for their offenses against male students. It turns out that this is (unfortunately) fairly common behavior, leaving those six or so women with articles in Wikipedia as if they were the only ones or unique in some way. I hope Wikipedia is successful in deleting these for lack of notability (though not of tabloid infamy). Student701:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's a need for a separate notability sub-page here, especially since the problem isn't limited to criminals being featured. But I think a section could be added to BIO basically stating that people featured in the media without an assertion of importance/significance (not notoriety) may not be notable. Note that a justification of importance/significance is required for all articles on wikipedia (per CSD#A7), and I don't see a problem with requiring the same justification from the reliable sources in cases like this, either. What do people think? —gorgan_almighty14:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, you know, I'm kind of over this. Wikipedia is a big place, and it's not really the end of the world if we have articles on the likes of Bridget Mary Nolan when we also also have articles on such notable topics as the Cleveland steamer or "List of Bleach hollows" (if you can't be bothered to click, "hollows" are a particular kind of monster appearing in a cartoon called Bleach). Organizing the central stuff is enough of a task, and I'm going to be making an effort to direct my attention to this, rather than fussing over peripheral stuff which can be harmlessly left to those who enjoy it.
However, the fact is that existing policies do not have a clear way of distinguishing between notability and tabloid notoriety, as I recently discovered in a series of AfDs of unremarkable criminals. Dybryd20:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Notable only in one language?!
Mention if a person is notable in one language of Wikipedia, could they still not be notable in other language Wikipedias?
My guess is they are now worthy of being noted in all Wikipedias, provided someone is willing to do the work of typing their entry in.
Jidanni20:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem, of course, is being able to verify the information. If all the references are in say, Arabic, how is an English-only editor going to be able to help out? This seems to restrict articles to languages in which verification can be made. Student701:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
there are few languages where there are not people at WP to translate the key parts that show notability. Certainly there are many editors here competent in Arabic and very willing to help for relevant articles. DGG (talk) 08:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
And in fact, I am trying to help an editor whose first language is not English produce an article about a Jordanian general of whose rank he is uncertain. He is totally a newbie but very responsive to my direction. Right now hardly any references. Have NO idea what his proper rank is. I have an idea what is important and what isn't. (The editor probably has no military experience). NOR does the editor have access to an Arabic keyboard, so properly footnoting Arabic is beyond him at the moment. Footnote it in English?
Most articles are just too thinly read and edited to justify inserting foreign references which puts it out of the realm of most English editors. Sure for the King of Jordan, probably. But you start down into the bureaucracy, it is not going to be workable. Wikipedia has 1.5 million articles now, 80% of which are "thinly accessed." Allowing foreign references is going to make half the new articles bogus or nearly so. I was taken aback the other day when some kid peppered a school site with notable grads and footnotes. I was suspicious. Sure enough, the footnotes led nowhere. How can I tell that with an Arabic footnote? If the kid now comes up with his grad as being a special envoy of King Abdullah? I'm going to call in my "Arab specialist." Who probably has other things to do? I don't think so. The English version needs to stand or fall on its own with English references IMO. Much is written in English. Student712:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
first of all, I can often insert a proper reference in a language I can not write by copy and paste, if the original is on the web. It's one of the great things about Unicode and html. But the thing to do with a foreign language reference is simply to insist on a translation of the key part. DGG (talk) 01:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources in languages other than English is the relevant policy here. English language sources are preferred, but not required. Not sure what you mean by "insist on a translation". We can certainly ask the contributing editors what something says, but we absolutely do not outright reject untranslated sources. Only direct quotes need to be translated. Other language wikipedias have their own standards. --AnonEMouse(squeak)17:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate you all being broadminded, but this is simply not doable. I monitor articles that change several times daily. With foreign language references 90% of the eyeballs are lost. We have desperate editors out there. Once foreign language references are allowed, forget reality! I can't read Chinese, Arabic, Hebrew, etc. Nor can most editors. Editors conversant in those languages would be stretched thin to the breaking point mostly on topics in which they have no interest. They can't be expected to monitor thousands of changing articles daily to ensure that references are "real." In the best of worlds, maybe. But not in a real world. And definitely not in English Wikipedia. Student720:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The military seems to be missing in the listing of professions. I propose adding general/flag officers, and congressional medal of honor winners, to a separate category. Other military might qualify on the basis of what they have done, as per other guidelines mentioned. Student701:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
there has been some opposition to general officers as automatically notable, on the grounds that there are very many of them, and many do nothing particularly distinctive. Possibly we might compromise at the level of major-general (US) and its equivalents. 08:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It would make sense to me to have this in the list for completeness, even if the line says that there is no rank that is notable by itself, but then I don't think this page is clear on how much general notability a person must have. Pdbailey (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Congressmen
I'm hoping someone can shed light on this matter for me. Coming across some new pages on Florida congressmen that contained nothing but their election to congress and their university degree, I tagged them for notability, an act which was disputed, on the grounds that all congressmen are notable. I am not American, and have no knowledge of American politics, but I find it hard to believe that all 120 who sit in the House of representatives are notable. I am more familiar with Commonwealth politics, where you get backbenchers who keep the seats warm and vote along party lines ie. turn up to work, do it diligently, but do little of "note". Should we have pages for these people, or is it more appropriate to create list pages like "Representatives in the XXplace House, 2006-2009" ? An example of the pages I encountered are: Jerry J. Paul, Kenneth A. Gottlieb, Doug Wiles, J. Dudley Goodlette. I am sure there are many other similar pages. Thanks. Gwinva20:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Worse - There are 435 congresspersons! And therefore thousands in the past. In their defense, each represents 400,000+ people at the national level, a fair number of constituents. BTW, we are treating state representatives and state senators as worthy of articles which have far less constituents. Should provincial reps get the same treatment? I would think they would. Student721:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I believe that all congress people are notable; they got elected, after all. Of course, are they all worthy of separate articles? Probably not, if all they'll ever be is growth-stunted stubs. Therefore, one of two things can happen. Either an article can be made on the congress person, or a list of congress people can be made depending on which congress they served. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Think out loud21:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand; these aren't the 435 representatives of the states in the US Federal government, these are merely the representatives of the districts in the state government. Frankly, I doubt they are all notable. US Congress members get articles and even books written about them on a regular basis; members of the state government usually don't. Unfortunately, this policy specifically includes "members and former members of a (sic) national, state or provincial legislatures", and has since Nov 11, 2005. The discussion referred to is presumably somewhere in Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Archive 1. --AnonEMouse(squeak)22:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, yes, it was the verbiage of the preceding arguments that lead to the confusion. My apologies. As for district level representatives, I too doubt their notability. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Think out loud —Preceding comment was added at 22:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It would probably be case by case. A state rep from the area around, say, Dallas, Texas may get enough coverage in local and state level media to coast through any notability questions. A state rep covering a very rural part of Texas may not, however. I think for a national level Congressperson that we would be hard pressed to ever show a lack of notability, however. • Lawrence Cohen22:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
In order to avoid debating each individual congressperson, it has certainly been accepted without any question that all members of federal legislatures are notable, and I think very rightly. As for members of state legislatures, the same has been applied, and I think it an acceptable compromise. For the same reason--debating each of them one by one will not be productive, and the only alternative is to accept them all. WP is not paper, the criterion is distinct enough, there are always regional news sources if one looks carefully at paper as well as online. the question quite frankly is whether whether we are to spend all our efforts debating their notability, or to simply tolerate articles on borderline noteworthy people and have time & strength to edit articles on the notable ones as well. Recall that in the different fields of life, what different people think is important varies quite a bit. Some people think politics, some think professional wrestling, and so on for the 100s of things that in each case some of us would think profoundly un-notable for the most part. this is a cooperative project, and we must accept each others hobby-horses. DGG (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The issue here is the sources, some of these state congressmen doesn't even have sources in their local newspapers that isn't trivial or obvious campaign platforms. If the sources is outside local, then an article can be created like Marco Rubio, if not, forget it, just as important as the local city councilman, which they fail WP:BIO. Jbeach5601:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Notability over time - degradation?
Looking at this AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justine Ezarik (second nomination), I'm struck by something interesting. A lot of the deletes on that (and the AfD exactly one month ago) are about how "bad" it is, precedent wise, to allow this in, because she is considered by some to be a self-promoter. That silliness aside (I listed 22 sources on the AfD), I'm curious about what happens if people try to renominate this article again for AfD in another month, or three. Once notability has been established for a person, is it possible for it to degrade over time, or grow less? I can't see that would be possible. Wouldn't it stand to reason that notability, once established, would mean that under policy all future AfDs would be simple Keeps? Sources and non-trivial references don't just go away, after all. I'm thinking that, given that there are nearly two dozen sources on her, that any argument for deletion would be incompatible with our notability standards, and with each additional source that pops up over time, the "Delete" votes would be more and more irrelevant with each passing AfD, resulting in faster-closing AfDs and less time wasted by everyone. Or am I way off? • Lawrence Cohen05:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
That would be ironic, I suppose, in these Internet cases. Basically then, the threshold of what is notable can change, but without changing the threshold, really, you can't deprecate the notability itself. So... once notable is demonstrated under the currently widely accepted consensus view of what is notable, you would have to get that consensus view of what is notable changed to get the article deleted? • Lawrence Cohen16:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
You're over analyzing this. In order to get an article deleted, you have to convince enough participating editors that the article should be deleted. There are elaborations on that, such as you are supposed to use our policies and guidelines and such, and "we've just done this recently, enough already" is usually considered a fairly convincing argument, but it's not an absolute. For an extreme, but important, case, there were as many as 14(!) deletion nominations for our article about Daniel Brandt. --AnonEMouse(squeak)17:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
1. The figure is the founder of a notable religious movement or denomination whose notability is established by independent sources.
2. The figure appears in the central scriptures of a notable religion. (Note: Even minor figures in the Bible, Qur'an, and other notable scriptures meet this guideline).
3. The figure appears non-trivially in an important non-scriptural religious narrative.
4. The figure made a substantial contribution to religious thought or philosophy as indicated by independent sources.
5. The figure is a leader or regarded as an important figure in a notable religious denomination
It seems contrary to recent consensus to create a new page. The second concern is whether these criteria make sense, and the third is to consider whether BIO already handles this topic well. --Kevin Murray16:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Is this for somewhat recent people--say, a bishop from the 17th century, a rabbi alive today? Or is this for Gol, son of Job, son of Jakob, etc., from actual scripture? • Lawrence Cohen16:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a no rejected guideline for the notability of religious figures at Wikipedia:Notability (religious figures). Given that this page deals with notability of people in general, I was wondering if the rest of you thought there would be any purpose in perhaps establishing specific notability guidelines for religious figures, where such might be applicable. Thank you. John Carter17:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Well this one from that page, "The figure appears in the central scriptures of a notable religion. (Note: Even minor figures in the Bible, Qur'an, and other notable scriptures meet this guideline)." worries me a great deal, considering how many people in the Bible appear merely in lists of names. We don't want articles that are forever doomed to say no more than "Zgworz was yet another one of the 467 grandchildren of Methuselah." --AnonEMouse(squeak)17:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that proposal has been pretty much rejected, even by the editors there. There are two variant proposals on the talk page, one of which is mine, which are I think a bit more specific and maybe provide a bit more details. I acknowledge the problem in the above quote about basically creating single sentence articles which are little more than quotes from various books. Neither of the more recent variations on the talk page present those problems. John Carter18:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
But do we really need an inclusion guideline to cover religious figures in particular? What is so special about them that makes the BIO and N criteria insufficient? —gorgan_almighty14:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess my answer would be "I don't know, but I believe I can think of exceptions", like, for instance, cases of individuals who are only mentioned in passing in most major publications, and on that basis might not qualify as notable in general, but are frequent subjects of relative importance within a smaller grouping, which may not itself have enough reputation for its works in general to meet the RS or V threshold. Biographies of leaders of small splinter groups who might only be mentioned in passing in literature outside their religion, for instance, might not meet those criteria, even if they are more seriously spoken about in the non RS and V literature of their church itself. Maybe. Like I said, I'm not really sure about it, but can think of some possible exceptions. John Carter14:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Subjects that are only covered in passing (no significant coverage) by reliable sources aren't notable enough for inclusion in any case. That's right there in WP:N, and its very important that it stays that way without exceptions. Verifiability is essential in Wikipedia, and only reliable sources can provide sufficient verifiability. —gorgan_almighty15:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the question would be then, would historical individuals who receive significant coverage in lets say a hagiography of someone other than themselves, knowing hagiographies are often not considered reliable, but are not mentioned to any detail outside of those sources and sources clearly or explicitly based on them, qualify for articles? If the answer is no, then there might be a need for additional guidelines. If not, of course, then there may not in fact be any need for such additional guidelines. John Carter —Preceding comment was added at 15:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Notability in those sort of cases would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis, by careful assessment of the available sources and careful consideration of how reliable those sources are. I don't think we could write a single guideline that would cover all cases like that. It should also be noted that generally, guidelines on Wikipedia are only written to meet a specific need, not a theoretical one. Can you point to any actual cases in which disputes like this have arisen over real articles? —gorgan_almighty15:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) I guess the answer is "it depends", but it is certainly possible. We have an article on Fulk FitzWarin, who is a historical outlaw about whom we don't have much reliable information, but who was quite possibly a basis for Robin Hood. We have a long, detailed article on Bede, about whom we know very little, but whose work was of immense historical importance. We certainly have very important articles about people known of only through religious works: Moses, Noah, etc. --AnonEMouse(squeak)16:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Significant historical figures are always included, even though the information is relatively sparse, because they will in practice always be discussed in books as secondary sources. We're not concerned with the reliability of the original information--we're not reviewing for a primary journal. recognized saints are always covered in multiple sources, though most of them are not on the web. so normally are historical bishops, who are generally discussed in every history of the area. The extent to which the actual historical information supports our knowledge or presumed knowledge is a matter for the academic historians--the way in which the sparse information is assembled and interpreted is a fascinating and wonderful thing, but its original research and we don't do that here.
johncarter, i strongly disagree with your statement that people mentioned only in scripture and only listed are not suitable for articles. Almost every one of them brought to afd has been kept. After centuries of scholarship where the intellectual energies of Europe were used primarily for interpreting religious topics, every single name has been the subject of secondary sources and interpretation. some of it perhaps fanciful, but that's another matter. They are still sources. Of course, it takes some work, but google Book Search should facilitate that. What was thought notable in the 16th century is still notable. DGG (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't actually know that I actually said that. If I did, I offer my apologies. My intention was to say that many of these characters, like perhaps the individuals mentioned perhaps only in the Little Flowers of St. Francis, another example if an imperfect one, are individuals whose historicity is to a degree open to question by people who question the sources. In many of these cases, the individuals may (I have to say may) have been the subject of considerable oral traditions which may not have been passed down particulary well into modern society. Being from a Christian background, I know those types of sources best, although the same could probably be said for Buddhist, Jaina, Shinto, Zoroastrian, Jewish, Hindu, and other religions as well. In some of these cases, it might be the case that some sources in languages which editors here are not particularly familiar with go into some detail on the subject, but those languages might not be known to any editors who might be willing to work on the articles. It was to an extent examples of that kind that I was primarily thinking about. I only mentioned the three examples I did to point out just how many, and in some cases, how prominent those presumptive persons can be in their own faith, even though they seem to lack any real concrete evidence of their existences. And, certainly, the now less followed faiths will have similar examples of "dubious" individuals. It was primarily for those religions I was intending to speak, even if the examples I used were far from the best. John Carter23:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Verifiability in "Lists of People"
This article's Lists of People section is the only place I know of where there's policy guidance for lists of people that are from a certain city, school, etc. It covers Wikipedia:Notability, but I would also like to see guidance about applying the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy to such lists. Why? I work on lists of people from a a city, a secondary school, and a university. In each case, there's been discussion about how best to implement Verifiability. I'd appreciate opinions on each of the following questions. Based on the consensus, I'd like to add a sentence or two to the "Lists of People" section of this guideline. I'd love citations to related WP policies and guidelines. --Jdlh | Talk06:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
1. Does Wikipedia:Verifiability policy require that there be citation to a Wikipedia:Reliable Source showing the person does have a connection to the school, city, etc. which the list is about? e.g. does there need to be a citation showing that Jane Celebrity actually lives in Smallville, and actually attended Plain Ordinary University?
2. where a person on the list does not have an article already (i.e. has a red link), how to fulfill your answer to #1? e.g. make a stub article and put the citation there, attach a citation to the list entry, etc.
3. where a person on the list does have an article, but it doesn't mention the connection, how to fulfill your answer to #1? e.g. a citation to the list entry is enough, add a mention of the connection to the person's article (with citation), etc.
4. where a person on the list has an article, and the article mentions a local connection, but there's no attribution to a reliable source in the article, how to fulfill your answer to #1? e.g. tag that mention with "needs citation", attach a citation to the list entry, etc.
Any other comments on this topic?
Bio Help
I am working on a Bio of a man who's career and societal contributions were at their peak over 100 years ago. Due to this I am having trouble finding 'Multiple Resources' and in many cases things have changed since then leaving no reference to cite since the source no longer exists or has changed significantly. Most of the information I have gotten comes from only a few remaining sources. Where would I go to get some help from fellow editors to help me get this article up to standard with the limited sources in mind. I'd hate to have spent all this time on it only to have it deleted. Thanks, --DP67talk/contribs16:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
You need to be more specific. Christopher Columbus's career and societal contributions were at their peak even farther ago, yet there is no dearth of resources about them.
Let me make a wild guess - are you referring to Victor G Bloede? If so, I think you need have no fear of deletion, you have enough there to show notability. Built a first-of-its-kind hydroelectric dam, named it after himself, made 15-20 chemical patents that made him a fortune, founded several banks, a railroad, and a hospital, I think that's clearly notable enough. I have to say, though, the article as you have it is a bit adulatory. Sentences like "shared with her husband the patriotism and love of liberty that distinguished the family and they decided to make their home where these sentiments might best blossom and bear fruit" sound biased. --AnonEMouse(squeak)18:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, and yes I am talking about Victor G Bloede, there are allot of little things I'm working out of it each time I read it I find something I don't like, or it doesn't sound right. Most of the texts I'm working with were written nearly 100 years ago so the writing styles have changed allot. My concerns were the references. There are literally tons of things this man has done not mentioned in the article but I dare not add them because they are little tid-bit mentions in various sites I have found that you would have to dig to find them even if I provided a link to the source. Tiny bits like, he invented the lick and stick glue that's used on postage stamps.. Who would have known? God knows where I found it, but it was nestled somewhere in a page that if I wasn't specifically searching for it I'd never find it. I'm going to keep hammering away at it before I post it as an article until I'm at least half satisfied with it's content. Then hopefully no one comes along and spams it with cite-demands.Thanks.. --DP67talk/contribs19:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand that wikipedians have been trying to come up with some general rule as to what to do with notability of of religious figures.. Why not just start off small and continue and grow.. Since the Roman Catholic church is the largest "organized" religion in the world how about a general rule that all Popes, Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops are notable. And from there go to all the other religions that have an organization and continue.. Lets set guidelines on what we can agree on and not try to make some fuzzy rules that no one can agree on. That way we can spend less time on AfD. I have just had 3 articles up for AfD on Roman Catholic Bishops, because there was no guideline.. The nominator sought advise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Bishops) and was told that there was no rule on Bishops so he was under the assuption that Bishop are not notable for their position.. That each Bishop must be proven to be notable. In the AfD, most people believe that Bishops are notable and that these particular Bishops have enough references to prove their particular case.. That was my fault. I should of only posted one reference and seen how the vote went, but I hate to see one of my "baby" articles get wiped out, so I went and got more references.. But if we had a rule, articles like these would not be put up for Afd's.Callelinea16:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. As far as a more *general* rule, perhaps something like "any religious figure who is the leader of a group of at least ten thousand people?" What does anyone think about that simple expression as a *baby* step (not an all-inclusive or exclusive rule).Wjhonson (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Most things that minimise argumentation and sources of friction between editors and releases them to do more productive things are good, and a rebuttable presumption along those lines sounds good to me too. Alice✉ 00:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Alice can you explain more what you mean by a rebuttable presumption? I'm not sure I know what that is. What do you think of my "ten thousand" figure as a cut-off? I have no idea how many congregants a Roman Catholic Bishop might typically oversee.Wjhonson (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
All of the project page is technically only a guideline and, therefore, its advice can be rebutted by explicit argument in particular cases. In the context that I used the phrase, I wished to emphasise that we can assume that "any religious figure who is the leader of a group of at least ten thousand people" will pass the verifiability and notability tests and not trouble ourselves unduly by checking; however if someone did check, and found no sources whatever, then that confirmed absence (although it's very difficult to establish a negative) would rebut the presumed notability specified by your proposed guideline. BrownHairedGirl gives a very clear and lucid exposition of this idea on this page but I'm away now... Alice✉ 02:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them.
If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person.
When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person.
Reliable sources will generally cover the person in the context of the particular event, though may at times be extensive and may expand upon the person's background. However, information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself, unless the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy or sources have written primarily about the person, and only secondarily about the event. In that case, the discussion of the person should be broken out from the event article in summary style.
The assumption with the above is that the person has achieved notability, and the advice is just how best to deal with an article on that person. The assumption is that if the person has no reliable sources they would fail the basic criteria anyway. SilkTork *SilkyTalk15:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. This needs to be taken on a case by case basis. Sirhan Sirhan is notable solely "for" assassinating Robert F. Kennedy. No one will ever write anything about him without leaning heavily on this fact. He will also never achieve anything else, due to being in jail for life. However, sources have written primarily about him, and only secondarily about the event. That makes him notable enough for us to have an individual article primarily about him. That should be our dividing line, how sources treat them. --AnonEMouse(squeak)18:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we take it for granted that it will be a case by case basis. Is there a different way of doing it? I thought the guideline (which does exist already, so I'm not quite sure what the oppose is for - is it for moving the guideline here, or for the wording?) was about suggesting ways of how to make that judgment of when a Sirhan Sirhan should have a standalone article, and when a Kate McCann shouldn't. I wasn't sure of how to word the guideline so I have made the suggestion above. I have taken as a suggestion the wording from WP:PRODUCT - "the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy", though "sources have written primarily about the person, and only secondarily about the event" is a viable alternative or addition. I have now included that wording in the suggestion above. SilkTork *SilkyTalk20:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Support merge While looking at ways to deal with articles on murders, I have found that BLP1E is perfect for it: Create an article about the crime, not the people involved. I have proposed adding this to the specific topical-notability in this article. I agree that BLP1E doesn't seem to make sense in BLP because it's a notability guideline, not a content guideline; as it applies to Daniel Brandt I can see in some way how the question of whether to have an article about a person can raise BLP concerns, but I think it logically fits better here. If you look at the policy change that I suggested below you'll notice that I have worded it very carefully, with exceptions for people who are "nationally famous", or who have so much (well-referenced) biographical info that it should be split into a separate article. I agree with AnonEMouse's point that the presence of an article should be influenced by how sources treat them as well, but I think that seems to already be reflected in the current wording of the proposal above. --TexasDex★16:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Support merge, but unsure about wording. Being the person who originally suggested this merger, I of course support it (for the reasons given in my original suggestion). However I feel that the wording of the original BLP1E was superior to the proposed wording above. The proposed wording appears to give an arbitrary instruction to add content to the event article not the bio article, and doesn't give a reason for the instruction. The original BLP1E wording, by contrast, makes a suggestion instead of an arbitrary instruction ("a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted" / "redirect or merge are usually the better options"), and it also states a very good reason: "Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy". —gorgan_almighty (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I tried to establish this type of criteria last year, but soon realized that without reliable source material, the issue becomes moot since we can't really write an article. --Kevin Murray15:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
An application of BIO
I got involved in Mitch Clem at AfD. Please look at the references and let me know whether you think I'm right on his notability. He is not an important topic, but this illustrates an important application of the BIO and Notability rules. I think that the Minnesota Public Radio spot is just about enough, then the mention in PC World, while not in-depth clearly is saying this person is noticed. The other comixtalk source is marginal, but I think that it adds to credibilty. It appeares that Comixtalk has a blog section, but where he is covered is more akin to an online magazine in a scheduled and dated issue. Cheers! --Kevin Murray15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Titled people, notability as a member of a larger group
I am having a problem with speedy deletes for non-notable individuals being closed as "princess asserts notability" and the like. I think it is wrong to assume that a person is notable on the basis that they belong to a group that may be notable, but are not notable individually. For instance, Princess Marie of Hanover is certainly not a notable person. Yes, she has a member of a notable family and notable house, the House of Hanover, but as a person she is not notable. The argument used for these princesses, etc, is one used for British peers, etc (title = notable). While I don't think all barons and baronets in the United Kingdom are notable, at least they hold a unique position in that they hold substantive titles.
A cadet member of a royal family with no notable personal achievements or the like is not unique though. The argument that royalty automatically equals notability is leading to hundreds and hundreds of genealogical/trivia stubs about obscure and non-notable individuals with no hope of expansion. Please also note very recently this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Jean of Nassau. These articles contained the same type of data as that of Princess Marie of Hanover and a few other voters on the matter are very involved in royal articles. I think that if those who deal with royalty extensively can spot non-notable royals then royalty = notability needs to be seriously reconsidered. It simply is not true all of the time. In such cases, all a title is is part of a name. An article about Jane Smith who is the non-notable daughter of John Smith would be deleted pretty fast. The criteria for notability should note that famous relations, memberships in famous families and titles do not assert notability. Charles06:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and I wish you luck with this thread, but apparently princesses are like state highways and episodes of television shows. --But|seriously|folks07:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
If a person cannot be deleted as being non-notable, how would one deal with the few die-hard inclusionists who would insist upon reverting from a redirect? Charles08:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec)The fact that a person or a group of people is/are non-notable does not necessarily make them an A7 candidate, and the current policy specifically distinguishes between "indications of importance or significance" and notability. "Princess" is undoubtedly an assertion of significance. These ought to go through AfD or PROD, especially if you need specific knowledge of the subject to spot if they are notable or not. Hut 8.507:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the content of the articles speak for themselves, specifically the fact that it is essentially a genealogical entry. "Princess" is, in effect, part of a person's name as much as a conduit through which one may become notable. All princesses, however, do not become notable and the patently obvious examples of such should be allowed to be speedily deleted. Charles08:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Non-notability is never a sufficient reason for speedy deletion. The question is only whether "princess" makes an implicit claim of notability, which is a difficult question - I'd say in combination with another implied claim it would be sufficient, but perhaps not by itself. Dcoetzee08:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I would say that a pure genealogical entry which, in effect, creates a genealogical database (which Wikipedia is not), in combination with the lack of any other notable information, facts, criteria, etc, renders someone speedily deletable OR at least renders the argument of "no" on the basis of the title "princess" insufficient for denying a speedy deletion. A7 is applicable because princesses are not always important or significant and familial ties do not automatically confer importance or significance. Like I said, the House of Hanover is notable. It is significant and it is important. But it is composed of both important/significant/notable AND unimportant/insignificant/non-notable members. As for just notability, I think I've shown (and articles like Princess Marie of Hanover illustrate) just how the title of princess does not automatically make someone notable. Charles08:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Given that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Frederica of Hanover has already gathered two keep !votes, it should be obvious that it was not a good candidate for speedy deletion. Speedy is supposed to be a tool to use quickly in uncontroversial cases, not a steamroller to override good-faith objections to a deletion. If you want to discuss whether minor royals have inherent notability you're in the worng forum; you might well be right, but lacking notability is not the same as being a speedy candidate. Iain99Balderdash and piffle09:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to be a case of WP:ILIKEIT due to monarchism for one editor and a misunderstanding (and the reason for this thread) for the other. Perhaps I should have introduced the situation and differently and chosen my words to reflect it, but a title does not imply individual significance and importance. As for the place, an administrator dealing with speedy deletes directed me here. Charles09:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, this is a notability question, not a speedy deletion question. Being a member of some groups conveys notability, e.g. a starting player on a world championship team, a United States member of Congress or appeals court judge. It does not automatically convey automatic notability in others (e.g. being a faculty member at a major research university). Any time things are not clearcut, they should not be speedied. Speedy is for no credible assertion of importance; it is not for assertions of importance that one may argue are not reliable indications of notability.Wikidemo10:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Wikidemo here: you're confusing an indication of importance with cast-iron proof of notability. A7 was introduced mainly to deal with "vanity" articles from obviously non-notable entities. "Joe Bloggs is a teenager at Somewhere High School. He supports Manchester United" - that sort of thing. An article on a princess obviously doesn't fall into this category. You are probably right that we have too many stubs on minor royals which contain no more than geneological information, and they could at least be redirected to a more general page on the royal family in question; however it's far from obvious, to the non-specialist at least, which of these are truly hopeless cases which can never be expanded, and which can reasonably be expanded and sourced. Therefore speedy deletion without discussion isn't a good way to deal with them. As for the general question of what makes a royal notable, a better forum would be Wikipedia:Notability (people) or Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Royalty. Iain99Balderdash and piffle11:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
and it is not necessarily a deletion question at all, for the simplest course for many of them is a merge. DGG (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with others on this thread - this discussion should properly be held over here, as being a princess appears to me to be sufficient assertion of notability not to qualify for A7. I also agree, however, that there are some "automatic inclusion" categories that may need to be reconsidered, as I'm unsure of the encyclopedic value or expandability of an article on this three-year-old boy, for example. JavaTenor17:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Since there must be hundreds of thousands of historical people who have had peerage titles or married peerage titles in various countries (or else been members of the baronetcy or gentry or whatever), and yet never done a thing to merit interest other than be the spouse or child of a person with a "title," I think there should be a section in WP:NOT which says specifically that Wikipedia is NOT Burke's or Debrett's. Those people who think it should be, will understand the meaning. I realize there's no snobbery like blue-blooded snobbery, but that doesn't mean it's not ridiculous, whereever it's found. Ultimately, it's not a lot different than racism: the idea that somebody is inherently special enough to merit a biography, because of their "breeding." What stupidity! A famous American said something to the effect that the biggest argument against hereditary titles is that nature is against them, "else it would not so often give us an ass where we'd looked for a lion." And Americans have largely learned this lession, and even when we seem in danger of forgetting it, we get somebody like G. W. Bush to remind us. Serves us right. Just say no to such ideas. SBHarris05:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget Wikipedia is not the Almanach de Gotha or the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels ;-) There are a lot of people here who know for certainty that certain royals (such as grand dukes of Russia who died as infants) are not individually notable yet make a point of removing proposed deletions, undoing merges and voting "Keep" at every AfD possible for the hell of it and there are many more whose eyes sort of glaze over at trying to think why a non-notable royal would be non-notable. WP:NOT really does need a section about royalty. I agree that breeding doesn't warrant a biography, but the social class itself is important. Just not all of the people in it (including some people here on Wikipedia!). When can this be seriously considered and implemented? Charles08:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Since my articles are among the ones that you've proposed deleting, I'll chime in here. Wikipedia is a large place with biographies of hundreds of people who probably are not particularly notable to anyone except those who have an interest in a particular category. Royals who died as children, particularly in the nineteenth century, have been written about -- in a lot of cases separately from their parents -- and their stories are of historical interest. Their rank, like it or not, does make them notable. I found sources for the articles that I wrote and listed them. I did not object to your requests for deletion of Princess Johanna of Hesse and by Rhine and Princess Marie of Hesse and by Rhine, which you didn't put up for a vote, I notice. They're notable because they belong to a fairly prominent family, the Hesse-Darmstadt/Battenbergs that is related to the present-day English royal family and to the Romanovs. They were both children of ruling monarchs. Other people jumped in and objected to deleting them. Some of the other articles you've put up for deletion have also survived multiple challenges. You apparently make a habit of putting these articles up for deletion and others have disagreed with you. What happened to consensus? --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
ANSWER: I don't think you'll get much "consensus," when you want to include people who are notable because of some nauseating concept like "rank." To some of us, hereditary rank will always be rank in the sense that it will smell. The last Russian czar, one of those Romanovs to whom you refer above, felt perfectly comfortable ordering his soldiers to fire upon masses of women and children demonstrating in the streets for bread. It was a matter of hereditary rank why he was the one giving the orders, he would have been first to tell you. But I'm an American, and I think one my countrymen once said it better than I could:
The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.
Some people seem to disagree with this, even now, but you can't expect them to get any kind of consensus. I note that Wikipedia has a BIO for Charles Mosley (genealogist), who is an editor of a book which is a huge compendium of those with "titles." He appears often on a talkshow called "So You Think You're Royal?" which is aimed at U.K. people obscessed with the idea that they might be special because of some blood-line connection. And this makes him notable enough that he has a Wikipedia BIO! By contrast, (note the irony), a few Wikipedian editors have managed to get a BIO of another genealogist who tracks people of great age (more than 110 years old) for scientific purposes, removed from Wikipedia as being unimportant. And are busy collapsing biographies of people who've lived to great ages into lists, on the basis that THEY are not important enough to warrent biographies or even stubs. Go figure. On the one hand, they have a fascination with "royalty": those people who think their families possess the natural boots and spurs. And even with people who make their living writing about royalty, and photographing royalty, and documenting royalty. But on the other hand, there is this deprecation of research into the aging process, even though aging is slowly killing every one of us, far more surely than some nitwit noble's thickheaded goonsquad. How are you going to build consensus, when such perverted values reign? One might imagine you could do it by letting everybody write about whatever, and whoever, they're interested in--- but the Royal-Worshipers will have none of that compromise. They want their Lordships in Wikipedia, whether they died as children or were born with blood diseases, hunchbacks, funny lips, a propensity for madness, or the vestiges of a tail. But everyone else (see commoners) has to have won prizes in order to be wiki-notable. Sigh. Only in the Old World do you get such silliness. And it would be funny if it weren't so pitiful, and if it didn't make for such unkindness in Wikipedia when some editors are afflicted with name-worship. SBHarris00:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Your political views notwithstanding, I don't see any reason why these people are NOT notable, particularly given that people are interested in royalty, write about them, follow their lives, etc. What is that if not notability? We can certainly argue for the next century over whether they OUGHT to be notable or not. I don't happen to think that Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan deserve any ink or attention on Wikipedia whatsoever. But I'm guessing that their articles are among the most popular. Not having looked at them, I wouldn't know. I AM interested in the royals, particularly those from the 19th century, because their stories and the way their relatives lived and reacted to their deaths tells us something about history and the manners and morals of those times or the myths that people build around untimely death, like the so-called Hessian curse. Other people share that interest and have written about it, which is why they're notable, not because I intend to bow and scrape before their relatives. I will oppose any attempt to delete these particular articles. By the way, I see no reason why the other topics you mentioned don't belong on Wikipedia too. I'm in favor of including all topics, not excluding them. There's room for it all. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
We should have an article on the "Hessian curse" then. There is no need to created genealogical entries as they are and copy and paste the same information about the "Hessian curse" into them. That's not an article, it's fluff. When royal children die, more often than not they are not notable and should be discussed in the articles of their more notable parents. Would you object to Johanna and Marie being deleted? You said you didn't earlier, which goes to show that they are not notable enough to keep. If they went to AfD, how would you vote? Remember, I am calling for change in the best interests of Wikipedia, or at least the better interests. There is no need for countless articles that will be perpetual stubs. Charles01:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't object to deleting them because someone else already had, not because I feel they need to be deleted. I was waiting to see whether other people felt they were articles worth keeping. They did and removed your deletion notice without me having to do anything. I don't agree that these particular articles are not notable. It's arguable whether or not a minor noble who is 667th in line for the British throne and is three years old deserves his or her own article on Wikipedia. I wouldn't necessarily rule out a stub entry with a "See also" directing the reader to the article about the greater family. It is notable if a person is in line to a throne and it's quite likely that someone who stumbles across a name on a long list is going to be interested enough to click on a Wikilink and try to figure out whose kid it is, when they were born, where they live, etc. Wikipedia has plenty of fluff entries -- articles on video games and movies and television characters along with articles on World War II and racism. There is room for genealogical articles on royals that people find interesting. I don't think there's any question that a person like Princess Marie of Hesse and by Rhine deserves a separate article, based on historical interest. I don't necessarily agree that your approach is what is best for Wikipedia. I certainly object to your method of proposing articles for deletion. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Bookworm, are you not forgetting that two wrongs do not make a right? The existence of one fault does not justify another. Just because fluff articles on video games and characters exist doesn't mean we have to stoop down and do that as well. All these stub entries need to be deleted or redirected to entries on notable people or families. Wikipedia is not a genealogical repository and what you suggest about people being merely interested in birthdates, where they live, etc, is just that. For all I know, someone could be interested in where I live or what my birthdate is (actually, this is true). Should I have a Wikipedia article on that basis? Of course not! "There is room for genealogical articles on royals that people find interesting." No, there is not. Please read WP:NOT. This stuff is what is making royalty articles a huge joke and this is coming from someone who is all for royalty (me!). Charles16:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with you about the notability of those articles, for the reasons I've given above. I actually think that those video game, television program and other articles DO belong on Wikipedia too. Call me "inclusivist," if you like. There's room for those articles and for the individual articles on royals. You are, of course, welcome to attempt to persuade other people of your point of view. Nominate the articles for deletion if you must and let people fight it out with an AFD vote. The way you went about it last week was inappropriate. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not think it is your place to judge what is appropriate and what is not appropriate when it comes to AfD, considering you are a fervent inclusionist, as you say, and seem to disregard the fact that we're supposed to have standards regarding content. Charles00:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I have standards, which I have followed. Every line of the articles I wrote is sourced. I included authors, titles, page numbers, and publication information. Anyone adding to that article will know exactly where I got the information. I'd follow the same standards when it comes to video games and television programs and whatnot. Tell me where you got it, cite a source and page number and I'll be inclined to leave it in. I don't believe in hear-say or uncited information or articles about someone's boyfriend or girlfriend in Podunk, USA if they haven't done anything noteworthy. If someone's been written about in a book or magazine article, I'd say he's noteworthy. I disagree with you about the notability of this subject and I disagree with your actions in not putting the articles up for an AFD vote. That shows a real disregard for the contributors to those articles. An AFD vote would have allowed other people to judge the merits of your suggestion that they be deleted. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Bookworm, I haven't nominated them yet because I am still struggling with the nature of some of the editors involved in such articles. For instance, a reason given: "otherwise object to its deletion for any reason". That's not a reason, it's just one user playing a game. That doesn't mean everyone though (the rest usually vote keep because they like royalty, for instance your comments about those interested in just a particular category. Everyone is interested in something, it doesn't make it all notable though. And regarding prominent and noble families, it is just that. One may be a member of a prominent or noble family or group, but it does not necessarily make one notable, outside of that group or not. That is the basis for many, many of the deletions. People are usually disagreeing with the deletions because they like royalty and they refuse to, or can't, understand the concept that members of a notable group may not be individually notable themselves. Some of the AfDs that did survive had severe flaws in the rationale and reasoning many of the "keep" editors gave. I can play devil's advocate, that's what I do when requesting an AfD. Charles01:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The reason "otherwise object to its deletion for any reason" is a quotation (which is why it was in quotation marks). The prod guidelines say "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason." It is totally inappropriate for Charles to have nominated several articles recently as prods. "Proposed deletion is the way to suggest that an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate." Charles knows very well that the articles which he is proposing are not uncontroversial deletion candidates. In recent nominations by Charles, I myself have voted both keep and delete, and in other cases not voted at all since I didn't have a strong opinion. Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
How does one measure notability?
Clearly, an encyclopedia should be NPOV. So that means there should be no difference between notable "good" people and notable "bad" people. But isn't there? For instance: There have been a little over 1,000 people executed in the United States the past 30 years. Yet, just a tiny fraction of those has their own article, and a lot of those articles are questioned as to their "notability". I understand the argument. A lot of them committed just one murder and that was the only "notable" thing they did in their lives, from a wider perspective, and that got them executed. Yet, at the same time, there are many more than 1,000 people who have won a bronze medal at the Olympics. Nobody seems to question the notability in that, even if that bronze medal was the only thing those people "achieved" and they lived very "average" lives apart from that. If I were one of many thousands of people who once won a bronze medal at the Olympics and lived in total obscurity apart from that, why do I seem to fit the notability requirements? Whereas if I were one of the 1,000 people executed in the United States having been convicted of a single murder, I don't fit those requirements? So my question is: How does one measure notability? wjmt01:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:BIO is broken with sports articles and people who knows nothing about sports quote that and that's one reason why wikipedia is broken, we need experts to decide what belongs and what doesn't belong, I really want WP:SPORTS to become an active discussion again or at least actively reword this to include "the highest league" not fully proffesional. Thanks This is a Secretaccount18:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You're sure right it's broken when it comes to sports. The vast majority of sports players, professional or otherwise, shouldn't have an article. Right now, it seems we've got directories of team rosters, when it's clear that the majority of these articles can never be comprehensive. Lists are there for a reason, use them. SeraphimbladeTalk to me08:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen articles of team rosters, they are being used as a template, unless you are talking about every player who played proffesional sports? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret (talk • contribs) 15:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Crime/murder victims and criminals
There have been frequent discussions about whether murder victims who have received coverage by notable sources for an extended period of time, but are not otherwise notable. There seem to be more and more articles of this type, and they are not being handled consistently. WP:BLP1E seems to suggest that if the people are not otherwise notable but the crime was widely publicized then their names should redirect to a page about the crime, e.g. Elizabeth Smart kidnapping instead of Elizabeth Smart, or Lindbergh kidnapping instead of Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Jr. (WP:BLP may not strictly apply because these people are not living, but the principle holds logically). However very many murder victims, who have no claim to notability other than their untimely death, have biographical articles as opposed to articles about the crime itself. This has caused substantial debates about notability and AfDs for Jennifer Moore (AfD), Ramona Moore (AfD), Chanel Petro-Nixon (AfD), and Jennifer Levin (AfD) and as a result Robert Chambers (killer) (AfD). It has also caused debate about Megan Kanka, which was judged non-notable and made into a redirect which for a while pointed to Jesse Timmendequas, her murderer. It was later changed to point to Megan's Law, but that article doesn't really have any substantial information on the murder itself. In my view the best solution is clearly to merge the article on the murderer and the murder victim into one article titled Murder of Megan Kanka, but I'd like this practice to be officially established. I'm proposing adding a section to this article pertaining specially to crime victims and criminals who are not notable except for the crime that occurred, because this is causing so much confusion and inconsistency.
Crime/murder victims and criminals
People whose only media coverage is about their own murder or victimization, or a single murder or other crime which they committed should be covered as a subsection in the article about the crime itself. This does not apply to figures who become nationally known as a result, or cases in which the article about the crime has been split into separate articles because of the complexity or size of the article.
I have worded this carefully to avoid disrupting articles where the presence of a biographical article on the criminal is sensible (e.g. Timothy McVeigh or Nevada-tan). I can't think of any situations in which this would not be the best solution; in fact the general principle will probably hold when applied to things other than just crimes. If anybody can think of possible exceptions or problems this would raise, or a good way to generalize it, you are welcome to suggest elaborations to it. Thank you! --TexasDex (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I dont quite understand the second clause "articles that have been split..." Do you mean "cases in which the article about the crime has been split into separate articles because of the complexity or size of the article." ? DGG (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Isn't WP:BLP1E only there to ensure that minor "characters" in a secondary sources don't get undue prominence. For example, the police officer who makes the arrest. It is hard to understand why criminals and victims don't meet WP:N as the key participants in the event. If a secondary source provides substantial details on either person, then they should be notable with a separate page. Otherwise, are we saying that there are situations where you can never be notable no matter how much is written about you. There are also weighting issues to be considered. How do you balance a crime article between a prominent person and an ordinary person. Three-quarters of an article could be devoted to the prominent person, with a minor mention to the ordinary person, giving an unbalanced view of the situation. Assize (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Quite apart from BLP for the moment, it would be possible to write three articles about any crime: for the criminal(s), victim(s), and the event itself--or the place--or some other defining characteristic. Some instances may warrant all three, or more often two, but usually it is altogether excessive and would necessarily duplicate. given that a crime is to be covered in an article, the question is where to put it. Unless the victim is truly notable in his/her own right, an article under that name can be seen as inappropriate emphasis in searches. The criminal normally is not really known in any other context. But name of the crime is usually a cumbersome title: Murder of X, of Murder of X by Y. Thus we go back and forth in most cases without any clear principle. The public interest, usually, is on the victim. In cases of a contested death penalty and a unknown victim, it can be on the criminal. I really don't know how to deal with this, and I can see why some people react by wanting us to carry only the absolute minimum essential number of articles at all on these subjects. DGG (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the issue is unfortunately becoming whether one-off events should be in Wikipedia, rather than whether there are enough secondary sources to justify a separate article. Just because there is Wikinews doesn't mean than an encyclopedia shouldn't deal with the topice. There will be cases where either individual will have little or no information available from a secondary source to justify a separate article. The fact that a secondary source has picked up a one-time event to report upon extensively, or any persons involved in it, should be enough to justify inclusion (rather than being automatically excluded). If a start class article can't be written about the event or a particular participant, then that event or participant shouldn't have a separate page. There seems to be little rationale for excluding one-off events, when a sports player who plays only one professional match is included as an exception to the notability rule. I personally think that the rule should become "Individuals the subject of coverage for a single notable event are not an exception to the notability rules and a separate page is not usually created for that person. However, an individual may still be the subject of a separate page where there issignificant coverage of their life or achievements in reliable secondary sources without reference to original source materials" Assize (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
In practice, that deflects the argument to the nature of the source materials. Considering the debate about the continuance of the primary-secondary source distinction, and the imminent demise of WP:RS, it won't solve many of the problems--unless one arbitrarily decides that for the purposes of WP, newspapers are not reliable sources for the events they cover. If they are accepted as sources, almost every major crime that is reported becomes suitable for WP. I think the simplest solution is to say that it is suitable, write a short article, and be done with these debates. DGG (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I would say their extent rather than their nature. Wouldn't most crimes not meet the substantial significant secondary sources criteria in WP:N. Mrs White who loses Fluffy the Dog might get a mention in the paper, but the mention wouldn't be significant. However, if the paper went to the trouble of including the life story of Mrs White, then that might make it significant. I agree with you on the articles. It would eliminate those endless AfD debates. Assize (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I deliberately said "major"; if a newspaper happens to report a dognapping it would not usually be notable, at least unless a good many sources took it up--how to deal with subjects noted just as human interest memes is another subject, and a very difficult one--I can see good arguments both ways on things like that. I'm not sure what counts as major, but it certainly includes murder. DGG (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
As I see it, the only real change that this would make would be to say that You should make the article about the event first, and then if you have a whole lot of biographical material then you can make a biographical article. The problem that this solves is that a lot of these crimes, even though they are well publicized, involve otherwise private individuals, and their simple involvement in the crime doesn't instantly make them public figures. In a way this is similar to the Daniel Brandt deletion, because although his article had plenty of information on organizations that he had started, it wasn't a biography--it didn't even say whether he was married, or have his date of birth! The decision to split/merge material into articles about the organizations he started, and have his own name redirect to one of the organizations he started was controversial but survived DRV and I think it was probably the best outcome: It may seem counter-intuitive to not have an article on a person whose name appears so often in mainstream media, but the coverage was on his privacy activities, not himself. Sometime in the future the press may decide to run stories on his personal life, at which point we may have to revisit the decision to not have an article on him, and I think that my suggested policy change has that flexibility as well. The more I think about this, the more I realize it is primarily a specific case of WP:BLP1E, and the more I think it should be made policy in WP:BIO as well. I know there is a current discussion about merging that into WP:BIO somewhere above this one, I will comment in there as well.--TexasDex★15:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Over 11,000 individuals competed at the 2004 Summer Olympics. I don't believe that merely being a member of a national Olympic team qualifies as notability. In addition there needs to be some ongoing coverage in published sources more than just being listed as a competitor. Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
For articles, I would think that winning a medal might qualify. I wonder about "persistence." That is, someone who qualifies for their country repeatedly or comes in out of the medals in repeated Olympics (I guess I've said the same thing twice!). Student7 (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
An Olympic medal winner must be notable. I'd say reaching the final of an event (for events with heats and finals) would be enough. --Tango18:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
since many compete in more than one olympiad, and the number was smaller in earlier years, let's estimate the total as 5,000 a year, winter + summer--though much smaller in the earlier years. So far there have been 25. that will make perhaps 100,000. That's only 5% of WP. We can handle it, if we have people interested in writing the articles. Not paper, and all that. I frankly don't see the problem. Where i do see a problem, is deciding individually who is sufficiently notable. DGG (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You think big. I like people who think big! Still, the number of articles has plateaued flattened in the past year, and probably the number of editors. I don't know about writing the articles, but once written they need multiple eyeballs to ensure that new material is correctly entered. I assume 100 articles per editor for double overlap = 1,000 new editors minimum. (That is each editor is supposedly monitoring 200 articles). I guess it is physically possible. Desirable? I don't know. One thing we see about the "Big Winners" we usually document is that they have the money or fame and time to lead lives that interest the rest of us. The problem with most of the athletes you are describing is they lead no more interesting lives than, uh, we do. They are so wrapped up in their sport that they don't have lives. Yeah. We can document that they were there and competed and lost, but so what? That can be just as easily done in a list somewhere. Where they were born, where they went to school, etc. is not going to be any more interesting that (say) my bio! (Got a minute? Let me tell you about myself....:) Student715:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Your math is off. Even the 1952 Summer Olympics had 4,925 competitors, and 3,963 in 1936 Summer Olympics so I don't think 5000 is a valid average, and there seem to have been 28 of them, not 25. Relatively few compete in both Winter and Summer Olympics, as they cover different sports, so grouping them together is unjustified. The Winter Olympics were smaller, of course, 2,508 in 2006 Winter Olympics, and there were only 20 of them, rather than 28, but still your numbers need to be higher, I'd estimate potentially 10% of the articles of the encyclopedia. Notice also that this isn't all sports by any means, this is just the Olympic competitions, while commercial Football, Basketball, Soccer, Cricket, etc., get even more coverage than the Olympics. In short, I'm for winners only here. Not nominees. :-). --AnonEMouse(squeak)16:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the rationale is that the representatives of a country at the olympics are the very best amateur athletes at a national scale, and we usually regard national-level notability as sufficient. This sometimes does produce non-inutitive results for some small countries, but it is better than debatng them all. DGG (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. On the whole, you might have a few sneak in there, but this is consistent with the way other athletes are handled. Making it to an olympic team, for any country, is notable.Balloonman04:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
What about individual team members, given that the team has won an olympic medal (not individual medal)? Are all team members inherently notable, or are some more "important" than the rest? While gold winning teams should have higher priority, what about silver and bronze winning teams – and the players/runners/etc on those teams? This question also extends to World Championships, American/Asian/African/European Championships, and down to national championships. When we contribute new articles, we should rather select subjects that are sufficiently notable and who deserve to stay. Any advice (or pointers to guidelines or discussions)? Oceanh (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC).
Olympic Animals notability
This looks like the spot to ask a question I cannot find an answer for. Specifically regarding Equestrian at the Summer Olympics. Basically, is the horse ridden by an Olympic competitor inherently notable enough for its own wikipedia article, or should it be merged into the article about the person? (For the sake of argument, let's assume the person meets the notability criteria) WikiProject Equine has discovered that there are about 10 quadrillion-zillion one sentence stubs on everything from Suzie's My Little Pony to animals of some actual significance (we have consensus that Bucephalus is notable, for example). The sticking point seems to be animals that competed in the Olympics or other World-Class competition, but didn't actually win anything, even if their rider won either earlier or later. If anyone cares to offer advice, two current subjects of discussion are Diamond`s Exchange, who competed at the Olympics, but didn't win anything, and Burke's Boy who won some international competitions less than that of the Olympics. In both cases, their riders are reasonably notable, particularly Pippa Funnell. Thanks for any help or inputMontanabw(talk)06:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Could I get an independent voice to look at the proposed poker criteria to see if they believe that a consensus has been reached on the subject? I believe that one has been, but as I have participated in the discussion, I am not a neutral voice. I'd like somebody who hasn't contributed to look at the discussion---right now the regular Poker Project Participants .Balloonman08:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Award wins versus nominatiions (Porn Actors)
I find the "serious nominee" for a well-known award criteria to be ridiculous with respect to pornography awards. The AVN Awards, considered the Oscars of Porn, is a complete joke in the abundance of nominations it dispenses. If you look at the 2008 nominees, there are over 50 categories with an average of 10 nominations for each year. That's at least 500 nominations and many nominations are group awards involving several people. That's just only for 2008! How do we discern a serious 'notable' nominee from a non-notable nominee? The argument that the idea that the nominees are all notable to be included in wikipedia is incredible. I think the only serious nominee is the winner. I think the criteria should be amended to include only winners of 'reputable' adult industry awards. Vinh1313 (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Per previous discussion, I'd recommend that we go with the one consensus that did arise, namely discuss group/scene awards later since they're a separate issue. Horrorshowj (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with AnonEMouse and Vinh1313. Winners only. When you think about it, how does pornography acting (for women) differ from prostitution? I'll won't get on the soapbox, but the fewer of these in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia, the better. Student7 (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Also tend to agree that the generalized standards for biography should be applied to porn stars as well. It should be noted that this is very much a niche market, and that I don't see a reason for including bios based on "trends". Articles on those trends, if they are significant, would make sense, but not necessarily bios of people involved in those trends. The only question I have to not including nominees is whether nominated individuals tend to be included in reliable secondary sources. The basic question there is probably whether magazines related to porn films which are likely to feature such nominees to a degree qualify as reliable secondary soureces, and I personally don't know the answer there. If we could clarify whether these magazines do qualify as reliable, secondary sources or not, then I think that the question of including nominees or winners would be moot. However, in general, I would say that nominees for any niche award should not be necessarily automatically given notability. If they are featured in Reliable secondary sources, that would be enough, but "one-hit wonders" appear in all industries, and aren't necessarily notable on the basis of a single action. John Carter (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm highly tempted to withdraw my comment given that "agreement" from Student7. :-(. I don't know if I can disagree with someone who claims to agree with me, but I couldn't disagree more strongly - just for one point, what's the difference between pornography acting for women and for men again? :-( And for another - what's wrong with including outright prostitutes in an encyclopedia? What would we be without articles on Ninon de l'Enclos or Madame du Barry or Calamity Jane? The Britannicaseemstohavedozensofthem. Writing about people is not a sign that we agree with or seek to popularize their lifestyle, it's merely an acknowledgment that they exist and have had an influence on the world. We write about Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer, but we don't advocate emulating them! --AnonEMouse(squeak)16:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
While I didn't mean to exclude men, some are reputed to work in the porn industry "for free." If money is not on the table, most women would find "better" things to do. I'm guessing that to be felonious prostitution there has to be payment. Also, some of the women you mentioned qualify as "mistresses" and were influential in areas other than (or besides) merely pandering to men's lust. Having said that, I would hope we can all agree that the quantity of bios are/can get out of hand. It's one thing to have a Linda Lovelace, on whom some newsprint and airtime were devoted back when she made her movie, but something else to produce an article on someone who is essentially unknown to the rest of us, and really, not that interesting. Nobody unique, in other words. I'm not concerned about emulation just tying up good virtual space on someone who hasn't really done anything to deserve it. Unless taking off her clothes and faking enjoyment qualifies as "deserving." Student7 (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
"essentially unknown to the rest of us" is exactly what the Notability policy is about. The Olympic Gold Medal winner for Fencing in 1968, and the Junior Senator from Iowa in 1950, and the singer of the second most popular song of 1984, and the Nobel Prize Winner in Chemistry of 1927, and the President of Luxembourg in the same year are generally considered notable, even though it would take a rare person to be able to name them all at once. Notable doesn't mean notable to any specific person, it means notable to the world, which includes a lot of people with different interests. There is a significant number of people with a substantial interest in this field, and it gets truly impressive newsprint and air time; surely you don't claim there are few magazines or television channels devoted to pornography? Compare that to Fencing, say. Or Luxembourg. When "the Luxembourg Channel" can be found on every television set in every hotel room in the world, write back, please. As for "paid" and "deserving" ... ehh. I question whether or not someone was paid for appearing in pornography makes a huge difference in the impact the appearance had on the world, but of course murderers and cannibals are much more "deserving", what was I thinking? :-) --AnonEMouse(squeak)18:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, we'll need a seperate subsection to discuss articles for notable cannibals. I'll have to defer to people more widely read in that field than I.
Something a little less controversial (ha. I thought). There was an article up for deletion (I'm making this up to protect the guilty, but it's close). He was runner up in the "All-Australian Ironman" in 2003. I didn't vote but thought that his status as an successful athlete merited some consideration. Other than that one achievement, though, he hadn't really done anything else. Stood well down the list in other races. Too busy running to create a personal life! My question is: does Wikipedia exist to publicize and enshrine achievements or to simply record them. Where we have had arguments, it is over extra publicity. What one of us considers "extra."
I'm from a small state, but the bar we have for "notables" from that state, page 1, (there is a subordinate list) is I need to have heard about that person before. I have to defer to others for athletes. God knows, there are a thousand sports and a hundred thousand athletes. It seems to me that you are saying that there should be no criteria for anyone, since (if I were a hockey fan) I can't know anything about tennis. So if I haven't heard of a tennis star, s/he may go on page 1 anyway. I think a pre-eminent star(s) like the Williams, for example, would come to my attention.
I can't answer for page 2 notables. We do require an article which is what we are discussing here. Like most people, I can't see having an article on the ten thousand who show up for the Olympics. Nor the porn stars nominated for an award. In both cases, there are just too many of them. And there is far more print space/air time devoted to sports than porn. At least in the channels/papers I read.
No, I still prefer winners, due to the large number of nominees. I just didn't like the way this turned into an attack on all coverage of the field. Since it seems to have gotten back to winners vs nominees, I'm happy - carry on. :-) --AnonEMouse(squeak)21:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep nominees First I you're overreacting a bit in your count. There are 19 categories for performers. Discounting the "Crossover Star of the Year" because no one there needs it, there are 221 nominees or about 12.3 per category. 60 of those went to people with more than one nomination this year. Looking over the names of the rest, I'm sure about 60% of the nominees outside the newcomer categories are repeats. Cat 1 is the gold standard for porn actors surviving an AfD. While I'm sure there have been more, I personally have only seen 2 cases where an article's subject was held to meet one of the other subcategories, 1 of which ended with the admin overruling consensus. The number of nominees is minute compared to the number of performers in the industry. I know one argument raised was that porn is a niche industry, however films alone were conservatively estimate to have $4 Billion in US sales during 2002 [6], with the industry as a whole in the US being around the Recording industry level in revenues. So the argument that we are over representing porn performers doesn't seem terribly convincing, as it's a lot harder percentage wise to meet this than the additional qualifiers for WP:Music, sports or even general performers. Finally, if non winners are assumed to just be a "flash in the pan", would you mind explaining how that applies to someone who goes winless over three years of nominations? Horrorshowj (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
As it is, most of the articles submitted for these categories are speedily deleted as not even meeting this minimal criterion. I am therefore not convinced we have a problem. I frankly don't care about them, but i don't see why it should bother me. the encyclopedia is meant to be comprehensive. DGG (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, if it comes to that, we will soon reach the point where we have enough memory to have articles on everyone in the world. While I hope we don't start today - we have neither the editors nor the time - it may come to that. Maybe all we're talking about here is the curve on which that will happen. Fifty years ago I wouldn't have qualified as an editor of an encyclopedia. That was a job for noteworthy college professors only. They decided who got into the book, very limited by space. A handful of athletes. So maybe all we are discussing is how much we can handle in the way of articles. How many eyeballs do we need to ensure the integrity of articles. I try to follow several hundred. Excluding the vandals (and you can't) there is about 30% edits that are specious - spam, repetitious, false claims. While we are talking theory here, remember that the articles that get added will have to be monitored by someone. It is notoriously difficult to get real facts on porn stars. Comparatively easy for other articles. The reason is that the women (okay, equal opportunity, but I haven't had quite the same problem with men porn star - one that I watch) don't necessarily want their mothers (and maybe other people) to know of their involvement. They have created fictional personas which they expect everyone to accept but which don't stand up to close scrutiny. That is, we really don't know the real names of most women porn stars. We may think we do! But they are ignored by trustworthy sources like the NY Times, Associated Press, etc. Or they don't bother checking either when printing what they assume is a "throwaway" story. We deal in facts. This is nearly impossible outside of their careers for a female (and probably some male) porn star. The fewer, the better IMO. Student715:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
we already have quite enough memory. as mentioned, the question is editors--and if everyone over 13 in the world contributed and checked each others work, who knows what we could accomplish? (grin). But there is a point in aiming at an encyclopedia containing something intermediary between a universal facebook and a short printed biographic dictionary. We aim only for a reasonable degree of accuracy--we are not trying to produce an absolute authority--we are not aiming at the truth on everything, just the ascertainable information of relevance. For a performer of any genre, it doesn't really matter all that much what their true name or place of birth is, or where they went to high school--that is usually not the sort of information people come here for, but their career--their works and awards, and perhaps what they look like--if we get that right, we are doing what we need to do. We are writing for their fans, not their family. Even fifty years ago there were printed works giving details of major performing artists , and on athletes. Even twenty-five centuries ago, people thought worth while recording their deeds on permanent records, even when they had to carve stone to accomplish it. DGG (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC).
wording
I clarified some of the wording a little distinguishing article content from articles. At least I think I did. feel free to revert. DGG (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Removed line from additional criteria
I removed the line "Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products" from the additional criteria, as it seemed very our of place there. It had been there at least for a month (perhaps much longer, haven't checked further), but I can't make head or tails of what this is supposed to mean. Is a person notable if he has made "Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products"? That's, umm, bizarre. Either the person is chosen because he or she was already notable, or he or she is some ad actor. IF you becomle notable as the face of an ad campaign, then there will be articles abuot you. But you are not, never, notable, just becaues you do commercial endorsements. Fram (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I am posting here as Wikipedia:Notable alumni has been refernce back to this guideline. The question relates to the list of notable alumni as found in school articles.
What are the guidelines for indicating that a individual actually attended the school. Simply stating that a notable individual attended the school would appear to me to be original research. Are there any guidelines as to how to establish that fact?
The following examples might help:
Using Mount Carmel High School (San Diego, California) as an example.
Billy Beane there is no mention in the linked article as to what high school he attended.
Darren Balsley the linked article does state that he attended the school, but there are no references to support that claim in the article.
The previous example expands the question as to how much referencing is required to support statments in an article.
This is not really a question of notability, but one of verifiability. You aren't questioning whether the person is notable, but whether the claim of attending the school is factual. The same is true of notable citizen sections in articles on cities. Probably the best solution is to tag the entry with a [citation needed] tag. --Kevin Murray07:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
notability of coaches
I'd like to propose that the athletes section includes coaches as well. In the Atheletes section under "Additional Criteria", change each instance of "competitors" to "Competitors and coaches". Better yet "Competitors and Head Coaches" as some sports have a number of coaching positions which dont necessarily warrant automatic notability. --Rtphokie (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Good idea but some sports (esp.tennis, golf and gymnastics) rely primarily on individual coaching. Head coach only could easily be read to exclude them. Additionally, in the NFL I think some of the better coordinators are more notable than a lot of head coaches. What about managers/general managers? I'm inclined to agree with your rough idea, but have concerns with the wording and scope of the change. Horrorshowj (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Similarly--it needs to be limited--head coaches & managers of professional sports teams, certainly. In amateur sports, coaches of very well know college teams, but i would be reluctant to extend it otherwise. DGG (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This is just to inform those who may have missed it that the members of WikiProject Poker have proposed a new notability guideline for poker players. Their proposal was incomplete, so I completed it by moving it to its current location and announcing it here. This is a procedural post only, and I make no comment here as to the acceptability of the proposed guideline. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Added the restrictive version of proposal under additional criteria for athletes, as that seemed to have been a livable compromise based on the various discussions. Horrorshowj (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
You were bold, but I disagree with the placement under athletes and I think that we should discuss the criteria more broadly before adding it to the criteria. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I thought putting the restriction under athlete's made sense as Cat 1 of their add criteria is what's cited during AfD. It also seemed like it had less opposition than creating an additional category of criteria.Horrorshowj (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
That's why I think your closing the discussion was premature and based upon our mini-dispute rather than the merits of the discussion.. The discussion of the latest proposal was garnering constructive comments from all sides and compromises were being made.Balloonman (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Can we come up with a category which is broad enough to encompass all people who are notable for non-athletic games? e.g., chess, poker, other games of skill, games of chance. Then come up with some criteria. If we can get a broader group then maybe we could start a new section. --Kevin Murray (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
To minimize a forked discussion, please discuss subject Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Hole_in_Bio I'm going to have to disagree with that for two reasons. First, discussing specific changes to articles or guidelines is supposed to take place on the the talk page of the subject in question. Second, while both grew out of the poker player notability list, the framing of the other discussion has already turned it into a theological discussion of notability, and isn't going to yield anything productive. This isn't a fork of the other discussion, it's an attempt at a much narrower change. Therefore the following is proposed, adding as a restriction of the first Athletes Additional Criteria the following:Competition of "equivalent standing" in poker is generally limited to the winners of WPT/WSOP/EPT events or Poker Hall of Fame inductees. Although I'm open to putting it under a different area if anyone has a better idea.Horrorshowj (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
As that is essentially the new proposal that I made, I like it. Another option,and Kevin might like this, For notability purposes, Poker Players are not considered athletes. While ESPN calls them athletes, they really aren't and making it to the premiere event is not based so much on skill as it is money. ANYBODY with the money can compete in the WSOP, even if they've never played a game in their lives. Unfortunately, in AfD's people are using Athletes as the appropriate analog for poker players. Heck, I would even accept one of these options as a footnote to the current guidelines! Our (the Poker Projects) goal is not to expand or completely revamp BIO, it is to close this line of reasoning. But, I think Masema's (and other's) were looking for a more generic option.Balloonman (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Another option: Participation in and in most cases winning individual tournaments, except the most prestigious events, does not make non-Athletic competitors notable. This includes, but is not limited to, Poker, Bridge, Chess, Magic:The Gathering, Starcraft, etc.Balloonman (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The other one being, Participation in and in most cases winning individual tournaments, except the most prestigious events, does not make non-Athletic competitors notable. This includes, but is not limited to, Poker, Bridge, Chess, Magic:The Gathering, Starcraft, etc? If so, then that would, IMHO, be more appropriate as a bullet point under Athletes rather than a footnote.Balloonman (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I added it as a footnote for athletes. I feel that if we were to add it as a new 'professional standard' then that would have to be cleared via a more elaborate process. As a foot note clarifying that non-atheletes are not governed by the exception listed, is something that we could do here without more discussion.Balloonman (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with adding it there for simplicity. Kevin, I understand your philosophical disagreement with poker players being under athletes, since it's not a physical sport and thus they aren't athletes. Poker players aren't exactly united behind their claim as athletes either, and it's perfectly reasonable to oppose. However, that first category of athletes is usually what is cited for the basis of notability so to me it makes sense to keep it there.
However, if you're still adamant that it not go there, and want a "Non-Athletic Competitors" category, I have no objections. I would suggest that if we go this way we bring the spelling bee restriction over under the same category. Horrorshowj (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a very bad idea, amounting to instruction-creep at its worst, based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of notability on wikipedia, confusing notability with concepts such as significance or worthiness. It's an attempt to micro-specify exceptions to the general notability requirements, another example of how the core principles of notability have been obscured for some editors by the apparent creation of exceptions.
The crucial thing in all of this is that wikipedia is is a tertiary publication. In other words, we don't do research on primary sources (that's WP:NOR) and we cover those subjects which have already been found notable by others. So we don't make our own original assessment of notability, we follow what reliable sources have already found to be notable, and the test we use is whether the subject has been the subject of substantial coverage in those reliable sources, with multiple instances preferred. I cannot stress strongly enough that this is not some bolt-on point of detail; it's central to how wikipedia works.
There are some cases where it has been agreed that a particular class of person has a rebuttable presumption of notability. Those are cases when it can be reliably assumed that the substantial coverage is available, even if it hasn't been found yet, and there is very strong resistance to adding anything to the list (there is more interest in removing presumptions of notability). There are many reasons for the reluctance to add, but one of the strongest is a general aversion to "instruction creep", to adding more and more detail to the already lengthy collection of policies and guidelines on wikipedia.
The recent round of AfDs (largely instigated by me) has demonstrated several things:
That a huge number of articles of very old people have been created without adequate referencing
That in some cases, references have been found which establish notability per WP:BIO
That in others, little or no coverage exists
This proposal asks us to presume that in all cases, people over a certain age (or meeting the other criteria) will, somewhere, have received sufficient coverage to pass the notability tests in WP:BIO, and that this info will eventually be found in reliable sources if people search hard enough. That's clearly not the case: see e.g. Walter Richardson, Eleanor Plant, Johnson Parks, Anne Primout, Mary McKinney, Henry Hartmann, Gunhild Foerster, Mae Harrington, James W. Wiggins and many other old people who are the subject of little or no coverage in reliable sources beyond entries in lists, or in many cases nothing at all beyond the lists. Given the high number of very old people who demonstrably don't have substantial coverage, this proposed extension would lead to the creation hundreds of permastubs like those currently under consideration at AfD.
Returning to the general principles at stake here, it seems to me that this proposal is really yet another attempt to create a loophole in the fundamental principles of WP:NOR and WP:V; it's an attempt to say that regardless of the fact that the wider world may not have found these people sufficiently significant to merit coverage in scholarly sources, biographies, or reputable and significant news media, that wikipedia should take it upon itself to decide that they are nonetheless significant. That's straightforward original research. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
First, it should be obvious that WP:V and WP:RS have to be satisfied, in addition to any listed criteria.
The question is then, whether age, per se, makes a person sufficiently notable. I would say no, except for extreme cases, for instance when a person is (or was) recognized as the world's oldest woman/man.
Having said that, my opinion is that age may add to a person's notability in various ways.
For instance, the oldest (or youngest) person climbing Mount Everest could be considered unique enough. Or winners of Veteran World Championships, especially the oldest classes. Or the world's oldest mother. Or, as living witnesses from past times, if their stories have been documented in some form. The main question is to what degree the person has been subject to treatment by secondary sources. Oceanh (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
I disagree with the instruction creep of creating inherent notability for anyone who is said to have reached a certain extreme age. We should insist on substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
but we dont actually insist on it. we consider one really reliable source that makes a clear statement of notability, and we accept articles where the notability is obvious. And if we did use this as the only criterion--why then we'd just be arguing instead what actually counts as a RS and what counts as a clear statement of notability. There is no substitute for judgment. DGG (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
A "special criterion" basically assumes that if one dug in reference databases, there would likely be sufficient reliable sources to write a non-stub article. When the average Joe just survives through many years there is no such basis for assuming that there were lots of reliable sources, if he/she lived a non-notable life duriong the active years and then survived a number of years beyond. Edison (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It is not just a matter of proving something to be true. I think that we are trying to limit inclusion to those people who have been "noticed" by other writers in some meaningful way -- more than just included on a list or in government records. I agree with DGG that one sturdy source can be sufficient, but I was just quoting Edison's criteria. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not happy with the one study source approach, simply because it leads to copyright problems: the article becomes a summary of a single source.
this was exhaustively discussed at WP:ATT months ago, and elsewhere, and there was no real consensus that 2 RS=N without exceptions in both directions. I was new here and asked does that mean 2RS is enough regardless of lack of notability otherwise, and nobody had a clear answer. Even then, I didnt really think they would. So I asked do we mean 2RS + the other criteria, and that didnt seem to get a clear answer either. The special cases are more than essays, they're necessary exemplifications. The only use of the basic criterion is as a fall back in case we cant think of anything else to say. DGG (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I've made a proposal regarding this on the Village Pump (Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal for subproject: Biographies by Age). My proposal on village pump refers not to creating policy, but to streamlining the process, and standardizing articles such as the Supercentenarians, et al. This discussion here is closely related to it, and I think that the issue should be addressed on a larger scale, hence the proposal. Your input is most appreciated.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 20:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
"Additional Criteria"; Notability of athletes on fringe of major league
I think I still agree with User:Cyrus Andiron that WP policy implies that one becomes noted enough for Wikipedia by playing in the NFL, generating records that are repeated and discussed in various secondary sources, and not just by signing a contract. I think that the guidelines supporting WP policy should specify at least playing in a regular-season or playoff (or Cup tournament) game, not just practice-squad play or preseason cattle-call.
This doesn't seem to have been discussed here or at Wikipedia talk:Notability (athletes) in a long time. Wikipedia:Verifiability is the controlling policy, of course, but WP:BIO's "Additional criteria" of "is generally notable if ... have competed in a fully professional league" typically gets thrown around in AfD debates as if it overrides WP:V and obviates the need for multiple nontrivial independent sources. This has made me think that the text should be clarified in two ways:
The text describing the "Additional criteria" section shouldn't suggest that fitting one of these groups exempts a subject from the "Basic criteria" above it. Rather, it should probably say that such people will usually have sufficient secondary sources to meet the basic criteria.
The subsection on "Athletes" within the "Additional criteria" section should be more specific than "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league...", perhaps requiring actual play in a regular-season game or meaningful playoff. Playing in exhibitions (such as NFL preseason games), being on a roster but on the bench for an official game, or playing on a practice squad probably should not form a presumption of enough notability for a standalone article.
(Comments in AfDs indicate that practice-squad players' articles are routinely created and kept. If they get any coverage, I believe it's minor enough for those players to be merged into a section in each team's 200x season article.) Would people please comment on these two possible changes to WP:BIO? Barno (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Competed in means played in. Preseason games are exhibitions and don't count. The only time I've ever heard of a practice squad type surviving an AfD without some other qualification, occurred when the subject had been called up and stood a decent chance of playing within a couple weeks. It was agreed to table the discussion and come back to it after the season if he still didn't meet it. So whomever is making these AfD comments would be misinformed. As for the rest, please see the huge discussion elsewhere on the page.Horrorshowj (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you in that "Competed in means played in". A player according to my understanding of the notability criteria for athletes needs to have actually played in a first grade game. I'm also of the opinion that the notability criteria for athletes needs work. Some football fans who are also editors here may not agree with my opinions! But the way I see it even just playing first grade should not really automatically give someone the notability to have an article here on Wikipedia. What if they only play a few games and lack lustre ones at that, and then they retire with a busted knee or something? Shouldn't "notability" mean notable within their sport? Fair enough if they play well and generate enough stats to deserve their notability. Win club awards after a particularly good season etc. It seems to me that football players are looked upon as being rather sacred by some? I've seen AfD's go either way depending on who gets into the discussion. If enough football fans become aware of an AfD against one of their "idols" then the votes to keep come pretty thick. At other times I've seen the no first grade games criteria abided by pretty strictly. I've also noticed College footballers have pages here as well. I don't regard College football as first grade. Yet I'll bet every College player has his article! Some would no doubt be very notable indeed. And I'm not begrudging the better College footballers having an article. The press would be absolutely full of sources to cite for the better players. But again there are also articles including players here who in my opinion are very un-notable and as such undeserving of an encyclopedic article. It all seems to be a case of editors trying to get the full set so to speak. The whole player list needs to be filled and their obsession drives them to keep creating articles until they have everyone of them covered in their chosen team. Don't get me wrong. I agree that footballers are magnificent sportsmen but not all of them are great. Some make it to first grade and wind up being duds. Do we really need an article for every footballer? Why not every Doctor? How about every Teacher? The notability criteria definitely does need work in my opinion. Sting_auTalk10:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The two of you might be interested in the discussion on how to fix the "additional criteria" section above. It addresses the issue of not just athletes, but the entire professional standards component of the additional criteria. Balloonman (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Stubs and lists
There are clearly a lot of people like Hiroshi Yoshizawa who qualify under the current tenious application of rules on notability but about who there are very few details available from acceptable sources. Can I suggest that (as per minor Hogwarts characters like Narcissa Malfoy for example) we include them in list form and redirect the name article page to the list until (if ever) we find enough info on them to include them properly? That avoids us sentencing them to perpetuity in stub land and means they will be collected amongst their peers. The list can build up info until there is enough to revert to a whole page. Views? --BozMotalk10:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
A sensible and efficient suggestion. Alice✉ 23:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I like this suggestion a lot, and can see it being useful for the myriad of open source developers and computer security experts I watch the WP cover as well. --- tqbf01:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I note that at present Google does not index redirects. Moving an article to a redirect will cause the WP article covering it to be much less visible.Notthat this is the only consideeration.... DGG (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell Google does index many redirects. I often google for English expressions (like air rifle) and get the WP article with a US title via google. --BozMotalk09:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The merge-and-redirect option works well for minor fictional characters because: (1) they are usually not individually notable, and (2) they all exist within a particular context (a single work of fiction). With real people, the situation is different: since people do not exist within a single context, merging biographical information to a list – when the subject is not notable – will generally not produce a useful, quality list (also, by convention, lists of people should generally include only notable people). If the subject is notable, then I see nothing wrong with letting a short article remain. Unlike {{unreferenced}} or {{npov}}, stub tags do not signify a problem that needs to be somehow addressed. Black Falcon(Talk)04:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I was kind of thinking of lists like "members of the 1948 Japanese Olympic team" like Hiroshi Yoshizawa where at present they all have there own pages with very little on them. As soon as they hit pretty well anything notable beyond DoB and competition result by all means spin them off. Given someone seems to have decided that certain events qualify people as notable (not a decision I presonally like) listing under the event until anything else turns up seemed a good plan. --BozMotalk09:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I reverted this addition [7] to BIO. I don't know whether it is a good addition or not, becaus the IP editor did not explain the addition and the characters are not recognizable to most western editors. I object to IP editors modifying policy and performing unexplained clerical tasks. Please either identify yourself or explain your purpose. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey KM - while I wasn't the one to do it, it was a link to the equivalent guideline in Japanese wikipedia. Usually those Interwiki links are added without comment (and are technically not part of the guideline). I see another editor has already put it back. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It's probably fine, but how do we know that it is not a hoax when it is added by a single purpose IP address? Of course now that it has been added by a recognized user (two at this point) I'm convinced. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It did work as a real interwiki link to the Japanese wiki. That was good enough for me. I see perhaps 30 of these a day in article space and if the interwiki link is good I think we should leave them. The person who put them in may not speak much English and I have done them on the German WP with comments only in English. --BozMotalk21:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
