This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability (people) page.
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming

Archives
2009 2008 09/2007 - 12/2007 04/2007 - 08/2007 02/2007 - 03/2007 10/2006 - 01/2007 06/2006 - 10/2006 05/2006 - 07/2006 07/2005 - 05/2006 08/2004 - 06/2005

---

Contents 1 WP:ATH 1.1 Second Revised Guideline 1.2 Overall Comments 2 Proposal for a new "Notability (military officers)" 3 Input on my page about a living person Kwainwright (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 4 WP:POLITICIAN unintended consequences 5 Minor League Baseball Player Notability Concerns

[edit] WP:ATH

There needs to be a separate notability guideline for American football players. The NFL itself is extremely confusing with its active players being inactive on gamedays and its practice squad members, reserve members, etc. The current guidelines suggest that an athlete must have participated at a fully professional level, but does not specify whether that means for NFL players to be on an active NFL roster or active on gamedays or active on a practice squad or active on injured reserve. American football needs its own notability guideline in order to lessen these types of discussions that never end. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the meaning of competed is pretty clear. Simply taking up space on a roster isn't competing if the player doesn't actually play in the game. NFL rosters are already bigger than most other sports leagues and the league has no minor league, so most players already pass WP:ATHLETE. The ones that don't are the exception. There is no need to make alterations to include a handful of individuals. Grsz¹¹ 04:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Eagles247 wrote "current guidelines suggest that an athlete must have participated at a fully professional level". But in fact, they suggest that an athlete must have "competed at the fully professional level of a sport" to be automatically considered notable. I think this roster / active question is moot once the original guideline is revisited. ^Bongo_matic 04:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, please see this archived thread. ^Bongo_matic 04:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, WP:ATHLETE is clear in what it says. But the issue is, should that be what determines notability for pro football players? I'm inclined to say no. There's no reason there can't be more specific guidelines for the notability of pro football players, because it shouldn't be as simple as "playing in an NFL game."►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course it isn't that simple, they have to meet WP:GNG period, which even some guys who have played wouldn't do. I feel that ATHLETE is making more guys notable than less. Grsz¹¹ 04:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

See the beginning of WP:GNG: "A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines:" then it lists the notability guidelines. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(major edit conflict) Players that are on active rosters (even for a day) should be notable, as opposed to practice squad players, and this should be specified in the guidelines. Also, I have no idea what you are trying to say Bongomatic. "I think this roster / active question is moot once the original guideline is revisited." ????? Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Eagles247, you stated that the guideline is confusing, citing questions about roster status, etc. However, it is not the least bit confusing or ambiguous as "competed" (as opposed to "participated") is the active word. Status is irrelevant—only if someone competed. ^Bongo_matic 04:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know that I just said "participated" instead of "competed" because I didn't feel like looking up the exact guideline. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I was only responding to your statement that "'I have no idea what you are trying to say Bongomatic. 'I think this roster / active question is moot once the original guideline is revisited'" by clarifying my original statement. ^Bongo_matic 05:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:ATH is more inclusive than the GNG, but like all subject-specific notability guidelines, is meant to be a proxy for whether it is likely that significant coverage exists but simply is yet to be identified. There will be inactive or practice squad players that will be notable per GNG (or some other reason), but there is no inherent notability in being on the practice squad, or being an inactive player that has never competed—just like there is no inherent notability in performing other tasks for a professional athletics team (e.g., statistician, accountant, equipment master). ^Bongo_matic 05:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose the current wording. Being listed on the active roster is ambiguous because is Jaison Williams notable now because he spent a few weeks on the active roster in the offseason. If the wording is changed to say on the active roster for a game then I'll support.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 13:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well I didn't know this was going to be like a vote (or an AfD), so I'll provide the new guideline I would like to see for American football:

Gridiron football players

• 1. People who have been listed on the active roster of a fully professional gridiron football team, such as the National Football League, Arena Football League, Canadian Football League, and United Football League.

• Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Most of the players on an active roster will play and pass ATHLETE. The few that don't are a rare exception and are not notable. I don't see why we're making a fuss over maybe a dozen players. Grsz¹¹ 15:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

God you are being a pain in the ass. You don't even know anything about pro football and you're stubbornly opposing all kinds of reasonable things here.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Chris, it's obvious you haven't read a damn thing I or anybody else who opposes has said. It has nothing to do with knowing anything about pro football, which I challenge you to find anything we've said that is inaccurate. You've already made up some arbitrary standard that drafted players are notable, which again fails ATHLETE, and now you're raising a fuss about another handful of players. It's pointless. Grsz¹¹ 16:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Revised Guideline:

Gridiron football players

• • 1. People who have been listed on the active roster of a fully professional gridiron football team during the regular season or postseason for that league, such as the National Football League, Arena Football League, Canadian Football League, and United Football League.
    2. People who have been drafted by a National Football League team in an NFL Draft, by a Canadian Football League team in a CFL Draft, or by a United Football League in a UFL Draft.

• Thanks again, Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Oppose all of these proposed changes. The last thing we need to do is to loosen WP:ATH any further. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I learned the hard way that most players in the CFL Draft never play there. First rounders only. Playing is crucial but being listed as inactive (which I assume you meant) is considered non-notable despite the fact it should be notable.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 17:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The "drafted" argument is a losing battle. I would say above a certain round should be relevant in the NFL though. Maybe top three or so. Because it's a story if the guy didn't play as well.

Also, I don't know if there will be any support for this, but I feel like if a guy hangs around the NFL for at least three years or so on practice squads/preseasons, I feel like that should be worthy of inclusion. One could even argue that preseason games do pass WP:ATHLETE, even if it shouldn't.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there'd be support for it but if he hangs around then I see no reason why he couldn't be notable. Top 3 or so round sounds good as well for the NFL and then first round in the CFL and UFL.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 17:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well the UFL draft isn't really an amateur draft. They were drafting the rights to players, many of whom were already pros from time in other leagues. They were basically saying "if Chris Perry wants to play in the CFL, we got dibs." So unless they have a true amateur draft, it shouldn't be included in any guidelines for notability.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

True, wasn't sure if the UFL was going to draft players undrafted in the NFL Draft or not. If that's not the case then the UFL shouldn't be included.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 18:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Second Revised Guideline

Gridiron football players

• • 1. People who have been listed on the active roster of a fully professional gridiron football team during the regular season or postseason for that league, such as the National Football League, Arena Football League, Canadian Football League, and United Football League.
    2. People who have been drafted by a National Football League team in the first, second, or third round in an NFL Draft; by a Canadian Football League team in the first round of a CFL Draft; or by a United Football League in the first round of a UFL Draft.

• Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Makes most sense, especially the second bullet which I believe is the only one we could get consensus on.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 18:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - while I don't follow gridiron football very much, I don't see a good explanation why it needs a looser standard than other sports. Jogurney (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Explanation: So controversial discussions like this stop popping up everyday. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at that AfD (and even !voted). It's not very controversial as no one has done the work to show the article would pass the general notability guideline. I tried and found almost no sources on the guy. I think you need to show something more compelling before I would agree to loosen WP:BIO for gridiron football players. Jogurney (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, and clarify this guideline to unambiguously state that the primary notability guideline must be passed. Articles on "pros" that don't pass should be removed, articles on "non-pros" that do should be kept. We have the sources to write a full article, or we don't. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Seraphimblade's excellent summary: either we have the sources to write a full article, or we don't. If we do have the sources, WP:GNG is met, so there is no problem, and if we don't have the sources why create the article? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Overall Comments

• Oppose any of these changes. The existing guidelines cover this just fine, and we don't need more bureaucracy. 23:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Actually, the existing guidelines have been terrible for years. Construed strictly, anyone pitching half an inning for a rookie-league team or played a single shift in the low minors in hockey gets a pass, whether or not the athlete passes WP:V, the GNG or otherwise. There's never been remotely close to a consensus notion of "fully professional," which some construe to mean semi-pro and others construe to mean "only major leagues." Heck, there's not even a consensus definition of "sport." About the best thing possible would be to ditch WP:ATHLETE altogether and devolve athletic notability standards to the individual WikiProjects, which could then tailor them much better to the vagaries of the individual sports ... and many have already done so.  RGTraynor  22:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • You have my support for doing so, but I think similar attempts have been rejected in the past. Jogurney (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for a new "Notability (military officers)"

I was surprised to see this didn't exist already, but I'd like to propose a new guideline for the notability of military officers. It would apply to:

• All General/ Flag officers (or at least 2 star and above since Brigadiers/ Brigadier Generals could be fairly unremarkable)
• Officers who have held notable commands (commanders of deployments/ large bases where they do not meet the above) or notable roles within notable commands (where the role, if not the person, receives substantial coverage)
• Officers awarded highly notable decorations (Victoria Cross, Medal of Honour, Distinguished Service Orders etc)
• Officers considered experts (and reported as such in RSs) in their field

who would not otherwise meet WP:N, the WP:GNG, or WP:ANYBIO. I wonder if anyone else has any opinions or suggestions? HJMitchell You rang? 22:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If these people would not pass WP:N, the WP:GNG, or WP:ANYBIO, how will we be able to write neutral biographies on them? Kevin (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that people who should qualify should already pass existing criteria. This has already been discussed, I think. Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2009#Notibility for military and related sections in that archive. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:MILMOS#NOTE and ongoing discussion along the same lines at WT:MILMOS#Notability Military Biography. David Underdown (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Kevin's question goes to the core of the problem with all such proposals. If the people concerned already pass existing criteria, the new criterion is superfluous; but if they don't pass the existing criterion, then there's no scope for a neutral article. So the new clause seem guaranteed to produce either useless articles or a useless paragraph in the guidelines. Why does anyone want to do this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not at all sure that your proposal adequately discusses the way in which military figures are uniquely remarkable. Simply holding a notable command, e.g. being CINCPAC during a short period when nothing happened, isn't a cause for notability. I think that we need to retain WP:GNG at a minimum, which WP:MILMOS#NOTE does. --Bejnar (talk) 04:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, do you have any article creations or AfDs on military officer articles in mind that were problematic? Шизомби (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Input on my page about a living person Kwainwright (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kwainwright/new_article_name_here

Kwainwright (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POLITICIAN unintended consequences

I am surprised that it took so long for the glitch to be spotted, but a small and change by Sandstein to WP:POLITICIAN has had the effect of radically altering the meaning of point 1 in unitary nations such as the Republic of Ireland, at least for those who take it literally.

Here's what happened. In this edit on 10 June 2008, Sandstein changed point 1 as follows:

old text

1. Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature

new text

1. People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges.

The edit summary reads "rephrasing first bullet point: briefer, now explicitly including judges", so apart from adding judges, I take it that Sandstein's intention was simply to provide a more succinct definition, not to change the meaning.

Unfortunately, that's not what happened. In a Federal state, the meaning did not change, because a "first-level sub-national" political office is a state-level office: in the US, that would be a state governor, or a state senator/congressperson. I think that the same would apply in South Africa or Germany or Australia.

However, as the linked table of administrative country subdivisions by country shows, the Republic of Ireland is not a federal state, but a unitary one. There is no state or province-wide level of government in Ireland, just national govt and local government ... so in Ireland a County Council or City Council is the "first-level sub-national" tier.

That produces the anomaly that a Galway City Councillor gets an automatic presumption of notability, whilst a New York City Councillor does not. That's perverse, because Galway has a population of 72,000 versus 8.3 million in the City of New York. Things get even better when applied to Kiribati, where the population of 98,000 has 21 local councils, an average of less than 5,000 people per local authority.

This led to a bit of an argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Cameron (Galway) who took a while to accept that this is a nonsense. So I will now edit WP:POLITICIANS to restore point 1 to read "Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature", and adding"and judges".

I hope that this should remove any further confusion, and avoid appearing to encourage a proliferation of articles on local politicians who lack anything remotely resembling substantial coverage in reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Done, in this edit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I endorse this change. Snappy (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Minor League Baseball Player Notability Concerns

Note: This concerns WP:ATH.

I believe there needs to be a revision in the way we consider minor league baseball players "notable." Many use the argument that they played at a fully professional level...however, hundreds upon hundreds of minor leaguers have played at a fully professional level, and using that argument every single minor leaguer down to rookie league could merit discussion for an article.

Here are my arguments, cross-posted from another discussion:

"I see a lot of people supporting otherwise non-notable minor leaguers because said minor leaguers get multiple Google hits when searched. This concerns me, because many of these minor leaguers do not deserve Wikipedia pages. The reason they get more hits on Google is because of the expansion of the Internet and the expansion of the coverage of minor league baseball on the Internet, not because of an increase in notability. Many of these players have accomplished no more than what a minor leaguer in the 1990s or before accomplished, however they maintain pages because their name comes up a lot on Google searches. If, however, I were to create an article for a player who played from 1986 to 1994 in the minors, his page would most likely get deleted because he doesn't get as many Google hits, even though he is as statistically similar and as similarly accomplished as a modern minor leaguer who does get Google hits. I think we need to review notability guidelines for minor leaguers."

"I don't mean to be blunt, but that is a very dumb way to determine notability. As I stated, an equally accomplished player from the 1980s will not have an article as a player from today, because the 1980s player did not have the Internet to give the false impression of notability. Look at Jackie Reid. He won nearly 300 games in the minor leagues and yet a Google search of him brings up apparently very little that is relevant to him. Nevertheless, he is still notable because of that statistical accomplishment, and no doubt was very notable during the time he played. Now, look at Tyler Mach. He played exactly one year in the minor leagues at the Low-A level, and yet a Google search of him brings up 8,380 hits. It's not because he is notable, it is because he played during a time when minor league coverage expanded greatly on the Internet, and the Internet expanded greatly as a whole."

For now, I do not know exactly how the situation would be remedied. However, I do believe something should be done about it. Alex (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a widely held misconception that passing a subguideline makes a subject actually notable. Multiple nontrivial reliable sources on the subject are still required. The subguidelines give some guidance as to when that level of coverage is likely present, but can't substitute for it if it's actually not. ATH is especially problematic in this regard, especially the criterion you cite, since it happens so often that there are players who technically played at a professional level, but never got much coverage for it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow this argument. We shouldn't treat subjects who meet the GNG due to "greatly expanded coverage" in recent years because similar subjects from the past don't meet the GNG because the coverage hadn't yet expanded? And the issue is really internet v. print sources anyway. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

My point is, it doesn't seem logical or fair to give articles to people now because they have the Internet to make them "notable", when equally accomplished athletes from before the Internet boom would not be allowed an article because they do not have the Internet to give them a false sense of notability.Alex (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the Wikipedia concept of "notability" is inherently unfair; as it's currently implemented, for example, thousands of academics doing good, valuable, low-profile work are ignored while Z-list celebrity wannabes get covered, and Rhodes Scholars are treated as nonachievers while low-rent porn performers get articles. But using "people who ought to be notable" as the guideline would end up much worse. You can also make a good case that, given baseball's expansion, playing in top-level AAA leagues fifty years ago was just as notable as playing for the fill-in-the-punching-bag-team-of-your-choice today. As more and more newspaper archives end up online, through Google or however, the print coverage of the past will take care of some of the problems. As will, one hopes, editors with access to newspaper files in cities with important minor league teams. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)