This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 How to fix the Additional criteria section 1.1 Split the "additional criteria" into three parts 1.2 A less obtrusive fix 1.3 overstatement 1.4 Questions from my talkpage 1.5 Possible template 1.6 The current proposal 1.7 Implementation of above proposal 1.7.1 Wikipedia:Notability (academics) 1.7.2 Reversion 1.8 When does WP:BIO define criteria for WP:N in general? 1.9 Horrorshowj's comments on my Talk page 1.10 A question 1.11 What's next 2 Lists of people section 3 Donald Turnupseed 4 "intellectually independent" 5 Daniel Martin (Scholar) 6 Amateur athletes 7 How do we define "generally"? 8 Extreme Sports Athletes 9 Athlete notability? 10 Criteria for notable religious leaders in ISKCON 11 Clarify that relationships do not automatically preclude notability 12 Clarify athlete notability 13 Guideline vs. Policy 14 Auto archiving 15 "Intellectually independent" 16 Local politicians 17 Politicians vs. pornographic actors 18 One Event merge 19 High school sports champions, are they notable? 20 Shortcut WP:BLP1E should not link here 21 Activists 21.1 Comments 21.2 Support 21.3 Oppose 22 One Event merge 23 Ambassadors 24 Time to effect the merger of Academics with BIO 25 Entertainers and Pornographic actors 25.1 Large fan base or "cult" following 26 Athletes 27 Authors 28 "...does not guarantee notability": local and unelected politicians 28.1 Have to keep the old wording 28.2 Some principles 29 Military officers? 30 Hugo Kuranda 31 Proposal to change "Notability" to "Something else" and use Notability (for people) Only 32 Royalty, and in general any other group 33 Picking over the remains of WP:N/CA 34 Royal births and otherwise-non-notable royalty 35 Radio personalities 35.1 Entertainers 36 Kazue Takahashi 37 Athletes - "compete"? 38 Fansite rules? 39 WP:BLP1E 40 Playboy change 41 Recent changes to WP:ATHLETE 42 Reality TV contestants 43 Contradictory WP:ATHLETE 44 Stage actors 45 Sportspeople 46 More WP:ATHLETE (Coaches) 47 WP:ENTERTAINER 48 More Angie Gregory and Lori Jean Wilson (Actress) 49 PornBio Distinction 50 WP:ATHLETE is turning Wikipedia into the MySpace of athletes 51 Religious Figures 52 Interaction of WP:BIO1E and politics 53 Poster children 54 Recent undiscussed change to the One-Event rule 55 Biographies of living minors 56 WP:ATHLETE 56.1 Amateur sports 56.1.1 Relying on WP:N 57 Notability of baseball players being discussed... 58 Who cares? 58.1 pageviews as a proxy for maintainability 59 Osvaldo Barrios 60 Contemporary Authors 61 Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions. 62 Chess ~ Magic:TheGathering!?! 63 Mayors 64 Proposed Bio - Susan Salvo - is she considered notable enough? 65 Notability of people within the buisness world 66 Ambassadors 67 Obituaries used to establish Notability 68 Heads of organisations 69 Merge WP:BIO1E with WP:1E? 70 Notability of clergy 71 Notability of athletes 72 Notability of FAI league players 73 WP:Athlete: 1,712 soccer player articles created in 2 months 74 Proposed modification 75 Notability of Royalty 76 Creative professionals--film-related 77 Newspaper writers notability question 78 Amateur sports 79 Creative professionals -- fiction writers 80 People associated with only one event 81 Consensus request: "Fully professional league" criteria ought to be limited 81.1 Related question 82 Individual wikiprojects are deleting infoboxes from articles 83 Is a screenwriter notable if his movie makes 70 million dollars? 84 Does the Basic Criteria trump the Additional Criteria or vice versa? 85 Paralympic Games in WP:ATHLETE 86 WP:BIO1E requires redrawing 87 Clarification of criteria 88 Categories of awards 89 Royalty and nobility

How to fix the Additional criteria section

I think it has become very apparent that the "Additional criteria" section in its present state is of little worth. It defines a list of people who generally may or may not be notable, which is unhelpful and confusing. An interesting discussion on this issue can be found at WT:N#Hole in Bio. In that discussion, 2005 raises an interesting point, that people often misinterpret the "Additional criteria" section by assuming it allows the creation of articles about any of the types of people mentioned, when in fact it only lists people who often end up being notable (but aren't inherently notable).

I therefore suggest that we rephrase the "Additional criteria" section into a list of types of people who will often end up being notable (according to the general notability criteria). In other words, a list of people who will often end up being mentioned in reliable secondary sources.

—gorgan_almighty (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about something along the same lines. 2005 and I are primarily here due to the Poker issue---but I see those additional criteria being used as justification all the time to keep what IMHO are non-notable personages. I made this comment over on Hole In Bio discussion, but will add it here. I believe that every project should define what they believe to be notable---but their individual notability criteria are considered as "essays" as compared to guidelines. Thus, it would establish the clear supremacy of WP:N over any guidance a project issues. I would also redefine the "additional criteria" as carrying the weight of an essay---perhaps even moving it to a subpage.Balloonman (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC) EDIT: I just reread the section, and the first part of additional criteria is good, it is only when it starts discussing specific categories of people that it looses its value.Balloonman (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of that section is to remove certain classes of articles from Afd, on the general basis that if 95% of the holders of X office or position or role are notable, it is better to consider them all notable than to debate each one of them--and get totally inconsistent decisions. The true shame of the AfD process is the lack of consistency over time and between different people with the same basic notability. At least doing it as a class which for the purposes of convenience will be considered here as notable gets it 95% right. If we did each of them by afd, besides doubling the workload there which is already more than can in practice be handled, we would get somewhere between 50% and 90% of them right--and for the ones that were challenged or appeared inconsistent, debating them again and again. We cannot build an encyclopedia at afd, or by debating policy. We can only do so by writing and improving articles. AfD and policy are a way to facilitate this. By throwing tens of thousands of articles in to the debatable category, which in practice given WPedian mentality means debating every one of them, we sacrifice the chance to build articles, while ensuring that more notable people will be ruled unnotable without a corresponding improvement in the other direction. (we are already experiencing this inconsistency with many other types of articles--we should be finding ways of removing classes of articles from debate rather than putting them in.) Various proposals amounting to the above have been raised at various venues over the last year or longer, and they all have been defeated for impracticality. I came here to work. I'll debate if I have to, but I wish i didnt't have to.DGG (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case then, the wikiprojects need to have more, not less, input into the process. Again, I would contend that the proposals of the wikiproject are on the level of an Essay, but I do believe that the projects have a better understanding of what makes subjects in their arena of expertise generally notable. The poker project tried to do just that, and our idea of creating our own guidelines was stomped on when we sought outside input. We were basically told, we couldn't create criteria of what we considered notability.Balloonman (talk) 07:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's become "very apparent" based on what? Your willingness to keep proposing alternate versions of the same change every three weeks no matter how badly the last one was received? We get it, you hate additional criteria establishing notability and want general only. You pushed hard for the merger that would have accomplished it, and it got stomped. I haven't seen any evidence of a paradigm shift in the community as a whole to removing specific criteria. Looking through AfD results, it would seem that editors are content with using proof that the additional criteria have been met to establish notability. If anything, fixing the guideline would be yielding to consensus and changing the guideline to reflect the way the additional criteria are actually being applied by the community rather than wikilawyering against it. Horrorshowj (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I see you are answering not me, but someone a few items back. I'll fix the indentation, and take the opportunity to clarify.

1. I do not want to rely on the general criteria only or even primarily--I consider them backup for when nothing more specific is available.

2. I want to have specialized criteria for the different areas. I think it clarifies things to have bright-line criteria for specific subjects when possible--making adjustments and variations, using common sense, but basically separating out the likely notable from the likely non-notable in a simple deterministic way with some degree of moderate accuracy and reproducibility. I like some of the existing ones, and I would look for compromise ones in every area possible. I dont like some of them, but I'd work on changing th3e particular ones rather than abolishing them.

3. I do think the various wikiprojects need some general input to avoid theitr developing OWNership of an area.

4. To some extent, though , at his point I would support almost anything that would reach an acceptable compromise of any sort whatsoever, and let us go at least another 12 months without having to renew these discussions.

5. I spend too much time at AfD. We should get WP:N working well enough that we discuss only 50 items a day, not 150. then at least we could do it more carefully.

Horrorshow, You and I might agree very well.DGG (talk)

An opposing view: The primary criteria (as mostly clearly stated in the nutshell) should be paramount. Wikipedia is only as reliable as its sources, and the enforcement of good sourcing is a good thing. Requiring good sourcing at the creation of the article is the best way to ensure that the article content is actually based on good sources. Allowing unsourced content encourages original research. Hoping that later editors will come along and provide sources for earlier editors original research strikes me as dishonest. The earlier content was not based on the later sources as the current version purports. If the earlier editors did not contribute original research, then why not insist that they document their sources?

If the aim is to expand the content of wikipedia to cover entire groups of people, then why not create an article about the entire group, and include redlinks for the individuals that you feel are surely notable, but for whom you don’t yet have suitable sources. For example: If you believe that all winners of a WSOP/WSOPE/WPT/EPT event are notable, then create the article Winners of WSOP/WSOPE/WPT/EPT events and include links to all such winners. This would be a clear statement that you consider the winners to be notable, and it would be useful in encouraging others to contribute sourced content and for everyone interested to keep track of progress. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Those exists, they are called lists.

And the poker project already has them... and most of the WPT/WSOP/EPT winners already have articles. Those that don't, I would be more than willing to argue deserve one and would have zero fear of taking them to an AfD.

But this idea is clearly impractical. Per this suggestion, baseball (and every project) should create an article that lists EVERY baseball player that ever played rather than describe the criteria used to determine notability. What about items where clearly defined lists are not available? There is a list of WSOP winners, that list is set in stone and can be looked up relatively easily. But other categories describe criteria---wherein creating a list would be OR.Balloonman (talk) 07:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if most of the WPT/WSOP/EPT winners already have articles, what could be the point of stating in a guideline that WPT/WSOP/EPT winners are notable? Who would the statement guide, and to what end? If “all … are notable and have separate entries” is a verifiable statement, then add the statement to a suitable article. Don’t write a guideline around it just because it is true.

Yes, for baseball, every other such project, rivers, moons, popes, there should exist a list of all entries. Among other things, such lists are useful for navigation purposes for the casual reader. Where lists are very long, they can be subdivided. No, such lists do not define notability. WP:N defines the wikipedia threshold of notability. Where several entries are of borderline notability, (and therefore there is very little content for them) such entries can be grouped. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Replying to SmokeyJoe's reply to DGG and myself. Neither one of us ever claimed that unsourced articles were acceptable, and I specifically mentioned sourcing in my post. That's covered by WP:V and WP:RS , which are not the same as WP:N . WP:N requires that an article's subject meet "significant coverage" not just verifiability. If it's verifiable that a subject meets one of the specific criteria, then they are notable is my position, and is also the general outcome for AfD. As primary sources may only be used after notability is established, there are a lot of articles that will become more weakly sourced or disappear without the general criteria being present. Also consider that AfD that wind up coming down to whether the subject meets "significant coverage" are very contentious and time consuming. It's a very subjective determination, and one where confirmation bias factors in way to much. Horrorshowj (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Guidance also exist to exclude that which isn't notable. The poker project set our standards high enough that, in our opinion, anybody who met our standards would by definition meet BIO. We did that to explicitly reject cases that were not notable. Namely "So and so competed in the WSOP thus is notable" or "so and so won money at a WPT tournament, thus is notable" or "So and so won a major tournament." Each of those cases is supported by the addtitional criteria section for athletes. A notion that the poker project rejects.Balloonman (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, by definition, any list of criteria to describe somebody who is notable SHOULD result in somebody who would be generally be notable via secondary sources. Additional Criteria, IMHO, should not expand notability, but rather help define/explain it. It should be set sufficeintly high that the vast majority of the time that somebody fits the additional criteria they would pass BIO anyway. This allows that rare exception to the rules, where there might not be coverage (ala an early Pope on which little is known) to be included.Balloonman (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, by entire groups here, I mean such groups as all member of the US house of representatives, or of each state legislature, or CEOs or each company listed in the NYSE, all all major league baseball players, which are groups much much to big to be covered in practical size of WP aricles. WP is not paper, but one ofthe conseuences is that there is a practical limit on the size of articles--we must remain accessible to dial-up users. I do not think making lists is OR by the way, as long as there are criteria and sources. They can both organize and supplement the main articles. But they can't conveniently hold much information--we are an encyclopedia, not a list of names. A list of names with a sentence or two about each is properly called a biographical dictionary. 07:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)DGG (talk)

RE Lists---generally, I would agree with you, they are not OR. But to do what SmokeyJoe suggests could be. Some of the criteria may be too abstract and defines parameters for notability that doesn't suit itself to making a list. In these cases, the 'list' may be one of those lists which can never be complete... for example, actors/actresses can we ever have a complete list of ALL notable actors/actresses?Balloonman (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually Horrorshowj, you and DGG seem to be the only people who hold that view. Pretty much everyone else (including big notability guideline contributors like Kevin Murray and SilkTork) trump the superiority of the general notability guideline. There really is no need to define additional criteria when the requirement for reliable secondary sources is sufficient. Assuming a class of people to be inherently notable is arbitrary, biased, and instruction creep. As I said at the start of this thread, most of the people who fall into the classes mentioned in the "Additional criteria" section will be mentioned in reliable secondary sources anyway, so there really is no need to define additional criteria for them. No articles will be lost. Of course if you have an alternative suggestion for what to do with the "Additional criteria" section then by all means propose it. But we can't simply leave it as it is. In its current form it is breaking BIO. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Does this mean I don't get to sit at the cool kids table anymore? I'm willing to entertain the possibility you're correct and the majority of wikipedians feel that the additional criteria are worthless, and only "significant coverage" can allow notability. I would however like proof of such. There's roughly 100 AfD per day right? So if what you say is correct, you should have no trouble whatsoever showing me 15 cases over the last month where there WP:RS showed the subject met an additional criteria, but the article was deleted due to not meeting "significant coverage". I don't think you can do it, but I'm willing to entertain the possibility. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't even take me a week's worth of AfD to find 100 articles where documented proof of meeting an additional criteria was found acceptable to establish notability. Care to take me up on my offer? Very few people have this talk page on their watchlist, or check it regularly, while a few hundred go through AfD's in a day. I'm sorry but I think the latter is a better indicator of the communities paradigm than 4 regulars on this page.Horrorshowj (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• This isn't a question of whether articles about people in the groups mentioned are often deleted or not. You'd be hard-pressed to find such articles that aren't well sourced. This is a question of whether or not we need such "Additional criteria", of whether in fact the simple requirement of reliable secondary sources is sufficient for them as well. The fewer exceptions there are to a rule, the sturdier it is and the simpler it is to implement. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• I substantially agree with Gorgan and Smokey. I think that there is nothing much to BIO beyond the special cases and the special cases are for the most part arbitrary and the result of hard fought compromises which in the end make little contribution to clarity. The main section of BIO does little more than restate the principles of WP:N. The problem with removing BIO is that a thousand subject specific guidelines will jump up in its place; at least BIO is here to house the ILIKEIT opinions in a logic purgatory. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• I speak with forked tongue. While I think it causes problems, the additional criteria section isn't going away. Support for it will overwhelm any notion to get rid of it. Thus, the discussion should be on how to fix/improve it rather than eliminate it. I think the section has major problems being on the main BIO page because it gives the criteria the weight of BIO---and most people don't assimilate the statements that meeting the criteria is not a guarantee that the individual is notable. I believe that it is incumbent upon the different projects to write essays explaining what they BELIEVE to be notable. The community as a whole can accept/reject these criteria---and should have input into them. Thus, making it clear that they are an "essay" about what people believe constitutes notability within a arena.Balloonman (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding the purpose of additional criteria: I would see WP:N as an absolute minimum for inclusion. If there are no independent sources, what would an article be based on? The purpose of WP:BIO should be to further specify this requirement for biographies, in particular saying what kind of coverage is considered substantial. (E.g. we probably don't want to have articles on every local politician in the world, even if they do get covered in a local newspaper.) Frequent questions regarding notability of biographies can be answered (e.g. see the paragraph on "Non valid general criteria"), and this would certainly justify the existence of WP:BIO as a specialization of WP:N. But issuing a carte blanche for certain groups of biographies seems to be unwarranted to me. The purpose of WP:N is also to limit the scope of the encyclopedia to a reasonable, i.e. manageable amount. Before declaring certain groups "inherently notable" I would first like at least an estimate (if rough) of how many biographies could be created under that exception. If that number is so large that we could possibly never be even 10% complete, the rule is probably not well crafted. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed, any additional criteria should be such that it doesn't override bio... In other words, it shouldn't create exceptions---I see the value in the additional criteria in its defining what isn't notable. Eg a local politician isn't notable.Balloonman (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Split the "additional criteria" into three parts

I agree with gorgan_almighty that the current "additional principles" is kinda useless, and with B. Wolterding that WP:N must always be an absolute minimum for inclusion: that is fundamental, and clearly dervied from WP:V. However, I that think that despite the mishmash of the current "additional criteria" section, there is some good and important stuff in there, and it could become very useful if some restructuring was done to separate, simplify and clarify the different issues and to be rigorous in eliminating the specific in favour of general principles:

1. General principles, e.g.

   • that once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content;
   • (one of my hobbyhorses) stressing that an assertion of notability ("Founder of a major company", "oldest-ever person in that country" does not ovveride the need for evidence of that biography
   • promoting the WP:BIO1E caution against single-event notability

2. Rebuttable presumptions. To avoid AfD being clogged up, there is a rebuttable presumption of notability for certain group of people for whom there is an overwhelming likelihood that substantive coverage exists in reliable sources, such as members of national legislatures. There is no point in AfD endlessly rehashing arguments from those who do not know where these sources exists, but it is vital to stress that this is a rebuttable presumption, and that it is perfectly reasonable to challenge the notability of (for example) someone who was briefly a member of the Parliament of England in 1423. There were no newspapers then and no Hansard, so for most such people there will be nothing other than a few snippets. OTOH, a late-19th century Member of Parliament could not escape newspaper coverage at least of his election, and an AfD debate on him would be a waste of time: the sources exists, even if we haven't found them yet.
   (I find these presumptions of notability uncomfortable, but I think that are a regrettable necessity if AfD is not to be clogged with repetitive and unnecessary nominations).
3. Cautions. Some people may initially appear to meet WP:NOTE, but are rarely very significant. A good example is local politicians, who may get repeated brief mentions for their efforts to build new swings or improve the frequency of road repairs, but who may remain wholly unknown outside their home towns. I suggest that much of this sort of thing should be covered by more generalised cautions, such as stressing that coverage in national media is greatly preferable to local media (rather than just making the point about local politicians). Much of the detail which clutters the sections on diplomats, creative professionals etc, is simply over-specific instruction, and should be replaced with a general principle of of having been widely acknowleged in heavyweight WP:RS as having made a notable and enduring contribution.

If we split the "additional criteria" into three parts like this, I think that we could remove many of the existing detailed by-profession guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 13:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that certain people should be assumed notable (because we assume sources probably exist somewhere) unless someone decides to dispute that notability (eg: the 1423 politician) or unless someone decides that it isn't significant in any case (e.g. the politician building new swings). I'm afraid I don't think that would help the situation at all. If anything it completely confuses the issue. Who is this someone who would make the decisions, and according to what standard? I dislike the idea that we can "assume that sources exist somewhere". I would much prefer to take the stance of "show us the sources, or don't create the article". It also needs to be said that BIO is a guideline, and guidelines should follow current practice. The current practice in 99% of AfDs is that secondary sources are required immediately to assert notability. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe I didn't express myself v well, but my intention was to actually tighten up a little on the current situation, not to loosen it! Could you perhaps re-read what I wrote, because I think you may have missed by distinction between the two types of politician (one being presumed notable, the other presumed non-notable under a general local-only rule.

I too would like to see a "show us the sources, or don't create the article" practice, not least because it would considerably simplify the guidelines (we could rip out a huge chunk of over-specific stuff). However, there are various classes of article (such as my example of members of national parliaments) where current practice is to apply a more lenient approach to producing substantial secondary sources up-front. What I intended was a slight closing of the loophole, by making that assumption explicitly challengeable.

Lemme try spelling it out again. Current presumption is that a Member of Parliament is notable, and this is routinely treated at AfD as "automatic notability"; this provision is not daft, because most parliaments and parliamentary elections get substantial media coverage, and I have no doubt that I could for example find substantive coverage of every British MP in the 20th century (some of it may require a lot of burrowing in old newspaper archives, but it will be there). My proposal, though, is simply to note that anyone may challenge the presumption, because there would be very good grounds for challenging it for our 15th-century Member of Parliament, but OTOH someone challenging it for a 1980s US Senator should be told to stop wasting people's time and go find the sources to improve the article.

I think, though, that your interpretation of current practice at AfD is different from mine. I would very much like to see a provide-multiple-substantial-secondary-sources-or-we-delete approach, but what I often see happening in practice is a keep-unless-you-can-show-that-there-are-no-substantial-secondary-sources. I deplore this, because it inverts the principle of WP:V that it is the responsibility of anyone adding the material to justify its inclusion, but that is frequently the current practice. If you have any ideas on how that situation can be changed, I'd be delighted, but since this is a guideline it needs to reflect the current practice, however flawed. Maybe it's time to approach this issue as a point of policy, by strengthening WP:V to cover article inclusion as well as article content? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I largely agree with your proposal, but the "rebuttable presumptions" seem a bit strange to me as well. There is almost no meaningful way to "challenge" the presumption that sources exist - how would you prove that sources do not exist? (You could say that "a Google search turns up nothing", but that's not very convincing.) But perhaps we can phrase the section like this: "For people who meet one of the following criteria, it is typically very likely that substantial secondary sources exist. However, if no sources are explicitely added to the article throughout an extended timeframe, this may indicate that the person in question does in fact not meet the notability criteria." So, in practice, a member of parliament would assumed to be notable per default, but if no one finds any sources for more than a year or so, the assumption was obviously wrong. Of course, the question is whether this goes too far beyond current practice. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought that I had gotten the "rebuttable presumption" concept from current guidelines, but now I can't find it as such: I think I probably derived it from Wikipedia:Notability#_note-0's concept that non-notability is a rebuttable presumption, but that note supports your pont about the difficulty of proving a negative.

Your give-it-a-year suggestion is one possibility, though in suspect that with the 15th century MP it would make little difference whether it was a month or a year. My thought had been that one could have a sensible discussion about the likelihood of sources, but I can see that in practice this could be very time-consuming and frustrating, because to do it meaningfully would require a familiarity with the specifics of the subject which few editors would possess in any given case.

I guess that brings us back to the question of whether we have any specific criteria. In theory I'd like to see them go, but could AfD cope with the increased workload?

However, I think these points may be a diversion from what I see as the main issue: that too many participants at AfD regard the requirement for substantial coverage in secondary sources as a sort of optional factor which doesn't apply to subjects they are particularly interested in. How can that be changed? I'm beginning to think that the only real solution is for the core of WP:N needs to become policy rather than just a guideline. Whether this is one by expanding WP:V or promotong WP:N is a difficult question. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this will pass as a policy---too many people don't like it. I think the easier option is to relegate the additional criteria for individual professions to that of Essay... and make any similar list on a wikiproject likewise carry the wieight of an essay. This will clearly indicate that the additional criteria descriptions are measured as an essay---not a guideline. Thus giving them SOME credibility, but keeping the guideline in tact.Balloonman (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I also don't think that making WP:N a policy would change much - when it comes to the crunch, AfD participants will ignore guidelines and policis alike... Moving the additional criteria to an essay: maybe that would be appropriate. Ideally that essay would include some hints about where those "presumed" secondary sources can typically be found. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as an ordinary editor passing through while looking for something else, I find those additional criteria Very Useful. As consensus interpretations of WP:N for certain classes of people, they are above all easy to use. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of Wikipedians want to make an easy edit and move on, without having to try and reinterpret the guidelines every single time. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A less obtrusive fix

As both BrownHairedGirl, gorgan_almighty have stated a guideline should follow current practice. Most of the arguments in favor of drastic changes are based on a belief that the current wording lends itself to not being strict about sourcing, which is a valid concern. Since WP:N says you can meet general or specific, claiming that you can't meet specific without meeting general is a little bizarre. I'd propose the following as something less open to misinterpretation, but not such a drastic change from current community behavior.

A person is presumed to be notable if they meet either the general notability standards or at least one of the specific criteria listed below. In order for the subject's notability to be asserted under one the specific criteria, it is required that the assertion be verified with an inline citation from a reliable source . If no verification of the claim to meeting a specific criteria is provided, the subject's notability must be evaluated as if that claim did not exist. Horrorshowj (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

overstatement

Widespread coverage over time in the media such as the BBC, The Times or other reliable sources. We do not require widespread coverage, just multiple coverage--and we accept RSs many steps lower than then two sources listed--any regional or national newspaper, etc, etc., Further, the requirement over time is only with respect to not news--it doesnt require that sources generally be on different periods--and I'm not sure it belongs here anyway, being not that firmly established. DGG (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As a "specific example of sources", why not? "Widespread over time" explains the difference to WP:NOT#NEWS, I think. How would you rephrase the sentence? --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions from my talkpage

I was asked a few questions on my talkpage, but rather than answer them there, I think I should respond here:

1. If you want to drop them down to just essay strength and be specific to the project, then how or why would the rest of the community have any interaction with them?

   Naturally some projects are going to have self defined guidelines that are too loose/weak---that's a risk I'm willing to take, but at an essay level. Those projects that expand N/Bio will find that nobody respects the guidelines they define and cease to accept them, unless the project tightens them. Other projects will write better guidelines that people do accept because they truly do define notability within their field. These projects will garner more respect and acceptance within the community. When people refer to their guidelines, if they can readily see that 4 of the 5 criteria they establish are definitively notable, then outsiders are more likely to recognize the 5th criteria as being subject specific. For example, Wikipedia:Baseball#Guidelines is a wikiproject that has written "Guidelines" that are often cited during AfD's---and often when people aren't familiar with specific questions related to baseball. I'm not personally familiar with a number of their guidelines, but I trust them on a whole. Doing this will create a clear message that the Additional Criteria are secondary to N/BIO---they are interpretations of the guidelines. Right now, the Additional Criteria profession specifics are treated as part of the guideline and given too much credence.

2. What purpose are they going to serve if very few editors ever see them?

   Yes, there will be some projects where the number of editors that see them will be few. But there are projects that many people don't know about right now. If those projects keep the guidelines in mind when writing their essays, then there shouldn't be too much problem. Many projects already have guidelines on what THEY perceive to be notable just to name a few: Baseball, Martial Arts, NASCAR, Soccer, US Roads, military, and many more. And from what I can tell, none of them are perceived as official guidelines of Wikipedia. I think this is appropriate as I cannot determine what makes many subjects notable in areas that I am not familiar with. (Plus, there is the added benefit that if a project has a very weak essay, exposure to the broader community might help with the project as a whole.)

3. You argue against instruction creep, but how does Balkanizing notability accomplish this?

   I think most people agree there are problems with the additional criteria section. They are, in many places, at odds with the other instructions of Notability and Bio. But they do help establish consistency in interpretation of N/BIO. I propose pulling them out of the guidelines and making them into Essays---one's where the various wikiprojects take a more recognized role. But at the same time, defang them somewhat. Yes, there will be more "essays" but it will be clear that Bio/N have precedence---which I believe is the intent (but not practice) with the Additional Criteria profession section currently. The essays will be on how the individual projects interpret the overarching guideline---but as essays, they don't hold the weight of Bio/N. I like being able to see what "Porn" considers to be notable, even though it is a subject I would never look into.Balloonman (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible template

In the spirit of this idea:

This page/section is a Wikiproject essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikiprojects on how they interpret notability within their area of expertise. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are free to but not obliged to follow it during XfD's. Wikiprojects are encouraged to write essays on notability that meet or exceed the expectations of notability or the applicable sub-guideline BIO, ORG, NUMBER, ACADEMICS, rest of the sub guidelines Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page.

We could also create a category (ala wp:ESSAY) that links to the different interpretations.Balloonman (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Looks good. Nice job Balloonman. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The current proposal

As this thread seems to be getting quite fragmented, I decided to start a new sub-heading to discuss this rather than posting under one of the older sub-headings, where it might not be noticed. I summarize here the main points of the proposal that seems to have the most support so far:

1. Rephrase the "Additional criteria" section as proposed by B. Wolterding here: "For people who meet one of the following criteria, it is typically very likely that substantial secondary sources exist. However, if no sources are explicitely added to the article throughout an extended timeframe, this may indicate that the person in question does in fact not meet the notability criteria."
2. Move this modified "Additional criteria" section to a separate essay.
3. Allow individual WikiProjects to define their own notability criteria but only as essays. In other words, they can be used by the project members to decide which articles to focus on, but they can't be used to support an argument in AfD.

Personally I would be willing to accept this proposal. I don't think we should add a specific time period to #1. We can allow AfD to decide if enough time has been given for a specific article or not (which does reflect current practice). I'm a little uncomfortable about #3, as ignorant editors will still try to use such guidelines as AfD arguments, but on the other hand we can't really stop WikiProjects from creating such essays anyway. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

As for 3, I would say that essays can be used to support AfD's in one way or another, but as an essay, it becomes clear that the criterion of Bio/N is paramount. The essays become the way that Wikiprojects interpret notability. It also becomes clearer that meeting the additional criteria (professional standards) section is not an guarantee that an article should be written. It also gives room for people to accept/reject the professional standards. (I qualify additional criteria with professional standards because it is only where we start talking about different fields that the problem arises.) See template idea above re XfDs.Balloonman (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• An example of the problem I was talking about can be found at this AfD, in which many people were effectively voting "Keep per WP:BASEBALL", WP:BASEBALL being a WikiProject that defined notability criteria that weren't compatible with WP:N. Those Keep votes are mainly what swung the AfD from Delete to No consensus. Just to clarify though, I still think that the 3-stage proposal mentioned above is the right way to go. Although we should probably remove some of the bullet points currently under "Additional criteria" first (the likelihood of substantial secondary sources existing for top-level politicians probably can't be applied to pornographic actors as well). Any thoughts on what the new essay page should be titled? —gorgan_almighty (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And how might that discussion turned out if the notability section of baseball had the template from above? And WP:BASEBALL, which is one of the more credible essays, was explicitly labelled as an essay?Balloonman (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is how I read these proposals: Say, someone is considering to write a biographical article about a person. If the person satisfies one of the listed "extra criteria" (say won an oscar award in 1955 or an olympic medal in 1956), then we may assume notability, without having to dig up more published material. Plainly documenting the award/medal (from a reliable list of winners) is enough: we simply can assume that newspapers in mid-50s extensively covered these persons (and most likely the persons also have been written about by experts of their fields). If the person can not be said to satisfy such an "extra criteria", it's required to support the article with arguments according to general criteria in WP:N/WP:BIO. Is my understanding correct or not? Oceanh (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC).

Therein lies the crux of the issue, reliable sources and verifiability are the primary concern---and as written have always been a requirement. The professional standards (under additional criteria) are not guarantees that the individual reaches that level of notability to deserve an article. But as they are written/practiced today, that is what has evolved. Thus, you end up having a professional baseball player who sat the bench in one game in the 1940's getting an article because he was a professional athlete and "played professionally." The professional standards has replaced BIO/N. You then have numerous projects writing notability guidelines that are being cited as authoritative, when in fact they are not. The projects, IMHO, SHOULD write guidelines of what is notable in their realms of expertise, but they do not outweigh Bio/N.Balloonman (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

OK – think I basically agree. Let's try to turn it the other way around: The purpose of any "additional criteria" should (ideally) be to identify cases where the general N/BIO most likely is satisfied. Criteria such as "olympic medal" and "oscar award" are probably rather clear cases, while "played professionally" is not clear at all. (My view is that professional players are notable only when they are exceptional, but in a major sport with thousands of "professionals" they can hardly all be.) Oceanh (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

• B. Wolterding's proposal is the best compromise, because it allows for common sense to assume notability for obviously notable people, while still requiring the secondary sources that assert notability to be added within a reasonable period of time. This wouldn't be acceptable as part of BIO or another guideline, as its too subjective, but the proposal is to make this into an essay instead of a guideline, which is fitting. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 10:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Implementation of above proposal

It seems to me that we have formed a consensus here. As Horrorshowj and DGG are no longer posting in this thread, I assume that they have no further objections to the current proposal. Add to that the fact that the proposed changes reflect current practice very well. I have therefore began implementing these changes. The progress is listed below:

• Created the essay as proposed by Balloonman at {{essay-project-note}}.
• Created Category:WikiProject notability essays, which is automatically added by the template above.
• Added the template to as many WikiProject notability essays as I could find
• Copied the "Additional criteria" section to Wikipedia:Generally notable people, and rephrased it to use B. Wolterding's suggested wording. Shortcut: WP:GNP.
• Replaced original "Additional criteria" section in BIO with a short paragraph introducing the concept of WikiProject notability essays, and linking to the category and to Wikipedia:Generally notable people. Most of the wording is taken from Balloonman's proposed template now at {{essay-project-note}}.

—gorgan_almighty (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Copied the new "Additional criteria" section to WP:N, as its scope reaches far beyond biographies. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a big improvement. Many congratulations to all involved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine for me - and it also makes WP:BIO much more comprehensive I think. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As I was perhaps one of the main advocates for the above, it is fine by me... but I did fix the template so that clicking on "essays" took you to the notability essays rather than the generic ones.Balloonman (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC) NOTE: I think one of the advantages of this proposal is that it avoids the inevitable conflicts between the people here at Notability and the people at the various different wikiprojects. It establishes a framework of cooperation rather than antagonism between the projects desire to establish notability and Notabilities desire not to have the guidelines devalued.Balloonman (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You would be intentionally assuming wrong, and once again acting in bad faith. As you've been falsely claiming a consensus for months, you'll have to excuse me if I doubt your judgement of it. 4-3 isn't a strong consensus. I've listed the change on the VP policy to get more people to look at it, and would appreciate waiting until we actually have a large number of editors who have weighed in prior to any changes being made. Horrorshowj (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why has this been implemented in other WikiProjects? Many WikiProjects create subject-specific guidelines to make it easier to resolve deletion discussions. Most of these guidlines are similar to the politicians guideline here where one or more classes of objects are deemed notable and others not. These subject-specific guidelines will almost always lead to the same results as the general Notability guidelines at WP:N and we'll get consistency of notable topics over time as well as less hassle for AFD discussions. At the very least, you should get a much wider audience if you want to implement something like this globally. --Polaron | Talk 03:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

While I agree it was probably premature to institute this globally, I think the reason for having something like this is clear. Like you said, "Many WikiProjects create subject-specific guidelines to make it easier to resolve deletion discussions." This is a problem because some of the projects do a good job at defining the criteria while others don't. Some of the projects get outside input, while others don't. The opinion of the WikiProject, has to play a secondary role the guideline as a whole. If a project says, that something is notable if an author can write a "full article" on the subject (which one project does) then that is clearly expanding the boundaries of N. Martial arts has the guidline that a MA school is notable if it has "a lot of students." These may be the opinion of the projects, but they do not measure up to N. The concern arose out of the professional standards on the BIO page---but the solution is to embrace the various wikiprojects and their efforts at establishing guidelines---but defining those wikiproject guidelines authority as secondary to N/Bio/Org/etc.Balloonman (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

While you do make a good point that not all subject-specific guidelines are well-thought out, I believe the solution would be to rigorously improve these subject-specific guidelines to ensure that say 90% of the time, they will lead to the same result as the general notability criteria. My problem is that when WikiProjects try to get a wider opinion on how to improve a guideline, they are usually shut down by citing WP:CREEP, without even discussing whether the proposed guideline would lead to results consistent with WP:N. Essay status could in principle be ok but there has to be a path to upgrade that essay to a guideline without the discussion being shutdown. --Polaron | Talk 03:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I sort of agree with both of you. I'd prefer not to have stand-alone instructions originating from every project, if for no other reason than to not monitor 100 talk pages. I don't like the essay thing, because it tends to get ignored at afd, humorously enough by the same sort who will cite the essay WP:CREEP as proof of why you're wrong/incompetent despite the fact that it's valid to cite according to the guideline on essays. One thing I would suggest under the current criteria is that if a criteria applies across multiple projects, allow the project to decide the qualification threshold or submit it as an up/down vote for setting the threshold for people under their project. The baseball essay is the most cited so far, with football (American) being a not to distant second for determining the level of fully professional or equivalent standing. Link to the approved project guidelines under a sub-menu from the applicable page and afd get a lot easier to decide. Horrorshowj (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Horror, I'm sorry, I didn't see this comment earlier. But if I am reading this correctly then I am confused as to why you are opposing this proposal? You mention the Baseball/football (american) "essays" which are cited at AfD's as firm guidelines. You seem to be open to the possibility of letting Projects establish somesort of guideline, but from what I can see you are most concerned with the fact that some people may forget that these are essays thus carry less weight than guidelines? Therein is where the beauty of this proposal comes into play. First, it defines a relationship between N and the various essays. When people pull out tne "unknown project essay" as a trump card, everybody will know that they are in fact essays not guidelines. Second, and I think this is the key, the template explicitly reads that wikipedians can use the essay to establish notability---but are not obligated to do so. By highlighting on EVERY essay that they are interpretations of the project of N, and not guidelines, we educate people that N/BIO/ORG/etc are primary and the professional standards are secondary.Balloonman (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (academics)

The intent of some people ahs been to merge Wikipedia:Notability (academics) into BIO as part of the special cases. However, with the new trend toward removing special cases to essay status, it seems that Wikipedia:Notability (academics) should be merged into the new page or reclssified as an essay. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that it would work better as an essay as it is an interpretation of BIO. Otherwise, it opens up the door for "Why shouldn't X be at a guideline level."Balloonman (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been an ongoing problem. For a long time PORNBIO was used as an excuse to create more subjet specific guidelines and then academics slipped in. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware of this trend toward essay status: all of the special case pages I've looked at have been guidelines, though my own experience is hardly a representative sample. Is there a centralized discussion regarding this, or an essay/guideline page about it? Otherwise, I would be in favor of keeping it as a separate guideline. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 16:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"The trend is..." is not exactly a statement of controlling precedent. There is no general policy here, and if one looks further down on the page, it will seen that the question of the role of the specific standards is still quite unsettled. But probably this particular standard is so unsatisfactory at this point that it might as well be an essay--it does not really represent the basis of decision at AfDs. DGG (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Reversion

I want to explain why I did this in a little more detail in hopes of provoking some actual discussion. Referring back to the original attempt at demoting everything to essay and having only “significant coverage” as a notability criterion [[1]], it was defeated in a landslide. The result overwhelmingly was that, as a whole, the editors in the community liked specific criteria. There were far more participants in that discussion on various pages than any subsequent ones, so that consensus should be given substantial weight and I've deferred to it. This is at least the third time since that the OP, who was one of the few proponents of the merger, has tried getting the change into the guidelines either through this page or the main notability talk page. All of his previous attempts have started by claiming a “long standing consensus” that he was merely making concrete, and at each one I've been in opposition and demanding proof. He's been less than successful and disappeared each time he met substantial resistance until the next attempt. This has been ongoing for months, and my opposition to overruling the entire community with such a sweeping change hasn't wavered. Therefore, the claim that I suddenly have no objections due to not posting for 2 days should be absolutely ridiculous by any reasonable standard. Without the claimed reversals of position for the objectors, support stands at a bit over 50% among the few participants which isn't exactly overwhelming.

Participating in this for me has increasingly resembled arguing with stones.. If I post in direct response to someone on the other side of the discussion my point is ignored or sidestepped, if it's not in direct response I'm ignored or belittled. Looking at the arguments that didn't boil down to “anyone who disagrees with us is incompetent” there were some good points presented. No response whatsoever to the suggestion of those as a compromise. There isn't any attempt at discussion, only supporters talking amongst themselves while trying to push everyone else off the page. This is attrition, not a consensus.Horrorshowj (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn. This came out a lot harsher than I realized at the time. While this discussion has been very frustrating for me, I should not have allowed my issue with one editor to color my perception of other's actions. I apologize to anyone I offended with this.Horrorshowj (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Horror, I do take extreme exception to your stereotypes above. I believe that I have addressed your questions in a calm rationale manner. Recognized your position and tried to address your concerns. I am open to compromise---I think there are problems with the professional criteria section and seek a way to fix it. But if you are going to go on the offensive, I will counter with the fact that when I respond to your questions, you have yet to come back with follow-up questions/obstacles. See the section on questions from my talk page. I addressed your questions, but the entirity of your response was Saw the response, not sure I agree with it but such is life. That does not lead to dialog constructive of a consensus. Then, having answered your questions in a polite civil manner, you describe me in the terms you did above as "arguing with stones.... my point is ignored or sidestepped." I'm sorry, but I take offense your inaccurate generalizations and distortions. Balloonman (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

PS I just looked at the original proposal, and it was significantly different from what is being discussed here. That proposal was to relegate all of the sub-guidelines into essays. This proposal explicitly KEEPS those subguidelines as Guidelines. What is being discussed here is the establishment of a definitive relationship between N and the various Wikiprojects. It is a way to embrace activity that is already occuring on the various wiki projects. It is also a way to address the instructional creep that is entering into the subguidelines. When the discussion you point to above occurred there were only 4 "professional criteria" in BIO, now there are 7---and virtually every project wants to write their own criteria. Of course, I guess that my pointing out that you are comparing apples to oranges is belittling you. Balloonman (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for offending you. You have responded to me in a professional manner, and I appreciate that. The ongoing issues with Gorgan and I, combined with my reaction to his listing me as a trophy lead to me not handling this as well as I should. Horrorshowj (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

While there were only 4 categories on the page at that time, 6 of the 7 were part of guidelines. Pornbio was its own guideline, and everything under the Any Biography category was already on Bio above the professional criteria. I grouped those together a while back because having them loose made the layout look cluttered. Diplomats is new, but was debated heavily on this talk page. So it's actually only grown by 1 over several months. Horrorshowj (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

When does WP:BIO define criteria for WP:N in general?

I fail to see where this discussion translates to WP:N in general and why these template are being implemented on the pages in Category:WikiProject_notability_essays along with WP:USRD/NT (which was reverted because in our opinion - it doesn't fit this policy because

1. these are not essays - an essay implies someone drew it up on their own ideals without discussion and threw it up.
2. WP:USRD does not deal directly with BIO as none of our articles concern living persons

Yes they aren't policies or guidelines either, however, I strongly suggest this discussion be opened up to all of WP at WT:N and gather consensus before implementing this on all of the Wikiprojects and pages you have or will be putting this on. Thank you  — master son^{T - C} 03:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think that we can get rid of the special cases here and elsewhere, and without these there is no further point to BIO, so we can just rely on WP:N, and teach our admins how to apply it at AfD. It's really very easy. --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I take it that you want to get rid of any and all subject-specific guidelines? That may be okay if all editors were familiar with all subjects. One cannot in good faith participate in a deletion discussion if one is not familiar with the topic. Subject-specific guidelines make unnecessary many useless AFD debated that almost always end up as keep anyway. The key then is to make sure the subject-specific notability guidelines will for the most part lead to results in compliance with WP:N. --Polaron | Talk 03:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with you here Kevin. While I think the interpretations of BIO/ORG/ETC should be relegated to essays, but I don't think we should get rid of BIO/ORG/Etc. It is when we start giving specifics as guidelines that problems arise. As for MasterSon's comment about them not being Essays, they are. Essays are not necessarily written by individuals, but communities can write them as well. By labelling these essays, we are clarifying the positions of the wikiprojects opinions vs the guidelines for Essays.Balloonman (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Polar and BM, the simplicity of the whole thing is letting others determine notability, which is what WP:N does. The criteria are simply that a topic be recognized in a significant way by an independent and credible third party source. It's when we get into defining arbitrary criteria that we get into trouble. --Kevin Murray (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I agree with Balloonman and Polaron. There is worth in the main notability sub-guides, even if its just for things like BIO1E. The old proposal to merge everything into WP:N (which Horrorshowj mentioned above), was rejected, and rightly so. But the proposal that followed it to keep the main notability sub-guides but bring them inline with the general notability criteria, had strong support and was accepted (although Horrorshowj claims otherwise). Guides like Academics could be demoted into a WikiProject notability essay, as Balloonman suggests, although that isn't the purpose of this discussion thread. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it's feasible to delete WP:BIO at the moment. The WP:BIO criteria are so much more lenient than WP:N's, that its deletion would cause tens of thousands of AfDs. Epbr123 (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on the fate of the "Additional criteria" section, but I see no reason for WP:BIO to exist separately from WP:N in their absence. A subject-specific guideline that only repeats the general notability criterion is completely redundant. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I am in favour of relegating the "Additional criteria" section, but while I often agree with Black Falcon, I disagree in this case. Even after the changes have been implemented, WP:BIO still includes several important points which are applicable to all biographies, such as BIO1E, the specific point about

This article may not meet the notability guideline for biographies. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.

, and the sections on Lists of people and on Articles on Wikipedians. Additionally, the footnotes contain a lot of biog-specific material such as the notes on independence of sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but I don't think it's enough to justify a separate guideline page. The section for "Lists of people" could easily be merged to Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lists of people and the section "Articles on Wikipedians" could be expressed in one short sentence: "Some Wikipedia editors have articles about themselves (see Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles); however, their status as Wikipedian editors by itself has no effect on their notability." The section "Articles not satisfying the criteria" is applicable to articles on all topics, so it could be merged into WP:N.

That would leave only the footnotes, most of which (derivatives, self-publication, intellectual independence) could be merged into WP:N, and WP:BIO1E, which alone doesn't justify a separate page. To be fair, this may just be a reflection of my belief that we should make notability decisions almost exclusively on the basis of coverage in reliable sources (I deliberately include "almost" to account for cases where coverage almost certainly exists, but is simply difficult to access - e.g. a rural town of 5000 in Mozambique). I haven't been following the discussion above, but if the goal is to emphasise the need for coverage in sources (which I support), why don't we simply change "Additional criteria" to "Indicators"? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Horrorshowj's comments on my Talk page

After he reverted my implementation of this proposal, Horrorshowj posted a rather skewed thread to my User Talk page, that I believe is relevant here. So I'm quoting it and my reply to it below. Please add any comments here rather than on my User Talk page.

I'm finding it impossible to assume you're acting in good faith

You've been falsely claiming a consensus for your vision of bio for months. I've taken you to task and asked for proof of this, at which point you've disappeared each time. You've consistently been dishonest and misrepresented previous discussions, apparently on the theory that no one will check your claims. Now you have the audacity to claim that I have no objections to the change after the last several months. How the exactly does this work? Which argument of mine have you ignored or sidestepped that suddenly convinced me to support you? I was out of the discussion for all of 48 hours. It's completely unethical for you to make this claim without even the slightest effort at verifying it. Horrorshowj (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly I deplore your efforts to bend the truth. I would point out that I have never made an edit to BIO or any other policy/guideline/essay that did not have reasonable consensus, and had no active objections at the time. Most of the edits you've claimed in the past that I made "against consensus" were in fact made by other editors who commented in favour of the changes in the relevant discussions. Since no objections were raised at the time, and consensus seemed to have been reached, those other editors took it upon themselves to inact those changes, as I would have done, but didn't. An example of this is the notability guideline reforms, to bring the sub-guides inline with the general notability criteria. Although I was involved in those discussions, it was Kevin Murray, as well as several others, who inacted those changes. I believe they were right to do so, as consensus seemed to have been formed, but it was they who did it, not me. This is very different from what you claimed later on, that I had gone round effectively vandalising the notability sub-guides against consensus. If you don't believe that there was consensus for those reforms, then go look at the talk page archives yourself or ask Kevin Murray to confirm it for you. It is not my job to dig though the archives and pull out old discussions for you.

There is no requirement on Wikipedia to inform every Wikipedian on there User Talk page when a new proposal is proposed. Discussions are visible to all on the relevant Project Talk pages. It is your job to watch these pages if you wish to be involved in discussions. You could at the very least watch the Village Pump, and follow links from their to the relevant discussions. If a change is made that you don't agree with, then propose that the change to reverted and state your reasons. Don't claim that there was no consensus simply because you weren't involved in the discussion.

I am a great believer in establishing consensus, and I believe that was sufficiently done in this current case. This is very different from the way you seem to operate. As far as I can see, your attitude is that any amount of people can discuss it on the Talk page as much as they like, but if anyone dare inact the changes on the actual guideline, you'll revert and claim bad faith. I am very concerned about your ownership issues.

I assumed that you had no further objections, because you didn't raise any objections to the latest proposal. If that assumption was incorrect then I apologise, but it seems to be clear the consensus is against you.

—gorgan_almighty (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would like to say that your right to discuss proposals on here does not translate to a veto. If you oppose a proposal, then provide good, compelling reasons why you oppose it. Saying simply that you oppose it is unhelpful and will not grant much wweight to your argument. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Horrorshowj is of course welcome to express his/her concerns and objections, but the discussion is no way helped by the allegations of bad faith. I hope that other editors in replying will try to avoid any further arguments ad hominem and try to focus on the issues here rtaher than on misunderstandings between editors. Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A question

I've read this thread carefully (and it's a bit daunting for a request for input from VP:P) and I still have a question, which seems to have been answered two different ways on the thread:

Do the notability "essays" dilute the requirement for reliable sourcing?

It seems like the proposal is making a case that various subprojects should be able to define "common sense" notability requirements, which "imply" the presence of good sources, and therefore should be able to defer "delete" outcomes in AfDs.

I worry that this runs aground of LOCALFAME: subcommunities in WP (in my case, people who edit computer security articles) will have their own idiosyncratic notions of who is "notable" ("he spoke at the Midwest's biggest security conference! He must be notable!").

--- tqbf 18:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

RE question 1: IMO, it would actually strengthen the requirement for reliable sourcing. Right now, as the professional standards are often used as justification for keeping an article, RS are not expected. How often in XfD's do we read, "Well, the person was a professional baseball player" or "The subject passes this section of BIO/MUSIC/NUMBERS/Etc thus, of course it is a KEEP." That is then followed by a dozen people citing the same "guideline" as gospel without looking to see if there are any reliable sources. Right now, the additional criteria professionl criteria section is used without regard to the rest of BIO/N---if a person meets one of the additional criteria, they are notable even if they clearly aren't!

RE your second concern: See my answer above RE Questions from my talkpage. In short, what I argued up there is that yes, we will have some projects writing weak essays. But those already exist and are sometimes cited in AfD's. What this proposal does it is defines the relationship between the official guidelines and the various wikiprojects that have written their own guidelines. It essentially says that the wikiprojects can write their own guidelines, that can be used by those unfamiliar with a subject, to gain understanding of what notability within a field might be. But, it clearly states that the guidelines of N/BIO/ORG/etc have precedence. The various wikiprojects are spouting their interpretation on notability. If the project writes a strong essay, then it will gain more credence. If the project writes a weak essay, that opens the door to the guy who spoke at "the Midwest's biggest security conference" then the project's guidelines will be discarded. IMHO, this is what the professional standards of the additional criteria was always supposed to be---an interpretation on the guidelines. Not a guarantee that meeting them assures notability (which is how they have come to be implemented.)Balloonman (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the requirement for WP:V must be read as an addition to WP:N. We do not and should not write an article about everything where there are two newspaper articles. We have found various excuses not to actually do this in WP:NOT, NOT NEWS being the most widely used--even though every single use of it is bitterly debated. Obviously, we need sources to write an article. But as various dedicated local historians have shown, with enough effort it is possible to find sources for almost every living human. We avoid this by the requirement that they not be primary sources--and this distinction is now challenged, for in the other direction it has become clear that in the 21st century there are things obviously notable for which in fact he only sources are primary. It's time in my opinion we ended this foolishness and indirect, though I must say I do appreciate the opportunity this has given me to developing my skills at WP:AFD. Abundant debates there have made it clear that for about 2/3 of WP articles brought there, one can find good policy reasons for either keeping or deleting.

This is illustrated by the project-specific qualifications: there are only two ways to view "interpretations" -- either they make some things notable that would not fit in the general rules, or fewer--or they mean that the general rules are so general that they are of no practical use in deciding on the notability of actual articles. DGG (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

DGG, I am not sure of what you are saying here?Balloonman (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Balloonman that we need to tighten the rules for verification. I agree with the idea that an unsubstantiated claim to notability is worthless. However, dropping the additional criteria to essay level will not accomplish anything worthwhile. People will still base judgment for notability on the essays, and if they weren't requiring proof before they still won't. If the standard is set that the essays will be disregarding in disputes of notability, then what actual purpose are they going to serve? All we'd be doing is empowering the projects to be masters of meaningless decisions and increasing their administrative load. Horrorshowj (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the argument that this will increase the administrative load of a project is an empty argument. I don't think there is a project out there that wouldn't accept or even embrace the opportunity to write out guidelines on their own. In fact, how often is time currently spent fighting different projects that want to write their own criteria? In the past few weeks, I've seen at least 3 or 4 projects making independent proposals. This is an administrative task they want.

As for the viability of these essays, you contradict yourself above. First, you say, they will still base their judgment on the essays, but then you indicate that these essays will be meaningless. But I do not believe they would be meaningless or that articles would be kept/deleted solely based upon the essays. The proposed template will highlight the fact that people are allowed, but not required, to use the essays. Thus, pointing to the fact that an athlete competed in the 1932 Olympics will no longer be a free pass to notability. People will start to ask more questions. At the same time, however, the fact that the Olympics is part of the established "essay" it will give credence to the notion that said Olympian is inherently notable. Going to my area of interest, Poker. IMHO anybody who has won a WSOP bracelet is notable. WSOP bracelets are the gold standard in the Poker world. Winning the "US Poker Open", however, IMHO doesn't carry the same level of prestige. If somebody proposes a bracelet winner and a Aussie Millions winner for AfD, a person unfamiliar with the subject could look at what the Project considers to be notable. It may not be a free pass for the WSOP winner, but it will definitely impact the credibility of arguments for the Aussie Million winner. I see the most value of the essays in not the affirmative of who is notable, but in the restrictive sense of who isn't.Balloonman (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My argument isn't actually contradictory, it's referring to two possible implementations of the proposal. The demarcation is provided by "If the standard is set". Sorry I should have picked stronger wording. The way I see it, are three possible trends from the essay downgrade:

It is allowable to give credence for notability using the essays and closing admins give those arguments weight. People who don't require proof of the claim to notability now still aren't going to. Project essays are going to have less neutral input than BIO, and examples have already been provided that the essays aren't always stringent. Editors like me who spend a lot of time on AfD's now get watch a few dozen talk pages for changes, instead of just 3, and either stop or only show up when it's part of our project. I know the counter-argument is going to be that the admins will eliminate those that don't actually have proper documentation, but that's part of their job description now. It happens, but even the admins will admit nowhere near as often as it should. If it goes this way, we're just giving more bites at the apple, we are not tightening up anything. I will grant you that projects would love to write their own essays under this setup.

Arguments based on notability essays carry no weight at AfD. This appears to be what Kevin Murray is suggesting above. If the essays aren't usable at AfD, then they are worthless and there is no reason for a project to write them. It's an overblown to-do list with more room for outside participation.

Essays are potentially usable at AfD, but it's optional for the closing admin to give them weight. This seems like the least likely, and worst outcome. 17 well reasoned arguments, 14-3 split and consensus can go in either direction based on whether the admin allows essays or not? Worst case scenario, but I think this pushed the majority of AfD into appeal based on claims of improper weight being given to the essays in either direction.

I hope my points are clearer now. I see now you're correct that administrative workload isn't a relevant argument against this. Horrorshowj (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Horrorshowj (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Horrorshowj, I understand what you are saying about admins arbitrarily giving undue weight to essays. The idea is that essays defining notability, page style, etc should never be given weight at AfD. Essays can sometimes be useful at AfD, but that mainly applies to the essays that define particular terms (such as WP:RS). Its important to realise that WikiProjects already write essays about what they consider to be notable. That's nothing new. Part of this proposal is to give clear guidance on the fact that those essays do not trump the general criteria - they are informative only. This is clearly stated in the {{essay-project-note}} template which would be placed above any such essay. I believe this will help alleviate the problem you raised above. In cases where admins still give undue weight to essays, those AfDs should be taken to DRV, as the admin was wrong.

Stepping aside from the problem you mentioned above, I think that notability essays written by WikiProjects can essentially be defined as a summary of what experts in the particular field consider notable. I think its useful to have such essays around, for informative purposes only. This might sound like a surprising opinion from someone like me, who usually trumps the general notability criteria exclusively, but I think its good because it seems to strike the right balance between the requirement for secondary sources, and common sense. This view seems much more in-line with the views that you would normally put across, and to be honest I'm surprised you don't agree.

—gorgan_almighty (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm getting a bit concerned that rather than truly having essays, we are coming up with a euphemism for subject specific guidelines, and we are going to have all kinds of inconsistent and contradictory standards for notability. Rather than determining topic inclusion based on WP:N we will have cross jurisdictional issues for singing professors, is it MUSIC or PROF? At least keeping the problem contained here at BIO reduces the confusion and maintenance. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree. What we are proposing here is nothing new. WikiProjects already write essays about what they consider to be notable. Anyone is allowed to write essays on anything, and having an essay about what an supposed group of experts in a particular field considers notable is useful. Its not instruction creep, because it isn't instruction at all - its purely informational. But there has always been a bit of confusion at AfD about whether these expert-written criteria trump the general criteria or not. What we are trying to do here is to establish clear guidance saying that those expert-written criteria do not trump the general criteria. This leaves no doubt about what takes precedence at AfD. The alternative you suggest is to leave things exactly as they are, which would be a big mistake. Currently, we have a list of types of people who are inherently notable. This is unhelpful, because it doesn't indicate who considers them notable, or for what reason. Such a list can't be updated, because it doesn't fall into the jurisdiction of any experts in a particular field (not that we would want "expert opinion" being given as a justification for official guidelines, anyway). But worst of all, having such lists inside BIO (which is an official guideline) elevates them to the position of official guidance, which can be used to challenge the general notability guideline at AfD. We definately don't want that. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent response Gorgan. I think you've just hit the nail squarely on the head as to why I am pushing for this. The other reason why I am pushing for this is because a lot of time is spent by N/BIO people shooting down the different wikiprojects essays on the subject and garnering bad blood between the two. What we are trying to do is establish a parameter that can avoid this bad blood while making it clear that N/BIO/ORG/etc have precedence over the various project guidelines.Balloonman (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a sort of non-formal rule that any verifiable place, no matter how insignificant, always deserves an article. Should "places" be exempt from the general notability guidelines, or do we now start nominating obscure places for deletion? These types of articles will almost always be kept even if there are no reliable secondary sources that cite them (primary sources do exist for some of these). Again, if a subject-specific notability guideline (or essay) would lead to a set of objects where an overwhelming fraction (say 90%) of them would be notable under the general guidelines, wouldn't that make everybody's job easier while still following the notability guidelines? --Polaron | Talk 18:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT: By place, I assume that you mean City/State/village? I've seen places like caves, waterfalls, etc deleted.Balloonman (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, including unincorporated communities and census-designated places. Basically, any locality that has a name and has people living in it. --Polaron | Talk 20:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What's next

Ok, this discussion kind of faded into oblivion over Christmas break, but I don't think it should simply disappear. Here are, I believe the indisputed facts:

1. WP:BIO has always required RS and V. Those are primary considerations.
2. The additional criteria section was never intended to override the above fact, but to help define it.
3. In XfD's the usage of an additional criteria has come to be used as a trump card, even if RS/V can't be established.

But it doesn't stop there, I believe the following is also true and generally accepted as such. Because of these additional criteria exists, many wikiprojects create their own criteria.

1. When they create the criteria and notify the folks here at WP:BIO/WP:N, their proposals are stomped on as instructional creep or unnecessary. This creates bad feelings between the projects and the people at notability. Furthermore, it forces the people here to constantly battle over the same issues.
2. When they create the criteria and don't notify the folks here, their proposals are posted on the individual project pages. Then when cited in an AfD, they usually are cited in a manner wherein they carry the same weight as those found on wp:BIO. In other words, the criteria given by WP:Baseball/WP:NASCAR/etc is accepted as the same as that of the additional criteria section---until/unless somebody disputes that fact in which case the debate is opened again.

Thus, the conflict continues and a lot of time/energy is wasted rehashing the same debates---but with different people from different projects. The proposal here is a rather simple one:

1. Define a relationship between the criteria established by the various projects and WP:N. Ultimately, the project's guidelines are that of an essay written by many users. (Even if the project has a 'vote', it doesn't make it into a guidelines.) Thus, I think these criteria should be clearly labeled as such via a template---such as {{essay-project-note}}. (Note: We don't have to call them essays---perhaps "Wikiproject Criteria" or something?)
2. Encourage, not discourage, projects to establish subject specific criteria. They know what is notable within their area of expertise. By establishing these guidelines they can help out at XfD's--- for both KEEP/DELETE---but as they are clearly labeled as secondary to the generally accepted guidelines and can be accepted/ignored by the wider community. (NOTE: The projects are going to write essays anyways, regardless of what the people here at WP:N/BIO want.)
3. The above proposed template will then create a category of wikiproject specific criteria---again labelling them as secondary to the guidelines.

I think this proposal will save a lot of heartache and grief. It is not instruction creep because it clearly establishes the guidelines as primary and won't change the fact that projects already write their own criteria. It defines the relationship in such a way that avoids instruction creep.Balloonman (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:V is a policy, RS is just a disputed mass of details on the interpretation of it. Neither of them amounts to notability, just gives the minimal basis without which there is no way to write an article. Either we write an article about everything we can verify, elementary school athletes and all, or we have criteria. The default guideline is the basic notability criterion N=2RS, but this leads to counter-intuitive results, which are dealt with in one of three ways

1. elaborating on what constitutes RSs to achieve the result wanted
2. having subject-specific guidelines
3. fighting everything out individually

for my example, i can certainly construct RS guidelines to exclude elementary school athletes: local papers aren't reliable for notability for events limited to their locality and not covered elsewhere, for they include everything anyone sends them. andso on, depending on the result wanted.

So we should define criteria for each subject, define them as clear cut categorical guidelines, and eliminate the need for extensive individual discussions, which tend to come out with random results. The guideline will sometimes be in error, but i dont see how they can be more in error than our present practice. I wouldnt worry about the general WP:N, for that is rightly under attack as inherently undependable.

"The purpose is not to guide discussion at AfD, but to keep articles from needing discussions at AfD. DGG (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

So you represent one end of the spectrum, the side that would support having additional criteria guidelines for virtually every subject imaginable. The side that if taken to its ultimate extreme would have more "additional criteria" guidelines than we could shake a stick at. In all honesty, philosophically, I agree with you. I would love to see each project/area write out solid definitive guidelines that could be utilized and relied upon. From a practicality point of view, hashing out that many additional criteria guidelines would become impractical. I mean a quick look at this page alone shows that Pornstars, Religion, Diplomats, families, crime victems, criminals, congressmen, athletes, poker players, and old people have all been discussed here in the recent past. Then there are other areas/subjects which have written out guidelines that are never brought up here-but are then used to defend the existence of articles.

The other side of the spectrum, which gorgan_almighty and Kevin Murray are prime examples, vehemently opposes this approach as it introduces instructional creep and becomes impossible to stay on top of.

This proposal is a compromise proposal between those two camps because it makes it easier for general guidelines about subject specific criteria to come into existence without having the projects and BIO/N people clashing. It places that burden on the shoulders of the people who know the subject specifics the best---the various wikiprojects. (As noted previously, this isn't anything that the projects aren't doing already and will continue to do regardless of what the folks at BIO/N say. With the inclusion of the Additional Criteria section, more and more projects are going to create their own guidelines.) Thus, it achieves your and my desire to have these guidelines out there. If I'm looking at an article on Cricket it is helpful to know what people familiar with that subject thinks are notable---what is the Cricket equivalent to having "competed in a fully professional league?" Their criteria explains what it is and why there is a difference. Prior to reading their interpretation, I had no way of knowing. I bet you that 95% of the people reading this discussion even knew that WP:CRICKET had written notability guidelines! But, their guidelines would come in very helpful in understanding how WP:BIO relates to the sport of Cricket. I'd rather have the project provide their interpretation of BIO/N BEFORE an article is written or taken to AfD.

At the same time, this proposal addresses the concerns of the instructional creep folks because it clearly establishes these subject specific guidelines as secondary to BIO/N. They would no longer have to get into every debate and shoot down every project that wants to come up with subject specific criteria. The subject specific guidelines are clearly delineated as subservient to the main BIO/N guidelines.

As for your comment about "to keep articles from needing discussions at AfD." Yes, I agree... but the reality is that XfD's is where the issue will come about. To fall back into my area of interest---Poker. Wikiproject Poker considers WPT/WSOP/EPT events to be the highest level of poker, but does not consider somebody notable for merely playing in said events. If somebody comes along and writes an article wherein their only claim to fame was that they played at the WSOP Main Event or won the Aussie Millions, then the projects participants would probably oppose said article. If, however, you are dealing with a WSOP bracelet winner, the participants of the project would vigorously fight for keeping said article. In fact, nominating a bracelet winner for deletion would probably be met with snide comments about how idiotic said AfD was.Balloonman (talk) 09:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Lists of people section

Based on a conversation at WP:N, several editors, myself included, believe that the guidelines related to list content, including any requirements that exist for notable list entries, should be located at a single place, in Wikipedia:Lists#Listed items (recognizing also that that section, as currently written, needs expansion to capture WP practice around list content). Accordingly, I would propose moving the Lists of People section from this guideline to that one, putting a "please see . . ." link on this page to refer to it. Comments, thoughts? UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Not hearing anything on this for over a week, I am going to go ahead and make the move. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Donald Turnupseed

This seems to be a standard one-event person; would it make sense to merge it into James Dean? --NE2 18:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes this is a good merge candidate. Horrorshowj (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but in the merge, don't delete any info. I always wondered what happened to the man, and now that he's dead, all this bio info is interesting and legit. Even as a footnote. But put it SOMEWHERE in the Dean article, and if you can't figure out how to, that's a sign that Turnupseed needs his own bio, even if a short one. I wouldn't be making this argument if he was alive. SBHarris 05:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"intellectually independent"

"A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not." I think this means that the summary does not add any additional notability to thatt provvided by thebio, not that the summary if that is all we have does not to some degree establish notability. Comments? suggestions for rewording to make it clearer? DGG (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Martin (Scholar)

I recently posted an article on Daniel Martin, a Jack Kent Cooke scolar, Peace activist and writer. It was deleted for lack of notability, "importance" and "significance."

Let me preface this by saying I have no intention of writing an article about myself, I'll let someone else do that someday (if ever). I only want to suggest that we take a good look at what we mean when we say "IMPORTANT and "SIGNIFICANT".

I must adamantly make a case for the Daniel Martin (Scholar) article - not on my personal behalf, but on the behalf of anyone who has made acceptional academic achievements and has, as a result been recognized with a highly prestigous national award. The Jack Kent Cooke Foundation Scholarship, received by Daniel (myself) as a result of years of hard work and community leadership, is the most selective, lucrative transfer scholarship in the Western Hemisphere.

I believe it's a very poor reflection on our society when a junk filmmaker can crap out a movie about two guys getting stuck in the desert with a beautiful lesbian (see Never on Tuesday and get acknowledged on Wikipedia just because it was released by a studio - or another can be born into a wealthy family like my friend Brad Wyman (with all due respect), yet never achieve anything productive save 1 hit film about a mass murderer - see Monster. This reflects the same skewed value system that awards a top teacher with $30,000 a year while Julia Roberts can pump out a flop for $20 Million.

While I do understand that not just ANYONE can have a wikipedia article about them and their achievements, I do believe those who've been recognized with extraordinary awards by extraordinary people - see Jack Kent Cooke - should be recognized truthfully with the appropriate citations and proof. Jack Kent Cooke once said his legacy would be his scholars - and as the legacy of Mr. Cooke, I believe myself and other scholars should stand as societal role models and be recognized in the academic community for our achievements. I still believe, despite the cynical attitude of some, that Wikipedia is a real part of the academic and knowledge community.

Who are you to say that my achievement in not "IMPORTANT" or "SIGNIFICANT", yet Adam Rifkin's Never on Tuesday get's it's own entry - and for what???

I think this scholarship - and what it stands for - is pretty damn significant - and so did a multi-multi millionaire entrepreneur like Mr. Cooke, who owned the Redskins and the Lakers and the Chrysler Building, and so did the selection committee of dozens of top professors, politicians and nobel laureates who picked me and 24 other students out of over 25,000 potential candidates.

So I urge you, in your role as an admin, to permit and guide an article about a Jack Kent Cooke Scholar - not for me or the sake of individual ego, I'll leave off the writing of my own article and do one on a fellow scholar - but for the sake of honoring extraordinary *recognized* achievements that I hope can one day inspire people to be strong in character, discipline and hope - things that define a Jack Kent Cooke Scholar. We deserve to stand next to the Adam Rifkins and Brad Wymans of the world, and I believe we can.

There's a real world out there, with real heroes. Let's lift them up too.

Thank you, Eleutherosmartin (talk)

If you would like more information about the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation, feel free to visit the Foundation website. Daniel has also been recognized in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Such secondary sources will be cited in full in any forthcoming articles about JKCF scholars.

Eleutherosmartin (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The place to ask for restoration of the article is a WP:Deletion Review--or just write a better one with more evidence. The article that was deleted started "Daniel Martin is a recipient of the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation 2005 Undergraduate Transfer Scholarship, the most prestigous award granted to American community college students transferring to 4 year institutions" and said nothing about his individual accomplishments. In my personal opinion that should have been enough to pass speedy, but I can't imagine that it will be considered notable in wikipedia--people have to have actually done something important, not just won a scholarship to leann how to do something. In the past, the consensus has been against considering even Rhodes Scholarships by themselves to be notable. Many people who win one go on to do things appropriate for an encyclopedia, and then of course there are articles. But I notice from the foundation';s website that it awards 650 scholarships a year, and this would seem to cast some considerable further doubt against making any one of them individually notable. People who learn to make films dont get articles till they make them, and achieve a certain recognition in their field; your friend Brad has a filmography of 33 films. DGG (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it being an autobiographical entry would be seen as pushing it over the line for deletion under A7, if not also qualifying it under G11 as advertising. Horrorshowj (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Who's Who...Balloonman (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And the notability of the foundation is irrelevant: notability is not contagious! --Orange Mike | Talk 15:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Amateur athletes

I refer you to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Wilcher which is an interesting debate, where currently consensus is 100% for keeping someone who falls foul of WP:BIO#Athletes, implying that our guideline needs adjusting. Comments welcome - there on the specifics of the deletion, here on whether or not to amend the guideline. --Dweller (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why Wikipedia:SPORTS#Amateur_sports_people is no longer the guiding policy. Wikipedia:Bio#Athletes is biased against athletes in sports that don't have organized professional sports where in their sport they might be the equivalent of a professional minor league athlete or a professional second-tier major league athlete. Wilcher is a case in point where the former guidelines accomodate a contribution but the lattter does do not. As with anything it is a matter of where to draw the line in the sand for notability. In this case, the current article would support a the revision of the guidelines. Admittedly, the current article does omit the transition from being a three-time NCAA All-American to being a football coach. This transition may have included some time on the professional track circuit, but the current article does not explain this possibility.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The proposal at Wikipedia:SPORTS seems to have been closed as rejected last autumn. There's some discussion about it at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Status. --Dweller (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The larger proposal was rejected, but small parts of it may be acceptable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty, it looks like this article is going to be kept but not for the right reasons (current policy). It is being kept because an active group of editors who have all taken part in the editing of the {{Michigan Wolverines Football}} template that very recently looked like this have led the charge to have it kept. Others have followed along.

This sort of implies that there may be a groundswell to revise policy so that biography articles of athletes with specific credentials not falling within current policy are kept. I would very much like to come to an agreement that would cover power conference Division I basketball and BCS conference Division I (whatever its new name is) football. Such a policy could very well cover other DI sports such as baseball and hockey, but I do not follow them closely enough to say for certain. Note, I think for non power conference and lower division schools, just being drafted or ever having played may as notable as being a first rounder or a current player is for a power conference.

User:Cbl62 and I are the most active editors of the Michigan template and have a general agreement on who is important, but some specific discrepant credentials. I think the last version before the template was collapsed is a good starting point. I propose that each BCS football school and power conference basketball school create such a template. All persons on such a template will not be contested by AFD. However, there needs to be an agreement on two classifications: All-Americans, Active Alumni, Current All-Conference and Other Important Figures.

In addition to being first, second and sometimes third and honorable mention All-American teams there are various types of first-team All-Americans: 1.) unanimous, 2.) consensus, 3.) regular and, for lack of a better term, 4.) unrecognized. In any given year usually between six and ten All-American lists are recognized toward determining consensus and unanimous. Any player named as first team on all lists is unanimous and on half is considered consensus. Other first team honorees are considered regular All-Americans. However, in any given year there are lists not recognized that also produce All-Americans. Notable Michigan Wolverines include Rick Volk, Bubba Paris, Billy Taylor (American football) to name a few. The relevance of this consideration is that many All-Americans are leveraging their athletic scholarships to get an education and pursue graduate professional programs who in the abstract might fail an AFD. These lists of credentials will help us to protect a general class of athlete without the burden of case by case analysis. I am for keeping all articles of class 1, 2, and 3 players. I am not against a policy that would keep all class 4 All-Americans as well.

The controversy on active alumni, on the template involves the 53-man roster, injured reserve and the 8-man practice squad. However, although this is a problem for the template it Is likely that all three types of players constitute professional athletes and would not be a point of contestation for AFD. All three types of players should be kept in an AFD process although I think a player must have made a 53-man roster in the current season to be eligible to be on a template, IMO.

I believe a player’s bio should be kept once he becomes first team All-Conference (either coaches or media) in a power conference until his graduating class has become professional athletes.

The catch is “Other Important Figures” and Cbl and I disagree on what should be here. He is protecting former major record holders for the most part. I would define it as Professional athletes, Olympic Medalists and All-Americans from other sports and possibly cut it off there, which means almost none of the guys in other would be kept on the template by my definition although they would be kept on WP. This would include articles like Elmer Gedeon and Thomas Wilcher being protected by the football team template. I am not sure where to go with this, however, I think the institution football templates should be considered as part of the issue as a reinforcement of policy by making it easy to monitor. Of course, when all sports come up with equitable lists my other important figures might not be the right list.

This still does not give us specific reasons to save another article I created (Jennifer Martz), but it would take us in the right direction.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally with your opening comments, but you then lose me in the welter of jargon about American amateur sport. Wikipedia:SPORTS was an attempt for each sports WikiProject or other experts to devise its own cast-iron criteria for notability. The overal policy failed, but individual WikiProjects (I'm most familiar with WP:FOOT and WP:CRIC) have long had their own notability criteria defined at the WikiProject home. Perhaps such guidelines can be collated into a template and appended into WP:BIO? I think that then the separate amateur section can be disposed of, as the reader of the policy will be interested in knowing how to judge (to name two sports that treat amateurism somewhat differently from the norm) athletes or cricketers, regardless of pro or amateur status. --Dweller (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a deletionist with sports articles, but I don't see nothing wrong with the article linked here, amateur athletes can have articles if there is enough reliable sources covering them. If they don't, well delete. Secret ^account 02:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• We should follow a very simple notability guideline: If the person is subject of 2 or more non-trivial reliable sources, and if someone cares enough to write an article on them, then the person is sufficiently notable for an article. Johntex\^talk 04:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How do we define "generally"?

I am a bit confused about this part of the guideline: "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." In practice, I think that this line is roundly ignored. Meeting one of the criteria is considered, in practice, a guarantee of notability, and failing to meet a standard is regarded as lack of notability. Are these criteria designed to eliminate the need for what we might conventionally think of as sources that establish notability? For instance, would an athlete who plays a single game for a professional team and no more and is never the subject of a significant coverage in secondary sources qualify as notable? Croctotheface (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the number of one line, one or two game articles out there is any indication, I'd say so. •Florrie•leave a note• 22:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Extreme Sports Athletes

Hello,

I just was wondering as to if we could lay down some more specific criteria for extreme sports athletes. The standard definitions of athlete notability don't really apply to them. Any thoughts? I'd argue that anyone winning an X Games or a Gravity Games medal would count for sure, but beyond that, I'm admittedly just not familiar enough with all of the possible criteria. I'm not a huge extreme sports enthusiast. Magazine coverage? Video appearances? Tours? What should the guidelines be? The Extreme Sports WikiProject doesn't seem to be active and hasn't for some time, so they won't be a good place to go for some guidance. matt91486 (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as they satisfy WP:NOTE there is no need for anything specific. If they do indeed "win" X games or Gravity Games then there should be sources per WP:RS easily found. Even making specific criteria doesn't stop articles getting dragged up to AfD. Adding easily verifiable WP:V references to an article stops the nom being made in the first place. Better to train editors to properly reference their subjects. Sting au Buzz Me... 22:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I understand it won't make anything immune from AfD, but I just thought perhaps some more guidelines would be helpful. At least, I'd like it included as a category if another big attempt for general sports notability is tried to put together. I know they weren't part of the last failed proposal. Just wanted to call some attention to it to get it out in the discussion. I probably won't create too many articles on individuals, I'm just doing some transcribing of medals of X Games to the site and getting marginally annoyed by the amount of redlinks, haha. matt91486 (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Athlete notability?

On the notability page, it states that all players who played in the major leagues get notability. However, that is very ambiguous. Does that mean all players, or only the "important" ones? If you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Bunce, there are some mixed feelings about that article. Josh Bunce did play in the major leagues, but over 100 years ago. Back then, there is very little info about the major leagues, almost none about him. So let's say he only played 1 game, got at bat once (hypothetically). He got a walk. So does that make him notable? According to this guideline, it does. But practically, it doesn't make sense to have an article.

What I'm trying to get at here, is that if they get automatic notability, they don't always have information to warrant an article. As it seems, there is about zilco more info to add to that article, and it will remain a stub. Soxred93 | talk count bot 00:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes if they play in the country's premier league of the particular sport they get notability. It seems strange to me sometimes when a player makes it to that level but otherwise has a pretty poor record, that they still get to have an article here. Consensus consistently saves these sport stars articles at AfD's though. It is a shame when articles on educators or doctors (people who work hard to benefit our communities) struggle to meet notability criteria. Athletes seem to be an almost sacred subject around Wikipedia? That athlete in the article you mentioned will most likely be kept, even though an editor (and yourself) is putting up a good case against it being kept. Perhaps an addition to the criteria for athletes is required? Something that makes it clear that WP:RS should be met to satisfy WP:V (which is an official policy whereas wp:bio is only a guideline). The problem is as mentioned consensus here has made his participation in that one game [2] enough to call him notable? Pretty crazy when you look at the link and see all the zero's. Unless a change is made to the section on additional criteria for athletes we are going to continue seeing this happen. Sting au Buzz Me... 02:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

the public has paid enough attention to athletes over the last 2500 years that there are always sources for people at the top levels. As someone who pays no attention to them at all, i may find this a little out of kilter with my own interests, but that's what the world finds notable. Just competing in the Olympics made a man famous in 500 BC, and it still does..DGG (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for notable religious leaders in ISKCON

• Questions On the official Governing Body Commission website it states that there are "around 48" members. [3] So my question is are all 48 notable due to membership on the GBC of ISKCON? These 48 could be a good starting place for a discussion on a minimum standard for notablilty for religious leaders in ISKCON. I believe there needs to be some criteria set for establishing, "what is a notable ISKCON religious leader?" Any thoughts? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, with respect to the RC church is is accepted that every bishop is notable, and there are about 4800 of them. True, it has sometimes been disputed, but in practice every such article is sustained at AfD, as a major figure similar to a mayor of a city. DGG (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarify that relationships do not automatically preclude notability

The guideline says: "Invalid criteria: That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A". Can we clarify that this relationship does not preclude notability either? I'd just like it to be clear that secondary coverage of person A that occurred just because of their relationship to person B still qualifies as coverage of person A. I've seen a few comments like "oh, they just did that article on her because she's the daughter of some rock star". True, that's why they did it, but it's still an article about her. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 20:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I took a shot at adding a clarification. Comments of course welcome. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that works. I just wanted to confirm the thinking before making the change myself, but this is even better. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 19:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarify athlete notability

{{helpme}} Mo Keita Devlin McGregor (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You haven't asked any question, so I've nullified your helpme by adding "tnull". I think you're usually supposed to put the helpme on your own user talk page, anyway, which is here. And put a question with it. Thanks. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Guideline vs. Policy

Virtually all BLP AFD's and the like that I've ever seen have centered on WP:BIO, and I'm wondering why it's not tagged policy, as it appears to be de facto accepted policy. Since policies are just written description of existing practice, why is this? Lawrence § t/e 23:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the "guideline" designation is retained in order to preserve the advice that: "As the occasional exception may arise, [the guideline] should be approached with common sense." You may also be interested in this related discussion concerning the status of the general notability guideline. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Auto archiving

I'll be adding this page to a bot to be auto archived. I'll likely set it up for archives by year and adjust the number of days before archiving based on the size of the talk page after a few runs. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I cut out a chunk of material this morning as this page is out of hand. Maybe, one day, auto archiving of Talk pages will be the default... --ElKevbo (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll set it up now and it should run tomorrow night. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Intellectually independent"

I find this provision problematic. The footnote says:

“

Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.

”

The difficulty is that almost all newspaper articles about an issue will tend to be derived from the same sources (except when a news organization undertakes its own investigation of something, which is relatively unusual), and so none are intellectually independent in this sense.

Also, if a politician's speech about a person is reproduced fifty times, rather than once, that surely does establish the notability of the politician, or of the contents of the speech, so the "multiple reproduction" advice is surely misleading. Ditto with the biography advice -- if lots of outlets summarize a biography, it does indeed increase its notability. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Local politicians

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone.

Certainly true for candidates - we do want to remove the possibility that the fact that someone got on a ballot somewhere means they should have an article. But it strikes me that many local government officials probably are going to get enough local press coverage to mean that they would qualify for articles. I also somewhat question the criteria. There are 17 members of the Philadelphia City Council. There are, on the other hand, 28 members of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives from Philly. The members of the city council are, for the most part, going to be more important than most of the state representatives. But the state representatives are given automatic notability, while the city councilmen have to meet a vaguely defined standard of "significant press coverage". They can certainly all meet that, but that's just the point - they can all meet it. One can easily imagine somebody creating a stub on, say, Jim Kenney (a fairly prominent city councilman, elected at-large by the whole city), and then having it be speedy deleted for failing to "make a claim to notability." I remember last year people were trying to delete the aricle on Tom Knox, who ended up being the runner up for mayor, on the grounds that candidates for local office are presumed to be not notable unless demonstrated otherwise. I'm not too familiar with other countries, but it seems to me that it would be good to try to find categories where it is very likely that virtually everyone will be sufficiently notable to qualify, so as to make it less likely that good articles will be speedy deleted by trigger happy people.

I know more about American politics than other countries, but I'd think the following ought to qualify:

1. Mayors of cities of over 50,000 or so.
2. City Councilors in the largest cities
3. Major mayoral candidates in the largest cities
4. Major County officials in large counties with significant self-government (e.g. Montgomery County, Maryland, which functions more or less like a big city government)
5. Probably most District/State's Attorneys, at least of larger jurisdictions.

All of these people, I think, would be more prominent than your average member of the lower house of a state legislature, who are automatically considered notable. Anyway, I'm not committed to any particular formulation, but I think the idea that some freshman state delegate can be assumed to be important, while no mayors can, is silly and needs to be corrected. john k (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Note the redlink that you showed of Jim Kenney, the deleted content was an attack on a nn high school teacher, as for your comments, if there are reliable sources outside of the local newspaper, I don't see the reason why an article can't exist. Secret ^account 02:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I know that the Jim Kenney article that was deleted was not about the councilman. But if somebody put up a stub that said

Jim Kenney is a Philadelphia at-large city councilman.

It seems as though there's a solid chance it would be deleted as making "no claim to notability," because, apparently, serving on the city council of the sixth largest city in the country is not as notable as serving in the lower house of the state legislature of Wyoming (which has about a third as many people as Philly, and whose House has about three times as many members as the Philly City Council). Beyond that, what's wrong with the local newspaper? If there's dozens of Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News articles about the other Mr. Kenney (no relation), and there are, why does that not count as notability? And the point is not whether an article can be exist, it's about where the presumption of notability should be. At the moment, the presumption of notability is that any state legislator is notable, and any mayor or city councilman or district attorney is not. This is perverse, for reasons I've tried to explain. The mayor of any decent sized city is going to be a more important political figure than all but the most powerful state legislators, and the same is true for the DA. In the largest cities, city councilmen are generally going to be more prominent than state legislators, as well. The guidelines should reflect reality. john k (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I weakly support this proposal since I strongly support the aim of the efficacious use of Wikipedians time, freeing them for editing articles by avoiding arguments where the outcomes will (or probably should) be reversed. I am concerned that the guidelines, as written, should not be too US-centric. |I would propose a rebuttable assumption of notability for all elected/appointed legislators/politicians (but not officials) up to and including the third tier of administration (where the national legislature is the first tier). Alice^✉ 18:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The section here doesn't explain our practice for municipal politicians as thoroughly as the one at WP:OUTCOMES, admittedly, but much of what you're proposing here is, in fact, already our existing practice — at least for the first four criteria you listed. Even right down to the fact that 50K is generally (although not universally) accepted as the approximate cutoff for presuming a mayor to be notable just for being a mayor. (Mayors of smaller places may still be notable for other reasons, of course, and mayors of larger places can still be deleted if their articles aren't properly sourced.) I don't know if there's a clear consensus on the notability or non-notability of DAs or state attorneys, however. Some expansion and clarification here would be fair, certainly, but I don't think there really needs to be too much debate about it since you're really just codifying what's basically the unwritten norm as it is. Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that once an article on the councilman is written and properly sourced, it would supersede the guideline on state vs. local office holders. For instance, some County-level politicians New York represent areas larger then Wyoming as well, and receive plenty of press coverage. I've seen articles get shot down because they are a stub, "Jim so and so is a county legislator/town councilman, etc", and others survive because they provide plenty of secondary sources which establish their notability. Mrprada911 (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's good to hear that this is the standard more or less already. Still, I think some codification here would be nice. john k (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

To test the situation, I created a stub on William D. Euille, the mayor of Alexandria, Virginia. Let's see if it gets AfDed. john k (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And there it goes, a notability tag... john k (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Politicians vs. pornographic actors

I do find the criteria anomalous for these two professions, and no doubt for others too. A time-serving party-hack backbencher in an upper house in a state or provincial parliament, or the dullest, stupidest US congressional representative qualifies as notable (there's even an inclusory rider for local politicians). But a highly professional pornographic actor who's listed at IMDb and has scores of google entries needs to have won an award or have "made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography, or starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature" (sic) – this seems out of proportion. Does it reflect a rightwing Christian push here to minimise content on WP about sexual topics? Gay pornographic actors, for example, have a unique role WRT the formation of the identity of gay individuals, and more broadly of gay culture. This role should fitly be covered by WP by providing information on more than just the very few high-flyers who fit the current tight regulations. WP itself has the potential to make a unique, non-commercial, balanced contribution to public knowledge on the vehicles of a significant cultural movement. This should not be constrained by overly narrow criteria. I'm not suggesting that there be no criteria at all, but rather more practical, less instrusive ones.

I'm inclined to broaden the criteria slightly for the actors and to tighten it slightly for politicians, frankly. Tony (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't know much about politicians I don't know much about porn starts, so I don't extinguish them. Here's a very boring politician: Edmund Backhouse (MP). As he has an obituary in The Times, so he is "notable", even though the obit. displays his essential dullness. However, his son and grandchildren were BRILLIANT. The WP article on Edmund Backhouse shows him to be a link with a whole lot of things that were going on in 19th Century Britain, and that's notable. Perhaps it will emerge that he played a major role in some aspect of his political life that moulded the future or was part of some scandal, which will enliven the article. Tell me the name of a porn star who has changed the world! Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 22:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems completely tangential to my point. Individual pornographic actors, as a whole, have an identifiable effect, and may be interesting and/or worth documenting even though they themselves haven't "changed the world". Just like politicians ... Tony (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

So why do you want to tighten the notability criteria for dull politicians? Sometimes, they suddenly emerge as significant e.g. British MP Derek Conway. If he had been excluded from WP for dullness we would have been hard put to assemble an article when his misdemeanour went public. His WP article prior to the scandal was significnatly useful to his constituents and anyone proposing to compete that Westminster Parliamentary seat, but hadn't the buzz of a porn star's article, no doubt!. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 23:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

One Event merge

It was done. We discussed it. But now we have a content fork and two slightly different One Events! SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 12:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Copy of what I posted on the BLP talkpage: "Following discussion (started here), the "notable for one event" section was felt to be an inclusion criteria more suited to the inclusion guideline rather than content policy. The section was moved. It has now been moved back. I feel there is room for discussion on this issue. I'm putting a merge tag on it, which will direct discussion to" (here). SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 12:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The last discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Suggested_merge_from_WP:BLP1E_to_here_-_Redux. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 12:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking back it wasn't a wide discussion. 4 people in favour (gorgan_almighty, Wikidemo, TexasDex and me) and one oppose (AnonEMouse). So another discussion is appropriate. 12:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilkTork (talk • contribs)

I missed it. I think wider discussion would be needed. My first thoughts: (1) having this or similar language in WP:BIO seems interesting: I for one can see the advantage of extending this part of WP:BLP to apply to subjects who are no longer alive; (2) removing the language from WP:BLP seems disastrous to me: the special emphasis on strict policy enforcement when writing about living people will no longer apply and, worse, language specifically developed to protect living people would be demoted from policy to guideline. Avb 22:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The changes to the shortcuts seem to be problematic, as editors are not aware of the fact that WP:BLP1E no longer redirects to the BLP policy and has been replaced by WP:ONEEVENT. Shouldn't this be reverted also? See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vicki_Iseman. Avb 00:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

By all means, mention it here, but BLP is a policy with teeth, and is absolutely intended to stay that way. It's imperative that coverage of biographies be carefully considered and enforced. Is this a "notability guideline" or a firm policy? That's really the question a merge discussion would need to address. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

See also #Shortcut WP:BLP1E should not link here below. Avb 02:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

High school sports champions, are they notable?

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Boyd (wrestler) there is a debate about whether a state champion high school athlete is notable. I'd like more input there because this could set a big precedent. There are thousands of state champions a year in high school sports, so this could create a standard for thousands of articles. Metros (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I generally dislike attempts to make broad generalisations about the notability of a class of articles, and think that it would be better to consider whether "he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" (Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well those looking to keep the article are citing WP:BIO's athlete section: "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)". So I think it's important to discuss whether this guideline covers high school state championships or not. Metros (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, I don't think that most high school champions are at the 'highest level in amateur sports'. So that part would not appear to include these athletes. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The highest level of amateur sport is the Olympic Games. A high school athlete generally wouldn't be considered notable unless they broke a world record or something. It would still need the published sources to back it up. Sting au Buzz Me... 02:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Shortcut WP:BLP1E should not link here

We have a mess: The WP:BLP1E shortcut links to this guideline, confusing many editors.

To put it as simply as possible: Months ago (December 11, '07), when the "People notable only for one event" section was moved from WP:Biographies of Living Persons to this guideline, the WP:BLP1E shortcut went with it. When the section was moved back to WP:BLP (Dec 18), the shortcut stayed at the similar section in this guideline, where it remains today. (I think we can assume this was unintentional; no need to blame anyone for a mistake.) On Jan 9, WP:ONEEVENT was later added as a new shortcut to that WP:BLP section ("Articles about people notable only for one event").

Editors regularly cite WP:BLP1E in deletion discussions, and many of them think they're citing the more authoritative WP:BLP policy rather than a notability guideline. This happened in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman, where I, Doc Glasgow, and others cited it that way. It turned out that half-way through the discussion the confusion was (let's hope) cleared up (if other editors read the comment). Who knows what mischief this mistake has caused in other AfDs. User:Risker also commented later that he was surprised about the change. To belabor the obvious, the whole point of having a "shortcut" is to make it easier to cite policy. Editors should not have to check constantly to see that the shortcuts they use are pointed toward different articles. The citations here show that the problem remains. The fact that "BLP" is part of the WP:BLP1E link continues to suggest to any editor that the shortcut points to the BLP policy.

Five ideas to fix this:

1. Move the shortcut back to WP:BLP -- This would create a similar problem. I assume some editors have now learned to use WP:BLP1E to refer to the guideline section here. We need to end the confusion, not spread it around.
2. Do nothing and editors will gradually learn where the new link goes. But this is a problem and it can be fixed, so it shouldn't be allowed to keep confusing editors.
3. Remove the shortcut and allow it to be a redlink This would alert editors everywhere to the change, but it would confuse many editors reading archived AfDs.
4. Create a permanent disambiguation page for the shortcut. This would create the least confusion and disruption. It would not educate editors about the change as fast as a redlink would (editors following the link would have to ask the person who made the reference whether the link was meant for WP:BIO or WP:BLP). I favor this option.
5. Create a temporary disambituation page for the shortcut Set a date three or six months from now, announced on the disambiguation page, that we'll move the shortcut back to WP:BLP. It would be nice to be able to get rid of the disambiguation page, but I think that could create confusion for anyone looking at the archives: Some editors probably were using the shortcut to intentionally link to WP:BIO.

Noroton (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC) (minor point added Noroton (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

To state the obvious, a BLP shortcut should link to BLP. Who knows how many historical debates were changed when that shortcut was moved. Please puit it back. Anything else is counter-intuitive. --Doc^g 23:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me. In three months, some editors meant to use it to link to the WP:BIO page. Moving it back creates a new problem in the archives. A disambiguation page will eventually cause use of this shortcut to die out, which hurts nothing. Noroton (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No. It cannot be deleted in three months, since that would make a nonsense of arguments I (and many others) have used over the last years. Things done "per WP:BLP1E" would be left meaningless. Why on earth should a BLP shortcut link anywhere but WP:BLP? Create a dab if you must, but it will have to remain permanently. And there is certainly no reason to delink WP:BLP1E from their historic and intuitive target. Correct the error, dab it for a while if you really must.--Doc^g 23:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No, reread Option #4. By "die out" I mean the habit of using it will die out, meaning that fewer and fewer editors will be bothered by the disambiguation page. Of course we need to keep it permanently for the archives. Your preference doesn't address the unknown number of editors who have learned to use it to refer to WP:BIO. Returning the shortlink to WP:BLP creates a new problem for those references. A smaller problem, but still a problem. To avoid that problem, it's worth the hassle of the disambiguation page, IMO, although that's a guess. Noroton (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As I say, create a temporary dab if you want. But I can't understand why anyone would "learn" to use a BLP shortcut other than as shorthand for BLP. And I can't see why using BLP1E to refer to the BLP section on "one event" would (or should) die out. I'll certainly continue to use it.--Doc^g 00:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the shortcut should be directed back to its original target as that is the historical and logical usage for it. I wouldn't imagine that many editors have been using the shortcut to link here, and directing the shortcut to a dab page seems counter-productive. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 00:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

We have no idea how many new editors have learned to use the shortcut to WP:BIO and how that compares to the bother caused by a DAB page (any editor who links to the DAB page will likely be asked what they meant to link to; eventually editors will get tired of being asked and will use the WP:ONEEVENT shortcut, meaning use of WP:BLP1E will be more trouble than it's worth and the habit of using it will die out). Either returning the link to WP:BLP (Option #1) my preference (#4) will cause less disruption, or the other two options will. Which is why it's a judgment call best settled by consensus. Noroton (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E seems now to be in fairly common use as a link to that part of the BLP policy, it seems a more natural target for the redirect than its previous destination. There's also an argument for policy trumping a content guideline. When redirects change destination, the assumption is that links will be updated over time. I think BLP1E has been a shortcut to the policy for too long - in particular it has been used in a lot of deletion summaries that cannot be changed, whereas I suspect its previous use is one pages where the link could be retargeted. We don't usually disambiguate shortcuts, and I'm not very convinced by the benefits in this instance. Is there any indication of how many pages link to WP:BLP1E meaning to refer to the notability guideline, rather than the biographies of living people policy? It might be possible to get a bot to fix them... WjBscribe 01:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense.--Doc^g 01:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

See also #One Event merge above. Avb 02:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that most users of the shortcut were intending to link to WP:BLP, i.e. the policy rather than the guideline, whether or not the shortcut actually went there; from my experience, most people who use this shortcut have been doing so for quite some time. If the shortcut is moved back to the policy, what would be the negative impact? Would those discussions originally linking to the guideline not now convert to linking to the policy? I do not see how this would be a problem, really. The policy, after all, supersedes the guideline. Risker (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The basis of this is wrong. OneEvent was moved from policy to guideline because it had been placed in policy by mistake. There was a reversion which has now left us with two OneEvent sections. Given the choice people will tend to want to refer to a policy, but the entire section (read it carefully folks!) is actually not stating policy - it's giving guidance. How anyone can say that "we should generally avoid having an article" is a policy statement with teeth is beyond me! It's guidance and advice. It's saying that the consensus of the community prefers that we focus on the event rather than the person, but that an individual can write an article on an individual caught up in just one event - and we have plenty of examples of that. Policy is something that guides what we do or do not do. If OneEvent was policy then several hundred articles on individuals notable for one event would have to be redirected.This is a guideline. And as such the section on BLP should again be deleted. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 08:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The policy is worded more strongly than this guideline. While intellectually I agree with you that what is written in WP:BLP more closely resembles a traditional guideline than policy, most Wikipedia policies would never meet the definition of "policy" in the real world. I believe that the community consensus is that a guideline isn't strong enough for being able to quickly address many of these BLP1E articles. Risker (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"policies are considered a standard that all users should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature." The paragraph is clearly advisory on content. And I would dispute that the paragraph has enough community consensus to be policy. The fact that it was challenged, and after a largely undisputed discussion, moved here, shows that it does not have the clear and widespread community consensus to be declared policy. It's a notability issue, and one that people can properly question and debate and put forward arguments for why a particular person should have a standalone article. It properly does not belong in a serious policy on the issues surrounding articles on living people. That policy should be for the serious matters than can get Wikipedia into trouble. This is a long running issue and one that might best be served by having a wider discussion by putting the BLP section itself forward for AfD. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 15:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the actual issue here, SilkTorq, given that the section is back up at WP:BLP, what should we do with the WP:BLP1E shortcut? I'd be grateful for some constructive input on the question at hand. Noroton (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel that it should point to the guideline section as the policy section should not exist. And I feel at this juncture we should be looking for a wider group of people to discuss the matter. This has been an on and off discussion since it was first raised in October last year. I don't think it is fully settled. I'll put it up for discussion later, following the results of that debate the question of what to do with the shortcut will be settled. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 17:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's probably wise. There's two things here 1) should the policy exist 2) where should the shortcut point. We are confusing the two. As long as the policy exists as part of BLP, then the BLP1E named shortcut should properly point to BLP. I think the policy is fine, but it is legitimate to debate that, as you say with a wider group.--Doc^g 17:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Listed: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I've not previously listed a section of a page, so I may have made mistakes. But it looks fine. I hope we get a decent debate rather than the matter being largely ignored - interest in this issue appears to have been sporadic and low key so far. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 11:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion now taking place here. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 00:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Activists

A category of problematic bios are those of people that are best defined by their activism. I've come across - lately - a surprising number of them. These are people who end up with some media coverage but are in no way exceptional.

Activists
Because an activist is a person who uses public methods to promote and bring about political or social change, he or she will have press coverage. Activists promote left wing and right wing causes, liberal and conservative agendas, environmental and business policies. Not every activist is worthy of notice. Ralph Nader is a notable activist. On the other hand, your mom may have had letters to the editor published in your local paper. Your mom may have founded and is the president of the ‘Moms for a Safer Main St’ advocacy group. A photo of your mom may have appeared on the front page of your local paper showing her chained to a stop sign. Your mom may have been the subject of an article in your local paper titled “Mom! Activist!” All of this may be well documented and sourced but it isn’t worthy of notice or unusual enough to deserve attention to be included in Wikipedia. An activist has to be particularly important.

Please, comment and support / oppose. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I do not think that this addition is needed. The guidance it offers is essentially what one would get from applying this notability guideline's requirement for substantial coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources with WP:NOT#NEWS. Also, I feel that the sentence "An activist has to be particularly important." introduces a significant element of subjectivity and should, if this section is added to the guideline, be avoided. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability is notoriously subjective :-) I agree that the not a newspaper guideline, as well as the fringe theory guideline, the essays on recentism and exceptionalism, and the avoidance of 'the righting of great wrongs' all envelope the problem of the notability of an activist. However, I think it would be helpful to explicitly state that simple media coverage of an activist does not make the activist notable. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree that notability, as defined on Wikipedia, is all that subjective. While judgment is required to determine whether sources are reliable and whether coverage of a subject is substantial or trivial, evaluating the 'presence of substantial coverage in reliable sources' is significantly more objective than evaluating the 'importance' of a subject. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering the endless debate devoted to determining whether a source is reliable or not, whether the material available is trivial or not, notability does seem to be 'subjective'. Notability, 'reliable source' and 'importance of subject' all should be straight forward but on Wikipedia, it is endlessly debatable. My favorite debate at the moment is Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Anyway, I think emphasizing that media coverage is not sufficient for notability is necessary. This has been true on the notability guideline for a long time. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean 'media coverage in relation to a single event' (WP:BIO1E) or 'routine local news coverage' is not sufficient for notability, or are you referring to any type of news coverage? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the baseline media coverage for any occupation / avocation? Activists like actors, journalists, athletes, and professors generate a certain amount of media coverage simply by doing what they do. All professors are not notable even though all professors must publish or perish. In any walk of life, there is an ‘A-list’ of people within that group who are notable and defining that ‘A-list’ is problematic. I don't have an answer but like art and obscenity, I know it when I see it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I can certainly appreciate the feeling of "I know it when I see it", I do not think that principle is viable in deletion discussions that involve multiple people who often see things in completely different ways. More generally, I prefer having a standard minimum threshold to the idea of an 'A-list' for different groups of people. If, on average, activists receive more coverage than archivists, then I see no reason not to have more articles about the former than the latter, nor any reason to exclude biographies about people who are not necessarily among the best-known in their profession (which is what an 'A-list' implies). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Support

• I think it is helpful in notability debates to emphasize that occupations that attract media attention do not make every one within that occupation notable. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• I oppose adding a section on activists. It is an ambiguous term and the concept is covered elsewhere as explained by Black Falcon. I think that the proposal is well meaning, but brings additional verbiage without improving the process. So many proposals are made because there is a general lack of understanding of the key notability criteria. If people understood and applied WP:N, there would be no need for all the special cases here at BIO. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. But...as everyone here knows...when you get into an idiotic debate about notability, it sure helps to have a specific guideline to whack back. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. In the shorter term you are right, but if we could focus our energy on one excellent guideline and then educate our AfD closers on how to apply it, we could streamline the process. AfD should not be a vote and these should only be closed by well trained people. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Per my comments above, I feel that this is just a special case of WP:NOT#NEWS and does not require a unique section. Moreover, though the proposal is intended to add clarification, I believe it also brings additional subjectivity into the guideline. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with Black Falcon for the most part. While I'm not philosophically opposed to the creation of additional criteria, this version is useless. Thing is I can't think of a workable version to suggest for this particular group of people. Horrorshowj (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

One Event merge

Discussion here. SilkTork *^YES! 15:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ambassadors

I removed the sectin on ambassadors, which appeared to be just a non actionable commentary about why they might not seek notability. So what! If they aren't notable who cares why. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like that was already reverted. The ambassador section was the result of a pretty long debate according to the top archive, so you might want to discuss the change first.Horrorshowj (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Time to effect the merger of Academics with BIO

Absent strong objections at the talk page for WP:Academics I think that it is time to merge this page into BIO. The better parts of this process have been incorporated into BIO for some time and this is now just a redundant page. Perhaps further ideas in clarification of BIO could be included in an essay. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

But there is also no strong support. I, for one see

no need of such merge.--Aldux (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact, there is substantial expressed strong opposition to the merge, see the current discussion at Wikipedia Talk: Notability (academics)#Time to make the merge. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus that there is not a consensus to merge Wikipedia:Notability (academics) to Wikipedia:Notability (people). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Entertainers and Pornographic actors

The general criteria for entertainers is "significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions", while the specific sub-criteria for Pornographic actors is "featured multiple times in mainstream media". It might be appropriate to clarify the wording on this. A Porn actor with significant roles in notable films would be seen as notable, as would a regular actor who "featured" multiple times in notable films. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 14:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've merged the two statements:

"Actors (including pornographic), comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:

• Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions. "

By "featured" the assumption must be that the individual had at least a named part. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 14:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. There are quite a few notable performers who have not been "featured" in accordance with your definition. Media attention is different than significant roles or performances, as well. As to the pornographic actors, I strongly urge you to return that to the previous definition, or at minimum discuss with the Pornography Wikiproject. Your change has suddenly made at least another 25,000 porn actors notable. Risker (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Risker. Having a minor role in a notable adult film shouldn't be enough to establish notability for porn stars. Epbr123 (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The criteria for a non-pornographic actor seems to be more exacting than for a pornographic actor, and I'm looking for a level playing field. "Significant roles in notable films" is tougher than "featured multiple times in mainstream media". This criteria for regular actors would actually rule out a lot of the existing minor actors, like Susan Diol who has played "supporting roles in over forty different series" yet these roles "rarely appear in more than one episode" - which means the roles are not "significant". There seems to be a willingness for articles to remain on actors who have appeared in many roles, and I think we just need to find the right wording for that. As we also need to find the right wording for pornographic actors who do the same thing. Under the existing guideline wording, the advice would be that as a regular actor Susan Diol should be deleted in an AfD, but if she were a pornographic actor she would be kept. I'm keeping the two sections apart this time, but making similar wording adjustments as before - see what people think. SilkTork *^YES! 22:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think your trying to merge the wrong two statements. The current porn-star criteria which corresponds to "significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions" is actually the criteria "starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature" rather than "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media". You may be overestimating how often porn stars appear in notable mainstream media. Epbr123 (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've kept the sections apart. Minor word changes. The criteria you cite appears to relate to porn films rather than mainstream. The wording I've amended is adding "notable" to the "mainstream media" criteria to match that of the regular actors who also have to appear in notable films. This is then - as far as mainstream films are concerned - giving porn and regular actors the same status rather than making it easier or more difficult for either in the stated criteria. SilkTork *^YES! 11:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel that's making things fair as far as mainstream films are concerned. A pornstar who appears in a notable mainstream film would be more notable in their field than a normal actor who appears in a notable mainstream film. Appearing in a notable mainstream film shouldn't carry the same weight for the two different professions. Epbr123 (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"More notable in their field" is at the heart of this issue isn't it? Should there be a unified notability criteria - one that applies to all topics, but with guidelines to assist in assessing separate fields so that we are consistent across the project; or should we have different criteria for different fields? SilkTork *^YES! 15:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's so much easier, how many male performers other than Ron Jeremy can meet the specific criteria you're citing? Even among female performers it's very rare to meet that one and need it. Porn actor is actually among the most difficult to qualify under, because in practice it usually comes down to major award history.Horrorshowj (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see the criteria for porn actors to be the same as for regular actors. I don't think it should be either easier or harder for a porn actor to attain notability. That a porn actor may star in a number of non-notable films should be given the same weight as a regular actor who stars in a number of non-notable films. Both the regular and the porn would need a reliable third party source to comment on them to meet WP:V to start with - but if they have that, and they have been prolific, that should be enough for notability. Or are you saying that in regard to porn actors, by their very work they will star in a large number of non-notable films and so the criteria should be tougher otherwise the project will be swamped by hundreds of articles on trivial porn actors? SilkTork *^YES! 11:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it makes much sense to handle them the same from a notability standpoint. The majority of porn movies released are not features, they are compilations. Due to the historically lax enforcement of their intellectual property rights by industry members it's not unusual to find the same scene pirated into several other compilations. So film counts aren't always a useful measure of notability in porn. Further, the median income for a full time porn actress is around $100K from what I can tell, while conventional actors are lower. So if a porn actress makes it past the 10 month point, it's not uncommon for them to appear in a much larger number of films than a prolific conventional actor. It's not unheard of for a porn performer to have a decade long career, with hundreds of performances, yet have virtually nothing written about them and comparatively low name recognition(ie Davia Ardell, C.J. Bennett and Angela D'Angelo). This is admittedly a US and heterocentric comparison as gay porn performers and hetero performers in other countries tend to have a lot lower number of career appearances.Additionally, the industry has embraced the web for distribution on a scale that mainstream entertainment won't. If the majority of content is web distributed it doesn't make sense to shackle them to a standard that's based on am archaic film distribution model. Horrorshowj (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Horrorshowj (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Then if no one else is writing about them, we should mirror that, and not write. We never second guess sources, and we don't give more weight to something than they do. If they decide it's of no weight at all, by deciding not to write, we mirror that—and do not write. Many people are prolific in their fields and yet this is not considered noteworthy by those who write our sources, so we do not write about that person either. Porn is no different. We have significant amounts of independent reliable published material or we do not. This is especially important when we are discussing biographies on people who are largely still alive in an industry that's controversial to begin with. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I really appreciate the condescending argument about why being prolific shouldn't be a notability standard for porn, after I just spent an entire paragraph arguing that it was an irrelevant indicator. I changed the order of my arguments to make it a bit more readable, hope that was the problem. Horrorshowj (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Large fan base or "cult" following

The fan base/cult wording was added in 2005 after this discussion. It was designed to replace the previous arbitrary wording of "a total audience of 5,000 or more", and as such was very effective. I'm wondering if the wording now looks rather vague. I'm very supportive of the notion of "cult" - indeed, the ethos of this project appears to be to be one in which organised, respectable and often neglected or maginalised cults can thrive. However, Cult appears to be difficult to pin down, and if this is to be a helpful guideline to those engaged in a dispute during an AfD, then something clearer than "something popular or fashionable among a particular section of society" would be needed, as by that definition most entertainers would qualify. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 14:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Related to this, I was editing Kiva Kahl, whose website is five years out of date, and her "multiple TV appearances" are 12 times on Letterman in a five-year period. She only seems to be notable in very small areas (brief mentions of things she's worked on, etc). So I think some sort of lower limit needs to be created. MSJapan (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Athletes

I have noticed a flurry of AFDs which defy common sense by citing WP:ATHLETE as a reason to delete articles about players who have been drafted by a major league professional team but not yet played in said league. These AFDs tend to attract identical arguments and counter-arguments:

• "Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. The article can easily be restored if he ever plays professionally. ~~~~"
• "Keep Using the notability guidelines in order to delete things temporarily until all the formalities are in place, and forcing someone to recreate the article from scratch, is an exercise in pointless bureaucracy. ~~~~"

Not mentioning any names as I don't wish to embarrass individual users, but wouldn't explicitly adding something like "or has been selected as a major league draft pick" to this guideline put an end to at least part of the above nonsense (that of specific wiki-projects block-voting for temporary deletion based on a literal interpretation of the current wording)? — CharlotteWebb 18:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree and disagree. Wouldn't it be better to have an article per major league professional sport that might list those draft picks who end up never playing. How many draft picks never play anyway? If it is just one or two a season, it seems moot. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the various Wiki projects like this restriction, as they can then have a bit of excitement all trying to create the article at once whenever a player makes a professional debut. Catchpole (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well for each year in each sport we already have an article about that particular draft, which lists each player drafted that year whether they play or not. In the case I'm referring to above, the draft has already happened but the regular season hasn't started yet, so that distinction cannot be made. However, in other sports realms wherein I've dabbled, I have noticed that this excitement of creating articles for each player usually occurs on draft day, and then only if the articles do not already exist (they usually do due to our coverage of collegiate athletics). — CharlotteWebb 18:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yow, let's not. It's bad enough we have articles on all existing professional athletes in any case, most aren't noted enough to warrant one. Extending it to potential ones would be moving in exactly the wrong direction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

While the percentage of draft choices who never play varies from sport to sport, I have to agree that it's not to much of an impediment to require that the person actually play to warrant an article. So no on full credit for draft choices unless there's something else involve, eg Len Bias or Maurice Clarett.Horrorshowj (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

How is deleting an article as "too soon", only for it to be re-created from scratch a few weeks later as "just the right time" anything other than an impediment? Duplicated effort amounts to wasted editor-hours. — CharlotteWebb 15:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, quite realistically, it needs to move the other direction. Even existing professional athletes shouldn't have articles unless they're actually covered by multiple, reliable, nontrivial sources. So let's make the wait longer. As in anything, independent and reliable sources provide significant coverage, then we do, not the other way around. And for those athletes who are never covered so, we should never have an article, perhaps a brief mention in a team or "List of" article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Just the right time doesn't arrive for a lot of these people. In some sports it's under 1/2 the draftees that ever play in a regular or post season game. This is not an insignificant hurdle to having competed in the sport professionally. We can only write articles about people based on what has happened, not what might happen. It's unfortunate that people are creating articles on subjects that don't pass any of the notability guidelines, but I don't see that this should be handled differently. I have no issue with having an article on all the competitive athletes in fully professional leagues since that's the consensus to do so, but expanding it further is a mistake. Horrorshowj (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This situation has been arising frequently with articles on Major League Soccer draftees. Each year, clubs draft several players, only some of which will eventually play for the club. It is telling that the MLS website's all-time register of players only covers those that appeared in a league or playoff match. E.g., the "B" list ([4]) doesn't include Michael Behonick who was drafted in 2003 and was later signed to another club in 2006, but never appeared in a match. (The Behonick article passed AfD only because he has played in another fully professional league - the USL First Division). In short, I think there are good reasons to wait until a draftee actually plays in the league as many will never appear for the club (or attain notability). Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Authors

I've clashed with another editor on his/her good-faith interpretation of the language under "Creative professionals" which says, "The person's work ... (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several ...significant libraries." Given that a large library may have literally hundreds of thousands of books in its collection, by no means all of them notable or by notable authors; and given that a self-publisher or vanity-publisher client may send out hundreds of copies of their works in hopes of getting them into libraries, should we modify this language in some way? WorldCat makes it easy to find even the most obscure of volumes across the planet, and in some ways makes this language rather treacherously misleading. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC) (book reviewer and writer)

I think the "best-selling" status of some authors should be noted and represented in some way -- of course the statistics should be easily found, such as on the NY Times best-sellers list, or in a reliable and notable independent review, even if the statement is simply that the author is "best-selling", without qualification. We expect notable media outlets presenting independent reviews to get their facts straight. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it seems like an odd criterion to apply to authors. For an artist to have a work on display at a major art gallery would be a fairly good indication of notability... but the most significant libraries are also the most comprehensive (read: indiscriminate), so it doesn't work for authors. The British Library, for example, keeps a copy of every book published in the UK, so anyone who has ever self-published a book in Britain has a good claim to notabiliy by this criterion. Something is wrong here. Places on a bestseller list would be a better indicator, for authors of popular works at least; independent book reviews in credible sources would be a better indication still. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not something that can be codified; we can say that "best-seller" is one way to be considered notable, but we shoot ourself in the foot if we say that the inverse is also true -- not all notable books made it to a best-sellers list (esp. with best sellers list being a modern invention).

As always, if there are two significant sources about a topic, it is considered notable, and should be sent to AFD for closer inspection if someone is concerned that it is not notable. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think another important distinction to address is whether notability in the case of an author is being fulfilled by aesthetic literary merit - i.e. are they a "quality" author - or should it be a matter of prominence, how many people have read the author's works. The 1st one can be proved with published literary reviews in respected sources, of course, but outside of that it's prone to the perils of subjective argument - I've run into people who will with a straight face say that Melville and Hemingway are utter crap and deserve no critical attention whatsoever. While both aspects of literary notability are valid and I think both should be a sufficient criterion for Wikipedia notability, I think it's important to recognize that the 2nd one is easier to firmly demonstrate (for modern books in particular, thanks to the internet) and more encyclopedic in nature. On a personal count, I have absolutely no patience or respect for Western novels (e.g. Louis L'Amour) for example, but I would say that any Western writer of prominence should definitely have an encyclopedia entry. I think we should take advantage of the experience of people like Orange Mike in the publishing industry and try to describe ways that prominence can be evaluated in a manner independent of PR efforts. I know there are people who work in the publishing industry whose entire job is to weed out the true prominence of authors so I'm sure we can put something together. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 02:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, to hearken back to the Tracy_Price-Thompson issue that started all of this (which I think was a matter of someone not looking closely enough at some obviously third-party-authored material and erroneously labeling it as advertising, rather than an actual dispute over notability), I am genuinely curious whether it's the opinion of those assembled here whether a PR effort could actually result in a non-notable author being present in hundreds of libraries. (I genuinely do not know the answer to that and I'm asking; the few libraries I've been to regularly, from small town public libraries to academic libraries at large universities, all were quite vigorous about getting rid of books they didn't want, even frequently ones by clearly notable authors if they feel they have too many copies.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 02:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we have to modify it. The minimum modification would be to change it from several to "many". As stated above, essentially everything published by a non vanity publisher does end up in several libraries. for example, a number of libraries make a point of collecting one copy of all current fiction from established publishers. A number of academic academic libraries purchase routinely almost anything put out by an academic press that is of non-local interest. What "many" might mean in this context is another matter. I'm going to BOLDly make the change right now. (it was just a little more complicated in wording than changing the one word, because artworks in several museums is in fact generally considered sufficient.) However, OM, libraries where I've worked, normally discard almost everything that comes in the mail unsolicited, though they do look it over first. If you'll check vanity fiction in worldcat, you';ll find only two or three libraries usually, generally the ones in the author's home town. For obvious public relations purposes, they'll generally accept anything from a local author. But of course that isn't notability. I agree with SB above, that multiple works in hundreds of libraries usually do indicate a certain degree of notability. DGG (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"...does not guarantee notability": local and unelected politicians

I think there's a bit of a hole in the wording of the bullet on local and unelected politicians. It says that simply being one does not guarantee notability, which is fine. But then it says that "such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone." Which is also fine. The trouble is that there are a reasonably large number of people who are

• local or unelected politicians,
• not notable for reasons besides their political careers, and
• the subjects of significant coverage by reliable sources independent of them.

These people are notable per WP:N. However, the inclusion of "for other reasons besides their political careers" can create the impression that local and unelected politicians can only be notable if they have a claim to notability other than their political careers. Accordingly, I would like to suggest that the wording of that bullet be changed to:

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

I'd also be quite open to deleting the quote, leaving only the wikilink. Thoughts? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Having heard no dissent, I've gone ahead and made the change, although other editors should feel free to follow steps two and three of WP:BRD if they don't like it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

One editor did see fit to take the second step of WP:BRD, but not the third. Since I've already made my case here, and nobody has disputed my case, I've reverted for now (since, really, what else could I do?). But I'd welcome some debate on the change. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems reasonable. Also, I would like to adress another topic that concerns you, that is, your removal of the passage on ambassadors. This had been previously concorded upon, and had been inserted following consensus: could you please formulate the nature of your objections?--Aldux (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The only discussion I've seen is two sections above, where both editors commenting seem to disagree with the addition. Could you direct me to where the consensus to add it was achieved? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 7#Diplomats. Also, as far as I can read, there's just the view of the editor who removed the section, while the other didn't take position.--Aldux (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think most would agree the information itself is notable, but not necessarily the people themselves. I think it would be useful to include information on accepted alternatives rather than simply deleting the articles. Candidate information is certainly important and useful (which imo equals notability), but that doesn't mean every never-been-elected candidate requires his/her own article. Look at the box at the bottom of United States general elections, 2006. United States general elections, 2008 has a similar box, but few states have articles and only Pennsylvania state elections, 2008 has one properly set up. This makes me wonder if people just don't know where they should be putting this information. Include this information and I don't think we'll have nearly as many create/delete iterations to worry about. (It would also help to include the relevant link in the 'See also' sections of the incumbents.) Flatterworld (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Have to keep the old wording

Put the wording back, please. The issue is that there was no discussion. We have to be careful that Wikipedia does not become a campaign stop for every politician. People were still quoting and abiding by the old wording yesterday: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Clarke (politician). Nobody knows you changed it. Blast Ulna (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did whatever I could, by proposing the change on the talk page before making it. Have you read my basis for proposing the change? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't think you intended it quite the way it came out. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's possible; could you clarify what you mean by that? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you fully appreciated that the guideline was carefully worded to keep out unelected politicians who will use Wikipedia as a platform to get elected. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In the Clarke AfD, I argued "Delete, hasn't won yet; consensus finds that politicians who haven't won elected office and are not otherwise notable (such as by being retired athletes or whatever) don't get Wikipedia articles. This keeps Wikipedia from being a campaign PR outlet, and the articles from being endless POV battlegrounds." That consensus was re-established by the deletion of Mark Clarke (politician). Blast Ulna (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) No, the consensus was not re-established. What was established in that debate (in which I !voted delete) was that Mark Clarke wasn't notable, and that unelected candidates aren't inherently notable (which is preserved in my wording). There was certainly no agreement that unelected candidates are inherently non-notable. The classic question to distinguish between the two is what makes Rudy Guliani notable? All he is is a local politician and an unelected candidate for national office. Of course, he is notable because he's received substantial coverage by third party reliable sources, which is exactly what WP:N (WP:BIO's parent) says. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm shocked that you would unilaterally change the guideline, than quote yourself in an AfD. This change is dangerous, and I think you should seriously reconsider it. Everybody knows that if an unelected person is notable for something else besides their candidacy then they are notable. You fixed something that wasn't broken. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

First, it wasn't unilateral. I proposed it on the talk page, there was no opposition (one other editor expressed support), so I went with it. Now, a couple of weeks after the fact, there's opposition, so I'm discussing it. That's how changing policy works. Moreover, the change I made was in no way radical: I took the part I added directly from WP:N. It wasn't even a change in policy so much as a change in wording.

But, in any event, let's both leave this aside and see if anybody else joins in. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, with regards to it not being broken, have you read my original rationale for the change? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I did. Have you considered my point about politicos and their PR machines? Blast Ulna (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I frequently support the deletion of unelected candidates (just like I did for Mark Clarke) because they don't meet WP:N. If the content of the article is a blatant advertisement, it can be speedy-deleted. My change had no effect at all on our ability to delete promotional candidate nonsense. A further question for you: what actual change to policy do you think my change made? Unelected candidates who had received significant coverage by reliable third party sources were always notable, per WP:N. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that the "significant" coverage cannot be for their candidacy alone. The reasoning is similar to that used in WP:PROF, where most professors publish, and so would be notable, but the bar is set much higher for them. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) That is false. Subjects can be notable under WP:N by reason of significant coverage for any reason. Indeed, here are a couple of examples of AFDs for candidates that were closed as keep under the old wording:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Edwards (second nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willis Ricketts

Most unelected candidates have their articles deleted, but that's not because unelected candidates can't be notable by reason of their candidacy; it's because most unelected candidates don't receive the volume of coverage required by WP:N. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree with the current wording. It is too vague on what is significant, and tags on a rewording of the Basic Criteria given above it; I'm not sure why. Every mayor will have some press coverage, stuff like running for election, ribbon-cutting and so forth. Is there a way to rephrase the wording so that the older notion that the average small town mayor or the average candidate for dog-catcher isn't accorded notability for being written up in the local newspaper? Noble Sponge (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Some principles

It's obvious that there's some belated resistance to the changed wording, so let's try to work out a compromise. I'd suggest that we use the starting principles, which I think we're all in agreement over, as a starting point:

• Local politicians and unelected candidates are not inherently notable (this is a longstanding wording in WP:BIO#Politicians).
• They can be notable if they've received non-trivial coverage by reliable sources independent of them (this is from WP:N and also from the top of WP:BIO).
• They can be notable for reasons other than their political careers (this is the wording I took out of WP:BIO#Politicians because I thought it was self-evident - is somebody really going to claim that a notable, say, athlete suddenly becomes non-notable because they run for office and lose?)

The status quo before the change was that the first and third points were mentioned explicitly at WP:BIO#Politicians. The second one wasn't, which was problematic because people would look at WP:BIO#Politicians and say "Oh, unelected candidates are automatically non-notable unless they have some claim to fame unrelated to their candidacies," which is of course false (on account of the second bullet). So, with all of this in mind, does anybody want to propose a wording? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with just saying they're notable if they have received non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources? Do we really need to specify beyond that?--Father Goose (talk)

We need to ask ourselves, "why did anybody bother to create a separate treatment of politicians within Notability (people)?" There's no section for architects or chefs or gangsters. Blast Ulna (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem as I see it with the changed wording is that it's going to be used not by the exceptions such as Giuliani, whose notability is self-evident, but by an unelected local politico to argue that a burst of news reports about their candidacy in reliable sources is their shoe in. (See WP:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia:Notability#Notability requires objective evidence. I think the change is a problem unless you find a way to guard against this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain how you think this change changes policy (as distinct from wording)? Also, are you expressing disagreement with the principles I've listed above, or just the wording? I've already conceded that the wording probably doesn't have consensus, so I'm more than happy to entertain alternate wordings. But if you disagree with the principles, I think we might have a bigger problem. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If a local politico has had more than trivial news coverage (even if local), I don't see why the encyclopedia is better by prohibiting an article about said politico. If there's verifiable and neutral information about anybody I'm going to have to vote for (or against), I want that information, and Wikipedia is the right place for it. Maybe we need a high-participation wikiproject to ensure that such articles don't become coatracks or self-promotion, but they belong on Wikipedia all the same.--Father Goose (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with you (and sorry that I missed your point above). The bottom-line notability criterion is non-trivial coverage by reliable third party sources - no question about that. The only question comes in when we get into "presumed notability". If an article about a city councillor goes to AFD, and there's no evidence of substantial coverage, I !vote delete. But if an article about a Congressman goes to AFD with no evidence of substantial coverage, I say "Well, hold on, this is a Congressman and I'm sure there are reliable sources out there, so let's leave it as a stub and keep it until somebody finds the sources we need," and then !vote keep. That keep !vote is supported by this guideline, which says that "Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature" are presumed to be notable.

I think we all agree that local politicians and unelected candidates aren't inherently notable (although some people think that, for example, mayors of cities with more than a given population are inherently notable), and I think there's general agreement that this guideline should say, as it has for as long as I've been around, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." The question is what that should be followed with: the old wording was "although such people can still be notable for reasons other than their political careers", which I thought was misleading because it didn't contemplate the possibility that a local politician or an unelected candidate might be notable by reason of their political careers. Accordingly, I proposed replacing it (and eventually did replace it) with "although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."" Several editors objected to that change, which is why we're here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see why we need to declare any politician "presumed notable"; congressmen and the like are definitely going to have substantial reliable coverage, and if no reliable information about them is available, we can't cover the topic even if it is "notable" by some other standard. WP:N should work fine here, with no further specification. Is it that some people ignore WP:N and say "unimportant politician, delete"? If so, that's a problem with AfD, ultimately, not WP:N, which gets it right.--Father Goose (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the presumed notability because it speeds things up, but your point is well-taken. I don't see any real practical effect to eliminating it since, as you say, Congressmen's articles would still stay (but more of them would probably be nominated for AfD, and those that were would be closed less quickly). Anyway, though, the position that we should do away with inherent notability for politicians is outside the current confines of this debate (although if anybody else favours eliminating them, by all means let's discuss it). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we define significant (or trivial) coverage? How do we define it? Do we use more footnotes? Right now in the People notable for only one event section it singles out "standing for governmental election" as an example of not meeting notability standards. Should we put that text in the politician's section, and maybe come up with another example for People notable for only one event to replace it? Blast Ulna (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

actually, I have suggested some time ago that major party candidates for national legislatures at US State Governor or equivalent can be presumed to be notable. People usually dont get such nominations without substantial prior activity. That would be another few thousand articles a year only, andit would avoid a lot of needless AfDs. I would certainly not extend this to people running for the nomination--it doesnt take any degree of notability to do that. DGG (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How about a rule of thumb; if the person has received at least 50,000 primary or general election votes, win or lose, they are likely to be notable. This would mean any mayor of a big town (population over 100,000, since they would usually have gotten over 50% of the votes, and the children can't vote), county commissioners of highly populous counties like Los Angeles County, and Councilpersons of really big cities. For example, in United States Senate election in Wyoming, 2006, the Democratic loser Dale Groutage got 57,000 votes. (I picked Wyoming because it is one of the least populous US states.) Or in this example Philadelphia mayoral election, 2007; the number of votes clearly is related to the existence of an article. (With a natural cutoff of 40,000 votes, but we are trying to set a lower bound for likely notability, not an upper bound for non-notability.) Blast Ulna (talk) 09:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see a case where numbers were a good way to approach these kinds of problems. A subject is presumed notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, from WP:N. How is that not exactly the criterion we want to use for politicians? Should we specifically mention that local media are okay for the purpose of reliable sources?--Father Goose (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I take the opposite view; being mentioned only in local media is a sure sign of non-notablility, I think this would be true of anyone, not just politicians. Take for example Steven Gast, a high school principal with quite a bit of press. Would you say these local sources are good enough to allow him an article? Blast Ulna (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there is enough material there to create a reasonable biographical stub on Mr. Gast. I'm hard-pressed to say why we shouldn't. If the answer is that he is in some way abstractly "non-notable", that to me equates to "Wikipedia doesn't cover minor subjects", a position for which I see no underlying reason.--Father Goose (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Just one point, If we're going to use numbers, they need to be as percents--its the way to be fairer across different places. . I think any jurisdictions do this for assigning financial support, or seats in a proportional election. DGG (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In defense of my 50,000 vote idea, I would like to point out that it is a lower bound for automatic notability, and that a person could still be notable below it by the ordinary route of having sources. Would/should Larry Kilgore have his own page? He got pretty low percentages, but 50,119 votes... In the same Texas gubernatorial election, 2006, there was a candidate named Star Locke who has dozens of mentions in the news, but nobody has ever even tried to create an article on him. If you look over the coverage, he is mentioned as an "also running" or as "little known." Nevertheless, his proposal of a 100% tax on video games did get the attention of media outside Texas. So why no article? I think he fails "People notable only for one event". Blast Ulna (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Schertzer for a disappointing AfD where a mayor of a small community was ruled not to be notable despite (I think) meeting the primary notability criterion. I didn't take it to deletion review, but I think some of the participants misinterpreted policy. --Eastmain (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's exactly that sort of AFD that motivated my proposal in the first place. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't see the article, so I'm curious; what was his claim to notability? Google News has a few local hits only. Blast Ulna (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Military officers?

I remember reading somewhere that among the ideas that have been discussed and rejected is the notability of generals and flag officers. However, I propose that we state that anyone that can be proven to have held the highest position in any branch of any military be considered notable. I don't mean any general or admiral, or any full general or full admiral, or even any marshal or admiral of the fleet: rather, the one person who has no superior officer in their branch of their military, or the chief of staff if there is no single commanding officer. Those at the top level of many different occupations are guaranteed notability on this page, such as professional athletes, film stars, or elected legislators. Moreover, someone who "has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them" is considered notable: surely being awarded the position of top admiral of a navy or top general of an army is a notable and honorable award. Could we add such a criterion, with someone else please writing the exact wording? Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is that criterion needed? What head of an entire nation's military would fail the basic criterion? And if he/she did, how could we write a sourcable, quality article about him/her? Rossami (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

An example is Daoud Soumain, on whom we had quite little information, and who knows but that someone might have AFD-ed it in its first stage, when there was only one source: of his death. My point of view on the notability criteria is that we could legitimately have an article on a member of the New Hampshire General Court (representing only about 1000 people) if all we had was a mention in a list of representatives. Similarly, if we had an article on some professional athlete who had competed in a single professional match, a single source saying that (and nothing else about him/her) would be enough to establish a short stub. In today's world, most military heads (with Soumain as an exception) are easy to find enough information on, but this idea would be to ensures that our coverage of top military leaders, incorporating all of the present and past holders of those officers, would be complete regardless. Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As well, since military officers aren't at all mentioned in this page, adding such a criterion would be a good example of explaining the basic principles of WP:BIO, especially if someone were to question whether being a top military officer were good enough. After all, a function of this page is to ensure that people with only one source, such as the predynastic pharaoh Tiu, get their own articles, and that people don't question the existence of those articles. Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As for Chad, there is a French language newspaper published there [5] --Northwestern University has at least a partial file, as probably do some libraries in France. More likely to be available, there are also the CIA publications, and various publications from Jane's, such as its "Jane’s Sentinel Country Risk Assessments" database, and Africa Confidential, and UN documents. I'm not an African specialist, but a specialist librarian in a suitable library should be be able to find something, such as the African Division of LC. DGG (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This depends on the country and the branch of the military. In the United States, I would say anyone who held a cabinet-level post or was a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for long enough to take any official action deserves an article. However, if hypothetically some 19th-century 1-star General was promoted to Secretary of the Army the day before a new President took office, he would have to earn his notability some other way. Outside the United States or for defunct regimes, I would say that if there is a related WikiProject or a concerted effort to create articles on all highest-ranking military officers, then defer the decision to the people working on that effort. If there is no such effort, then look to see what the precedent is for that particular country or regime: If the country has 95% of officers listed, then ago ahead and allow the new article, if only 20% are listed, then allow or not based on the notability of the existing articles. If there are few or no such people listed and the person is not notable otherwise, then go ahead and delete it and start improving Wikipedia by creating articles on the more notable military officers from that country or regime. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say no. While I suspect there exists enough information to source an article about any head of a service, there doesn't seem to be any good reason to grant notability. Let's take CNO for example. Each of those has an article, but each article references multiple source while grant notability in their own right. Protonk (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hugo Kuranda

Hugo Kuranda was an Austrian skeleton who participated in one "highest level" competition and neither started nor (obviously) finished. Of the four sources for him available at the time of this writing (ie. before all the mirrors spread him across the interwebs)

• 1 is from the English Wikipedia
• 1 is from the German Wikipedia
• 2 have nothing to do with this Hugo Kuranda that I can tell

A search of the library catalog at the University of Texas and Jstor yield no results. Even within the context of "every Olympian ever is notable," do we really need a page on him when he's already mentioned at Skeleton at the 1948 Winter Olympics since he didn't technically "compete" or "participate"? Cheers, CP 15:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not finishing means that he started the race but something happened to keep him from crossing the finish line. He still competed. Nyttend (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

One does not expect to find material on such topics in JSTOR, or for that matter in library catalogs, except for the best known athletes. One would expect to find it in printed sources of his period in his home country--In this case, in 1948 & a little earlier Austrian newspapers and sporting journals--and possibly in other printed sources devoted to the particular sport. One can't say there are no sources without looking where they might be expected to be found. DGG (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

True, but it's still a good-faith search, since I also searched the Google news archives, which go back many many decades and do produce foreign language results.

It's moot anyhow now, since apparently he did start. In my defense, the information was changed either during or after the time I made this inquiry. Cheers, CP 21:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, this is becoming a significant problem. I've done some basic, but obviously not thorough, searches on all of the following people, and they don't really seem to have any non-trivial sources for them. Why is it that someone can add page upon page of people whose notability could be (and is) summarized in list format yet to have them turned into redirects, you basically have to prove that you've scoured every source known to man? What ever happened to the onus of notability being placed on the individual who adds the material? I did check out the Google News Archives, which does present material from other languages, so it's not simply a matter of "famous in their own language."

Should all of these people have articles? Maybe a better search would show that some should, but certainly not all of them. Italo Casini, Werner Huth, Gaetano Lanfranchi, Christian Hansez, Jacques Maus (not the same guy as the business leader), Armand Delille, Hugo Weinstengl, Johann Baptist Gudenus (admittedly, the inter-event thing could be notable), Hans Eisenhut, Charles Jenny, Alexandru Lonescu, Ulysse Petrescu, Gerhard Hessert, Rene Baronlunden . These represent only a fraction of them. These were just the ones created in the past 24 hours or so.

I guess there's nothing to be done, but I've been working on doing research to slowly reduce the number of people in the "Possibly living category," and this sort of thing frustrates the heck out of me. If it were anyone other that athletes, they could be prodded or AfDed... Cheers, CP 14:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Per a suggestion on my talk page, I will try redirecting these pages, since I have performed a good-faith search. We will see how it goes. Cheers, CP 17:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to change "Notability" to "Something else" and use Notability (for people) Only

Royalty, and in general any other group

Are members of royal households automatically notable? In particular, newborns, children, or adults who would not otherwise meet notability criteria? Comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Eléonore of Belgium indicate that Wikipedians are divided on whether high-ranking royalty or even all royalty are automatically notable.

The same can be said about other groups not specifically mentioned in WP:NOTABLE.

I would like to add the following below Politicians:

===Members of other seemingly notable groups===

Other groups such as Royalty, University Presidents, and Astronauts seem notable on their face, however, that may not always be the case. For example, a newborn member of a Royal family who is 100th in line for the throne may be submitted to Articles for Deletion and be deleted for lack of notability. Before creating such articles, check the deletion history of other articles about members of the same or a very similar group to see if they were deleted for notability reasons.

--end--

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty vague and subjective set of criteria. My personal feeling on this matter is that holders of titles are notable. The heir apparent or heir presumptive to a reigning monarch is notable. I'm even willing to extend notability to the children, however young, of an heir apparent or presumptive. I don't think the children of anyone else are automatically notable, though. You should be aware of Wikipedia:Notability (royalty), a failed proposed guideline. --Dhartung | Talk 18:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of a guideline is to give guidance. In this case, the guidance for people who are members of notable groups who are not themselves notable independently of the group is "think, and check precedent." Personally, I think "think before editing" aka "use your head" should be a general Wikipedia guideline. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has huge issues with letting vast numbers of non-notable people slip through the cracks and have article when really they fall into a few categories: non-notable members of notable groups and non-notable items on notable lists. Really, I believe that keep votes for royalty almost always go unsubstantiated or have weak back-up. I have never seen a solid why as to why we should keep infants. Wikipedia is not a genealogical repository. For instance, the only notable thing about Eléonore of Belgium is that she's the daughter of a the crown prince and in line of succession, right? We have a few articles where she belongs: Line of succession to the Belgian throne, Belgian Royal Family, Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant and Princess Mathilde, Duchess of Brabant. No more, really, she doesn't belong anywhere else. She's a footnote, a section, a short paragraph, whatever, but NOT an article. Make a list of any group of people, maybe that list is notable, and give one of them a famous parents... It doesn't mean that they have to have an article. Here's what I would propose as criteria for notability of royalty: Royalty as a group is inherently notable but individuals within it are not automatically notable. A royal is notable where there is substantial or important news coverage regarding actions or events in his or her own right, aside from announcements of vital life events such as birth and death (EVERYONE usually gets those, they're called birth announcements and obituaries, but being born and dying aren't automatically notable). This is why Prince Henry of Wales is notable but even his cousin Viscount Severn really isn't. Charles 23:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You forgot three things about Eléonore of Belgium: 1) At 5th in line, she is extremely high on the list of successors, 2) she is a direct descendant of the current Crown, and 3) her birth has been found newsworthy by a major newspaper in Australia. This, plus there is no consensus to delete the article - a large majority are voting to keep - indicate she has notability by virtue of her position in life. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I maintain that most of those people voting "keep" will disappear and never edit the article, they just want to keep it because they like it. Tell though, knowing everything we know about the princess, why can't she be dealt with in a section or listing on the pages of her parents? High on the list of successors? Put her on Line of succession to the Belgian throne. Direct descendant of the current crown? Put it where it matters, on the pages of her parents. Her birth has been found noteworthy by an Australian newspaper? We're not a newspaper and they aren't Wikipedia, she is entirely non-notable outside of the things I've mentioned. She's a few days old, soiling diapers, puking up milk and she has a famous family. Arguably, the children of Brangelina are much, much, much more notable, but we don't have articles on them. Also, we don't have an article on Dannielynn Birkhead, but rather of a paternity case. It's a matter of association and other notable events and people for these children and also for most royal children like the Belgian princess. Not notable, end of story. Charles 00:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

First, it is totally irrelevant whether or not the people on afd are going to edit the article. If I feel--and can make a convincing argument to the effect--that a certain article does not meet the threshold for deletion then it doesn't matter what I will or will not edit. The purpose of saving the article from deletion is not so that I can work on it. It is so that other people who might have some experience in the subject can work on it. Second, it doesn't matter if these people have short, unadorned articles from now until they reach age 20. It reflects their lives. We don't demand that all articles be of the same form as, say, the article on the revolutionary war, because not all subjects have that much coverage and are as notable. Likewise it should be fine if an article about a royal languishes as a stub for years if there is nothing to extend it. Protonk (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not opposed (as odd as it may sound, given how I have disagreed with him in at least two other threads) to Charles's approach. I think, as a guideline, the "royalty is notable as a group or concept but not as an umbrella for notability" is a VERY good place to start. I would be cautious in having that read as the whole guideline because we really do have the capacity to include marginally notable people. More than that, as an electronic resource, wikipedia has a special incentive to include more information rather than less (no, this isn't WP:HARMLESS). this allows categories and lists to be better fleshed out. It reduces red links in existing articles (yes, I also know that the purpose of articles is not to fill in links to other articles). It is part of what makes wikipedia different from paper references--aside from the contribution base and size limits. But, on balance, Charles's guidelines are good places to start as long as there is a significant enough harbor for marginally notable royals (which I don't feel there is yet).Protonk (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry I didn't reply right away. Are you still watching this page? I think we should hammer out some ideas and get consensus somewhere. Charles 00:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• We used to have a policy that defined in detail which members of currently ruling royal families were automatically notable, which would have included the Belgian baby. What happened to that? Ok - Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) - we should maybe restart that; it was actually followed in several XFD debates when still not formally adopted, and made life much simpler. Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Picking over the remains of WP:N/CA

Insufficient discussion at Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) has led to the proposed guideline being marked as rejected. Some of the work done here was designed to describe how certain notability guidelines and other policy elements interact with each other in regard to the victims of crime, and the crimes themselves, particularly how the articles are focussed. I wanted to point this out in case anyone thought there were elements that could be salavaged and proposed for inclusion in other parts of the notability guidelines. Alternatively, if people have missed this proposal, and want to reopen discussion, feel free to change the tag back to an active proposal. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I would support Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) if it can be re-directed from a new shortcut like "WP:NOTORIOUS". Users on the discussion above objected to the use of the term on notability (people) because it implies an infamous celebrity or event.Jrod2 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I understand...if you want to link through using a new shortcut, then just place a redirect on the page WP:NOTORIOUS. If you want to reopen discussion on the guideline, then by all means make the shortcut, change the tage on the guideline page and try to get some discussion going. I'll happily support you, but as the originator of this proposal, it would be a little pointy of me to reopen it! Fritzpoll (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Royal births and otherwise-non-notable royalty

The notability of non-royal is a contentious issue and at least one Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) proposal was rejected in early 2007.

Recent AfDs such as the failed AfD for Princess Eléonore of Belgium (keep) and failed AfD for Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor (no consensus) show that most members of the Wikipedia community think very-high-ranking royalty are notable even at birth, are divided over whether medium-ranking royalty are notable at birth, and agree that lower-ranking notability are not notable merely for being born.

Wikipedia:Notability (people) needs to be updated to reflect this. I'd like to add the following but I want to get some input first:

Special Cases

Royal children

Notability is typically not inherited. High-ranking royalty are an exception to this rule since they are typically receive press coverage from the day of their birth, they are extremely likely to be famous as adults, and most importantly because for very high-ranking noble births the consensus is that they are notable by virtue of being born (see: failed AfD for Princess Eléonore of Belgium (keep)). There is no firm consensus of "where to draw the line" in a given royal family (see failed AfD for Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor (no consensus)). Before creating an article, consider whether other children in the same royal family have full articles, stub articles, or redirects and check their talk pages and histories for deletion and redirection actions and discussions. Before deleting or redirecting an existing article, if there is any chance that any editor would consider the infant notable, discuss it and try to gain a consensus.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem with your post: Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor is not "high ranking" and "high ranking" differs between the opinions of any given two people. I suggest creating sections in the parents' articles. Where the sections become too large (without, of course, the use of filler like godparents and hobbies) then an article can be considered. Notable for being born represents a huge flaw or loopholes in Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Also, please do not cite Lady Marina-Charlotte among "showing most members think..." when the outcome was no consensus, it is misleading. See here for children of a Prince of Luxembourg, higher ranking than Marina-Charlotte: WP:Articles for deletion/Prince Jean of Nassau. Charles 18:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The goal of this update is to update the guideline to reflect actual historical usage, not to recommend what you or I would personally recommend. Notable for being born represents a huge flaw or loopholes in Wikipedia policy and guidelines. - this means either policy and guidelines need to adjust to reflect historical usage or we as editors need to come to a consensus that the historical usage was a bad idea and we will do something else in the future. I am trying to do the former now, the latter deserves a much larger discussion. Such a discussion would be clearer if WP:Notability (people) reflected actual usage before that discussion got underway. My intent with the Lady Marina example was to show there is a range in the line of succession where editors disagree and there will be no consensus in an AfD action, and editors need to be aware of that before creating or deleting articles in this range. I also hope it's clear that this range is not well-defined: You know you are in it when someone objects and the resulting discussion is not lopsided one way or the other.

By the way, in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited, it mentions that books and music do allow for some form of inherited notability. For example, if there were an obscure, non-notable album by The Beatles, it would probably get an article even if it were otherwise not notable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd interpret high-ranking as meaning actual established royalty, not people with royal titles but without any actual thrones, and as referring only to the royal family, and not to other nobility, and with a bias towards major countries--which in practice here seems to mean the UK, in contrast to Luxembourg. The reason is the empirical popular interest in these--notable is what people think notable, & in this case the relevant people is the general public. We accept beauty contestants and reality show winners on the same principle--demonstrated great popular interest, not anything intrinsic in their accomplishments. The analogy is with other heads of state and heads of government: children, siblings, and parents are notable. Since royal status is in fact inherited in the Real World, the people in the further line of inheritance including collaterals are notable down to a certain level. Apparently the borderline is shown by the lack of consensus one way or another for Lady Marina. davidwr has a good discussion of possible places to draw the line in that article, and I approximately agree with his views there. DGG (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Empirical notability - I think you hit the nail on the head: If the world thinks the person is notable, regardless of the reason e.g. who his parents are, he's notable. The only caveat I can think of is the concept of "notability is not temporary" and the concept that a single event usually does not confer WikiNotability. Children of celebrities are typically notable only as long as they are associated with a famous parent and therefore are not WikiNotable merely by virtue of family, but some royals, particularly those near the top of the accession list or those in countries like England with royalty-obsessed paparazzi, will be in the public eye pretty much for life. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Your proposal is frankly too vague to help. I've just reviewed the whole talk archive at at Wikipedia:Notability (royalty), which actually shows relatively little disagreement, except on the fundamental "notability is not inherited" issue, and a good deal of improving on the earlier drafts. It really just ran out of steam after a year & was shut down by 3 admins, mainly on the grounds it was not needed - I'm not sure how well that decision has stood the test of time (I wasn't involved in the page btw). I think portions of the wording there, which was given considerable polishing, are the best place to start. In fact AfD decision precedents seem to reflect what the proposal contained - they clearly show notability can sometimes be inherited - and adding it here could save a lot of effort. Johnbod (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Radio personalities

I'd like to propose adding some text to the entertainers section to address notability of radio personalities. Something along the lines of (changes are highlighted):

Entertainers

Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television and radio personalities:

• Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, radio programs with a large audiencein the top 25% markets, stage performances, and other productions.

The caveat on radio programs of "a large audience" is to ensure that every DJ, producer or Program Director from small stations with limited reach are not automatically considered notable by this standard. Opinions?--Rtphokie (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like an invite to every shock-jock and self-important pontificator in any market over 15,000 to add him/herself into Wikipedia and whine if they're purged; we already have that problem with television weathermen, etc. I cynically suspect it will also add to the U.S. bias of the project. Full disclosure: a while back I speedied a minor East Coast radio shock-jock; he then encouraged vandalism of my userpage on his show, and my vandalism count jumped. I may be construed as biased. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Being a a radio DJ is being a radio "personality", but it should be included on WP:Notability (music) not WP:Notability (people). The criteria for inclusion should be the range of the radio station and the location itself. I am not sure what will constitute a powerful range, but being in New York City myself, I know that all radios I listen to here are not being transmitted from someone's bedroom. In addition, a shock host like Amus or Howard Stern need no verifiablity, but if another who is not as famous wants to be included in WP, the same criteria for inclusion should be applied. So I will support with the guidelines made clear. Jrod2 (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The biggest issue isn't with DJs playing music, it's with talk shows so WP:Notability (people) seems to make more sense to me than WP:Notability (music). I've prod'd and AFD'd a number of morning zoo, shock jocks, big jock and little women shows as well as several other shows and radio personalities on local stations. In some cases these AFDs were rightly shot down because it turns out that these shows are syndicated and are notable beyond the home station's market. In other cases, local fans of a show have snowball'd a AFD into a keep. It's been hard to get a good discussion going on this, some concensus to point to would help a lot.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Update I've updated the language above, any comments? As an example, defining a large radio market as the top 25% of the markets in the U.S. would includes New York City-Wilmington, DE, the first market that misses that cut is El Paso, TX. Syndicated shows would fit nicely in this model as any notable one would be in those top markets. This is a similar standard to how the radio industry judges shows and markets anyway. For the sake of argument if the top 50% of markets were selected as the standard instead, the last market included in that is Rockford, IL and the next market which gets left out is Fredericksburg, VA (which I grew up near and can assure you, nothing notable is going on there).--Rtphokie (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say, someone like Brian Lehrer from WNYC radio in New York, should be used as an example per notability (people). Jrod2 (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea, at least as written, for several reasons:

1. As previously noted, it seems like a very US centric guideline. Other countries may not have their markets as rigidly stratified and valued in the US. Smaller countries by area or population in particular would be exposed to a systematic bias against their broadcast personalities.

2. The threshold doesn't seem particularly logical even where applicable. Even in the US, would being one of the lower rated shows in the top 25% of markets really indicate a larger audience than being highly rated in the top 10% and a large number of smallish markets? What about broadcast personalities who work in a country's secondary or tertiary language?

3. Every internet radio personality meets the guideline by virtue of being available in every market. I don't think this was the intention, but they need to be covered by the guideline.

4. Same issue but more so, what about satellite radio?Horrorshowj (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Valid concerns, how do we improve it to resolve these concerns?--Rtphokie (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Kazue Takahashi

Can anyone find any biography sources for Kazue Takahashi, an article I am working on at User:Kitty53/Test page 2?Kitty53 (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Athletes - "compete"?

The policy is not 100 % clear. Does "compete" mean the same as "play in a reghular season game"? Or are sitting on the sidelines during televised games and playing in scrimmages and the like sufficient? Bearian (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The question came up due to the creation of quite a few new articles articles about (American) football players who went undrafted in the NFL Draft but were signed as free agents by various teams. Many of these players will play in preseason exhibition games but few will actually make the squad and play in games that count. Most are not otherwise notable based on their college football careers. Does every warm body that a team brings in to a training camp merit an article? Playing even once in a regular season NFL game is sufficient to establish notability by long-established precedent, and it's a clear-cut distinction. If this isn't the line between notability and otherwise, then where is it? --Finngall ^talk 16:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I take "compete" to mean "play" in a regular season game. If we allowed those that hung out during the preseason we'd have probably twice as many football articles on people that probably aren't notable. Wizardman 18:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• This is a perfect examples of the folly of subject specific guidance. It is either ambiguous or it is unreadably dense fodder for wiki-lawyers. You would be better served by considering WP:N which asks the question, is the player noticed in verifiable third party sources in a significant way. E.g., has an article been written about him in an established journal (online or in print). If there is no verifiable information about the player, then we can't write a WP article anyway. Splitting hairs beyond that is academic. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Fansite rules?

I am not sure, but can someone remind me what the rules are for listing of fansites on biographies, should I be removing them? Govvy (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it's discussed several different places. You might start at WP:NOTLINK. WP:EL also has a lot of guidance, as does WP:LINKSPAM.
And, of course, if a link has unsourced derogatory material about a non-public living person, the link itself might in some cases fall afoul of WP:BLP. Likewise, if the fansite contains material which violates the copyrights of others, we are prohibited from linking to the site. A surprising number of fansites violate the copyrights of the artist they allege to be supporting. Rossami (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E

Should there be something specific in WP:BIO about the treatment of WP:BLP1E cases or situations that look might look like WP:BLP1E cases? At the moment, it is sometimes difficult to reconcile the two, e.g. in this AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Packwood. Nsk92 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Playboy change

A recent AfD for Kimberly Evenson hinged around whether being a Playmate was in itself notable. What I would like to do is to clarify the second half of the first clause of the PORNBIO section. Currently it reads:

• "...or from a major pornographic magazine, such as Penthouse, Playboy, or Playgirl, as well as their counterparts in other pornography genres."

What I would like to do is to clarify that a designation such as Playmate or Penthouse Pet are themselves notable; after all that was the intent of that particular phrasing. What I'm thinking of is something like this:

• "...or received a notable designation from a major mass-market pornographic magazine, such as Penthouse, Playboy, Playgirl or equivalent (such as Playmate or Penthouse Pet)."

Hopefully, that wording should allow Playmate through while easing out lesser items such as Cyber Model of the Week. Thoughts from the peanut gallery?? Tabercil (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes to WP:ATHLETE

It strikes me as kind of funny that we could spend months discussing debating and reasoning with each other at WP:FOOTY to reach consensus over WP:FOOTYN only for it to be shot down by WP:BIO because they didn't want it to supersede WP:ATHLETE yet the meaning of WP:ATHLETE can just be changed by anyone who wants to, with no discussion or attempt to find consensus and WP:BIO folk don't object at all. If one guys opinion on how the notability criteria should be written can over-rule hard won consensus, something is badly wrong with the way we assess notability. Perhaps it is time to let us clearly define notability sport by sport instead of expecting two (now three) sentences to cover all the sports in the world. EP 19:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

We call it the bold, revert, discuss cycle at Wikipedia. Per the Consensus policy, he has the right to make a change, but you have the right to revert him. I'm not sure that I agree with his change, but I respect him and trust his judgement. If you want to revert him and don't know how, contact me and I'll help. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

He was reverted by someone else already, and been asked to bring his proposal here for discussion. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have reverted for now since there seems to be a challenge to the previous change. I have no position on the issue myself. I do have a minor procedureal concern since the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football mentioned by Wizardman in his edit summary does not seem to have been referenced on this talk page. However, feel free to re-revert if nobody intends to actually actively contest the change in question. Nsk92 (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is under the WP:ATHLETE heading on that page. I inadvertently made the page very us-centric originally, and as a result was just putting it back to the way it was for the most part. Wizardman 20:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection either way. It is in my mind meaningless unless you can define what "compete" means and as I've said before, how can you write an article if you don't have the verifiable content which would give you a pass from WP:N. It's a logic circle jerk. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

My point was not to criticise Wizardman's changes, it was to state that we worked extremely hard at WP:FOOTY to reach consensus over what is a notable acheivement for a football/soccer player, taking into account acheivements at club level, international level, and youth level, and the acheivements of historical players. We tried to make the guidelines clear and unambiguous and to make them applicable to World football not just football in Anglo-countries. We worked out our differences with discussion and debate and finally came up with something succinct and unambiguous that we all felt we could support. Then WP:BIO said NO WAY this cannot be allowed to supersede WP:ATHLETE. A couple of months down the line and someone comes along and paints the sacred cow a different colour and no-one even seems to notice except the folk at WP:FOOTY. I thought WP:FOOTYN got shot down for questioning the status-quo, I now see that this is clearly not the case as wholesale changes to WP:ATHLETE went completely unnoticed. Perhaps someone would care to explain why our hard work was dismissed so easily? EP 20:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment above. It is all folly as described in the essay WP:CREEP. With the best of intentions rules are written faster than articles and multiplying faster than rabbits. We seem to be stuck with a few notability criteria beyond the basic WP:N because of tradition, but they just don't work. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have seen any recent football related AfD's you will have noticed the endless debates over the same issues coming up time and again, often ending in completely different outcomes, because of pile-on voting and different interpretations of what WP:ATHLETE actually means. the subject specific criteria were meant to resolve this inconsistency and prevent the same old policy discussions endlessly clogging up individual AfDs. The idea that our guidelines represent the tiniest fraction of the content written on football/soccer is frankly ridiculous. Football represents 3% of the articles on Wikipedia and the number of articles is growing faster than anyone can keep pace with. A few sentences of unambiguous guidelines to cover this vast subject area would be of enormous benefit to those few dedicated people who are trying to keep it under control. EP 21:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the unambiguous policy WP:V and WP:I in conjunction with WP:N. No independent verifiable sources about the player no article at WP. The problem is that AfD is poorly run by WP:ILIKEIT principles. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would say most of the problems stem from Admins who close AfDs by counting votes rather than using the discussion to help him to assess whether the article meets the relevant notability criteria. This problem is made worse by ambiguous criteria designed to cover all sports which just appeared one day in June 2005 and was then expanded into something almost identical to the current guideline on September 10 2005. I really cant see why something drawn up by one long gone editor nearly three years ago takes precedent over something discussed, debated and analysed by experts in the area over a number of weeks and supported by consensus. It's crazy EP 21:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Neither version seems ideally clear and unambiguous to me, but (or therefore) there seems to be no good reason why major sports should not have their own more detailed criteria. I remember from a recent AfD that Chess notability seems not very clear, and this (either version) would be little help there. Johnbod (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should try reviving Wikipedia:Notability (sports)? Wizardman 16:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sports articles, and more particularly football (soccer) articles, are a consistent part of Wikipedia articles. There's no reason not to establish a notability guideline for sports-related articles, built by subject experts with a huge consensus. Thus, I support to revive Wikipedia:Notability (sports) and make it effective, including WP:FOOTYN into it. --Angelo (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I fully support this suggestion, how would we go about reviving WP:SPORTS? EP 22:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Reality TV contestants

I seem to have missed the debate on failed proposal WP:REALITY, which looks interesting. Do we have a working rule of thumb consensus on which reality contestants will or won't fail at AfD? --Dweller (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

My personal guideline is based on "notability is not temporary." If they will be notable 5 years after they are off the show, they I will vote KEEP. This usually means they went off to do something later or are likely to do so, or they did something that makes them more notable than other winners. For example, if participating in a show is expected to launch a TV or music career like American Idol then I would vote "keep." However, for more than half of the season winners of Big Brother (television) and Survivor (TV series) and the vast majority of non-winners I'd vote "delete" but recommend they be in some kind of list related to the show. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory WP:ATHLETE

The first bullet states that baseball players must be in a fully professional league. The next bullet includes anyone in a high-level amateur sport. Amateur sport, taken literally, includes all college baseball players. I'm sure the overall intention is to excluse the average college baseball player. Therefore, I propose tweaking the second bullet to remove this ambiguity. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's why the "coverage in secondary sources" part was added. Some college athletes that never played professionally are still notable - Eric Crouch for instance. But every walk-on and towel boy...not so much. --Smashville^BONK! 15:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so the correct understanding of the second bullet is that ametuer athletes are notable if there's seconday coverage about them. That being the case, "secondary sources" is an important condiditon and it shouldn't be in parentheses. How about rephrasing the second bullet to the following:

Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports and who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them.

? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Stage actors

Generally speaking, the originator of a lead role can be considered notable (or, at least, that fact can be taken into consideration when attempting to determine his notability). Replacement actors -- actors who take over the role throughout the course of a show's run -- are generally not notable (unless they were notable prior to taking the role). WP:ENTERTAINER should be changed to reflect this. — MusicMaker5376 14:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I would qualify that by saying that the originator of a lead role (meaning a "starring" or major featured role) in a Broadway, West End or other large-scale professional production, can be considered notable. A replacement actor should not be considered notable for one production alone, unless the actor has a number of other important credits or is notable for some other reason. I agree that WP:ENTERTAINER should be clarified to reflect this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Actors may also be notable if they have a leading role in a notable revival. They don't necessarily have to have originated the part. This is especially true for new shows being transported back and forth between London and New York with different casts, and for actors getting nominated for major acting awards in revived shows. There have also been cases where replacement cast members have caused a media stir and in those cases, since there is independent third party coverage, it may make them notable as well. Nrswanson (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. — MusicMaker5376 15:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The standard for replacement actors seems quite inconsistent with the standard for athletes, who are notable merely if they "have competed in a fully professional league". Even if one reads "fully professional" in the most restrictive sense of only including the top-level professional leagues, this would still include any rookie or journeyman athlete called up on one or more occasion to play in the place of an injured veteran player. IMHO, an actor who permanently takes over a leading role in a major Broadway production is surely more notable than a rookie player for a Major League Baseball team. There are, after all, many more Major League Baseball players at any given time than there are leading actor/actresses on Broadway and other venues of similar stature. Rhsatrhs (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about actors, not athletes. — MusicMaker5376 15:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see that we are talking about actors, and I believe that the inconsistency between the standards for actors and athletes is a relevant point. There are two ways to resolve the inconsistency: either by tightening the standard for athletes, or loosening the standard for actors. I could go either way on that myself. The one thing I don't think is appropriate is pretending that the disparity isn't important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhsatrhs (talk • contribs) 16:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out the disparity doesn't help fix it. What is your opinion on WP:ENTERTAINER? The problems with WP:ATHLETE have also been raised. You can voice your opinions there. — MusicMaker5376 16:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that what would we could do to help fix the disparity right here in WP:ENTERTAINER is to somewhat expand the list of criteria. My first concrete suggestion is to recognize a "rising star" exception to the "featured multiple times" requirement, so that an actor who, in a very short time-span, goes from community theater to a leading role in an award-winning Broadway production, even as a replacement, qualifies as notable. The same would be true for an actor making his or her debut in a major film, even if the film is a re-make and the role was therefore created by some other actor long ago. I'm sure we could come up with a reasonably tight definition of "rising star" if we put our minds to it. And hopefully, this would establish a precedent that justifies tightening the standard for athletes similarly, so that it would not recognize veteran journeymen, but would recognizing rising stars.Rhsatrhs (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

We're not here to recognize rising stars; we're here to recognize actual stars. That's what notability is -- actual notability, not expected notability. Your argument would imply that every actor who's played Enjolras in Les Miserables -- on both sides of the Atlantic -- in a combined run of over FORTY YEARS is notable. That's just silly. — MusicMaker5376 18:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A rising star is an actual star if given a starring role in a major production in a major venue. He or she may not turn out to be an enduring star. Is notability a permanent condition? No, it is not. Many who pass WP standards for notability today will not be notable in 100, 10, or even 5 years. Their articles will eventually be deleted. Each of the Enjolras actors may have been notable at the time of their taking that role, and had WP existed at the time may have been deserving of an article, which would in many cases by now have been deleted.Rhsatrhs (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary. — MusicMaker5376 20:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I find that utterly ridiculous, especially in application to contemporary figures. "Not temporary" means "lasts forever", and forever is a very long time. The idea that notability lasts forever suggests that if an article appeared in the first edition of a traditional printed encyclopedia, it would never be justifiable to remove that article from the second, fifth, or 25th edition. Who are we to pretend we know who will still be considered notable 10, 100, 200 or 1000 years from now? Does anyone actually believe that every one of the performers listed on Top-selling American Idol alumni will be considered notable by objective standards even 20 years from now? I could find loads of "List of..." type pages in WP for which the same question applies, and definitely not just amongst the entertainment-related lists. And yes, I do understand the difference between notable, famous and notorious. Even outside of vbiographies, in pure academic areas, how can we possibly pretend to know what article subjects will still be notable forever? We can't. In a huge number of cases, we can only answer the question "is this notable today?", and anything beyond that is merely an educated guess. Rhsatrhs (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sportspeople

How about extending the criteria to include officials as well so that the wording of each criterion would be "Competitors, coaches and officials ...". Wikipedia already has several articles about baseball umpires, hockey referees, soccer referees and the like. It seems reasonable to accept these as being just as notable as the players and coaches are. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I know some specific Wikiprojects have their own project guidelines for referee notability, but it would be good to have this set on a larger scale as well. matt91486 (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point by Truthanado. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I oppose for the reasons enunciated in the "coaches" section above. It's unclear what exactly is meant by "official". Referees, maybe, but promoters, team managers, commissioners, league functionaries? No point in automatically including them all unless there's good sources about them. I've reverted for now.  Sandstein  06:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for this degree of special instruction. If the coach, promoter or team janitor meet the criteria for WP:N then they should have an article. Trying to make a special case for these professions is counter productive. --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

More WP:ATHLETE (Coaches)

The amateur criterion has gone from overly encompassing to almost a little restrictive. My main concern is that it would seem that any D1 college head football coach would be notable, but what I am running into is that coaches (specifically southern African-American coaches) that coached at smaller D1 schools in the 1940's-1960's aren't having secondary sources due to the climate of the time. I am considering adding a third bullet with something to the effect of "Head coaches of amateur teams of the highest level in which the programs have significant reliable secondary coverage." --Smashville^BONK! 16:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to add it. If anyone wants to reword it...obviously go ahead. --Smashville^BONK! 16:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It also occurs to me that this would apply to Olympic coaches as well, so it is now: "Head coaches of individual athletes or amateur programs who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (granted the athletes or programs have met the general criteria for secondary sources)." --Smashville^BONK! 16:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with this; it seems to allow "inhereted notability" to override a lack of sources. The community has consistently rejected inherited notability (see WP:NOTINHERITED). I am going to revert, but would welcome additional input from other editors. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If no sources can be found, an article ought to be deleted regardless of the topic. — CharlotteWebb 13:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

oppose. Restrictiveness is something the WP:ATHLETE guideline doesn't have so I oppose proposals seeking to further increase the reach of that guideline.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 13:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Also oppose. Unlike athletes and politicians, say, there's no benefit in a complete coverage of coaches and officials. It's also too difficult to determine whether one of these people has "competed" in a fully professional league. Addition reverted.  Sandstein  06:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously if one cannot determine whether or not they have coached in a "fully professional league", one should assume they have not (pending sources sources stating that they have). — CharlotteWebb 13:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. I had previously understood "compete in a fully professional league" to mean "participate, as a player or as a coach, in a fully professional league" anyway (caveat: if sources are plentiful, the status of the league is irrelevant). — CharlotteWebb 13:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Support including coaches. Coaches are just as notable as players at the same level of play. There is no need to exclude them. Besides, the text has read "Competitors and coaches" for at least several months, indicating implicit acceptance by the Wiki community. I see nothing to justify a change. Truthanado (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose any expansion of ATHLETE, it's already far, far too inclusive and violates verifiability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Including "coaches" is not an expansion of ATHLETE; they have been there all along. Coaches have been included in the guideline for months, easily verifiable on the "history" page. They were removed during a revert of an edit that added "officials", which was correctly reverted; removing "coaches" in that revert was not justified because there is no consensus to change what the guideline has been for months. Truthanado (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose WP:ATHLETE is already far too inclusive. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:ENTERTAINER

This criteria is problematic. "Been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions" leads to the inclusion of every two bit actor that has gotten a tiny role in a few notable movies. At the end of the day, this unnotable actor had been "featured." This afd made me realize this problem. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Really, this is one of the most far-reaching and overinclusive sub-notability guidelines left; most of the rest have been trimmed back. I'm really rather surprised; I would think our emphasis of caution regarding biographies on living persons would mean, among other things, that we only write bios if they can be exceptionally well-sourced. And we certainly need to trim this one back quite a ways, back in keeping with the primary notability guideline, right now it's allowing far too much garbage. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

How about changing "Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films" to "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films" - --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest changing it to "Has been featured significantly in multiple reliable sources independent of the article's subject." Either proper sourcing exists to write the article, or we shouldn't have a separate article on the person. We could always mention them briefly in a film's article if they were significant to that film but there is little biographical source material available. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

But that's just a repeat of the parent WP:BIO notability standard.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! Why do we need a subguideline that differs from WP:BIO? UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

More Angie Gregory and Lori Jean Wilson (Actress)

Both Lori Jean Wilson & Angie Gregory's pages are being considered for detetion. I feel that any actors with credits on IMDB.com should be allowed on Wikipedia. IMDB is a credited source. What's the problem?

Ashleyjuddfan (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

IMDB.com is maintained by contributing editors. It is generally considered to be a reliable source, however its contents alone do not establish notability. Wikipedia:Notability in a nutshell says notability is demonstrated by multiple sources. An article whose sole source is IMDB might be a reasonable candidate for deletion. If the topic of the article is truly notable, it should be easy to find multiple sources. To make a blanket statement "It's on IMDB therefore it should have an article" is not keeping within the spirit of Wikipedia. Truthanado (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm on IMDB myself: Richard Fife's IMDB page. 2 of the 4 credits were put there by me, though. With only one exception (Writing credits for movies covered under WGA union rules) IMDB content is only evaluated when it's blatantly ridiculous or someone complains, otherwise it is simply put up as is. Therefore, it is not a reliable source. However, even if it was, it still only represents a non-critical database of facts, which do not by themselves confer notability. Does the assistant production accountant on, say, "Kitt Kittredge" warrant a Wikipedia page on the grounds that they're listed on the IMDB? Not really. - Richfife (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

PornBio Distinction

What counts as mainstream media, and why does pornography itself not? 69.156.28.230 (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You have to be joking??Andycjp (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• There are many reasons why an additional level of notability is used for biographical articles of pornographic actors. First off, there are so many of them; removing the additional level means opening the door to tens of thousands of additional actors. Secondly, it requires higher standards to assist in ensuring that only those who are actually career porn actors are included, instead of just anyone who did a sex scene in a film one time. Finally, even the porn wikiproject thinks it should be limited in this way; see this archived discussion from this page. This is a policy, folks. Bold isn't necessarily good, not without discussion. Risker (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I am trying to reduce the number of actors of dubious merit here, not increase it. An actor who never makes it beyond blue movies is NOT worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.Andycjp (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Not necessary. Ron Jeremy, for instance, achieved a certain measure (*cough*) of notability strictly for his work in porn. He would be notable even if he had not done a non-adult film. —C.Fred (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And Ron has done non-porn film work... but that's neither here nor there... Tabercil (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As one of the people who's finger prints are on the notability guidelines for pornography, I feel the guidelines as they stand now are just about right. They aren't so tight as to exclude truly notable people, e.g. Christy Canyon who is legendary in the field of porn but with a minimal mainstream profile these days, yet not so loose as to allow any old starlet to come in as a lot of porn starlets frankly have the industry lifespan of mayflies. As an example of the shortness of careers, take the film A Good Source of Iron 4 from 4 years ago - the IAFD entry for it lists 6 females in it, yet only one of them has appeared in more than 25 films and none of the stars is considered notable by the current Wikipedia standards. And we good folks in the WikiProject Pornography are active in pruning out the non-notable - a large percentage of the entries on the project's Deletion notification page were started by members of the project. Tabercil (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll just put in my .02 that it saddens me that we have special notability criteria making notability easier to establish for porn stars, entertainers, and sports figures, but we have no special criteria for religious figures, philosophers, inventors, journalists, and countless other people who, by any reasonable definition, are more likely to have made a greater contribution to knowledge. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:ATHLETE is turning Wikipedia into the MySpace of athletes

English peasant correctly pointed outthat the current WP:ATHLETE was invented it was not a product of careful debate as it should have been.

• WP:ATHLETE until 2005

Athletes who are widely known, widely acclaimed, or highly successful in their sport.

• WP:ATHLETE after 2005

Sportspeople who have played in a [high-level] fully professional league...

That single edit, designed to appeaze sports fans, made every single professional athlete worthy of a Wikipedia article. Most of them are not notable both per definition (1)(2) and per WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE simply makes them worthy of an article.

WP:ATHLETE is now used to succefully protect very low quality articles such as these: Ânderson da Silveira Ribeiro and Antonio Rodrigues dos Santos, both are 19 and non-notable.

Wikipedia in english has over 10,000 soccer player profiles so we are slowly becoming the MySpace of athletes. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 23:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• I understand your point and share much of your concerns. I am not that familiar with the entries for other sports, so I am going to comment with focus on articles pertaining to association football. I have noticed many footballer biographies that exist here based on (apparently) a consensus that whoever has played football professionally at any point in history, is notable. Now, I would not ever compare this encyclopedia with MySpace, but I would hope that the notability considerations for athletes are taken a look and are improved, to avoid the inclusion of thousands of non-notable, unaccomplished individuals who just happen to play football for living. One simple change would be to add a rule not to accept the entry unless the subject has either 1) Played officially for a national team, at full or youth level; 2) Is playing at least his third professional season at the club level; 3) Has been direct part of a very notable achievement (e.g. scoring a goal which made history by either being crucial in obtaining a trophy or by setting some record). ----ChaChaFut (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal is good, but why can't athletes be subjected to just WP:BIO like you and me?⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 23:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with that. We need hundreds of existing articles poor in content and quality (of most notable subjects who definitely deserve an entry) to be improved a lot more than we need new articles of "new" athletes --ChaChaFut (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are a lot of very insignificant footballers getting articles, but I don't think Ânderson da Silveira Ribeiro is one of them, he has played in the highest tier of club football in Brazil. I would strongly oppose any attempt to bring in notability criteria that would rule out articles on some players in important leagues like the Premier League, Argentine Primera La Liga and Serie A simply because they are too young to have played 3 seasons, yet promote insignificant U-17 or schoolboy players that have never even been near a game of professional football. We already have consensus based football specific criteria at WP:FOOTYN, a fact that EconomistBR is aware of, and chose to omit from his statement. EP 23:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's your fault! WP:FOOTYN is merely an "advice", the template itself says: It is not a policy or guideline. You need to transform WP:FOOTYN into a Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline because "advices" are not as relevant as guidelines. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 05:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you either, EP. My "third season" comment/proposal was just brainstorming, please take it FWIW. But I have always wondered why so many people are OK with a guideline that appears to be designed so that whoever has played any amount of professional football at any point in history, is automatically considered notable and worthy of having his biography found in an encyclopedia. --ChaChaFut (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• These professional athletes are considered notable with one professional game because of the amount of reliable sources that being an athlete accrues. This press coverage assures that they will meet the requirements of WP:BIO. matt91486 (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is a huge problem with this standard. It is similar to the problem with asteroid articles. So similar, in fact, that the discussion going on at Astronomical Objects might provide some useful insight into a potential solution for this and many similar challenges that are arising with excessive articles all over Wikipedia. J293339 (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with EconomistBR. I don't think every single professional athlete is worthy of a Wikipedia article. There are biographies of minor crickters and soccer players. We have to do something about this. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it's really a problem, to be honest. WP:PAPER isn't an issue, and they have sources. It doesn't get in the way of any articles about any more academic subjects. matt91486 (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability, however, is often an issue here, to wit: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." And we shouldn't! Listification can in many cases be a good alternative (we still "have the information", for those tremendously concerned about it, but don't have thousands of permastubs containing it), and in other cases we just need some good old editing and trimming. This is one of those cases, and I imagine in many cases, listification could be a perfectly fine solution, with wikilinks to the players who are actually notable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that a lot of these players don't have anything actually notable except their being a member of a certain team on their page. Have they done anything specifically notable? Shouldn't these articles be merely merged with the articles about the team they play on? From looking at his page, all I have learned about Ânderson da Silveira Ribeiro (sorry to pick on him specifically) is that he was born, and plays on a football team. I would think until he does something to make him stand out (either in football or something else) then he doesn't really deserve a page. He may be known to football fans, but to people who are not fans knowledge of him wouldn't even be considered trivia. However, perhaps there is more info about each of these players. Sports fans can be quite fanatical about the players and the game in general. Upgrading these articles to include more info on their notability would be great, if possible. But otherwise, merging them would probably be a better idea. (Ppudate (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC))

Many of these articles are about notable players who are covered in multiple reliable sources. Unfortunately, most of the coverage is in languages other than English (especially for Brazilian footballers). Thousands of people pay to watch these professionals play on a weekly basis and their exploits are covered in multiple media sources. As most Wikipedia editors are not very proficient in languages other than English (myself included), many of these articles lack the detail and sources that articles about footballers in English-speaking countries have, but I don't think that's a good reason to exclude such articles. Eventually, editors proficient in Portuguese, Spanish, etc will come along and improve these stub-quality articles. Also, the other language Wikipedias often have articles about these players that can be translated into English and used to improve the English Wikipedia's articles. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that Wikipedia's inclusion of athletes who are already covered in specialized encyclopedias (such as independently published yearbooks or almanacs) is simply a manifestation of the first pillar. Even though the coverage in those sources is often trivial, it is also verifiable, npov, and not original research. Trying to mandate a merge into a team article gets really confusing with players who move from one team to another; and, it may also cause a disproportionate amount of text in the case where the team article may be a stub, except for the list of every single player in the team's history. Neier (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

With reasons mentioned by EconomistBR, I have put three articles up for deletion, namely Mohd Mardani, Ram Shanker, and Rivaldo Costa Amaral Filho for deletion. the first two players have article that have not even been updated in two years at least. While the Rivaldo Costa's article is only created only when the player join a Singaporean club by a local fans. Under the current criteria, anyone who sign a professional contract and play a minute of the game professionally is important enough to have an article. With the number of professional leagues around, even a very lowly ranked one in Maldives, practical all players can be included. These simply does not make sense at all.Frankie goh (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

All three of those articles are going to be kept, one has already been snowball kept and the other two probably will be in the next few hours. If a player is in a professional league they deserve an article, because there's every chance someone will look them up - just because we don't live in the countries they play in does not make them non-notable. There's an element of systematic bias with it, really, because if they were playing in a so-called "bigger" league sporadically there wouldn't be a problem. I think we have to remember that, in Brazil, a player playing 17 games for a well-supported club is akin to playing 17 games for an Aston Villa or a West Bromwich Albion. Esteffect (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is getting out of hand, at least with respect to baseball. Being a minor league player means somebody might look you up. So does being a calculus instructor at a community college. The two are about equivalent in notability -- both might be looked up on a local level, but do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. RayAYang (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand and there is no solution. Sports fanatics are devoid of common-sense when it comes to articles about athletes, they don't make any concessions and all they do is repeat WP:ATHLETE over and over.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 15:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just coming here to complain about WP:ATHLETE when I noticed it's already being done. I'm sorry, this is getting way out of hand. Just the past couple of days have given us Samuel Cojoc, Alexandru Bourceanu, Laurenţiu Iorga and Adrian Popescu (footballer born 1975), none of whom has the least modicum of notability - they're all young men who happen to have signed a contract and kicked around a football. matt91486, where are the sources, let alone the press coverage, on these guys? Jogurney: these players are Romanian, I speak Romanian, and I can tell you the sources simply aren't there. And isn't it almost laughably idealistic to think that "editors proficient in [language X] will come along and improve these stub-quality articles"? The number of Romanian editors doing serious work here is about 5, and I assure you none of us is rushing to add information on these nonentities. Unless we go for mass deletion after moving back to the 2005 standard or something like it (which we should, before the think really explodes), rest assured, 99% of these will remain permanent micro-stubs. Neier: first, where are the yearbooks and almanacs you mention, and second, why on earth have many thousands of "X is a player on Y team" stubs polluting the encyclopedia, even if statements of that sort do happen to be "verifiable, npov, and not original research"? Esteffect: since when must we cater to the off-chance that "someone" will look up a player? We are an encyclopedia, not a directory.

In short: athletes should - must, if we are to retain some standards - be subject to stricter standards. Some form of notability must be asserted. Belonging to a professional league is simply not sufficient; it does not imply inherent notability. We need the third-party references and evidence of real notability that we demand in WP:BIO. If we can have six possible demands for academics, surely some are in order for athletes too. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't even try nominating those articles for deletion. Sports fanatics aggressively defend every single athlete article that arrives at the AfD debate and win every single time.

As for the "micro-stubs", they told me: "they do their job". I am not kidding.

I too argued that ATHLETES must satisfy WP:BIO like everybody else, but sports fanatics scoffed at the idea.

Sports fanatics are so uncompromising, unyielding and radical that instead of having to deal with them I much rather favour splitting all articles protected by WP:ATHLETE from Wikipedia into something like Wikisports.

PS: There is a difference between sports fans and sports fanatics.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 15:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Biruitorul, and thank you for engaging in a polite discussion on this matter. I believe the new sub-stub articles you listed are probably insufficient to pass WP:ATHLETE and should be listed for deletion or prod'ed. With respect to articles about footballers playing in non-English speaking countries that pass WP:ATHLETE and sources, I don't think its unrealistically idealistic to believe new local editors will improve these articles. I have seen it happen many times in my short time with Wikipedia. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

With regard to Stub articles - how different are stubs for mildly notable (OK, almost non-notable in some cases) to the proposed stubs that are potentially going to be generated for 2+ million 'places' around the world that was discussed...errm, somewhere...on Wikipedia recently?. I believe many will be improved. I agree the criteria is a bit flaky on the real notability from - someone who plays one game for Colchester automatically gets considered notable, but there needs to be some form of clear definition or fixed criteria. If there is any scope for debate there will simply be endless arguments about whether one is notable or not. The current criteria at least has a clear line drawn in the sand. I'd be happy to support a change to stricter criteria as long as it can be clearly defined and inclusive of all who are in actuality truly notable. Although, if Belmont Soccer Club is notable, then pretty much every athlete that has played a professional game also is. I guess famous is always going to be subject to ones perspective.--ClubOranje^Talk 02:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Religious Figures

There are 654 Roman Catholic bishop stubs, which, to my mind, beg the question; What are the notability criteria for religious figures? J293339 (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the notability criteria for religious figures would be s/he should have done something for theology. I have not worked on the biographies of religious figures. I am not the best person to answer this question. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

notability in theology is the standard for theologians, people whose profession is to study and write on theology. Bishops may do that, incidentally ,but their role from the very 1st century has been as administrators. They have been considered notable as such due to the community impact and the availability of sources, for all bishops of every territorial church throughout history.

The ones in the RC church are particularly well documented. We probably have a few tens of thousands of additional articles to go. WP NOT PAPER. DGG (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please follow the basic guideline of whether or not there is significant third party recognition of the person (see: WP:N) --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been seeing a lot of discussion pages lately where people are using WP: PAPER as an argument to ignore WP: N, especially in fields where there are a lot of information sets without a lot of actual information. My opinion is that the information is notable collectively, but not individually. For instance, a series of tables detailing the raw facts data about a bunch of unspectacular bishops would be fine. But only a tiny fraction of them have made individual contributions that meet WP: N. Wlink their names in the table, and leave redirect the rest.J293339 (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

We went through this last year when someone got the bright idea of trying a deletion campaign against them to prove the sanctity of the general standard. Every one was snowball kept within a day. If it's documented in the article that they are/were an actual Roman Catholic bishop, don't bother nominating it. The position itself is held at AFD to have enough notability that holding it meets the bare minimum. Effectively it's a holdover, regional, political office from when the church held temporal power. Some of the African Dioceses are responsible for multiple countries, and there are Vatican stationed bishops that write policy for the entire church or act as ambassadors to the Orthodox and Anglican churches. Please let it go so we don't have to deal with proposed additional criteria for religious figures again.Horrorshowj (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my intent was to generate some discussion of the fact that the general standard is not being applied. If the argument that keeps these kinds of articles in business is that "the position is notable, therefore everyone who's ever held it is notable," then there are already additional unspoken criteria, because that's far looser than the general standard. But I'm about ready to give up, since nobody seems to want a collection of useful information, anyway. Also, I find "let it go" condescending and not at all constructive. J293339 (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A proposal for a WP:Notability (religious figures) guideline was made some time ago, but it was dropped for lack of consensus. I agree that we in fact have de facto unwritten special notability criteria. I don't think having special criteria is inappropriate. Wikipedia has written special notability criteria for porn actors, entertainers, and sports figures, among others, that are explicitly looser than the general standard. I don't think it should be harder for religious figures to get into the encyclopedia than people in these categories. Nonetheless, the current state of affairs is that the community has rejected proposals for written guidelines explaining what the looser criteria should be, but it continues to adhere to unwritten ones. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In my mind, as is the consensus, that any Roman Catholic or Anglican Bishop who has garnered significant press ought to be on WP. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Interaction of WP:BIO1E and politics

I worry that the current language is problematic -- we're deleting (or discussing deleting) articles about candidates for the coming election, about whom people would understandably be interested. In some cases, it's being read to say that all notability connected with being a candidate for an election doesn't count in favor of a biography, if that election is the only cause of the person's notability. The one event rule is a good rule for the victim of a bloody crime, or some other thing that is a 15 days' wonder, but an election (especially, say, a statewide election) is going to be the focus of intense interest for 6-18 months by a significant chunk of the population, which seems to me to be moving it into a different setting altogether. Long before I created an account on Wikipedia, I was using it as a relatively neutral place to get information on my candidates. It would be a shame if we were to render ourselves useless to people across the country as far as elections go, by deleting articles about candidates -- particularly when it's the candidate, rather than the race, that gathers widespread attention, even if the primary cause of the attention is their candidacy. RayAYang (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• The rule is OK for a one day wonder. If something has been in the media for 15 days, then I would say that is presumably notable and shouldn't be excluded. WP:BIO1E is intended to prevent multiple articles on the same topic, not to exclude the topic altogether. Your election example is a good example of this. Why should it be excluded.Assize (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• This has been discussed a number of times before. (See here for one example.) The gist of the problem is volume. There are many thousands of legislative and elected judicial seats around in the US alone, each running for election every few years and each election accruing several candidates. For example, there are 435 congressional districts in the US. Those seats come up for reelection every 2 years. While a few are uncontested, most of those seats have 2-5 people running for each of the major party nominations and another 1-5 minor party candidates running in the election. At the state-level, well, one user once laid out the Texas example - one of 50 states (and while a large state, not the largest legislature). Texas has 150 seats in the state House of Representatives and 31 seats in the state Senate. Each stands for reelection every 6 years and again has at least 2 candidates per election. Now start adding county-level, municipal, etc. The numbers just explode.
  Complicating matters, most of those candidates lose the election and the vast majority of those never return to politics. When we have allowed those kinds of articles, a year after the election we had an unmaintained article that said "X is now selling insurance in Slough" (to paraphrase an AfD comment from long ago). The articles become essentially unverifiable soon after the election and become an maintenance nightmare.
  Even while the election is underway, we have terrible problems with the neutrality of the content. They tend to be written or at least heavily edited by partisans. (Mind you, that's true for many of Wikipedia's articles on controversial subjects but these pages about minor political candidates get too little traffic for us to gather the critical mass of educated and interested editors who will watchlist the page and keep it honest.) The consensus to date (and I strongly support the previous decisions) is that being a candidate is not, in and of itself, a reason to deserve an encyclopedia article. Other inclusion criteria might apply but Wikipedia is not a directory of political candidates. Organizations such as the League of Women Voters do a much better job than we ever could presenting impartial and verified information about candidates to voters. Rossami (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I see. I wasn't proposing, necessarily, that candidates for office be declared notable per se. I was proposing, rather, that we think of a way to clarify the BIO1E guidelines so that people don't say "oh, yes, despite being the originator of multiple policy proposals and becoming a hero to many groups around the country, he would never have been notable if we exclude all events related to the campaign season under BIO1E". Not all candidates are notable, but some candidates rise above the noise, and declaring an entire campaign season to be "one event" is a little bizarre. If I sound vague here, it's because I'm dissatisfied, but am not sure what to do. RayAYang (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting another loophole in WP:BIO to create a stub. I'm saying that if a topic (whether a candidate or not) has generated enough coverage in 15 days to write something decent, it shouldn't be deleted because of the one event rule. The one event rule should only be relevant to incidental or insubstantial mentions. Assize (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Rossami on this one; we've got enough clutter as it is. As a former major-party nominee for state legislator, I can guarantee you that we aren't notable for that. A week after the votes are counted, we're forgotten, and the public has moved on. WP:BIO1E fits very well here. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Very well. After a day or two patrolling endless new candidate stubs, I'm convinced :) RayAYang (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And as the victim of one of your patrols resulting in an un-notified redirection (effective deletion) of an elected nominee of a major political party for national U.S. office (u.S> Representative in this case) I am furious. Of course these people are notable! If you honestly believe the people who run the United States are irrelevant, powerless nobodies, or that a major nominee for U.S. Senator or U.S. Representative is on exactly the same level of someone running for dogcatcher in some tinytown, I suggest you think again. Perhaps the guidelines should be clarified that no, we don't want articles about every wannabe candidate just because they're candidates, but those at a certain level are notable by definition. I don't think that's rocket science to figure out, and I'm appalled that the above posters would even suggest that. Flatterworld (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving the relevant parts of the discussion on RayAYang's talk page here:
I am simply pointing out the obvious differences of how Republican and Democratic articles about nominees have been treated. I am not about to stand by while Wikipedia becomes a media and blogger laughingstock for appearing to be some sort of partisan 'tool'.
I have indeed taken part in previous discussions on this subject, including those about the supposed 'non-notability' of Dan Seals and Bill Foster. (I would point out the notability of Foster's Republican opponent Jim Oberweis appears to hinge on his inheritance of the family dairy business - yet he has an article. I don't begrudge him that, but it's ludicrous that Foster's article was repeatedly deleted. Not merged, but deleted. Once Foster was elected that of course became a moot point, but the Oberweis article remains. Double standard.)
I have also taken part in the discussions about the Congressional Candidate/Nominee template and its use. I have also worked on many articles about various 2008 Governor, House and Senate races. What I vehemently object to is the "too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry" attitude in that information is being shunted from one article to another, and then deleted or reduced to a sentence or two. I'm not interested in playing games of tag or keep-away, nor am I interested in constantly recreating material. If extensive candidate information (including the relevant infoboxes and external link templates) is not to be allowed in Campaign articles, then the candidate should have his/her own article. If it is to be accepted, I have no problem with that solution. So far, I've gotten nothing but a bunch of Catch-22 excuses in various 'discussions', resulting in the material disappearing.
That said, I continue to disagree with the opinion that major party nominees for major national office in the United States aren't notable per se. We're not talking about no-hopers being put forth to fill out the ballot, but serious contenders. They are all being reported on by third-party sources, quite extensively by the media as the election gets closer. Many are known for their other accomplishments as well, but imo that is icing on the cake. But again, my interest is more that the material is included, less the specific type of article. Flatterworld (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is clear, articulate and passionate. Nevertheless, I disagree. Solely being a candidate, even a major party candidate, is not and never has been a useful criterion for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The problem comes from those non-notable throw-away candidates who are run by the party with no support and solely to have a name on the ticket (the "no-hopers" that you said you don't think your argument should apply to). We have no objective way to discriminate between the no-hopers and the "serious contenders". Every attempt to do so has led to even more partisan bickering and fingerpointing that we already had. Mere candidacy is just not a useful guide for us. If someone truly is a serious contender with significant independent coverage on which we can base an encyclopedia article, then the primary notability criterion applies regardless of his/her candidacy. If not, then we don't have enough for an article.
If there is an appearance of disproportionality because our inclusion standards in other areas are too low, the correct answer is to raise those standards, not to create a race to the bottom. But, by the way, I also do not think that extensive candidate information belongs in an article about the campaign, either. Most of these people would never be covered in a traditional encyclopedia - and not merely because they are paper. They are subjects that are too trivial to draw the kind of long-term, informed, educated attention to monitor the page and make sure that the content stays verified, balanced and unvandalized. Rossami (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Poster children

Are people who the media use to put a human face on a story considered notable? For example, take Elaine Riddick Jessie, she is a victim of the Eugenics Board of North Carolina, and her story is often told in the context of stories about this atrocity and the reparations that have subsequently been made. My take on this is that according to WP:ONEEVENT, she is not notable, and anything salient from her article should be merged into the article about the "event". However, she has received significant media coverage, so one could argue that she is notable on that basis. There are surely many other articles about people that fall into this gray area. So, the general question is, are poster-children notable, and does the current text of WP:ONEEVENT sufficiently address this? Steve Carlson^Talk 05:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think poster children are the poster children for WP:ONEEVENT (awful pun sadly intended), and are not notable. The difficulty lies in that, quite often, the media will focus on them more strongly than the event, quite possibly on aspects of their lives unassociated with the original event that brought them to prominence. In those cases, they may end up notable. RayAYang (talk) 06:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

So is there a clear heuristic that editors can use to make that distinction? Steve Carlson^Talk 07:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the AfD debates and the amount of grief WP:ONEEVENT causes at that boundary, probably not. It's often a question of judgment, which can be problematic -- allows regional, nationalistic, political, etc., biases to slip through. My ongoing complaint with the way the one-event rule interacts with politics is precisely a case of this, I think. From the wording "standing for election" I suspect it was written in a country with a parliamentary system, where people vote for the party, and the candidate is just an extension of the party. In America, it's often the reverse and elected officials are elected in their own person. Which means that just about every challenger in a major race in America falls smack into that gray area. This leaves room for interesting biases, regional and political, to help determine who gets an article and who does not. RayAYang (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to do what we generally do, which is follow the sources. The world decides what is notable, and we just record it. This of course means the relevant portion of the world--the business world for businessmen, and so forth. If the general public decides someone is notable because they are used in a prominent way in multiple major newspapers, so be it. We can just possibly agree to accurately determine what is in the responsible media. We can not hope to determine ourself what is deserving of being in the media, or what constitutes true notability. It's analogous to our following verifiability, not truth. We can determine one, but not the other. What qualifications do we have for deciding what or who is important in the world? We are however as experienced workers at an encyclopedia, qualified to determine what the world thinks notable, and write articles about that. At least, that's the view which is consistent with basic wikipedia practice. On the other hand, if we think we are qualified, we need specific criteria for each subject. Perhaps w can develop that direction.DGG (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

For me, the crux of the matter is, if the person received coverage in the media, were the stories about them, or were they just mentioned in context of a bigger story? For elections, at least here in the U.S., only the candidates who are being taken seriously (and are therefore notable) get dedicated coverage in reliable news sources. Minority candidates are mentioned in passing in articles about the election in general, but rarely get dedicated coverage. I think we might be able to craft a policy that reflects that distinction, it certainly seems operationalizable. Steve Carlson^Talk 17:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with ONEEVENT is that editors focus on the words "one event" and go through all sorts of contortions to make multiple incidents one event. For example, is President Bush notable only for being elected president which is one event. Instead, it should be called LOWPROFILE, and the focus is on the amount of coverage over a period of time. A person who gets coverage for one day (eg. rescues a person, etc) isn't "high profile" unless the media discusses it for a number of days. However, where a person whose name keeps coming up over a long period of time (eg. infamous criminals) would qualify because of the extended interest in the person. These are far more objective standards than editors saying "That ain't notable" for no discernible reason Assize (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I get that, but if an "event" is revisted every year by the media on its anniversary and they drag out the same poster child story every time, even though they haven't re-interviewed the person and there aren't any new developments, is that person really notable? Steve Carlson^Talk 02:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If you define "notable" as being famous or important (which most editors seem to do), then no. If you define "notable" as it is defined in WP:N, then yes, because the secondary sources are rehashing the events which makes it in terms of WP:N "worthy of notice". Assize (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's my point, I think that WP:N has this big loophole and that certain parts of it should be revised to eliminate notability claims based on passing mentions in articles about other topics. Steve Carlson^Talk 07:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The biggest loophole in WP:N is WP:BIO. Person are notable for one event through that. A sportsperson plays for one game and is notable. The issue about repeated mentions doesn't arise under WP:N because you are supposed to have "sources [which] address the subject directly in detail". WP:ONEEVENT is applied to undo this by saying that even if you are addressed in detail, you still don't qualify. If a person or topic gets repeated mentions over a period of time, it simply has to notable (provided that it has been addressed directly in detail somewhere). Assize (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My own view is that the WP:N general notability criterion, 2RS=N, is worthless except as a matter of desperation for things none knows about. If applied literally, it would put in too many things almost nobody wants to include, and keep out too many things almost everyone wants to have in. We are not so stupid as to use it that way, since we all do want to build an encyclopedia, so we have added dozens of radical exceptions in each direction--sufficient to neutralize the policy altogether. I think most articles are decided by other rules entirely--either specific rules, or things that everyone has tacitly agreed to follow. I'm not going to list them here, though the situation we're discussing is only one of many. The net result is we decide what I consider right at least 90% of the time (and most people might say the same, each person just picking a someone different 90% than I would.) What we need to do now i eliminate the legal fiction and say what we mean. Some things are agreed to be suitable for an encyclopedia. some arent. lets say which are which in plain language,without relying on convoluted exceptions and strained interpretations, and define the areas of disagreement. And then argue about these, on the basis of what we ought to have, not what some nonexistent authority has told us we must do--this is a wiki, and the rules are whatever we want to have them. (Yes, I still would maintain WP:V as a basic principle, but what';s necessary for verification is another and much more flexible thing than for notability. we dont need secondary sources or even third party sources to write much of the routine which is the basis of most articles, just good enough sources. I'd continue to maintain the principle that we're not after the absolute truth, which is beyond our capabilities--we are all human at the best of it and putting us in a collective only somewhat improves our accuracy. DGG (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that approach is that inclusion is dependent on the opinions of the active editors in AfD's, which is subjective. An objective encyclopedia needs objective rules and guidelines. Unfortunately, most AfD's are not objective, and arguments amount to little more than listcruft, schoolcruft, crimecruft, etc. A 90% success rate at AfD is pretty poor. If I went to a cash dispenser and only got the right money 90% of the time, I'd be outraged. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with WP:N. It's only all the exceptions that cause the problems. Besides, if somebody thinks that each shade of green should be notable, then a new guideline can be made. Assize (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood the 90%. You're trying to predict what a relative random sort of people will do. A lawyer who can win 90% of jury trials would be very exceptional indeed, unless they limited themselves to really obvious cases. My guess for whether the AfD decisions in non obvious cases are correct is much lower than 90%--I think its about 70% at best. But we have to decide somehow. DGG (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's the exceptions that cause the problems, but I think some of that can be attributed to vague language in the WP:N guidelines that allow for liberal interpretation. Seems to me the place this conversation started was discussing the looseness of "significant coverage", which, quoting WP:N means "that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." My argument is that this is way too vague, and allows editors a lot of wiggle room in AfD discussions. What does "directly" mean? What does "in detail" mean? I've had AfD's that have failed because people could find the subject's name in an article in some local rag. That's just not what I think of when I hear notable. And that's where the exceptions enter, to limit this looseness. WP:ATHLETE is there, in part, to keep amateurs from satisfying "significant coverage" by appearing in some local rag a few times. WP:COMPANY, WP:MUSICIAN, WP:ACADEMIC, etc, for similar purposes. Instead of creating all these exceptions, why not tighten up the language in the core policy? Steve Carlson^Talk 04:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I total agree. The language is why we're having problems with Politicians as well. 'News' about a candidate for mayor of a tinytown presiding over the local cake-baking contest is clearly not significant coverage in judging the person as notable or not, yet the policy language is being stretched to claim extensive media coverage about a major party nominee for national elective office is ALSO not considered significant coverage. Flatterworld (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent undiscussed change to the One-Event rule

For those who didn't notice, User:Flatterworld attempted to change the One-Event rule this morning. A diff of the two old versions is linked here. Please discuss whether this is desirable.

This new rule goes contrary to recent AfD discussions, including most strikingly the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Rothfuss. I believe this is an extension of a discussion Flatterworld and I have been having over the Glenn Nye article, where I merged the article into the election, and he was displeased with the result. You are invited, if you are interested, to see the discussion here.

I have come to believe (following a discussion earlier on this page where I brought up the question of the One-Event rule and politics interacting) that one-shot not yet successful candidates have no place on Wikipedia, and are part of what the One-Event rule seeks to prevent. Best, RayAYang (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Addendum: User:Flatterworld made a comment in the section above on the interaction of the BIO1E and politics. Presumably, it is his argument for his change. RayAYang (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

My point was the undiscussed change by Shinmawa, which I have now undone. We don't play by separate sets of rules at Wikipedia. Flatterworld (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

All I did was add the phrase "Cover the event, not the person", which was copied over from the same "One event" section of WP:BLP, which has been the consensus view for a very long time. It is unfortunate that we have both WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E, but there is no real difference on the "Cover the event, not the person" aspect depending if the subject is alive or dead (and WP:BLP is actual policy), so I was WP:BOLD and copied it from WP:BLP to here for consistency's sake. As for the diff that RayAYang brought out above, I have nothing to do with that. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 01:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Biographies of living minors

As a charity, I believe that we should veer towards caution when dealing with the biographies of persons aged under 18. They are generally agreed to be incapable of expressing an informed choice, and therefore should be protected. [6] is in my view wholly inappropriate - it is a puff piece about a minor American wanna-be that is motivated by profit as opposed to the welfare of the young person who is the subject. As a signed up anti-censorship member I vote for suppression of biog articles of all living minors on the grounds of privacy. Excalibur (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm going to have to oppose you. Someone as notable as Miley Cyrus should clearly have an article. Unsourced statements should obviously be removed and we should be extremely careful about libel, per WP:BLP, but Miley is a public figure and within the scope of Wikipedia. I would not at all support a ban on articles about living minors on the grounds of privacy.

That said, we should always be careful of harm, and there may be cases when I would oppose an article on privacy/BLP concerns. If say wikipedia had been around in 1970s, I would've opposed an article about the minor involved Roman Polanski's indictment, since she was not named in the US press at the time. We should always be careful when dealing with living people, and especially careful with minors, but that's not reason to not have an article on someone such as Cyrus. Vickser (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Vickser that the example given is a particularly inappropriate instance for the problem. A very successful public figure in entertainment gets an article regardless of age--the controversy section there does indeed need considerable attention about undue weight. A much more relevant case was the guy in Australia who announced his party on the internet. One that I helped not just delete but got oversighted was a mid-teenager whose pornographic self-movie maliciously got put on the internet. DGG (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:ATHLETE

There's currently a spate of AfDs on Association Football players who are being deleted, most of the time with good reason, on the basis of lack of notability. However the wording of WP:ATHLETE is not helpful here and I think that a rewording may be helpful. There is a great dal of debate over what the status is with players, using football as an example, who have competed in high level tournaments, such as FIFA youth tournaments and who have attracted substantial press coverage worldwide not meeting the criteria due to not playing for their club.

A good example of this is under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Dalby, a player who has significant coverage under WP:N has an AfD, the vast majority of which people are supporting deletion because he fails WP:ATHLETE.

I'd like to suggest a rewording of WP:ATLHETE, obviously something which you may not be in favour of, in order to streamline AfDs and reduce the number of them, as follows:

• Competitors who are professionals, who have competed more than once in a fully professional league.
• Competitors who have competed in an international tournament of high standing* and who have attracted significant coverage.
• Competitors who are recognised world champions in their event.

An international tournament of high standing being, for examples The Olympics, the Commonwealth Games, FIFA tournaments such as the uXX Tournaments or the FIFA World Cup or Confederations Cup, or international UEFA tournaments, or PGA Tour compeitions or European Order of Merit competitions or FIVB beach volleyball tournaments or FINA swimming competitions, or, . This is not meant to be an exaustive list but gives slightly better clarification. BigHairRef | Talk 08:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

See consensus based guidelines at WP:FOOTYN, these should be formalised. EP 16:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, the WP:FOOTYN guidelines should be formalised (and adjusted if necessary); this would save a lot of grief. It's arguably the biggest sport in the world, so no reason not to have extra guidelines. Nfitz (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• I would object about the "significant coverage". I think it would be better to say instead "significant, third-party, reliable sources which fully covers the subject in detail". A handful of simple name citations in the web for a footballer are not a proof of notability; they could instead give notability when the subject is covered in detail by a significant number of reliable sources. --Angelo (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that the WP:FOOTYN guidelines should be formalized. How do we proceed? Jogurney (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Definitely agree that WP:FOOTYN guidelines should be formalized! -- Alexf⁴² 18:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• I took part in the debate to help produce the WP:FOOTYN guidelines/essay, and hence also believe they should be formally adopted. Peanut4 (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Amateur sports

I also think we need to clarify the amateur sports section, i.e. "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports."

To me and several others, this means players who have played at the highest level in amateur sport where there is no professional level above it.

However, some editors take it to mean the highest level of amateur sport when there is professional level above it. To me this is an obvious fallacy, as it could be used to justify keeping an article on a fifth division football player where the top four leagues are professional.

If there are no objections, I will amend the policy to clarify this. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• I certainly object. There is nothing in the guidelines to note that the amateur sport clause only applies if there isn't a professional level. I don't think that was the intent. Nfitz (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think so instead. For what I know, that clause was made for sportsmen who participated at the worldwide level in a "minor" sport, such as fencers who took part to the Olympic games, and not to include over 3,000 Serie D players (Serie D being the highest non-professional level of football in Italy, composed by 168 teams) who however have no media coverage at all. As fencing is not a professional sport, they would be included thanks to that clause. I think a clarification is actually necessary, and I would fully support it. --Angelo (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• I also object, the reaosn I proposed the poloicy change is that. There's a large number of bios which are in AfD or have already been deleted for being 'amateurs', i.e. they've not played at pro level in their sport where one is available who arguably are considerably more notable than many pros. The best example I can think of is who is more notable (and apologies for the anglocentrism I'll try and think of another analogy but it'll probably be wrong) someone who has played in the final of an won the FIFA U17 World Championship, or a professional footballer who has played one in the Blue Square Premier division in England but then retired? Maybe a good example might be someone who has won the highest AAA prize in Baseball or someone who played as a reserve pitcer for the The Orioles once for a third of an inning before injuring themselves and never playing baseball again? Someone must have a better one thatn that but that's the best I can do I'm afraid! BigHairRef | Talk 00:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I would support such a change, myself. Right now, WP:ATHLETE is being used essentially as a "free pass" for countless articles on very minor professional athletes who would not otherwise pass our notability criteria. As for why this "free pass" exception was ever implemented, I don't know - but this was covered in a recent discussion above. Right now ATHLETE is too permissive. Clarifying this guideline in the manner suggested above would be a wise move, in my opinion. As far as the concern being voiced by BigHairRef regarding sub-professional athletes who are more notable than some professionals, if this is the case these amateurs should be able to satisfy the general notability guidelines given the existence of multiple, independent sources to verify this claim. Shereth 21:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree generally speaking. I think personally that the pros "free pass" (choice of phrase to clarify we're talking about the same thing) is too easy to pass, and the amateur's too. Essentially for both sets it should be the generall notability criteria which will pass, with the guidelines at WP:ATHLETE helping to clarify when certain things they have done are notable which aid their case for inclusion.

Would it be safe to say that we all agree that simply because any given sport has part(s) of it which is/are played by professional sportsmen (for example professional (association) football or professional ice hockey), that one can still pass either the WP:ATHLETE or WP:N guidelines (whichever apply in the situation) despite being "only" an amateur, as long as they are notable enough? BigHairRef | Talk 01:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. If an article passes the general notability criteria, then WP:ATHLETE should never even enter the equation. I have, in fact, seen discussions where people were arguing to delete an article because an individual could not pass WP:ATHLETE, in spite of passing WP:N and WP:BIO with flying colors. The fixation on one sub-policy is disgraceful. Shereth 15:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Many people (including me) agree with that. However, as can be seen in discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Espinoza, it is not unanimous. Neier (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Then would it be fair to say that consensus agrees that any sportman (amateur or otherwise) should not be considered "non-notable" simply because they do not pass the test of WP:ATLHETE? Would it be OK for me to edit the sub-policy regarding this? I ask not in the usual "am I allowed to sense" but rather to allow anyone who has an objection to raise to make their objection. It just seems that this is at least one thing we're all agreed on? I won't edit the policy for at least 72 hours from signing this to ensure that there's at least a chance that someone who has been watching the convo dosen't miss an opportunity? I think that WP:BOLD probably dosen't apply here. BigHairRef | Talk 23:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think most people already understand that WP:Athlete is just a piece of WP:BIO and no one's trying to say that everyone absolutely must meet WP:Athlete. To name some recent cases, Nikola Saric was kept due to a national award and substantive articles in third party sources about him. Josh Magennis also snuck away with a keep thanks to a pair of articles about him in icwales and a feature piece in the internationally published Belfast Telegraph. Athletes can and do get kept for passing the test of significant coverage in 3rd party sources. However, most youth, reserve, and college players have not been the subject of significant third party coverage and I think the vast, vast majority of them should not be kept. When people say "Delete, fails WP:Athlete" what I think most of them really mean is "This person is claiming to be notable due to athletics. I believe he does not pass the parent guideline of general notability, nor the particular clause he is claiming of WP:Athlete. If he were shown to pass, say WP:Music, or WP:PornBio, I understand that his failure of WP:Athlete would be irrelevant." That's my take, anyway, on what people say when they mention a failure of WP:Athlete, etc. Vickser (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is common to all of the additional criteria, not just sports, so perhaps the start of the additional criteria section should read: "If a person does not meet the basic criteria test, a person may also be presumed to notable if they meet any of the following standards." Assize (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

How about we get rid of the garbage athlete permastubs entirely, and limit standalone articles to those athletes for whom the level of independent coverage genuinely supports it, be they professional, amateur, or otherwise? Why does level matter more than sourcing? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Because we could probably find 10 times the amount of material on a lpayer at the 8th level of English football than we could about one who plays international football for a non-English speaking or third world country. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that is the point. If you can find 10 times the material on a player, then you don't not the exceptions in WP:BIO because they would be notable under WP:N because of the abundance of secondary sources. Whilst I agree the "permastubs" are pointless, there is consensus for them to remain. Assize (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you and I are agreeing they're pointless, so apparently not unanimous consensus. I'm not even sure if there is, I've certainly been hearing a lot of "Why do we have these at all?" If the level of sourcing means we end up covering more of X than of Y, than so we do. That's not systemic bias, it's following what our reliable sources say and do rather than second guessing or trying to "correct" them. That's what we do, whether or not we like the result in a given case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I too agree that all those athlete permastubs are pointless. The notion that you can find "10 times the material on a player" is wrong, an illusion. What you find are 100 sources mentioning the player, those sources don't ever talk about the player or his life, at very best those sources give that player's stats and that's it.

Articles protected by WP:ATHLETE should be split from Wikipedia and transfered to another project. Sports "fanatics" are not interested in changing the status quo or in making concessions.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 21:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because they haven't been presented with a convincing reason to do things differently.--Father Goose (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest, as a first step maybe we could change WP:ATHLETE to read:

• Competitors who have competed in the highest tier of a fully professional league.
• Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports where there is no fully professional league.^[1]

This is not ideal, but at least it would get rid of all the minor league baseball players, and the like. Thoughts? Would this need a RFC, or if we here agree, could we just do it? RayAYang (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to be corrected but given the relatviely minor alterations needed I don't think a RfC is necessarilly needed. On the other hand, I would propose the following wording being better.

• • Competitors who have competed in the highest tier of a fully professional league.
  • Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports.

This would mean that where someone is truly notable being an amateur despite there being a professianal element to their sport. An example would be the winners of the Amateur football world cup for example. I would suggest that a clarification as to what the highest level of amateur sports means similar to the list I made above.

(Repeated here for ease of finding The Olympics, the Commonwealth Games, FIFA tournaments such as the uXX Tournaments or the FIFA World Cup or Confederations Cup, or international UEFA tournaments, or PGA Tour compeitions or European Order of Merit competitions or FIVB beach volleyball tournaments or FINA swimming competitions)BigHairRef | Talk 03:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose making people who compete in the under-XX FIFA tournies automatically notable. That's adding a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise meet our notability criteria. Do you really think someone who played for Ghana in the 1989 FIFA U-16 World Championship and went on to do nothing else in football would be notable? I would say representing a country in a senior competition (world cup, olympics, etc.) should qualify, but anything youth should not. If someone's such a big deal that they get a bunch of coverage for what they do in a junior tournie, then they'll qualify under general notability. Merely having a place on a junior international team should not make someone notable. How about:

• • • Competitors who have competed in the highest tier of a fully professional league.
    • Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports where there is no fully professional league.
    • Competitors who have represented their country in a prestigious senior international tournament. (Olympics, FIFA World Cup, etc.)

And I do think that if people want to go ahead with any of the suggested revisions, my guess is that a RfC would probably be appropriate. Switching from just a fully professional league to the highest tier of fully professional leagues means making hundreds if not thousands of articles on players now eligible for deletion. Anything that effects that many articles should get a proper hearing. Vickser (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Such a change should not affect the notability if they have received the coverage. Assuming they qualify under WP:N the fact they don't meet WP:ATHLETE should not matter. On the other hand I cut and pasted the wrong pair of suggestions, I thought I'd scrolled up to my original ones, just to clarify, I'd not be in favour of the insertion os the words "highest tier. BigHairRef | Talk 06:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, obviously, if people meet WP:N they don't need to meet WP:Athlete. However, I think there's an issue now where anyone who's played one minute in a Football League One game counts as notable since it's a fully professional league, even though there would only be passing mentions of them in third party WP:RS and they wouldn't be otherwise notable.

Maybe we need to fully discuss what direction WP:Athlete needs to be reformed in? It seems like many of us feel that WP:Athlete is too loose and includes people who wouldn't have enough reliable sources to justify them under WP:N alone, while you seem to be arguing that there are too many people who have WP:N who we're excluding. Is that a fair assessment? If so, then I'd think the solution would be tightening up WP:Athlete and encouraging reliance on WP:N whenever there's a doubt. That way people who are notable under normal terms still count, while people who don't have significant coverage in reliable third party sources but who have played a game in League One or similar still get excluded. Vickser (talk) 06:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Broadly spekaing I'm in agreement with the summation of the positions. I'd generally be more in favour of weighting it more towards WP:N than the situation currently is.

THe main issue I have is the number of people who could be notable but have been deleted in AfD as "Not meeting WP:ATHLETE" with no mention of whether or not they may also meet or fail WP:N. Generally speaking people are relying on the various WP:BIO sibcategories as alpha and omega if you forgive the theological reference, despite the fact it's been made clear in the guidelines that they are additionall to not a replacement for WP:N.

As an additional point I'm also in favour of tightening up WP:ATHLETE as there are a large number of people currently who get in on your League One example. I wouldn't be in favour of automatically removing all leagues etc beyond the top one but more in favour of putting in a number of games, such as must have played in at least 5 games in a professional league for example. Numbers would be a point which could be discussed but perhaps it would be a suggestion to tighten up the criteria without suddenly deleting probably 25-30% of the footballers articles we have? BigHairRef | Talk 09:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Question What is meant by competing in the highest tier of a fully professional league? I think it needs clarification before any changes WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Reply As I understand it, there are many sports (such as baseball in the US) where leagues are explicitly ranked by tier, and competitors aspire to move up to the next tier. In these leagues, only the highest level players would be considered automatically notable. Notability of other players would have to depend on other criteria. RayAYang (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• support - support proposal to 'tighten up WP:Athlete and encourage reliance on WP:N' , proposal which is similar to 'weight it more towards WP:N' .

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 15:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments: There are amateur sportsmen who are notable in sports which are professional. Tiger Woods (silver medal, three US Amateur wins, youngest US Amateur winner) and Sergio Garcia (British Amateur and European Amateur winner) were clearly notable before they turned professional. College football stars are very notable. Also, to talk about the "highest tier" of a professional league ignores the differences in strength of different leagues. The Football League Championship (ie the second tier in England) is stronger than all but a handful of "highest tier" leagues in other countries. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should specify that WP:ATHLETE, like most other guidelines, is meant to offer a rule of thumb. There will be exceptions, which is what the broader WP:N is for. As for "strength" of league, that is of interest to sports fans, but irrelevant to Wikipedia. Our criteria is *notability*. To illustrate: it is indubitably true that any modern military company today has more firepower than the Immortals of Cyrus the Great, or the Companions of Alexander, or, for that matter, Napoleon's Imperial Guard. However, the latter are notable, but generic modern military companies are not. RayAYang (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you misundertood the point. A professional footballer playing in a highest tier competition with little prestige and paid attendance (e.g., the top tier football league in the Faroe Islands) is less likely to be notable than a footballer in a second tier competition that is widely televised and supported (e.g., the English Championship). Hopefully, that is clear. Jogurney (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Very good point RayAYang, but unfortunately sports fanatics aren't interested is common sense, they want to come to Wikipedia and see that each and every player of their team has a pretty little permastub devoted to him. They want to turn Wikipedia into a sports sites. We must split WP:ATHLETE protected articles from Wikipedia.