Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 4

message: Some one says:
<P>
* Autobiography -- Has this been written by the subject or someone closely involved with the subject? 
* Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism? 
* Check your fiction -- advice for creating biographies of fictional characters. 
* Notability (pornographic actors) -- Proposed specific criteria for adult movie performers. 
* See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) and the "Wikipedia is not a biographical dictionary" section of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
My comments are:
<P>
1. An autobiography can only be written by its subject. "Closeness" is not necessarily a valuable quality in the author of a biography.<P>
2. ”Google notability test” will exclude many important or interesting historical persons.<P>
3. There cannot be a biography of a fictional character. People in novels and plays do not live.<P>
4. Porn stars can only be of limited cultural interest – globally.<P>
5. There is no section called "Wikipedia is not a biographical dictionary"  in Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.<P>
6. “Notability” is, in my view, related to the probable usefulness on such notes for future biographers and editors of diaries, memoirs and historical correspondence. Without going to Sternian extremes, there are many people who are not in DNB or Who's Who who merit inclusion in WP – because someone in the future will be racking their brains on where to look for reliable info on them (e.g. Horace Pym).<P>
I would also like someone in the Biography Project to make the instructions on using the PersonalData Template
Vernon White 20:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A biographical dictionary such as the British Dictionary of National Biography is not a dictionary. It is an encyclopaedia with articles only about people. Obviously Wikipedia is not a biographical dictionary, but equally obviously it should include biographical articles about everybody who deserves (by whatever criteria are agreed) to be included.--Runcorn 21:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No DNB is not an Encyclopedia. An encyclopedia covers all knowledge.  It _is_ a Dictionary because it calls itself a dictionary. Other similar publications are are called "Dictionaries" not "Encyclopedias".  I see someonehas changed the word used in the main article, about which I complained in my Commentary: item 1 above.
<P> 
Vernon White 20:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Commentary on “Alternative Test”

message: What career choices guarantee notability in Wikipedia?
===Automatic===
*Head of State
*Governor
*Congress person
===Maybe===
* Fortune 500 CEO
Do you know of any others?
* Automatic: Head of Government (different from head of State in most countries); Supreme Court Judge.--Runcorn 19:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends what you mean by "career choice": many more people "choose" (i.e. try) to be each of those things than make it. "Unsuccessful candidate for congress" does not guarantee notability, and there are many more of those than successfull ones. If you only include success, then there are many:
** Nobel prize winner
** Major movie actor
** Olympic athlete
... AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: According to this article anyone in professional sports is also automatic.--Invisifan 12:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanket notability for certain career categories 

message: * Fortune 500 CEO
Do you know of any others?
* Automatic: Head of Government (different from head of State in most countries); Supreme Court Judge.--Runcorn 19:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends what you mean by "career choice": many more people "choose" (i.e. try) to be each of those things than make it. "Unsuccessful candidate for congress" does not guarantee notability, and there are many more of those than successfull ones. If you only include success, then there are many:
** Nobel prize winner
** Major movie actor
** Olympic athlete
... AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: According to this article anyone in professional sports is also automatic.--Invisifan 12:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maybe

message: I reverted this Aug 5 change by Thivierr. His/her change of the language is not a clarification - it shifts the stance of the guideline dramatically in favour of inclusionists (from "may merit" to "generally merit"). The previous wording was more balanced. Such changes in a guideline should not be undertaken without substantial consensus Bwithh 05:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main purpose of my change was to reflect AFD behaviour, and be consistant with other guidelines, like WP:MUSIC.  The key point was that meeting *one* item is what generally indicates qualification.  So, I put that wording back in.  Your change of "generally merit" to "may merit" seemed unecessary/redundant, but is ok with me.  I don't see it changing anything substantially.  Since your comments centered on "may merit" vs "generally merit", I'm assuming that's the only part of my change you had issue with.  --Rob 06:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of Aug 5 major change 

message: I just relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Hewson after there not being too much discussion. It wasn't at all clear to me whether this person meets WP:BIO, specifically the (currently fifth) bullet point about sportspeople.  In particular, I wasn't sure of what the wording was intended to imply... is it the consensus that youth players contracted to an important team are notable enough for stubs even if they are years away from actually playing for the team? --- Deville (Talk) 23:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of sportspeople 

message: Hi, I'm wondering if the editors of this page consider this to be a full guideline. The tag at the top is different from more accepted guidelines, and that makes me wonder. One thing i'm proposing is that you use the Template:guideline, rather than the tag you have now. Please discuss it here (i'll be posting this message on other pages that have this same tag). Thanks! Fresheneesz 20:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this a guideline?

message: I just think that the entry given for athletes is far too vague and doesn't have good control over itself. It screams of a deal of quantity over quality, which is not what WP needs. One example I have came across is Charlie Fitzberger a baseball player from the 1920s who pinch hit on 7 at bats his whole career and got 2 singles. The author of this article has written dozens of articles of baseball players of similar experience and it should be controlled. In all honesty, there is no reason for Charlie Fitzberger to have an article here. I would like to know what other people thing about this. And think about if there were no guidelines listed like this and don't say "there is a guideline, I can't do anything, so it stays." Cause something must be done or this site will become a virtual trash heap. Renosecond 03:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been discussed before, and there's no real consensus for a change on it.  The current wording is that professioanl athletes get articles, and I haven't really seen a reason to endorse changing it as of yet. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just retarded, but if idiots want to fill wikipedia up with crap instead of being possibly legitimate, go ahead. Renosecond 16:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *I think your best bet would be to pick several of the (in your opinion) worst articles on least-notable athletes, and nominate them for deletion. See how people react to that, and if there's some kind of consensus on it. If such articles tend to end up deleted, you'd have reasonable grounds to expand this guideline to cover that. >Radiant< 13:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *No he wouldn't? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: **Huh? That's precisely why he could. This page represents the consensus of when it was written. If it turns out that consensus has changed to say that certain athletes are or are not notable, we amend the guideline to match current consensus. >Radiant< 13:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Right, if the consensus changes, we can change the guideline to match it.  AfD "precedents" do not do that, but instead discussion about the actual guideline does. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Athlete notability 

message: Right now, there is no criteria to allow inclusion of a participant of an activity that is itself notable, but is not necessarily an athletic sport. For example, no one would argue that an article about a chess grandmaster is not suitable for inclusion, but it would be difficult to argue it's inclusion based on bullet point #5. The subject would fail any of the other criteria tests under the current policy. I think we need to include a critera for people who acheive a certain level in an activity that in itself is notable enough for an article. This might include the already mentioned chess grandmasters, backgammon champions, CCG world champions, etc. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it'd be simple enough to make a slight change of "established and organized competitions" with possible a description of what qualifies that.  FrozenPurpleCube 20:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participants in notable activities 

message: What's the rule of thumb for UK councillors? JASpencer 17:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abid Chohan I'm going to add on to "major local politicians", "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." JASpencer 21:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Councillors 

message: Hi.
Why does someone need "sufficient external notice" to be able to have an article written from a neutral point of view? Is it because that way there are sufficient external, reliable, verifiable sources (see WP:RS & WP:V) to get the information from? In that case then wouldn't someone be "notable" enough if such sources existed (ie. the "notability" comes from something a little more rigorous than simply a "quantity of people" or whatever)? 70.101.147.60 07:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds ridiculous and idiosyncratic, yes. How does that follow from NPOV, V and NOR? I submit that it does not, and in fact causes problems for at least NPOV and NOR - David Gerard 16:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral point of view? 

message: Sooo...  over at the <Redacted> we're having a debate about how to score a model appearing on a magazine cover when they are not named on the cover and have no coverage within.  Here's the cover:  .  As I mentioned, there's no further mention, article or name, just the cover.  Does that count as a feature? - Richfife 16:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magazine cover (and nothing else) 

message: I've just done a largish-looking clean up and re-order of the guideline page.  
*Only one section was removed, the "tests for inclusion that have been proposed (but haven't necessarily received consensus support)."  Most items were condensed, and a lot of prose taken from around the "See also" entries.
* Some material added to the lead sections, based on other guidelines.
brenneman {L} 11:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medium sized clean-up 

message: I'm going to do some smaller changes now, please revert any anyone disagrees with. - brenneman {L} 11:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Follow ons 

message: I noticed the deletion nomination regarding Cao Boi, and was surprised to see that reality show contestants aren't named on the page.  Should they be?
As an example, Cao Boi is probably pushing the bottom of the test.  He's been on one reality show, Survivor: Cook Islands, but he is mentioned in multiple news articles (all of which are about him being on Survivor, of course).  Does he qualify under WP:BIO?  Thanks, TheronJ 20:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The inclusionist in me says if the show's popular enough that multiple media coverage of each contestant exists, it warrants an article (this would probably work for Survivor, Big Brother, (insert country here) Idol, etc). The mergist in me says failing that, it should get a merge to the article about the show or season, with enough biographical info added to make the redirection worth the while. Kirjtc2 22:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say they're already covered under "Notable actors and television personalities". So notability would depend on newspaper coverage, name recognition, etc.--60.224.207.18 15:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If they're on a reality show as one of the "final" people (I.E., make a tribe in Survivor, get out of the group of X00 in Hollywood on American Idol), they should be included, period.  We would never consider not including an actor from a television show, why is this different?  --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reality show participants? 

message: Aaron Brenneman made numerous changes, including this one.  Notice, how the grouping changes the meaning substantially.  Before "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published..." is a general rule, that can apply to anybody, regardless of career.  Brenneman's changes, imply its relevant only for "others".  Ideally, we should be moving in the direction of generalizing rules, not grouping by profession.  Also, what grouping is done, makes little sense.   Why group politiicans and sportspeople?  Why does one have to be an artist, to have the rule on publishing (e.g.a politicitian writes a political book, and is not an  artist)?  Also note, while there's only two "professional groups" (under the changed version), I wanted to remove it, so we don't encourage new "professional group" sections.  I like the idea of trying to encourage generic rules that can apply to anybody/anything, based on common prinicipals. --Rob 15:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aaron Brenneman changes 

message: I moved around the stuff in the intro, cuz it didn't really flow at all.  Its better now but it'll need more cleanup by someone else.  JeffBurdges 16:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro 

message: Please keep separate, there are special problems involvedDGG 19:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  academics 

message: The issue of the notability of contemporary religious figures has come up from time to time. I suggest a specific standard, as the general standard doesn't always provide a good analogy and has sometimes resulted in confusion. As a starting proposal, subject to improvement, I suggest the following:
:Leaders of major religious denominations or movements, or important figures in the history of religion as evidenced by independent biographies. Local leadership or occassional media mention is not by itself sufficient for inclusion. 
Best, --Shirahadasha 02:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed standard for religious figures 

message: Since it's coming up more and more, I propose the following addition:
:Television personalities who appear as featured contestants on a reality television show, broadcasted on a major network, cable, or satellite channel.
We're fooling ourselves if we don't think reality contestants meet the basic verifability standard: they're written about in season previews, often get local writeups.  And the notability of these people are not in question - such shows are watched by hundreds of thousands, if not outright millions, of people weekly, and have a very strong dedicated viewer base.  The line should stand at where they're featured contestants, as opposed to the one-off types (such as, for examples, the strong majority of American Idol types who are only on to be made fun of because of their horrid singing, or the ones that don't make the final 16 or whatever the final featured number is).
Thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's too much specific, you know. What if some TV producer realizes a reality show with 500 contestants? Are all 500 notable to stay on Wikipedia? For these cases, I guess notability comes out only if not limited on a single TV appearance. --Angelo 01:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a rather unsupported "what if," is it not?  If a reality show comes around with 500 "finalists" that are as well nkown as the ones with 6, 12, 16 now, then yes, they should be included. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sporting events are reality shows with 100's of contestants. There are 100s of "finalists" in the play-offs... It's already here.--Invisifan 11:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Reality show contestants aren't notable. What's also required is non-trivial third party works. Coverage that these contestants receive in the teeny-bopper magazines and reality television fan show sites is trivial. -- Mikeblas 02:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything, based on clear and ample precedent, should be modified to explicitly exclude people whose only claim to fame is being a non-winning reality game contestant, per Kari Schmidt AfD, Bre Scullark AfD, Catie Anderson AfD, Sarah Dankleman AfD, Tiffany Richardson AfD, Jayla Rubinelli AfD, Brooke Staricha AfD, and many more.  I won't speculate on why Jeff might have neglected to mention these many precedents, but I will observe that he was usually the lone voice arguing for keep.  I will also note that these are all from a show where the participants might be considered to be slightly above-average in notability, as they were all, well, hot young models.  And yet, the clear (often overwhelming) community concensus was delete or merge in all cases (every case I've seen so far).  -- Xtifr tälk 09:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At wikipedia, there are no binding decisions.  Thus, the so-called "precedents" don't actually exist. Because WP:BIO was misapplied then is not a reason to misapply it in the future. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely correct that preceding AfD's discussions and closures are not binding in and of themselves, but a clear pattern of similar decisions can be illustrative of community consensus, or at the very least a lack of consensus for the opposing view. -- Satori Son 17:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or of a massive misunderstanding combined with an admittedly muddy WP:BIO regarding the subject. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Your own questions are generalziations, aren't they? I think it's common sense that we won't write up everyone who's been on The People's Court and Judge Joe Brown. We also won't delete someone who's been on Survivor just because they've been on the show. If they've also cured cancer, I'd be thrilled to see an article about them! User:Badlydrawnjeff has repeatedly asserted that reality show contestants are notable enough for inclusion only because of their appearances on the show. And I hope we all think that's very surely false. -- Mikeblas 19:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Is it a reality show? --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AfDs have usually resulted in keping only the winners and top runners up, certainly not the ones eliminated in the first week. Others who successfully converted their moment in the spotlight into an acting career, who wrote a successful book, or otherwise became notable  would certainly qualify as well. Edison 14:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reality Shows Redux 

message: Is every individual detained at Guantanamo bay automatically notable because of his detention?  See :Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees.  Some may be but I do not think all are --- Skapur 05:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As no one has responded, I assume they are not notable automatically.  If I do not see any more discussion, I will change the main page to state this --- Skapur 05:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some detainees are notable.  For example, if they are released and then are found to be involved in terrorism, that's interesting.  Or, if they are scheduled for release, but not told, and they commit suicide, that is also interesting.  Why write about Guantanamo at all if not to tell what goes on there?Mauralarkins 19:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They may be, but being one of them doesn't itself confer notability. If one of them is somebody about whom in particular others are likely to seek information, he's notable for that reason. If there isn't any reason anyone would be likely to seek information on that specific person, he isn't. In contrast, even if someone doing a story on the Guantanamo prisoners as a group might want to compile info on the individual stories of a few of them, the selection of the few may be based on a random selection or a list that someone happens to give them, but not because of any notability of the ones who are chosen.  On another note, the American Association of Retired Persons is notable. Does that confer notability on each of the millions of members of AARP? —Largo Plazo 20:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The key would be having enough independent reliable and verifiable coverage of the individual prosoner to allow an article to be written. Being one name in a list of 400 names clearly does not furnish enough material for an individual article, even though the prisoners are collectively notable and much written and litigated about. Edison 14:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability of Guantanamo Bay detainees

message: What are people's thoughts about notability of these people based on rank alone? My feeling is that any officer who has reached the rank of Major-General or Rear-Admiral or equivalent in the armed forces is worthy of an article. They are at least as notable as minor members of legislatures, who are all entitled to an article under WP:BIO. Police officers are a little more complex, as their ranks and status vary from place to place, but my feeling is that any chief of police of a force at least several hundred strong is worthy of an article, as are the deputy and assistant chiefs of forces over a thousand strong. And obviously more junior officers in both armed forces and police may be notable for other reasons. Thoughts? -- Necrothesp 18:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the relevance of that to Wikipedia. We're not just here to write articles about people who are covered by the media, particularly since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not just a dictionary of current biography. We're here to write about people who are or were notable in their field, and generals and admirals are usually by definition notable in their fields or they wouldn't have reached that rank (more so today possibly than in the past, when rank could go to people for time served or favour of those in power, but still generally true). And I disagree with this attitude, which I've seen before, that people who are elected are more notable than people who are appointed. It's not true at all. In fact the opposite is often true - people who have climbed the ladder through hard work are frequently more notable than those who have climbed it through charisma, money, luck and/or dodgy dealing. In addition, most generals and admirals are notable simply for their rank. If Field Marshal Montgomery hadn't reached general officer rank and been given command of the Eighth Army because of that rank, would he have been "notable" in the sense of having done something out of the ordinary? No, of course not. He didn't just appear out of nowhere and win the Battle of El Alamein - he reached a rank that gave him command. -- Necrothesp 17:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The MILHIST view on the topic might also be of interest here. :-) Kirill Lokshin 18:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, but it isn't really very specific. I would have thought anyone except the most rabid deletionist would consider that army commanders and chiefs of the general staff etc would be notable. It's the people below that status, but still of general, flag or air rank, that I'm more interested in. -- Necrothesp 19:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a general rule, combat commanders have a lower threshhold than peacetime commanders ("significant part of an army" generally covers everything down to the division level for modern armies); aside from that, having "non-trivial mention in one or more published secondary works" seems to have been a workable threshhold in practice.  The easy availability of official bios for current officers may be what's causing the problem here; equivalent people from a century ago would have passed entirely unnoticed by outside sources. Kirill Lokshin 19:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Flag officers almost by definition are notable.  Come one guys, there are ballplayers who played one professional game that have an article! A person who commands hundreds, if not thousands of soldiers (Even in peacetime) definitely has an influence on human history and so not only deserves an article, but an article about such a person is a basic requirement for any comprehensive encylopedia!  --- Skapur 05:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's certainly my opinion. -- Necrothesp 17:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My point is that we don't just write about people we think deserve articles. We write about people who already have articles written about them from other sources. Politicians usually do. Peacetime military generals often don't. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They do often have Obituaries in reputable sources. British Military and Police Officers who have died and received Obituaries in The Times, The Daily Telegraph,The Independent,The Guardian and The Financial Times emerge from the shadows and are notably celebrated. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography consolidates this temporary celebration into a more permanent form. Who's Who may list these people whilst they are living but its criteria for selection may not be in line with WP sense of "notability". Are there not similar reliable sources in other countries?=== Vernon White (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  People who earn non-trivial obituaries in multiple newspapers of that stature meet WP:BIO per the fact they have them, whether or not they have peacetime general or police chief ranks. What I am strongly against is adding "peace time general" as a criteria meeting WP:BIO, then having a dozen stub articles crop up for people who don't have such obituaries. Or more than a dozen - a hundred! How many generals are there in the armies of Latin America, or Africa, or the former Soviet Union? "Sixteen soldiers commanded by nine generals" has described the armed forces of more than one small country. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  How about any flag officer who has commanded at least a thousand soldiers? --- Skapur 02:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only with articles otherwise meeting WP:BIO. A peacetime general is merely an administrator of a large group of people, and not even the ultimate person in charge. It's the actions those people take that make them, and their commander, notable. If the actions they took under his command were mainly to train and exercise, well, that's not too interesting. You'll notice I disagree with your comments on Montgomery, someone who commands an army into battle without the formal rank can be even more notable. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about a ballplayer who plays one professional game and is eligible for an article?  He has much less impact than a general commanding a thousand troops in peace time even though you may not know about it.  A politician who gets elected to a small city council is MUCH less notable as they are merely administrators of at most a few dozen city employees and have much smaller budgets.  A military general even in peace time has enormous impact which may not be obviously visible.  He easily has more legislative power over his troops than a city councilman and controls all the municipal functions up to and including punishment for crimes in his command area.  In the United States, a general can send a soldier under his command to a stockade for a month without any appeal as administrative discipline for minor offenses, I do not think a city councilman has any where close to that much power.  I do agree that the source of information has to be reputable.  --- Skapur 03:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The "automatic" notability of military personnel has been previously discussed.  The consensus at that time was split on the usefulness of rank alone as an indicator of appropriateness for an encyclopedia article.  The general recommendation was that we should focus more on the person's accomplishments and whether we have reliable, independent sources on which to base the biography than on mere attainment of rank.   To Skapur's suggestion, I can personally think of a fair number of peacetime officers that I served under who commanded more than 1000 soldiers.  While most of them were professional and quite good at their jobs, none of them were any more noteworthy than my plumber (who is also a professional and quite good at his job).   The comparison to other professions is, unfortunately, irrelevant.  The issue is not some measure of worth to society or theoretical power - it's sourcability.  The media cover ballplayers and politicians more than they cover the military these days.  Personally, I do not think that our culture of celebrity is healthy but it is what it is and it shapes what we can find to use as sources for encyclopedia articles.  Rossami (talk) 06:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Military and police officers

message: The criteria is, "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." Shouldn't it be multiple non-trivial independent reviews? As it's written, an author whose book received six reviews by different people on amazon.com would qualify. --Charlene 21:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Writers and reviews

message: Thread moved to Wikipedia talk:Notability. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noticeability instead 

message: Notalbe excludes things that are very bad.  For example, people don't say "a notable terrorist". In that sense, the policy contradicts with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Maybe Worthiness to write, Significance, Importance etc. should be used to replace notable or notability. Miaers 16:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment is a continuation of the thread at Wikipedia talk:Notability.  Please make further comments about this there and not here, so as to not splinter the thread into multiple places. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: where? --- Skapur 17:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia talk:Notability#Noticeability instead. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there a notable terrorist?

message: Is there a good guide to determining the notability of mayors of cities? For example, I think an easy argument can be made that mayors of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania are notable because it's a major city of historical significance and a population of >300K. In that case, it would be reasonable to have succession boxes and we'd want all mayors. But, how about Compton, California. It's mostly known as a suburb of Los Angeles and a population of <100K. (Though it does have its own rich history, I'm not disparaging that.) In that case, perhaps we have only the independently notable mayors. C. A. Dickison, whose only notability would be as mayor, doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO, but Douglas Dollarhide would be as the first African American mayor. 
I propose amending the text such that: (under the first stanza on politicians)
:Mayors (or similarly elected sole city leader) of cities and towns with populations greater than 100K.
Thoughts? This would essentially make all of the mayors of the top 200 US cities notable, though a different bar could be set. Perhaps the bar should be that "top 200", instead. JRP 08:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any mayor of a major city that size should pass 'The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person' easily enough via the medium of local press. Not sure we need an explicit guideline. Catchpole 08:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that they should pass, but not necessarily that they do. What I'm looking for here is a completeness rule, think of it as much of a guide for making lists as anything else. It is sensible to make a list of list of wikilinks of all mayors of "Pittsburgh", for example, and expect that all of the articles should exist. (There are probably relatively uninteresting mayors in there, or far enough back that the interesting bits are hard to immediately find.) In contrast, I would suggest that such a list would not be useful for Compton (though it could be provided, just not linked or "requested articled"). JRP 14:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bloody hell, the current mayor of Pittsburgh is younger than I am. If you force me to stick a finger in the air I'd say cities with a population over 200K. The top 200 guideline wouldn't be much use for cities outside the USA. Catchpole 14:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would eliminate cities like Cheyenne, Wyoming, which is a state capital and has a population under 60k. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Perhaps it could be amended to population, or political or historical significance, such as state capitals. It is a fine line, which is why I think I'm trying to sketch where it is. JRP 15:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a question - do we really need a line?  Is there a problem with simple inclusion of mayors? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, mayors currently don't meet the standards of WP:BIO, unless they are separately notable. Saying all mayors sounds extremely inclusive since there are tens of thousands of unimportant mayors of small towns. I was suggesting "important and influential" cities. JRP 15:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, most, if not all, mayors actually would meet WP:BIO, as they are involved in newsworthy events and are typically the subjects of multiple, non-trivial media attention.  If we're going to draw a line, we have to figure out where based not on sources but on a worthwhile, objective-as-possible standard.  As the chances of such "unimportant mayors" being created en masse is low, I think we can get by on the current WP:BIO standard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: media attention for an city official within their own city is trivial, it's only if it is notable enough to be more widely reported that it is non-trivial media attention; and reports of electoral success/defeat in media of nearby locations is also trivial… if they don't do more than exist as far as anyone outside their own demesnes is concerned then they aren't notable.--Invisifan 16:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, that's way outside the letter or spirit of our sourcing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The point is whether verifiable sources exist.  A blanket rule based on city size will almost certainly guarantee adequate source material exists for recent mayors, but for mayors from 50 or 100 or 300 years ago this becomes less and less likely, pretty much regardless of the city's size.  -- Rick Block (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's going to be the case with any historical figure.  Sourcing issues are a given, they don't help us draw any lines. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm suggesting that including a criteria for mayors based solely on any city size does not draw a line in the right place.  Since this guideline already includes all people (which, presumably, includes mayors) who are the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works and major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage (which would seem to include mayors who aren't even people), I don't think anything further has to be said. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I trust your press coverage argument. There are many people that receive, briefly at least, national press coverage that aren't notable by WP:BIO. The point that I'm trying to get at is that one can *know* that a mayor of a large-size city is notable, without knowing anything about the person. One can create a red-link from that knowledge, confident that there could be a good argument on the other end. Compare to national politicians, ambassadors, etc. You could add a list of Mayors of Los Angeles, New York, Washington DC, or Chenne, Wyoming to a "Missing articles" subpage and have it stick. JRP 13:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think you can.  A complete list of New York's mayors will include people from the 1700s and 1800s for whom there may very well not be any source material (without an extreme amount of effort).  My point is that notability, by itself, is not sufficient.  Current notability almost always implies the existence of numerous sources.  Historic notability does not.  -- Rick Block (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mayors

message: The first bullet point currently reads:
:The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.
While I think this criteria is important, I think it should be subordinate to the criteria that follows it. Just because someone gets written about shouldn't instantly make them notable enough for an article. There were multiple non-trivial published works about Brian Peppers but according to Jimbo we don't need an article about him. —Malber (talk • contribs) 09:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the adjective "reliable" should be added after non-trivial to clarify. Not everything one reads about on the Internet is reliable. The intention is that the "non-trivial published works" meet the "reliable sources" criterion. Moreover, existence (as distinct from existence of a hoax) couldn't be reliably established per WP:BIO, and the story was highly defamatory and hence required extra scrutiny (if he was a real person) under WP:BIO as well. All seperate issues from notability. --Shirahadasha 11:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is, this criteria lowers the bar enough that anyone who gets a minor mention in any non-trivial is suitable for inclusion of a bio article. For example, if I witness a building on fire in my home town and call it in to 911, and then later I'm interviewed by the local paper that happens to have the 3rd largest circulation in the region, suddenly I could be the subject of a biographical article whether I want one or not. This criteria would enable us to bring back the Phil Sandifer article! —Malber (talk • contribs) 19:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Primary subject appears to prevent this example. In your example, the primary subject is clearly the fire, not the witness. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen AfDs where a person was interviewed or discussed in a national news magazine, but the reference was disallowed because he was not the "primary subject." If he is "a" subject of an article even though not "the" subject, that should count toward notability. Consider if there are 2 paragraphs consisting of 50 words about an inventor, CEO, minister, or software developer in a 600 words New York Times review of trends in that area. Such coverage has been disparaged as a "passing reference." It should not be disallowed as counting for notability. Edison 14:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested downgrade of first bullet point 

message: From WP:BIO: "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field."
I am interested in the views of other editors regarding the semantics and intent of this inclusion criterion.  A lot of the contentious AFD discussions focus around people and ideas from niche genres and subcultures.  Although my curiosity in this matter is in regards to an AFD for a furry fandom personality, it really applies to any field that does not receive mainstream news coverage.  The subject of this article is without question well-documented in his field; he is been a featured participant on multiple occasions at pretty much every genre convention that I can find reliable documentation for, at least one general-purpose science fiction convention, and at least one publicized genre-sponsored charity drive.  That leaves a substantial web footprint, as well as a strong record in the print-format advertising and orientation material created by those conventions.  A defensible argument could be made that such material constitutes the "enduring historical record" of the furry fandom.  The article's subject is also, as best as I can determine, completely undocumented in anything resembling a traditional media source.
As I see it, there are several editorial questions to examine:
*First and foremost, does this inclusion criterion suit the consensus intent of WP:BIO and the encyclopedia's needs as written?
*If it does,
**What is a "specific field" for the purposes of this criterion?
**What constitutes the "enduring historical record" (if any) for a "specific field" not adequately covered by traditional media sources?
Although the article at AFD now deals with a furry fandom entertainer, I feel the criterion may have wider impact.  It does not seem unreasonable to expect that there are other people, from other "fields", whose notability determination might be similarly affected.  Proponents of unconvential religious sects come to mind as a likely unrelated example.  As for a solution, I'm not certain, personally.  I think that if the criterion is to be maintained in its current wording, then the focus needs to be on determining the scope of "specific field" in order to draw some bright-line distinction, whereever that line is drawn.
Full disclosure: I've been involved in quite a few AFDs and article cleanup efforts on furry fandom material lately.  I don't identify as a fandom member (indeed, sourcing this stuff has been ... educational), but there seemed to be a lot of these articles, and they badly need the help.  In my mind, that's what being an editor is about.
--Serpent's Choice 06:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criterion discussion: "...enduring historical record ... in ... specific field" 

message: Should the sentence
:See also Wikipedia:Importance, which attempts to be a generic, all inclusive definition of criteria for inclusion.
be there, considering that that page is inactive and kept for historical interest?  Neonumbers 03:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had it in mind to raise this too, I see no reason for a link to be included. Since you posted this, someone has removed it anyway. Trebor 08:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Importance]] 

message: Please look at my User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Point system for notability and leave comments there. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point system for notability 

message: There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chase Headley (continued from DRV) as to whether professional sportspeople in minor leagues meet WP:BIO ipso fact.  A centralized discussion (here for instance) might be useful to decide what the limits, if any, should be and to clarify the wording of the guideline.  My own view is that only competitors at the highest level should be considered automatically notable and minor leaguers should have to clearly show non-trivial coverage.  Eluchil404 10:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor League Sportspeople

message: Recently the issue of notability of electronic game-players (video gamers, computer gamers) who have reached the top ranks of verifiable, competitive leagues has come into question.  I would argue that e-gaming is a sport; for example, a computer game player who has earned significant cash prizes, contracts or ranked at the top-tier of a notable computer game is at least as notable as any other notable sport.  Can we get some agreement or clarification on this subject?
Tarinth 17:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: E-Gamers

message: Would Victor Luchits be considered notable?
:* Based on how the article is currently written, no, but that doesn't mean he isn't.  If there are secondary sources that discuss either him or his inventions, then the answer would be an easy yes.  Since this article is just a stub, it's hard to say about him in particular. Tarinth 14:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Programmers 

message: I am truly disappointed. User:Pilotguy has placed a notability template on Emre Altug, a Turkish actor. I have wrote to him at least three times requesing the removing of the template and gave my reasons backed by verifiable information see Talk:Emre Altuğ#Notability I posted the same at his userpage as well. I haven't received an answer since 6th January. (and he has answered others since that time) My question is: why do admisintrators feel that if someone is not coming from an English-speaking country then cannot be notable?  Isn't that prejudice and being highly selective? Emre Altug has played main roles in many Turkish feature films, television series and has four musical albums released by major Turkish labels. he has an independent biography, and appears in major Turkish newspapers and magazines. All of the above information is referenced on the page, including his IMDb pge. He meets every single criteria listed on the policy page. So why isn't he notable? Where can I get help if I have a dispute with an admisintrator (who doesn't even care to answer)? I'd appreciate your help. --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 21:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The notability tag is simply there to demonstrate that someone isn't sure whether it meets standards.  Pilotguy is generally good about this sort of thing, so he was probably just looking for more eyes toward it.  I've removed the tag for now, but won't stop someone putting it back on, it seems to meet what we;re looking for.  Don't let a singular instance drag you down. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your help. I didn't want to remove the template so that it wouldn't be bias :) --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 21:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of people outside the English-speaking world 

message: The idea of basing notability on a Google search is deeply flawed.
Both my first and last names are unusual and the combination is almost certainly unique. Google returns over 32,000 hits for me. Yet I swear to you I am not remotely famous. Why so many hits? In my case the hits are mostly from my Usenet participation over the last 12 years. There are other reasons why a person who isn't notable might have his or her name on thousands of web pages that are indexed by Google.
Some people's names are very common. If someone tried to show that his best friend Sarah Smith was notable, he could try to support his claim with the 495,000 hits returned by Google. However, those could all be about 500 other Sarah Smiths, with none of them referring to his friend. Some of them may not even be about anyone named Sarah Smith. They could have lists of names in last-name-first order: 
Jones, Jane; Peterson, Sarah; Smith, Steven.
No Sarah Smith in that list, but Google will show a hit. Other pages will have something like:
That was the last he saw of Sarah. Smith consoled him as well as he could.
"Sarah," Smith began, "will you come over here, please?"
No Sarah Smith in those samples, but Google will return them for a search on "Sarah Smith". —Largo Plazo 05:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google test 

message: So, what about people like Jennifer here, who's circumstances of death were newsworthy, but are otherwise non-notable. Heck, Even the circumstances of this death have brought very little press, but probably enough to qualify under point one of the criteria. Should we have an article about her? --Measure 00:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jennifer Strange]] 

message: Would being the first person about whom an article was written for Wikipedia and then deleted for lack of notability suffice to confer notability on that person? —Largo Plazo 15:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, we do have an article on the person who argued vehemently that the page about somebody else should be removed at that person's request, and this article was not removed at the person's request. >Radiant< 17:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who's that? Trebor 18:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Notability Paradox 

message: Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated.
I think we can probably come up with an example that is both a little less morbid and a little more easily generalizable. Please change it if you think of it before me. --mako (talk•contribs) 05:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually the word "assassination" is reserved for the killing of people who would already be considered notable. Otherwise we just say "murder". —Largo Plazo 11:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assassinations 

message: This criterion strikes me as not specific enough: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." We wouldn't think anyone were more notable if they just wrote about themselves on their blog a lot, would we? WP:RS covers this a lot better (for instance, excluding self-published sources and sources not independent of the subject), so how about: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial works published by reliable sources"? Or some variant thereof. Recury 21:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "multiple" makes this a poor guideline in this case.  BLogs generally aren't considered "non-trivial published works" anyway, so I don't think there's a problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Non-trivial" here refers to non-trivial coverage, so if its a 10-page blog post then it is. And blogs, like any website, are published. Recury 21:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary subject of reliable sources?