Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Archive 1

message: :"Well known entertainment figures, such as TV/movie producers, directors, writers, and actors who have starring roles, or a series of minor roles, in commercially distributed work watched by a total audience of 5,000 or more".
To me it seems like this criterion would mean nearly every porn actor is automatically notable, since porn movies rarely have small audiences, and porn actors rarely act in few movies. This isn't merely an academic debate; see for example, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Faites l'Amour avec Clara Morgane (vote on a movie, not an actor) and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Monique deMoan. That doesn't seem right. Any opinions? JRM · Talk 01:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think those criteria are highly dubious.  Who arrived at a figure of 5,000?  That's setting the bar very low.  Erwin Walsh
Well, first, the 5000 people is almost a joke. My University has about 16,000 students: are we suggesting that someone is notable if 1/3 of the students at one Uni have heard of them? For pornography in particular, I would imagine that wouldn't be at all hard to achieve — for internet viral things, it's almost trivially easy. Setting any hard number is always rather pointless, and relying on it as a blanket criterion even more so. Porn stars should be judged for notability the same way (I think) bands should be: have they made an impact on their genre, the industry, or the wider media somehow? If not, then they're no more of interest than the average hard-up (excuse the pun) student who takes off his/her clothes to supplement their student loan. -Splash 18:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability in pornography 

message: Amend the section from "People Still Alive" that reads 
:Well known entertainment figures, such as TV/movie producers, directors, writers, and actors who have starring roles, or a series of minor roles, in commercially distributed work watched by a total audience of 5,000 or more
to:
:Actors or television personalities who are notable based on a single or series of appearances in well known films or television productions.  Notoriety can be determined by:
:* Features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers
:* A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
:* An independent biography
:* Name recognition
:* Commercial endorsements
Comments?
* I like the idea of getting rid of the "hard-guideline" of 5,000.  That was in the first draft and has been challenged several times.  In some genres, it's too high.  In many others, it's way too low.  On the other hand, I really liked the old wording of "starring roles or a series of minor roles".  I am uncomfortable that the proposal's "single ... appearance" will be reduced to the lowest possible interpretation and will be stretched inappropriately.  The more I think about this clause, I think that it could be tweaked to "Notable actors who have appeared in well-known films or television productions.  Notability can be determined by ..."  I think that might reduce the potential for misunderstanding without changing the core meaning.  Rossami (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendation by Erwin Walsh 

message: Since people seem to be in agreement it's too low can a vote be arranged either to remove figures period or to raise it, at least, IMHO, 50-fold? "Well known...audience of 5 000" is an oxymoron. There are editors on this site who deserve inclusion on that basis. I have a hunch this was added to lower the bar for local bands and zines as people get so into those. Marskell 10:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, given no reply I decided to follow the last editor's advice and be bold. In the place of an audience of "5 000", international, national or state/province wide exposure is expanded to be the criteria for entertainment cat's in general. Yes, it can be debated at the margins but state/province wide means at min a couple hundred thousand and I think this a fair threshold. Marskell 23:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Every person who has contributed to discussion believes that the figure is too low and/or that figures in general are not appropriate. There is a clear consensus for change on this page; however to avoid simply reverting I'll go to RfC. Marskell 13:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

text: [Check the poll] Marskell 14:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not much movement at the station here.  I'm going to make a notice at the pump. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I favor the policy change. Notability is highly subjective and any attempt to put a number on it is bound to come across counterexamples. We only have voting in the first place because notability is such a contentious criterion. I say, give a vague definition based on dictdefs and precedent and leave interpretation to the voters. Deco 01:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed "* Recording musicians who have sold more than 5,000 albums, CDs, or similar recordings (see WikiProject Music's Notability and Music Guidelines)" becuase it actually conflicted with the guideline it linked, and WP:MUSIC has very, very wide acceptance.  (Well, accept for that weird Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Conglomerate, but still.) - brenneman(t)(c) 07:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And it got reverted since I hadn't talked about it here first.  Soooo.... any objections to my removing this material in a couple of days? - brenneman(t)(c) 08:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Reigniting this, I think the 5k figure is bunk. For example: "or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more". Lots of people have written editorials or letters to the editor in major Metropolitan publications - it doesn't mean they're automatically notable. Look at New York Daily News for example - of the major columnists they've had, only a handful warrant mention in the article itself, never mind an article of their own. This "criteria" gives an automatic pass to anyone who's gotten something published in something like the Times, or even a small local newspaper, which would easily pass the 5000 mark. --Mmx1 15:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is why the notabilty "standard" is bunk. There is no possible way for us to be able to quantify someones notability. It is all subjective and relative to the person and where you are looking. A mayor of a smaller town will be very notable in that town but most likely not notable nation wide. We can strictly apply other policies and guidelines and have well formed articles. DanielZimmerman 17:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  It would seem reasonable to require that a person be a regular paid contributor rather than an occasional contributor (unless they have a story that becomes notable somehow: an award, mainstream coverage, etc.) or a regular contributor of letters. Шизомби 18:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well that is just it, someone who is a regular contributor of letters (to you) may be notable enough, but to others it might not be. How many contributions makes a person a regular contributor? Even then, regular paid contributors in a local paper may not be considered notable as compared to contributors to the Wall Street Journal. So we are back to the argument that notability is subjective. Now, if we where to say that a person is a notable newspaper columnist because they have a weekly column in a newspaper that has a readership of over "X" or has a syndicated column then we might be able to set a standard for newspaper columnists in a vacuum. However, that person is also covered by having contributions that are verifiable as well. So why did we need the notabiliy guideline to begin with? DanielZimmerman 21:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the grammar of my post was ambiguous.  I meant that a regular paid contributor would be and that a regular contributor of letters would not be.  With exceptions, of course, e.g. Wanda Tinasky. Шизомби 21:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If we're agreed... 

message: If there are (say) five mentions of someone ondifferent Wikipedia articles, does that mean that it would be a good idea to set up a page saying who they are? I don't see this as a criterion anywhere.
Mhkay 20:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such hard standard and it is by design.  It is entirely too easy for someone to "spam" Wikipedia articles with irrelevant or only trivially relevant references to a person and then try to claim that the spammed links constitute a justification for their vanity article.  We have had vandals attempt to do that to us many times before.  On the other hand, experienced editors do use the "what links here" feature when evaluating whether an article is appropriate or not.  If there are a significant number of inbound links from a variety of well-edited articles and if those links have been in their respective articles for a long time (at least months but generally longer), it adds credibility to the claim that the article is requested.  We have chosen to leave this process up to the experience and judgment of the community.  For the most part, it works well.  Unfortunately, any hard-and-fast rule would be too easy for the vandals to game.  Rossami (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia References

message: *In a few cases, heavily recruited high school athletes would merit inclusion. Certainly LeBron James would have fit before he left school.
*I think that all members of Congress and state legislators, as well as major-party candidates for those positions, should count as automatically worthy of inclusion. -- Mwalcoff 05:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two suggestions 

message: ***There is a project (WikiMe.org) which is actually based on the MediaWiki software and has the goal of collecting (auto)biographies of normal individuals.  Might we be able to point people who want to add their own or questionable biographies to that site? --Feelphree 22:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiMe 

message: There are a number of reasons that political figures who are running for international, national or statewide/provincewide offices on major tickets or with substantial following or interest should be in the criteria for inclusion.
#These people are frequently searched for - people want to know about the other candidate for office. 
#It provides a ready starting point for an article about the office holder in place when and if they win.
#While we have no obligation to fairness, wikipedia should not be structurally biased in favor of incumbents.
As such, I hope to change the criteria for inclusion to the following, barring any disagreement:
:Political figures holding, or notable candidates for international, national or statewide/provincewide office.
Thank you for your condiseration. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To make sure that I am understanding your proposal correctly, you are proposing the addition of the words "or notable candidates for" to the existing criterion.  If that is the case, I would oppose it as an unnecessary addition.  My reasoning is as follows.  If the candidate is "notable", they will in every situation I can imagine already meet one of the other inclusion criteria on the page.  On the other hand, our history shows that others will attempt to abuse that wording and again argue that merely being a candidate is sufficient because "notability" has never been successfully defined.  The criterion will be cheapened to "any candidate".  I infer from the wording of your proposal that you would disagree with that cheapening of the position and that you agree that there are non-notable candidates even for major races.  I happen to agree with that position.  Many times, a major party will throw an utterly non-notable person into a race knowing that they will lose but not wanting the other party to gain the theoretical "mandate" of running unopposed.  Those sure-losers are no more automatically deserving of an encyclopedia article than is my doctor - a fine person and a professional but not appropriate for an encyclopedia.  I would, however, be willing to reconsider my opinion if you can give some examples of "notable candidates" at that level who did or do not already meet one of the other criteria.  Thanks.  Rossami (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: David_Ashe is the reason I bring this up. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *The fact that you would say that someone is "merely" a candidate shows a bias. If we distinguish between candidates in a race then we are being biased towards certain candidates and against others. I would argue that if someone currently holds an office is notable enough to have a page on wikipedia then all people who run for that office should be notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia. Otherwise we bias ourselves in distringuishing between candidates. Other criteria can be used to maintaing the quality of the article to keep the information verifiable and making sure that there are no NPOV violations while ensuring that Wiki doesn't bias itself in its guildelines. DanielZimmerman 00:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political figures 

message: I am requesting that notability guidelines use a central naming scheme similiar to WP:MoS. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Requested moves.—jiy (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: There has been a lot of discussion of late in AFDs with regards to the notability of individual porn stars, internet porn sites and other pornography-related articles.  I would like to submit that we need a new criteria to cover this.  I ask for discussion to reach a consensus for what that criteria should be.
Main arguments for deletion:
* Pornography is not encyclopaedic.
* Porn utilises spam techniques to make themselves seem more popular than they are.
* Alexa check (on web sites) may be misleading due to spam.
* Most references that can be used can be considered to be commerical advertising.
* It is rare for porn stars to release their true details.
Main arguments for inclusion:
* Wikipedia is not G rated.
* The fact that they are so well known, through spam or not, makes them notable.
* Alexa check actually works against porn sites because they usually have 10-15 mirrors, hence alexa check should be modified to reflect the combined rank of all sites.
* References can be unreliable, but they can nonetheless help to gradually paint a picture of truth.
* Many people who are voting are relying on their own personal experience and bias, having not ever seen porn or at least not admitting to seeing it, hence not making an informed vote.
As you can see below, a large number of porn sites/porn stars/etc are being nominated for deletion, with many returning no consensus votes, and a divide in opinion as to whether they are notable or not.  It seems clear from these discussions that pornography needs its own criteria.
Some examples:
*  - no consensus
*  - no consensus
*  - delete 
*  - no consensus
*  - keep
* Stile Project (AFD Discussion) - no consensus
*  - no consensus
*  - delete
*  - keep
*  - keep
*  - keep and 1 and 2
*  - keep
*  - no consensus (also see: User:Crissycums talk, contribs)
*  - keep
*  - no consensus
*  - keep
*  - keep
*  - no consensus
* Chasey Lain (AFD Discussion) - no consensus
*  - no consensus
*  - keep
*  - keep
*  - keep
*  - no consensus
* Selena Silver (AFD Discussion) - keep
*  - keep
*  - no consensus
*  - in progress
*  - keep
* Lea De Mae (AFD Discussion) - keep
* Asuka Sakamaki (AFD Discussion) - no consensus
*  - no consensus
*  - keep
I suggest a seperate category for criteria for inclusion/deletion for this area. 
Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 07:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for Pornography 

message: I'm not sure if this is the best place to discuss this, or if it's been discussed before, so feel free to just send me off to another discussion. I was wondering what sort of information is relevant to include about individuals, where the people themselves meet notability guidelines. My concern is prompted by some of the information on Nina Hossain and Carol Goldsmith. Should we be including details such as their family life, hobbies, etc? Some of this might well be verifiable from external links, but is it encyclopedic? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - although (apart from a somewhat unencyclopaedic tone in the last para) I think that most of what is in the cited articles is defensible.  I'd go by something like Who's Who, which gives some genealogical data and a (very brief) list of hobbies.  Arguably, if we need to add trivia to pad out a stub, the person is not actually that notable after all :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What information is notable?

message: I've removed the term opinion maker from the article. This, together with opinion former, is a hateful term that implies only certain "superior" people can form, or have, opinions. As we know, everyone has an opinion about something or other. The so-called opinion makers/formers are usually just loud mouths. If, on a particular subject, someone's opinion is worth more than mine, then that person is an "expert in the field". Arcturus 20:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the whole concept of notability, as it exists here, is based on the premise that some people rise over others.  Like it or not, Bill O'Reilly (commentator) is notable, and it's not because he's an "expert", it's because he has well known opinions, and those opinions have substantial influence over others; making him an opinion maker worthy of inclusion.  Wikipedia is not fair, nor does it try to be. --Rob 20:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Like most people in the world I've never heard of Bill O'Reilly. If he's notable, for whatever reason, then clearly he should feature in Wikipedia. At issue here is the term apparently used to describe him. He is no more an opinion maker than I am, or the next man, for that matter. He might be influential, an expert in his field, he might have any number of talents that put him above the man in the street, but his ability to make or form opinions is no greater than Mr Average. To describe someone as an opinion maker implies that others don't make opinions. Arcturus 22:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand the meaning of "opinion maker" as used here.  Of course we can all make opinions for ourselves.  However, an opinion maker, is somebody who can effect ("make") opinions in *other* people who follow them.  Ordinary people do not have a signficant effect on the opinions of others beyond their immediate family and friends.  That's a huge distinction.  Like it or not, if O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh say something, it has an effect on the opinions of others.  You could do an opinion poll the day after they say something, and *some* people would express opinions they didn't hold previously.  People will listen to Rush on the radio, and promptly write their congressman about something they never heard of before Rush told them about it.  That makes Rush notable.  Rush is not notable for any expertise he has.  Unless you've got verifiable evidence of effecting the opinion of large numbers of people (or at least that large numbers of people know of, and care about your *published* opinions), you are *not* as much of an opinion maker as O'Reilly or Rush (neither am I). --Rob 08:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like you mean these people are Opinion leaders; another diabolical term, but one which at least is not made up. It seems to me that O'Reilly and Limbaugh are actually commentators. If they commentate on a whole manner of things in which they are not expert, and people take them seriously, even to the extent of changing their own views, in the UK they would probably be referred to using that well-known term describing male bovine excrement. Arcturus 18:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think people know fully well what's meant by "opinion maker".  It could read "influential opinion maker" or "opinion leader" or "well known commentator" or a bunch of other things which might not be literally identical, but all are equally useable.  If you can cite an example where "opinion maker" has led to a bio article being included who shouldn't, please give an example, to make things clear.  Otherwise, there seems to be no problem, and we can assume people know what's meant by *this* use of the term "opinion maker".   --Rob 19:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous 

message: What's the point of this section?  These are all examples of proposals that failed to gain community supprt, aren't they?  Thus why are they still on the main page?  Can I use more questions in a row? - brenneman(t)(c) 12:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'm going to delete the "Alternative tests" unless someone screams. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok... now can you tell me why? - brenneman(t)(c) 13:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "100-year test" in this section in particular seems a little flaky. It's hard enough to anticipate whether wikipedia itself will be anything more than a footnote in history in 100 years, let alone any random, presumed notable contemporary individual. A more reasonable ask would be, "would anyone be expected to give a damn about this person in five years' time, after their 15 minutes of (alleged) fame have passed?" to weed out the transitory and the faddish. That probably wouldn't work either, though...--cjllw | TALK 04:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative tests 

message: Hey look! Here's a place for some discussion to start, spun off of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel R. Anderson. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, alternatively, go to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics linked to at the top of this page. This seems rather redundant. J•A•K 00:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spoilsport. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academics 

message: Radiant! just posted a recommendation to merge all or part of three different documents into this page.  I don't have strong opinions about the latter two but I think that WP:AUTO probably ought to remain a separate page.  The topics are linked but the intended audience is slightly different.  I think there is value to being able to point a new user directly to the page on autobiographies.  However, it might be appropriate to consider this the "main" page with a synopsis of and a link to the drill-down page on autobiographies.  Rossami (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger notices 

message: Should we have a line about players in Canadian Hockey League junior hockey? Chris Purves of the Windsor Spitfires is on AfD. The nominator picked up on the fact that Purves' article says he is semi-professional, which is true. But while only semipro, the CHL has a similar relationship to ice hockey as Division I-A college football has to the NFL. For example, Sidney Crosby, this year's hot NHL rookie, played for the CHL's Rimouski Océanic last year. 
It so happens that Mr. Purves has only 1 goal this year, so perhaps he isn't going to be NHL material.
Mwalcoff 00:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just talking about players in the three "major" junior leagues that make up the CHL -- the Western, Ontario and Quebec leagues. -- Mwalcoff 01:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to argue, as I really don't care one way or the other. However, I think that the (merited, IMO) inclusion of Division I-A college football players may set a precedent for junior hockey. (We also include players in the fourth-level English soccer league, even though some CHL teams have higher attendance.) The question, to me, is whether the CHL is more similar to big-time college football or basketball or to high-school sports. Personally, I think we ought to decide on a case-by-case basis, as I think on most subjects. But because most people out there don't know what junior hockey is, we might want to consider adding a line one way or the other onto BIO. -- Mwalcoff 04:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *Well, yes, we should judge that on a case-by-case basis, and we already do. That, however, may include speedying under A7 on a case-by-case basis. Expanding BIO (or WP:DVAIN) to match with current practice is a good idea. Also, if a lot of stubs appear on junior league players, it may be worthwhile to simply Wikipedia:Merge the lot. Radiant_>|< 12:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junior hockey 

message: I disagree with this change for two reasons. The first part ("this is not policy and is contentious") and last sentence only serve to needlessly weaken the guideline, which is consensual and widely in use. And the second part ("people think notability is a good test of WP:V/NPOV/RS/NOR") is missing the point of notability, which is that not everything which can be neutrally verified to exist should be covered in an encyclopedia. Radiant_>|< 11:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *OK, first of all my intention is to strengthen the guideline by indicating that, although it is not policy, it is used as a litmus test for whether the content is likely to violate policy.  The last para says that meeting the guidelines does not mean it must be included.  It's legitimate to expand it to remind people what WP:ISNOT but I still think it adds weight to note that the reaosn we believe that only notable people should be here is, in many cases, because only notable people can be covered neutrally within policy. So whether or not the exact wording remains, I still think we should reference these policies in some form - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  AfD? 16:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: **"we believe that only notable people should be here is, in many cases, because only notable people can be covered neutrally within policy" is simply not true. If someone e.g. died in 9/11, then his name will have been in enough newspapers to get verifiable facts on him that aren't original research. Yet such people are not notable, as AFD will confirm - in fact, an entire Wiki was created to host these memorials since they are not encyclopedic. Side point, NPOV is never a reason to delete an article to begin with, other than forks. Radiant_>|< 16:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underlying policy? 

message: Has there been discussion about whether or not being named in a documentary (such as something on National Geographic), is qualification for notability?  There is currently a heated discussion at Talk:Aladin (magician)#RfC about whether such a thing can be verification of notability, especially when included with other print sources.  Is there consensus on this?  Elonka 08:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearance in a television documentary 

message: NO: I don't agree with all the mergers. I think vanity page should remain seperate. The others I am indiferent. --CyclePat 19:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: I'm wondering what, exactly, the point of this guideline page is.
The page itself says it is not an exclusive list of what types of people can have articles on Wikipedia. Specifically, it says:
:Biographies on the following people may be included in Wikipedia. This list is not all-inclusive. There are numerous biographies on Wikipedia on people who do not fall under any of these categories, but there is no intention to delete them all.
This indicates to me that when people list an article on WP:AFD because it "fails WP:BIO," they are misunderstanding the point of this page.
The logical assumption, then, is that if WP:BIO isn't an exclusionary list, it must be an inclusionary list. But User:Uncle G made the following comment on Wikipedia talk: Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates:
:We also need to clarify that the point of WP:BIO is not to automatically include classes of people. "All X are notable" is simply a formula that doesn't work, whatever the "X", be it "real places", "businesses", "web sites", "candidates for office", or one of the many others. It results in the creation of a directory of "X", not an encyclopaedia.
So then I have to ask: If WP:BIO is not a list of people who should automatically be included, and it is not a list in which those not on it should automatically be excluded, what exactly is the point of the page?
I think the root problem here is that we have a guideline on who is "notable" but no official policy on what notability is or what role it plays in determining what articles go on Wikipedia. We have an "essay" on notability, but that's it. -- Mwalcoff 02:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The point of WP:BIO 

message: Over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Bell, I got into a discussion with User:Doug Bell, who is subject of the article.  I'm not sure what the outcome of the AfD will be, but basically Bell's possible claims to notability include:
# He wrote one programming book;
# He had a large role (lead developer/manager/etc) in developing several popular video games.
The first thing is well discussed in this guideline.  The latter is something I'm not quite sure how to weigh.  Bell commented:
:Comment. The book has little to do with my notoriety—base your vote on the games where I was the principle developer. Doug Bell talk•contrib 23:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference, to my mind (and probably in the mind of the writers of WP:BIO), is that when you read a book you are prominently and conscpicuously presented with the author's name.  Book in hand, it's logical to wonder "who is this author?" When you play a video game, you generally do not see the names of creators; I guess some have some "credits key-combo" to reveal some screen of this information, and maybe it's in small print in the manual.  A million-selling video game deserves its own article, but its creators are semi-anonymous (though I suppose there are special industry forums where game developers are discussed, given awards, etc).  Likewise, my "Black-and-Decker 8" Flat-Head Screwdriver" probably sold 50 million units, and somebody designed it (there's probably a lot that goes into choosing and testing materials and processes, quite likely patents involved).  But this person who developed my screwdriver doesn't get an article on that basis (though s/he may well get industry-specific awards, reputation, etc). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't want to be drawn into responding on this page as I don't think my participation here is appropriate and in my opinion I've already been drawn into crossing a line I'd rather not have, so I intend to make this my last addition to this page unless there is some exceedingly good reason to do otherwise.  I will only mention that the computer game industry is much more like the movie industry than the tool industry, and similar to the movie industry some people are interested in who makes the movies and some people just watch the movies. (For that matter, some people care who wrote the book and some people just read the books.) Lulu, if you want to discuss any of these issues with me further, please use my talk page. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 01:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The analogies among industries Doug Bell makes might be roughly correct (or might not be).  I'm not part of either industry, nor part of e.g. the hand tool industry.  I do sometimes marvel at how clever some little bit of industrial design is (or at how stupidly it was done), and sort of wonder who was behind it).  But there seems to be a prominent notability distinction among where authorship is prominently assigned and where it is not.  For example, someone copy-edited, and someone else bound/printed Doug's book.  The book would not exist without those steps either; yet those people are not judged notable by WP:BIO.  I can't really say what "some people are interested in", but try to follow the guidelines in WP:BIO in determining notability. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting question. Books are rather clear because they have one (or two) obvious authors. Same goes for most songs. Films and video games, however, are generally created by large teams of people nubmering in the hundreds. This does not generally make all of those people notable. Usually, we have articles about the directors and main actors of films. For games, I'd say we get articles about the designer, lead dev, or chief programmer, but not for graphic artist #17 or beta tester #43. Radiant_>|< 12:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what about industrial designers.  Is the guy who did the materials design for my screwdriver notable (it probably is a guy, and probably is just one or a couple materials engineers)? Assuming this model is high selling and notable as an example of good design? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *Depends... does he have any kind of media presence or news articles on him? Did he invent anything or just put it together? Radiant_>|< 20:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: A principle.  Someone who developed the principle in a game is quite likely to be notable - it is something nobody had done before and makes a lasting contribution.  The principal developer of a game would be notable according to how notable the game was, perhaps.  Midgley 12:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game authorship 

message: As no one responded to my question above, I thought I should go ahead and propose a change to the wording of the page.
===Current wording===
Biographies on the following people may be included in Wikipedia. This list is not all-inclusive. There are numerous biographies on Wikipedia on people who do not fall under any of these categories, but there is no intention to delete them all.
===Proposed wording===
The following types of people are likely to merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. 
This is not intended to be an exclusionary list. Just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should be deleted. An article should never be deleted because it "fails WP:BIO" (this page).
Mwalcoff 01:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say: "never be deleted exclusively' because it fails WP:BIO".  Failing is a bit of evidence in the direction of delection, especially for people in occupations or activities that are discussed here in some general way.  For example, a bio claiming notability of a writer who sold less than 5000 books leans in the direction of delete (but is not enough to be automatic... for example, academic books with limited circulation can still be important). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point I'm trying to make is that there is no such thing as "failing WP:BIO," since this is not an exclusionary list. Instead, this page lists the kind of people likely to merit inclusion. Types of people not on the list might not be good for inclusion, since there might not be independent, verifiable information about them or widespread public interest in them. -- Mwalcoff 02:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of what the page is for (or not for) 

message: The following types of people are likely to merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. 
This is not intended to be an exclusionary list. Just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should be deleted. An article should never be deleted because it "fails WP:BIO" (this page).
Mwalcoff 01:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say: "never be deleted exclusively' because it fails WP:BIO".  Failing is a bit of evidence in the direction of delection, especially for people in occupations or activities that are discussed here in some general way.  For example, a bio claiming notability of a writer who sold less than 5000 books leans in the direction of delete (but is not enough to be automatic... for example, academic books with limited circulation can still be important). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point I'm trying to make is that there is no such thing as "failing WP:BIO," since this is not an exclusionary list. Instead, this page lists the kind of people likely to merit inclusion. Types of people not on the list might not be good for inclusion, since there might not be independent, verifiable information about them or widespread public interest in them. -- Mwalcoff 02:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed wording

message: There are a large number of people who are notable for nothing they did themselves, but are notable nonetheless Elizabeth Smart (Utah) was kidnapped, and plastered all over the news all across the United States.
The List of murdered people brings up a lot of people who have wikiarticles about them, many of whom did nothing to contribute to their field (like Jesse Dirkhising), but are still notable because of what happened to them. What did the McCaughey_septuplets do to contribute to their field? I think the policy of Notability should be updated to reflect this.
There is one phrase that somewhat discusses this:
A topic has notability if it is known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact
Can this be expounded upon in the actual text of the article, or do we want to exclude people like this? McKay 17:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultimately I think it's easier to explain it by saying we have articles on the people you cited because there was substantial (often mainstream) media coverage of them (for whatever reason).  You might say this media coverage is what makes them notable, I personally say it makes them verifiable (good sources and all).  --W.marsh 16:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and I agree with that sentiment, but alas, the current pseudo-policy is that the criteria for inclusion is whether they have made a substantial contribution to their field. I think that that policy needs updating. McKay 17:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The unintentionally notable 

message: There has been some spirited debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yassmin Alers concerning the notability of Stage Actors.  As one contributor points out, most notable stage actors probably appear in a movie or TV show now and then.  Nonetheless, some stick to the stage, but naturally stage work could earn someone notability.  To get things started, I have a proposal to offer.  I think we should set the bar pretty low for stage actors: after all, they are public figures, so any reasonably well-established stage actor should be notable.  (Unlike, say, plumbers: a plumber would have to be exceptionally notable to qualify for an encyclopedia entry.)  Here are a few criteria that might qualify someone:
# Having had several leading roles in productions of notable professional theater groups,
# Having had a leading role in a notable production of a significant show,
# Having played a minor role in the original production of a very significant show,
# Having been mentioned in independent press beyond a mere review of a show, or
# Having received a notable award or honor for stage acting.
Comments/concerns?  Mangojuice 13:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would basically agree with this.  Though, I don't see why reviews (as long as they're independent) wouldn't count as much as other press; provided they specifically address the bio-subject by name (e.g. a review of a play with substantial praise of the actor, by a well known critic).  --Rob 14:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, because mostly every play receives a review which would name at least the lead actors.  Unless we think that one leading role in a professional production is enough for notability, I think the press coverage criteria should reflect something more unusual.  Though, perhaps, a review that focuses on a particular actor may count as beyond a "mere" review.  Mangojuice 15:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to be restrictive, you can restrict what publishers/reviewers you would count; as major publications won't write a review on just any play by anybody.  Also, take a look through :Category:Stage actors.  You'll find very few citations of critical reviews.  The typical AFD'd stage actor bio, even less so.  I'm suggesting if there's been substantial coverage of a person (in or out of reviews) in independent, reliable, respect media, then that counts; if its properly cited in the article.  Making this allowance would "green light" a very small percentage of stage articles in practice (even though in theory it could be permissive).   I think WP:CORP is probably a reasonable model for this (in separating out trivial from non-trivial). --Rob 16:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this is a good idea, also. I have my doubts about your point 3, though. In what way does a minor role in a premiere convey notability when a minor role in an established production does not? AndyJones 16:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (Rob: I agree.)  Andy: Originating an important role is a claim to fame for some actors.  As always, if that's absolutely the only thing they were known for, it might be more appropriate to have that information on the page about the show.  But to clarify: when I say "minor" here, I still mean an actual part, not an understudy or non-speaking chorus member.  Mangojuice 20:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stage Actors 

message: WP:CORP, WP:WEB, and WP:MUSIC all have wording that considers entities that have been written about by multiple indpendent sources.  I propose we do something like that for people.  This avoid listing off every type of person (e.g. stage actors), business people, etc...  I suggest this wording (but, obviously welcome alternate suggestions):
:The person has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person (e.g. not by personal friends, family, or employer).  The sources must of course be reliable (exlcudes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...).  Multiple interchangeable stories for a single news event, would only count as one story, unless there was ongoing coverage of the person.
The main idea is we go based on what others have found worth writing about, and have good sources to make an article.  The vast majority of vanity bios have no independent sources, so they shouldn't be included by this.  I think this can work well, as long as we have good standards of sources.  Thoughts? --Rob 13:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does "subject of" mean here?  Would mere mention in a source dealing with a larger topic qualify?  Otherwise, you run the risk of decimating our (already thin) coverage of medieval people.  —Kirill Lokshin 17:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a mention in a source dealing with a larger topic would qualify *if* their was signficant mention of the individual.  The fact that other people are discussed by a source, shouldn't be held against them.  Also, as mentioned below, this is an extra-criteria.  So, nobody who's qualified now, would be deleted because of this.  --Rob 21:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  This criterion would have no effect on coverage of medieval people since it is a proposal for the section on people still alive.  Biographies of long-deceased people have separate criteria (and are generally far less controversial).  Rossami (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't like this.  The "multiple, nontrivial sources" works for corporations and businesses because it makes it easy to get rid of advertising easily.  To apply this to WP:BIO would mean that otherwise notable people would be overlooked because, for instance, only one so-called "verifiable source" discusses it, and it would leave an opening for deletion wars if people create an article about a notable person, it gets deleted because of a single source, and then, as the media picks up on the story, it begins to meet the requirements (I'm thinking of the Entwhistle case in particular on this one).  WP:BIO is more than strict enough. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be an extra criteria.  Anybody who qualifies under an existing rule would still qualify.  It might avoid listing off *new* professions individually for inclusion.  But anybody qualified now, would still be qualified.  --Rob 21:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but even if that ended up being true, good luck convincing those who don't pay attention to the discussion.  Regardless, I'm not so much worried about existing articles as much as future ones. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've probably explained this badly.  My propsoal was to take the text in italics above, and add it to list of criteria.  WP:BIO clearly says that somebody has to pass *one* (and only one) of the criteria to qualify.  So, I'm not sure why you'ld be worried about anybody's inclusion.  --Rob 21:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, okay, that makes more sense.  How isn't this covered by "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events," though? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it depends on who you ask.  For some, this wouldn't cover more people.  But many use the word "renown" and "notoriety" in a very restrictive since (e.g. for people known around the world).  This would favor those who are written about indepenently, but only in their field (e.g. specialized occupation), or in their region.   --Rob 13:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CORP]]-like wording 

message: What level of notability makes a physician a suitable subject of an article?  Midgley 23:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physicians (alive) 

message: This page is currently misleading - for clarity, we should re-add this:
Although this guideline is not a formal policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious), it is the opinion of many Wikipedians that these criteria are fair test of whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies). Failure to meet these criteria does not mean that a subject must not be included, meeting one or more does not mean that a subject must be included.
For great justice. 20:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what about the current page you consider to be misleading.  But your proposed paragraph looks reasonable to me.  Rossami (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People have represented this page to me as being a wikipedia policy - I think it should be pointed out at the beginning that it is not. For great justice. 00:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading

message: "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written ... in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more"
That makes me 40 times more notable than needed for an article. (100,000 circ. with Brampton Bulletin, 100,000 circ. with Brampton Guardian) That's insane. There's thousands of people who'd qualify under that rule. Yet other professions require you to be a star among stars. Can we raise this minimum?  --  Zanimum 00:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We shouldn't be deleting articles, created under long-standing guidelines.  The rule should simply be left alone. -Rob 00:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Rob, the 5,000 number has been a useful and appropriate guideline. --Elonka 00:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I still personally think 5000 is too high, not too low.  --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Also agree its much too low. Especially when we compare it to our criteria for academics, where a 5000 circulation doesn't matter much at all.  JoshuaZ 15:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: See #Total audience of 5,000 or more above where this was previously discussed.  I still think that 5000 is too low in some genres and too high in others.  I would prefer to get rid of that hard guideline altogether.  Elonka says that this has been a useful guideline.  That has not been my personal experience.  More often, I've seen it used as a bludgeon during discussions.  A more deliberately vague guideline about authorship would encourage us to consider the nuances and specifics of the case rather than trying to reduce the question to simplistic rules.  Rossami (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still wonder what would hurt us if we simply placed authors under a rule of "Authors published by presses that aren't vanity presses" and columnists/reporters under some sort of indicator as to the nobility of the publication that they write for. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That's an interesting question, but I doubt that it'd qualify.  We're here as editors, not as authors. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authors notability is too low. 

message: I thought the following note was worth sharing: When I look at athletes in racing sports, or long jump, discus, shot put etc, I compare their PB - "personal best" performance to the current world record. Generally speaking, if the athlete's PB is more than 5% worse than the current world record, I am reluctant to include them on the grounds of sufficient athletic merit - generally speaking the "A-level" qualifying limit set by world sport bodies such as FINA and IAAF is around 5% slower/lower than the WR. For example in the 100m freestyle Pieter van den Hoogenband had a world record of 47.84s and the A-qualifier for the Olympics is about 50s, around 5% slower than the world record, which is the A-qualifying limit set by IOC in conjunction of FINA. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 12:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should't care much about such a statistic.   For various reasons, those who compete at the Olympics (the best, and the worst) are of substantial interest to the public (at least in their home country), and easily notable topics.  If somebody goes to represent their country at such a level, they'll be followed with interest nationally.  Whether they *deserve* that status is irrelevant.  If we used this approach to other areas of life, we might have to exclude a famous singer, who has a poor technical singing ability.    A lot of the worst Olympic athletes make for the best articles.  This is because, when a country does badly on a sport, it tends to send fewer athletes, who individually get more coverage then better athletes competing from successful countries sending large delegations every time.  If somebody's the first person to represent a country in an event, they likely get huge coverage.  Also, somebody who barely missed setting the world record, but through bad luck, never got to compete anywhere signficant, might not even merit an article.  It's very often the case, that somebody can be very good in their field, one of the very best, but still be non-notable.  The current guidelines for athletes seem to be good the way they are.  -Rob 03:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that is a measure of inclusion on grounds of sporting merit - I didn't mean for it to dictate their notability full stop - as of course they can be notable for their lack of skill/celebrity/cult status - I am not proposing that the swimmer Eric Moussambani or the singer William Hung should be deleted - they are strongly kept in my book - but I am talking about keeping on grounds of sporting merit. If they are notable for reasons other than high levels of skill, then they should be kept on that basis. If there is no other notability, apart from sporting acheivement, then I would propose a deletion. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 03:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A basic disagreement I have with your approach, is that it demands  international success.  That's far more then is required, in sports or elsewhere.  Generally, I think notability needs to be at a *national* level.  If you're a top athlete in your country, then that counts, regardless of the fact you and your country suck compared to other countries.  It may seem unfair, but if you have two athletes, equally talented,  the one who competes for a successful country is less notable, and the one who competes for a less successful country is more notable.  Coverage of Olympics, tends to be extremely nationalistic.  Those who cover the games, write about how *their* athletes do.  Even if their athletes do badly, that's who journalists and commentators find worthy of note.  Since we have to base what write, on what others write, we have little choice, but to accept what others find notable, regardless of whether its fair.  -Rob 16:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheletes in in track and field sports - PB=WR-5% calculation 

message: There seems to be some confusion over whether merely being related to a notable person makes someone more notable than if they weren't, and if that added notability factor does exist, whether that should be an accepted criteria on WP:BIO. Current afds and cfds relevant to this issue are Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_16#Frederick_A._Kerry-Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_16#Tarita_Teriipia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Travolta, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvatore Travolta, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Travolta, Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_16#Category:Famous_people.27s_relatives_who_committed_suicide. Arniep 15:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestion A relative should be notable if they are close to inheriting a hereditary peerage or throne. Otherwise, being a relative is not sufficiently notable unless they have recieved widespread press coverage which mainly focuses on the relative (this would include each of the Bush daughters and exclude all the Travolta-cruft). JoshuaZ 15:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it be correct to say though that the Bush daughters only have press coverage due to who their father is and that they haven't really done anything inherently notable themselves? Unless they do anything of note themselves (i.e. be successful in a certain field) I think they could be easily covered in a small paragraph in George W. Bush.  Arniep 17:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything can be covered in a small paragraph, that doesn't mean they should be.  I'd say if a person is notable due to relation, they're notable due to relation.  Media coverage guidelines would apply all the same, which would certainly eliminate some "travoltacruft."  --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 19:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are the media coverage guidelines located? It seems a bit strange to me that we intend to have articles on any relatives of famous people who may have been photographed by the press due to their being related to a famous person but have not done anything really notable themselves. Arniep 23:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relatives of famous people

message: I've lately been seeing more and more vanity pages which seem to survive or at least throw significant wikilawyering challenges to their deletion noms because oftentimes the criteria here is vague enough to allow for certain people who are not truly notable to assert themselves as such.
The problem, as I see it, is that you can't really have a notability criterion for people anymore than you can have one for things, ideas, etc. It's simply too broad to make definitive judgments across the spectrum. And what seems to be arising which I like and find more useful are things like WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC, which are designed specifically to deal with a particular subset of article subjects and are thus more "fine-grained" assessments.
As the WP:MUSIC criteria were written, IIRC, by the WikiProject for that category of articles (I don't know if WP:CORP was), I'd like to advocate that as a possible initiative that could be used towards the creation of more category-specific notability criteria. There are many WikiProjects which cover categories which are neither too broad nor too specific which could likely contribute in this manner. I cite the broad/specific axis because while a topic too broad will generate the same problems I'm citing with the (people) requirements, one too specific would be more likely to be overly inclusive (think fancruft).
There will of course always be subjects which do not clearly fit into these more specific assessments, which means we should not scrap what we already have. However, I don't see how bringing some of the categories of topics into a more finely-grained notability policy tailored for that type of article can possibly hurt if implemented well.
Does this seem a useful idea - encouraging some (but not all) of the WikiProjects to start developing their own notability criteria for their subjects and then bringing the proposals here for community-wide critique and adoption? Girolamo Savonarola 02:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The problem is it's all too broad; WikiProjects and finer-grained criteria... 

message: Almost ALL professors have published articles and/or books which have a circulation or print run of greater than 5,000. Yet it has been proposed that all authors with such qualifications are notable, yet not all professors are notable. This creates an internal logic problem with the guideline. I think the truth is that most professors are notable. Just because you have not heard of them, they may be very important in their fields and may have written articles read by many thousands and taught to many thousands of students. I am NOT suggesting that a magic number (ie 10,000 or 50,000) would solve this issue. Truth is, many professors are "famous" compared to the average lawyer, garbage man, or even local politician. Dlazzaro 10:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Moved your comment to the bottom of the page.) Please see Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and its dicussion page for a discussion of this partiular issue. up+land 10:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: See the related discussions #Total audience of 5,000 or more and #Authors notability is too low. above.  This problem is more wide-ranging than just academics.  I agree that a magic number will not solve the issue and continue to believe that we should remove the number altogether.  Rossami (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Internal logic problem on the Notability (people) page

message: The guidelines state Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage.  I nominated a few articles where I did not think this was meet and the individuals did not appear to do anything notable.  Some speedy deletion nominations were pulled with a comment that local politicans are normally OK.  Is this true?  If so, then the guideline needs to be changed.  If the policy is still in place, then I'll probably take the nominations to AfD.  Vegaswikian 06:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's a problem.  Holding a typical local public office (say alderman, trustee, etc...), is easily a claim of notability, which means a speedy tag is inappropriate, and such a tag should be removed by anybody who sees it.  So, if that's what happened, the person removing the tag was justified.  But, you would also be justified in nominating the article on AFD, and citing WP:BIO in you arguement.  But, I may have misunderstood you, as you seem to be using the term "nominate" to refer to speedies, instead of limiting its usage to AFDs (which is what I think of when I hear the word "nominate" around here). --Rob 06:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  You have it right.  I'll consider the articles for AfD.  Vegaswikian 19:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major local political figures 

message: I know that football is very popular and the skill involved is very high but is Southern League Division One East notable, when it is the eighth strata of football league in the United Kingdom. Even more so, are eighth-grade clubs notable? Because there are a lot of these articles lying around. I think this is very much pushing it.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I feel that we should make an exception about their notability status for football clubs (as well as for other notable sports teams). The reason? These clubs ALL belong to the English football league system, which is one of the most comprehensive systems in the world. On top of it, most of these clubs were established in the 19th century or the early 20th century. These clubs may not be fully-fledged professional teams yet, but they are certainly NOT Sunday football clubs! Moreover, the aim of Wikipedia (at least for the football section) is to have information about as many non-league clubs as possible. Isn't Wikipedia about containing comprehensive information? I believe that these clubs represent the soul of football in the world today. Also, the intention is to have articles of ALL the football clubs (up to level 21 of the English league system) listed on Wikipedia. This would then make the project comprehensive. If we only have articles for certain clubs up to a certain level, there would be a feeling of incompleteness in the football category of Wikipedia. On a personal note, it was me who started having articles about these clubs for various reasons. And I intent to create more of them in the FAR future as well (once I have the necessary information). --Siva1979Talk to me 16:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't Wikipedia about containing comprehensive information? No, not really. Comprehensive relevant information about subjects deemed notable is a more precise definition. Which is why we have notability guidelines. I don't want to answer the specifics of the question at hand, as it is well outside my sphere of expertise or interest, but as a neutral party, I think it should be stated - not all information qualifies for inclusion here, even if it is comprehensive. Girolamo Savonarola 20:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eighth division football (soccer ) clubs - are they notable??? 

message: Why the distinction between people alive and dead? If someone meets the criteria for inclusion for people alive, then dies, should they be excluded because they didn't make a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record of their field? I think that that's sily. I think that we should remove the distinction between live and dead people, and add the "dead" bullet to the list of "alive" bullets. McKay 22:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alive/dead distinction 

message: I think that we should remove the sentence that reagards sports people , or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States as there are thousands of those players outhere and I say more than a million people ever played college sports in the United States. Many of those people never went anywhere, same with minor league baseball players. I think it should be rewitten to only include people who played in the highest level of professianal sports, and just not only one career game nither. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to restore the phrase pending further discussion here. I agree that most college athletes don't merit an article, but many do. Certainly people like Reggie Bush and Vince Young deserved articles while they were playing last year. The problem is that the rules for this project are unclear. If every type of person listed on the page is OK for an article, college athletes should not be listed. On the other hand, if the page is meant to list the only types of people who can have an article, the words should be restored. -- Mwalcoff 01:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, first off, anyone who's playing a sport professionally shouldn't have an issue having an article here.  The problem is that I think you're looking at "mainly ametuer" incorrectly, as I read that as sports without a viable professional league: track, etc.  Most college baseball/football/basketball players wouldn't apply to that, as it isn't the highest reasonable level available. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the wording was fine.  I think, it was intended to handle the rather uniquely(?) American situation, where certain top level college sports, are actually covered regularly in mainstream national media (not just in the sports section, or sport channel), and are broadcast well beyond local TV.  That's very different, than many places, where college sports are attended almost exclusively by family and friends.   Even in basketball and football (despite existence of professional leagues), the members of the top college teams, likely warrant inclusion, due to so many people following them.  I'm in Canada, and here, a professional football player seems to get less coverage then a college player in the US.  I don't think we should focus excessively on "professional vs. amateur".  If that was what was really important, we'ld exclude most Olympic amateur wrestlers, and include most local pro-wrestlers.  I'm not sure of a great rule.  One approach of judging a contemporary sports leagues (and therefore its members/athletes) as notable, would be to ask whether the season final game(s) are broadcast nationally, with significant viewership.  Basically, we should want people known outside their local community, regardless of whether they're making any money at it.  --Rob 04:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to start with the statement that I don't even agree that all professional athletes automatically deserve an article in Wikipedia.  Many do but most are undistinguished athletes - not qualitatively different from an average engineer or doctor.  Competent enough in their chosen profession to have been selected in a competitive field but not particularly noteworthy in the grand scheme.  Notable college athletes are even rarer.  Certainly there are some exceptions such as the ones mentioned by Mwalcoff, but those are exceptional individuals - people for whom exceptions are appropriate.Rob's approach bears some thought.  At first glance, I am uncomfortable with it.  He makes a leap that because the team is notable and is widely watched, that we should be able to assume that the individual team members are notable and well-known.  That is not my personal experience.  Many college games get high attendance/broadcast ratings because of alumni loyalty - people watching to root for the team, not the individuals.  Certainly, some alumni will be emotionally vested enough to learn the current players names but I don't know that we have enough evidence to conclude that team membership is sufficient.  Rossami (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports People 

message: There is an inconsistency within the project page. On the one hand, it says, "Just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." On the other hand, the last section reads, "If there is a claim, but you feel it doesn't meet the requirements here, you may wish to explain your position to the user, before nominating it for deletion, in case they may be able to improve it (or they may need to add verification for the claim)." That sentence seems to indicate that an article that does not meet the WP:BIO "test" should be deleted. 
We need to make clear which of the following, if either, is true:
#The only kind of biographical article permitted is a type listed on WP:BIO. Any biographical article that does not meet the standards of WP:BIO should be deleted as non-notable.
#No article that falls under WP:BIO should be deleted on grounds of notability, but an article subject need not meet fall under one of the WP:BIO categories to be notable.
If number 1 is true, we should delete the first sentence I mentioned. If number 2 is true, any talk of a WP:BIO "test" is out of place.
If neither is true, we need to better spell out what, exactly, WP:BIO is for. -- Mwalcoff 01:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the wording should probably be that WP:BIO is just a "strong default" position.  People should see what BIO says, and those who wish to deviate from it (in either direction), must give a good reason why the article is special.  Also, we should always say policies, like WP:V, supercede this guideline.  --Rob 04:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would appreciate if someone, somewhere would make that clear. Thanks -- Mwalcoff 01:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency 

message: What is a "notable person". An author can sell 5,000 books and is considered "notable" (even though that is a MINOR percentage of the worlds population. However, a person who gets 5,000 votes in an election is not considered to be notable. Notability, ultimately, comes down to a persons POV. If information added to a wikipedia article should come from a NPOV then information removed from a wikipedia article should be removed using a NPOV. Even if a consensus is reached, it is still just the opinion of a majority that a person is not "notable enough" to qualify for wikipedia. 
I would suggest that we seriously consider removing notability as a criteria and rely on other Wikipedia suggestions and rules in revising, editing, and removing articles from Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 06:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you fully on this DanielZimmerman. Notability is a very, very, subjective critirea to use. --Siva1979Talk to me 08:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hope that we can get a discussion of this. Do you think that we could place a POV tag on this criteria because the subjectivity of notability establishes a criteria merely based on someones POV? DanielZimmerman 16:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep - it's POV rulecruft, and needs to go. Verifiabilty (once we read it) sets a high standard for inclusion, since only reputable sources can be used as verification. It also removes the 'What I Like' criteria problem that plagues notablity. For great justice. 19:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No.  You can argue to put a  tag on it but  is for badly written articles.  The POV tag has no applicability because this is not in the article-space.  But before you are bold and tag the page, you should make a much stronger case here on the talk page.  Many people do consider this an accepted and useful standard for Wikipedia.  Rossami (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I will add disputed policy (while noting that, while this is disputed, it is not policy). It is POV because it affects the article-space. A guideline that affects content in a way that advances a particular editorial POV is POV. Just has what information goes into an article is subject to NPOV, so is the decision on which articles to include. One should not exclude articles for arbitrary reasons that stem from what one thinks is interesting or important. Verifiability and Reliable Sources will deal with all of the extreme cases that don't make sense in an encyclopedia. For great justice. 22:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd definately agree with you that they are problematic, and that they must be verifiable with good quality independent information. Of interest to many people? I don't know about that - I would think that anything that was verifiable with good independent information is pretty much going to be of interest to a good many people. The problem comes when you start removing things simply because they are only of interest to a few people - let's start with computational mathematics! For great justice. 23:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To add on to that, something that is "interesting" to someone might not determine whether or not that person would need to find the information somewhere. A person might not find politics interesting but may be required to do research on that particular subject. And if an article is deemed to be too small, there is always WP:STUB DanielZimmerman 00:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subjectivity of notability.  

message: Seems to me that the removal of a dispute should be something that is not done alone. There are more than "one or two" people who dispute the need for notability in all forms. Just because something has been around for a long time is not a justification to continue keeping it around. Notability is treated with a sense of elitism that should not be used when forming a resource such as this. Notability is highly subjective and purely a matter of POV. If articles are supposed to follow the NPOV policy then shouldnt the decisions about what articles belong here also be done with a NPOV? Is every Congressman notable? In their distict.. yes. Nationwide? Depends. Is the Sherrif of my parish (county) police department notable within this area? Very. Is he notable to someone in Maine? Probably not. Someone in England? Absolutely not. But yet he still has a wikipedia article because there is verifiable information out there that can be presented with a NPOV that gives a reader an informative article. What we seek out of wikipedia can be accomplished without notability "standards", especially because there are no standards to use to determine notability. DanielZimmerman 19:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * "Notable from the point of view of an international open source encyclopedia" to me is flawed in two ways. A) It is, by definition, POV. B) I don't know how many people who supports notability actually accepts the idea that someone should be notable from an international standpoint. If you cant find reliable, verifiable sources on a specific article then it should not be an article. That is already covered in WP:V, no need for a notability guideline to protect that concern. You also are concerned with keeping an article up to date, fact based, and vadalism free. Well, under wikipedia guidelines you are supposed to consider that everyone comes here with good intentions. Notability guidelines wont protect against the creation of articles that are not up to date, not fact based, and not vandalism. Those articles will only be caught by people that come across them. There are already policies about posting verifiable information and not posting vandalism. So again, you dont need the notability standard to deal with it. And if someone is creating an article we just have to hope that they keep it up to date. So far, all I have seen is that notability is a guideline that is redundant, subjective, and POV. I believe that there are enough people who agree with these points which makes this dispute a valid one.  DanielZimmerman 03:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - it is ridiculous to claim that notability has any role in a 'neutral' encyclopedia. It must go. For great justice. 09:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questioning the removal of the disputed policy tag.