Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 5

message: gramma
...this change, made in good faith, because it gives the appearance (although not the intent) of weakening the guideline.  I have kept and clarified the language that it was intended to do, but kept all the criteria on the same level as it has been historically, and continues to be cited.  LEt's discuss changes like that here in the future, please. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have adjusted... 

message: There is a history book author I would like to write an article about, but first I need to know if there are specific criteria for writer notability.  I'd like to keep my good habit of drafting articles that don't get deleted. :) Thanks in advance for any leads. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Criterion 8 would seem most relevant.  "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work."  However, any of the other criteria could apply, particularly if the author him/herself has been written up as a person.   Note that the "reviews" in the book's dustjacket almost never count as "independent reviews".  There are too many cases where those bits of fluff were solicited by the publisher.  Actual awards for the book are much more defensible.   I'd also suggest that if the author really only has one notable work so far, it's likely that the biography would be merged-and-redirected to the page about the notable book.  That's not an absolute rule but it's a very common outcome.  Hope that helps.  Rossami (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info. Much appreciated. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 03:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criteria for notability for writers?

message: I have added the disputed tag because of tendentious editing by some and because of a lack of demonstrated consensus for the changes by others.  Consensus for anything to happen at WP:N does not introduce consensus here, and it's arguable whether there's really a consensus at WP:N to begin with.  Hopefully people will actually be willing to discuss. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's great to see everyone reverting the tag explaining themselves. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll explain it.  The tag you kept adding read, "This page's designation as a policy or guideline is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page." Its designation is not disputed.  You (and apparently only you) dispute how one section is written.  Contrary to your edit summaries, nowhere do the words "as written" appear in the tag. JChap2007 02:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I planned on adding the proper tag later onbut I don't think my initial tag was wrong anyway - the version currently here lacks consensus in its form. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * Precisely.  This is exactly where that text came from: WP:NOT a directory, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source, a distillation of reliable secondary sources.  If no reliable secondary sources exist, how can we distill them? Sure we can use primary sources for colour but if there are no reliable, independent secondary sources then we are likely to violate WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT] a directory.  So what if it took years to come up with a proper definition of encyclopaedic notability?  That's not a reason for not using it once we have.  Guy (Help!) 10:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed tag 

message: Does he meet current notability requirements?  --  Zanimum 16:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Near enough, in that there was no consensus in the recent AfD. As I see it, there wouldn't be any value in rerunning that debate until/unless some new factor(s) exist. Mereda 16:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Robert Trundle]] 

message: Quoting from the current guidelines:
:"Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles."
This is slightly ambiguous and needs to be cleared up, regarding dead people. If the guideline applies only to the living, it needs a "yet" between "who have not" and "made a first team appearance". 
Alternatively, if it's also to apply to dead people, it needs the words "or was" between "individual is" and "at a club".
I have no strong opinion either way, but clarity is needed to help decision making at AfD. Tom Staniforth is up for deletion - despite several selections as a substitute, he never actually made it onto the pitch for his utterly notable team, before his untimely death. With the guideline ambiguous, I think his article is a Keep, but it'd be good to avoid the problem in the future. --Dweller 10:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure the problem is only for dead people. Surely we also have a problem here for the living ones who after being given a squad number don't play in the first team and disappear into non-league obscurity (which has been the grounds for the deletion of a number of players in the Football Conference recently - if being a member of the squad counts, then they would have passed WP:BIO on these terms). WikiGull 11:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This could be tightened with the addition of the word "still" between "individual is" and "at a club". However, this change could only work if we'd decided to exclude dead people, which I'm increasingly inclined to think would be the right thing to do. --Dweller 11:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they died while a squad member fair enough, but otherwise I don't see why. Taking that to the extreme, do we just scan through obituaries for people who at some point were in the first team squad, but never played, and then recreate a page because they've died. I (obviously) don't fully understand why dead people are any different - unless the way they died was notable. WikiGull 11:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As per my comments in that AfD I take that bit to refer only to players (normally youngsters) who are currently in a big club's squad and haven't yet played but may yet do so.  I wouldn't take it to cover somebody who was a squad member of a big club years ago but never actually played, regardless of whether they died or simply dropped out of the sport/faded into lower-level obscurity.  Dead people should be treated the same way as people who have simply retired from the sport - if they actually played then they get to stay, if their career highpoint was being an unused sub then they go.... ChrisTheDude 22:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking a specific example, Liam McMenamin is a current Sheffield Wednesday player who is in the first team squad but has never played a match.  Say he didn't currently have an article and he quit the game tomorrow to become a plumber, would there be a case for creating an article on him in one or five or ten years' time on the basis of the fact that he was once a non-used squad member?  I'd say no, and I'd say the same applies to Tom Staniforth regardless of the fact that his Football League career was ended by death rather than injury/quitting the game/dropping down to non-league.  Hope that made sense.......... ChrisTheDude 12:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't really elaborate much, just to say my views mirror those of ChrisTheDude.HornetMike 15:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific issue of ambiguity of guidelines for sportspeople 

message: User:Benjamin Mako Hill has already made a change trying to clarify this, going from "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated" to "renown or notoriety for playing a major role in a event receiving major news and media coverage (e.g., orchestrating and engaging a famous crime spree or a widely known heroic event)." The use of "major" is a problem for objectivity and consistency, and I think we could do better in tidying up the point. Since we've got the primary criterion (saying: primary/multiple/non-trivial/published/independent), and it's in a list of clarifications about what well-known means in different fields, what we need here is probably more like -
::"Persons achieving wide recognition (either renown or notoriety) beyond a local area for their involvement in a reported event." 
What do others think?? --Mereda 12:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It seems gratuitously speculative to describe the level of participation and kinds of events that would garner sufficient coverage by multiple non-trivial published works. The "main" criterion (or "primary" or "first mentioned" or whatever) makes such elaboration rather superfluous.  -- Satori Son 15:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not completely against deleting it, but I still think there's merit in having a catch-all at the end of the list. Saying "beyond a local area" would aim to keep the bar level with the specific clauses above. Hm. Or is that a new criterion? :)  Mereda 16:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No further views so I'll go with the consensus here, and delete the item as soon the page is unprotected.Mereda 07:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Mereda for working on this. I'm happy with this as well. —mako (talk•contribs) 12:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Change now made. --Mereda 16:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the proposed change, "Persons achieving wide recognition (either renown or notoriety) beyond a local area for their involvement in a reported event.", is a good one. Parasite 00:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Renown/notoriety" clarification 

message: I'm still considering a response to the Radiant!/Jeff dispute, but while reading the article, I wondered, why shouldn't a published autobiography be a partial indicator of notability?
#An autobiography published by a reliable source has presumably been fact and libel checked.
#All things considered, if you can get an actual publisher to publish and sell your autobiography, I think you're probably notable.
#IMHO, the current version confused self-published autobiography (MySpace pages, direct subject edits to Wikipedia, and the other stuff addressed at Wikipedia:Autobiography) with published autobiographies.  IMHO, autobiographies published by major publishers are more like interviews for the purposes of this guideline.  Like interviews, the original source is the article subject him or herself, but like interviews, the fact that the work was published by a major publisher and went through editing, fact and libel checking is sufficient to (1) make the publication itself one indicator of notability; and (2) to render the autobiography a sufficiently reliable source so that the autobiography may (and in many cases should) be included as a reference in the overall article.
I've made some proposed changes here and here, and am curious what people think.  
Thanks! TheronJ 15:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *An autobiography, by definition, isn't the slightest bit independent of the subject, naive beliefs about book publishers fact-checking notwithstanding (short answer: they don't). --Calton | Talk 08:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *:Calton, in your opinion, who is more notable, a person with N newspaper articles about them, or a person with N-1 newspaper articles + 1 autobiography published by a major publisher?  Thanks, TheronJ 11:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why shouldn't a published autobiography be one indicator of notability? 

message: Pending the resolution of the discussion above, I've made a couple of more basic changes.
*I removed the reference to Wikipedia:Autobiography, which was incorrect.  Wikipedia:Autobiography is about the circumstances under which people can edit Wikipedia articles about themselves; it does not address whether a professionally published autobiography is a reliable source.
*I removed the discussion of "media reprints of a person's autobiography", mostly because I do not believe that readers will have any idea what that term means.  I don't know what it means either, so I can't suggest a more accurate term.  I don't agree with former footnote 3, for the reasons stated above, but pending discussion, I moved it to current footnote 1 to preserve the current content.  
Thoughts?  TheronJ 17:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "media reprints" clause was an attempt to adapt a clause which works quite well at WP:CORP.  Over there, it is worded as a prohibition against relying on press releases as evidence of notability.  Press releases can be reliable sources for some information but because of the inherent conflicts of interest, they are not at all helpful in deciding whether or not a company or product is notable enough to include in the encyclopedia.  This wording was an attempt to adapt the same principle to people.  If a local newspaper runs a local band's press release verbatim, they have not exercised the kind of editorial discretion or judgment that you described above in your first proposal to allow the inclusion of reputably-published autobiographies as a source.  I think the clause has value and should be added back.  Perhaps there is clearer wording that we could use?  Rossami (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of recent changes 

message: For the record: the "Lists of People" section was added to this article as the outcome of a discussion on a draft guideline Wikipedia:Notable alumni and its talk page.  The consensus was that Wikipedia didn't need a new guideline, it just needed an addition to WP:BIO to cover "lists of people". The Notable Alumni discussion is now marked as closed. --Jdlh  | Talk 05:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where the "Lists of People" section came from 

message: While many may view this as beating a dead horse, perhaps one of the reasons that we are having so much difficulty defining what the notability guideline should be is becuase notability, as a guideline, is too subjective to quantify into a simple set of guidelines that are adequate. And as most anti-notability people assert, there are plenty of other policies and guidelines on wikipedia that enable its users to submit quality, well researched, and well documented articles. DanielZimmerman 20:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beating a dead horse.  

message: Published books with ISBNs seem a good criterion for notability of authors IMO, I figured i'd put that out there here, for what it's worth. Just H 10:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither necessary nor sufficient.  It's not hard to get an ISBN.  It's the impact the book has that matters.  Regards, Ben Aveling 11:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In particular, vanity presses can get ISBNs, yet a vanity press published book does not indicate author notability. In fact, it almost indicated the reverse. Argyriou (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ISBNs

message: There is an interesting debate happening right now over at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashley_Leitao. I think the turning point will be whether or not the multiple, independent, reliable published references about her actually "count". One argument presented was that since Canadian Idol was the only source of her apparent notability, that her meeting the notability requirements in the current guideline isn't enough. I thought that this made sense, but it's not in the guideline at the moment, so I propose:
A person is notable only after attaining multiple sources of notability, each that is the main subject of multiple, independent, reliable published sources.
By multiple sources of notability, I mean "reality show a", "news event b", etc. As an example, a town/city mayor wouldn't pass this test automatically, if their only reference in published material is due to the event of the election; they would pass this test after they made a decision (or did something else) that causes them to be again the subject of multiple, independent, reliable sources. This gives them two sources of notability (winning the election, and making decision x).
This would almost amount to requiring some amount of prolonged notability, but not necessarily, since it is foreseeable that a person gains two sources of notability on the same day or on subsequent days (like having sextuplets, and then having them seized by the government, there would be one set of publications dedicated solely to the births of the sextuplets, and another set dedicated to the seizure).
Please comment. Thanks, Sancho McCann 18:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree with this.  In that case, think of how broadly this could be interpreted - Brandon Sanderson becomes "non-notable" because he's only "notable" for writing fantasy books.  Dustin Pedroia is no longer "notable" because he's only known for baseball.  It's bad enough that we're forcing "multiple" down the collective throats of people here, but there's no need to expand it like this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Brandon Sanderson has multiple books, and Dustin Pedroia has references because of event 1: his arrival in the majors, and event 2: the decision to place him at 2nd base. I take this proposal to allow all articles who's subject can be argued even in the slightest to have more than one source of notability.Sancho McCann 18:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: P.s., I didn't mean to leave out the non-trivial part in the proposed criteria, oops. References should still be non-trivial. Sancho McCann 18:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So fine.  A contestent has a source for a) his/her entry b) his/her exit from the program.  Or the politician a) entering the race, b) losing the race.  It's not really workable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this criteria will eliminate very, very few articles. But many contestants do not have references (meeting wikipedia's notability requirement for references) for them entering the program, only for their exit, as in the case of Ashley Leitao. By the way, what criteria currently is preventing politicians that lose the race from being included in Wikipedia? Sancho McCann 18:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For "notability," sources are only one of many criteria an article can meet.  Meanwhile, regarding politicians, technically nothing, except that there's a working consensus that no one's really touching in great detail that losing candidates don't normally get articles.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a working consensus that losing candidates don't get articles, than this new proposal won't overturn that consensus since the consensus stands against current guideline anyway. Also, what other criteria can one meet for notability other than "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other."? (The rest of this is an aside from the current discussion.) Is there a list of precidents, or working consensus's somewhere? Maybe that would address some of the concerns I've had over this AfD. People have been counting multiple references that occured over a span of a few days as one reference, and many seem to have been requiring that somebody that is associated with a reality TV show meet stricter notability requirements than people not associated with a reality show; I haven't been able to find reasons for this in any policy or guideline.Sancho McCann 18:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire rundown on the front page historically judge "notability."  There's been some recent fluxation resulting in the tag, but "notability" is judged by many different things for people. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that rundown on the front page as follow: it is a list of indicators that indicate a subject very likely meets one of the central criteria. Passing one of those indicators would be a cause to put effort into finding some way of showing that the subject meets the central criteria, but they aren't replacements for the central criteria. Is this an incorrect interpretation? Sancho McCann 18:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've essentially delved into the beginning of the dispute. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean into the beginning of our discussion today? Or did you mean that this is an ongoing dispute about what that list means? Sancho McCann 19:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Err, slight problem with this proposal: it's extremely recentist.  Sure, a modern individual may have separate sources covering different "things" for which they're notable; but, particularly for ancient and medieval people, it's not uncommon for even the clearly notable (in the sense that they're the sort of thing that even a traditional print encyclopedia would have an article on) people to only be traceable through a single event.  Consider, for example, Neferkahor; are we really going to start deleting articles on pharaohs because their only source of notability is, y'know, being the pharaoh? Kirill Lokshin 19:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposal withdrawn. This is a valid point. I withdraw my proposal. Sancho McCann 19:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple sources of notability rather than multiple references to a single source 

message: In the main criterion, once this is unlocked, could someone please change "whose source" to "the source of which"?  "Whose" is the the 'personal' possessive, and should only apply to people, not things like "published works."  This same change was made in WP:CORP with no opposition.  Thanks! UnitedStatesian 15:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar Cleanup

message: It looks like some stab was taken at this previously but withdrawn. See also my parallel suggestion at the WP:FICT talk page. I'd like to see this guideline updated to mention reality show contestants. Each season for many of the more popular shows (notably but not just Survivor) we get a crop of articles for the new contestants, most of which get AfDed and deleted with some measure of rancor between the fans and non-fans. I'd like there to be something in these guidelines similar to the current guidelines for actors, but incluing something stating that such contestants should be placed in list articles similar to those for minor fictional characters.
I would also like to open up a discussion on whether winning a reality show automatically confers notability. There seems to be at least a custom of allowing or retaining articles on winners; perhaps there should be something more formalized stating that winning a show either does or doesn't confer such notability. Otto4711 16:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I guess I'm confused as to why otherwise non-notable contestants should have separate articles. Otto4711 17:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, the first problem is that they're not "non-notable."  They're quite "notable." --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Clearly there is a great deal of disagreement over that notion. I would not consider every single contestant of every single reality show to be automatically notable absent something else contributing to notability, any more than I would consider everyone of any other television-related grouping automatically notable just because they were on TV. I think the notion of creating season-by-season listings, similar to those created for fictional characters who would otherwise not be notable enough for a separate article, would allow for mention of all contestants along with brief information, and should one or more of them become separately notable independent of the show (thus eliminating the "s/he was only on "Survivor" or whatever show argument) they can then be spun off into a separate article. No muss, no fuss, no rancorous round of AFDs every season. Otto4711 17:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Why exactly are reality show contestants not game show contestants? Reality shows are invariably game shows, since the people involved in them are invariably trying to win something. What's the difference? -- Necrothesp 18:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, take American Idol versus, say, Name That Tune.  The former is a competition where contestents are chosen and have multiple shows dedicated to them as they slowly get removed from one show to another until one remains.  The latter is a competition where contestents are chosen to be on one show (in most cases) and then are forgotten.  In the former, large fanbases appear for each finalist, in the latter, it's rare that anyone cares about even the three time champ, let alone the winner or loser.  In the former, large articles are written about each contestent locally, and about the season nationally.  In the latter, you might see an article in one of the very small local papers who ran one too many stories about ice harvesting this winter.  Idol, Survivor, Next Top Model, these are all shows where you know the people who get bounced even if you don't watch the shows.  How many Jeopardy! or Wheel of Fortune contestants can you name?  They're not even close to the same thing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The fact they may have a following doesn't mean they're not game show contestants! Reality TV shows are essentially game shows, whether their afficionados like to call them that or not. -- Necrothesp 21:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The fact that they have a following is the number one reason why they are different.  We're talking "notability," right?  I mean, can you think of any traditional game show that follows the same type of format in terms of media attention and fan obsession? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Whether or not reality shows are "game shows" is beside the point. I don't think, if reality contestants were declared "game show contestants" by fiat that it would open the door for articles on anyone who'd ever been a contestant on The Match Game. Otto4711 22:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *To quote you, "people erroneously believe that reality show contestants are game show contestants". I was merely stating that they are indeed game show contestants and the belief is not erroneous in the slightest. -- Necrothesp 00:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Actually it was badlydrawnjeff who said what you've attributed to me. Otto4711 00:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I didn't attribute it to you. Look at the indentation again! My post was an answer to his comment, not yours. -- Necrothesp 01:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the idea of creating a page for "Survivor: Fiji Contestants" or something like that, for every season of the shows. Each contestant could have their own section of the page, with a spinoff page only if they've done notable things completely seperate from the show (ie: Amazing Race contestants that were also "Miss America" contestants, people like Rob and Amber that've become self-notable based on the sheer number of reality shows that they've been on (something like 6 now, including their televised wedding special), etc). But having a single page for the contestants would give the fans a place to list all their favourite (notable and verifiable!) factoids about the contestants without requiring each of them to have their own page as soon as the season starts. --Maelwys 13:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline for reality show contestants 

message:  Request completed. This tag is not intended to mean that one or a couple people dispute the content, but rather that general consensus does not support it.  If there is a consensus to replace this tag, make a separate request. —Doug Bell talk 03:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the topic does tend to repeat itself. People always making the same argument as to why notability is needed and others making the same arguments as to why notability should not be a factor. Notability is subjective.... except to those who believe it isn't. And until a large group of wikipedia users come around, we will have to deal with elitist delitionists who insist that certain things be "notable" in order to be included, even though those notability standards are not consistent. DanielZimmerman 20:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It should be unprotected, but a removal of the tag should occur with a reversion to the December version, as the version currently there lacks consensus, thus the tag. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've requested unprotection. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeff, if you're just going to go back to reverting to old versions, I really doubt your request will be granted. I know you don't like WP:N going in as a central guideline (though I can't fathom why, that makes notability genuinely unsubjective), but it really does appear consensus is that it in fact is. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 21:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not going to be granted, it's not going to be granted.  That's not my decision to make.  However, there's no consensus here for any sort of "central guideline," and the "central guideline" doesn't help with subjectivity anyway, as I've noted there ad nauseum.  Consensus is ultimately the most important piece of the puzzle. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeff-please, please, look back at the discussions at the top of this page. You on one side, and everyone else on the other, is a consensus. It's not the consensus you like or wish to see, but it's a clear consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 21:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've paid plenty of attention, thanks.  It's not any sort of clear consensus - in reality, there's been very little discussion for the change at all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I'd like to ask, then-what would satisfy you that consensus had formed, and that it had formed against you? Certainly consensus need not be unanimous? Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 21:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Demonstrated discussion on the talk page?  Evidence that doesn't stem from a page fewer people watch?  Keep in mind - the change was never discussed to begin with, so there was never any consensus to do it to begin with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BRD is a perfectly valid approach-we encourage people to make them changes if they feel it's appropriate and then stop to discuss them if someone disagrees or reverts. The fact that the discussion occurred after the initial change does not invalidate it-indeed, it to some degree legitimizes it, as in that case people knew exactly what it was they were arguing for or against. And once again, we're back to the point that consensus went against you, overwhelmingly. It sucks when that happens, I've been there. But sometimes, you just have to accept it. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So why was I reverted again when I questioned the "bold" change, hm?  I mean, if it's legitimate, then we need to start by gaining consensus for the initial change, not a reversion back to a long-standing guideline.  Now, if consensus is indeed against me, then discussion at the talk page will actually vindicate that - there hasn't been any. It sucks when that doesn't happen, but consensus needs to be more than a few editors fighting someone who's protecting a long-standing consensus - the condescending attitude need not be included in that.  So, again, where's the consensus?  --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Irrelevant to here?  Still a lack of demonstration of consensus for the change here?  And this doesn't even get into the relative stupidity of the change - Ern Westmore is no longer "notable" due to the contrived criteria, for instance.  Of course, no one could have argued that here, because the discussion for the change never turned up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? He's featured in a full book, as well as Encyclopedia Britannica. The primary guideline is easily satisfied there, that's a great amount of non-trivial coverage. As to irrelevant to here-you're stating that discussion regarding this specific change is irrelevant to it? I don't see it at all... Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 22:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No he isn't, his family is, and his information in particular is actually much lower than the rest.  He has not been "the subject" (or barely "a subject") of much of anything specific, thus not meeting the criteria anymore, although he did before.  That's simply one example of which many more certainly exist.  Meanwhile, there has been little discussion here to establish consensus.  That's the point, that's how policies and guidelines are made. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Seraphim, thanks for your response.  A few thoughts:  (1) Majority =/= consensus, especially before an issue has been fully discussed. (2) Who are this "vast majority", and how do we know they exceed the number of people who want to keep alternate standards not subordinate to the central criterion.  For example, how many editors were involved in the consensus reached at WP:EPISODE, and how does that concensus relate to your vast majority.  (3) Of the two possible interpretations I suggest above, which of the interpretations is supported by the vast majority?  Maybe we can clarify the language and resolve this issue.  Thanks again, TheronJ 15:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting that we legitimise the notion that we include subjects which fail WP:V?  Since that is effectively what saying that things which don't meet what was formerly criterion 1 does.  Chris cheese whine 17:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't.  Things consistently meet WP:V without being "the subject of multiple, non-trivial independent works."  Ern Westmore is my favorite example currently - plenty of books and sources which mention him, but not as the subject and not in a way that meets the current wording, but he's undoubtedly "notable" and "encyclopedic."  --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd think you could sort of argue this had him as a "subject".  Id would take some serious process-wonkery to suggest that Mr. Westmore didn't meet that criterion.  Chris cheese whine 18:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not forget that they can also be the author of a reliable source, and this can provide WP:V content as well. Dhaluza 23:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Glamour Show" had him as the host, not really a subject, and it's not "independent," either.  'Tis the problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove {{tl|disputedtag}} 

message: I was reading the above discussion and someone has to have verifiability from "non trivial sources". Isn't this something else that is subjective? One person's trivial source may be another persons solid source. DanielZimmerman 17:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mostly the solidity of the media in which the source was collected. If you can verifiably cite the Brittanica as source there will be hardly a doubt ... if your source is the (German) Bild-Zeitung, the (British) Sun or the (American) National Enquirer, people might not consider them solid and therefore trivial Alf photoman 01:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Before I forget it... non-trivial sources are also those that are not ordinary mentions... such as the local registry column of the local newspaper where birth, engagements, weddings or deaths. Everybody will be, sooner or later, mentioned there. Same goes for the drunk driving report or disorderly conduct column of the police report in the newspaper, being an ass does not make one notable, unless it is a notable ass to start with. Ah yes, according to Webster's Dictionary the word Trivial means found everywhere or commonplace Alf photoman 13:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But in that case, if it is common knowledge, doesn't that mean it doesn't need a source? Someone should define "trivial source" better. ~  PHDrillSergeant...§ 16:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I dont think you can define "trivial" better because again, it is just subjective. My local newspaper may be considered a "trivial" source to one person but not to another. To me, as long as the information follows wp:v then triviality shouldnt even play a part. DanielZimmerman 16:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It should not be, and the mention of one person or another by the same media does not need to be  equal, as I said before it is one thing to be mentioned as having invented the pollution free car and the other because he/she got engaged to somebody in the neighborhood in the same paper/magazine/TV show. Alf photoman 16:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Before I forget it again. To Sarge's question: It is irrelevant if something is common knowledge now, it must not be 25 years down the line and it may be common knowledge in the US but not in Kenya therefore we need a source where the reader can verify our claims. Alf photoman 17:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What defines "trivial"? (Branch off from the previous discussion) 

message: At thsi page the porn actor page is referecned as a proposal, while the porn page describes itself as a guideline and is listed in the list of guidelines.  I'm no fan of that page, but either it should be downgraded (perfered) or described as a guideline here.  --Kevin Murray 23:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a guideline per consensus, so I think we just failed to update this page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Porn Actors guideline or proposal

message: It looks like the text has been the victim of mutliple compromise edits and some poor writing by overly wordy editors.  I added some headers to be more consistent with other notability pages and tried to write some direct sentences in the section introductions, without making changes to the actual guidelines. --Kevin Murray 23:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, shorter is better. Sorry to revert one of your changes, but it went in a whole new direction, and I'm not sure if that was intentional or an inadvertent mistake. WP guidelines should not contain absolute language because they are only guidelines, and WP:IAR is a policy. Dhaluza 23:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reordering & cleanup

message: As this still seems to be an issue, please discuss it here. Hopefully, we can get to consensus one way or the other this way. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 07:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean discuss it Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Revisiting_the_discussion_above here - Johnbod 17:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Third time's a charm :-). It's Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Centrality re-revisited Sancho McCann 17:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Centrality of [[WP:N]]

message: So a lot has changed the last few weeks, and most notabliy (heh) the "primary" criterion has changed over at WP:N.  As this is arguably the most important subject-specific guideline we have, I think it's worth covering this:
* The "primary" criterion has changed to the "common" criteron to reduce confusion over the word "primary," and reflect that the criterion is simply shared amongst many guidelines.
* The wording has changed from "multiple, independent, non-trivial" to a more concise and descriptive definition: "A topic is notable if it has sufficient, independent works that are reliable and can act as the basis for an encyclopedic article."
As there is a desire to have the common criterion expand across, in the interests of this and in the interests of gaining consensus, do we want to change our initial wording as well to reflect the "sufficient, independent works" wording? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the "sufficient" wording. Trebor 00:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree — prescriptive guidelines are misapplied too often. Trying to make guidelines idiot-proof does not impede the idiots. We have to let people use good collective judgment. Dhaluza 00:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking ahead 

message: There is a “merge from” proposal for a guideline currently under development at Wikipedia:Notability (politicians).
I feel that this proposed guideline is too prescriptive, and it is my belief is that if a politician or elected official can meet the current notability guidelines then they should be included in Wikipedia.  The requirements for notability of political figures are covered both in the central criteria and the very first guideline on public interest -ie. the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.  The proposed guideline is very prescriptive, for example it is proposed that a national legislator is notable when representing more than 200,000 people (note the actual number is irrelevant, whether it is 10 or 1 million, it is still a prescriptive requirement to achieve notability).  Why is a politician representing 200,000 people more notable than the politician who represents 100,000?
The other problem as I see it is that if we relax the notability guidelines, the articles that are would be permitted under the proposed Notability (politicians) guidelines are still likely to be un-referenced and will fail verifiability, especially since we do not allow original research. I do not believe that we need this new guideline and can rely on the guidelines already in place, and I do not believe that the Notability (politicians) should be merged into Wikipedia:Notability (people). -Parasite 23:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree — as above, prescriptive guidelines are not helpful. In particular, any number that makes sense now when WP has ~1,000,000 articles will make no sense when it has 10,000,000 in the not too distant future. As a practical matter, anyone elected to a non-trivial office will have both "multiple" and "sufficient" WP:ATT information to base an encyclopedic article on (e.g. Campaign speeches, advertisements, endorsements, criticism, election results, acceptance speech, official announcement, etc.). For that matter, any non-trivial losing candidate will have enough info as well. Dhaluza 00:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree, especially if we talk about mini-countries such as San Marino, Lichtenstein etc, there 100.000 people could be 50% of the population. We should make a habit of deleting unreferenced articles after giving a one week warning, no matter if politician or not. Alf photoman 01:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Parasite does not seem to grasp the intent of the Notability (politicians) proposal - in no sense were any of the minima intended to exclude people who otherwise qualify under WP:N/WP:ATT but don't meet the minima. The guidelines were intended to allow a politician's notability to be established essentially merely for existing, even if finding sources to establish notability were difficult. However, my proposal seems to have not gained anything resembling consensus. I'd opppose merging the proposal; instead, it should be retained as a historical record of a failed proposal. Αργυριου (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what you are saying is that the guideline would over-ride the policy we have on verifiability and the need for sources?  I think I understand your intent in creating the guideline, I just don't agree with it.  BTW, I agree that the guideline should be kept for historical purposes, as long as it is tagged accordinglyParasite 23:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was intending that the guideline would set a lower bar for reliable sources and verifiability. For example, an article on Allen Henry Vigneron still needs to have a source which shows that he is actually the Bishop of Oakland (to mix in the discussion below), but, a simple reference to either the Diocese of Oakland website, or to the notice of his appointment in the Vatican website should be sufficient to establish that Vigneron is the Bishop of Oakland, and has been since 1 October 2003, and the fact of his holding the title (assuming that "Bishop of the Catholic Church" automatically confers notability) is sufficient to prove that he's notable enough for an article, even if it's a stub. Αργυριου (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal [[Wikipedia:Notability (politicians)]] 

message: I would like to propose another alternative notability criteria:
*15 minutes of fame test — if all the reliable sources for the notability of a person are from a small time period (of a few days), and after that the person is not mentioned anymore on reliable sources, it means the person only had their 15 minutes of fame, and is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.
--cesarb 21:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like what is being discussed at Wikipedia:Notability (news). The essence of news is things of immediate topical interest, but those evanescently famous people, events, "water cooler stories," cute animals, etc. do not necessarily belong in an encyclopedia. Edison 22:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is, if the creator of the phrase, Andy Warhol, is right, every person of the world will soon havehis 15 minutes of fame... and then everybody is in Alf photoman 23:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may need some more thought, but I like the basic idea of distinguishing the ephemerally famous from encyclopedic content. Perhaps these folks belong in a separate Wikifan or Fanopedia along with various other fan content? Best, --Shirahadasha 06:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  15 minutes of fame is typically not literal.... it tends to be as subjective as notability is itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanielZimmerman (talk • contribs) 08:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: "15 minutes of fame" test 

message: The proponents of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) are trying to claim that this has been accepted as a guideline.  Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics).  I think that the primary criterion is sufficient, but if further "rules" are needed, they could be condensed and included at People.  There is little new and less which is valid. --Kevin Murray 19:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Notability (academics)]] 

message: I have a question on notability of actors. If an actor has a long career in filming (see here) would she be notable enaugh for inclusion? Are there any borderline guidelines for actors? The problem there is obviously that the movies and series are German and not English and therefore not known to the majorities of enWiki readers. Agathoclea 23:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is distinguished by language, not national origin. If an actor is well-known in their native country then they're entitled to an article here, whether that country is English-speaking or not. -- Necrothesp 23:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks. Agathoclea 23:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mostly what is important is that you have secondary reliable sources. Known newspapers, such as the Frankfurter Allgemeine, even though in German, are considered good sources. In your particular case my concern would be with the fact that most of the roles were supporting or guest roles ... that could be a problem for some editors.  AlfPhotoman 23:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finding FAZ sources from here is a little difficult. The German article mentions that she became known as one of the maincast in :de:Die Hausmeisterin, Which looking at the imdb list appears to be her most notable contribution. Then again there are other more famous members of that cast missing on enWiki. Agathoclea 11:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I remember that series, I was living in Germany at the time. I just mentioned FAZ because it is well known to most people in the world, but it is not in any way the only reliable German source. And as far as the other cast members .... the thing where wikipedia is similar to a sanatorium is that : Not all who are are in, and not all who are in are ....  AlfPhotoman 14:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anyway, I have the article in userspace now. I'll see what I can do with it. Agathoclea 14:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actors 

message: I tried to cleanup, reorganize, and condense the special case guidelines for a more uniform presentation and keeping like items together.  For example I moved approved guidelines out of the proposal section.  And grouped other established WP reference materials into a "see also" section.  I pulled special cases for politicians and entertainers together with sub-bullet points.  I think there is more that could be done, but I wanted to limit this to reorganizing the current themes rather than rewriting without more discussion.  This is meant to be a first step, please give me some feedback.  --Kevin Murray 17:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: "The person has been the subject of at least one substantial..." dilutes this guildeline pretty badly.  Having one substantial writeup about a person doesn't in any way establish notability.  At this point it almost seems we are moving towards this being an obsolete concept as a guideline and just relying on whether or not a subject meets WP:ATT.--Isotope23 21:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Watered down

message: Alf's idea of "biographical notes" seems to be gathering some support. I think it merits further discussion (maybe promotion into guideline/policy?) I'll quote what he says: [biographical articles] are treated as information about a person, not as his/her life-story (which biography entails). It may sound semantic but it reduces the pressure about getting every aspect of a persons life. Relevant in such a case is only what can be printed without getting into conflict with libel laws- this is a radical departure on what a wikibiography currently is, but I do think that this kind of article will serve the purposes of the encyclopedia better, at very least for living persons. Borisblue 12:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid that the subtlety is lost on me. What could NOT do into an article that WOULD go into a biography? David Spart 13:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  nothing, but we would not have to include everything irrelevant without someone screaming expand, we put it in if it is notable  AlfPhotoman 13:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "BLPfd Comments section 2 I don't have enough history with, interest in, or support for this project to lend any credibility to a vote I might make here, but I can share a comment. My comment relates more to the narrative task of writing bios than to the administrative obligations related to publishing biographies, but evidence of insufficient substance to produce useful narrative might be relevant to a policy discussion. Looking at the complete message, my comment is a bit of an essay, but I hope it is useful. In short, some of the "BLPs" on little known figures aren't bios at all; they are collections of facts that have strayed into the public arena. Wikipedia follows two standards that make production of bios on little-known living persons exceptionally difficult, if not impossible. One is the rejection of "original research". The other is similar; it requires citations from reputable publications. A biography is not simply an account of a person's public life. A biography is a well-rounded account of a person’s life that hopefully lends some insight into the influences behind a person's public activities, or reveals profound meanings from their personal activities. A news story about Ted Bundy, for example, (fair subject because he's a public figure and deceased) might start with his murders and end with his execution. A biography of Bundy would tell us what childhood influences might relate to his adult activities, or at least reveal a stark contrast.In the absence of interviews with the subject, or with acquaintances of a subject, we can never produce well-rounded bios. Public figures have usually been the subject of numerous biographical interviews. Less "notable" private persons, who might be quasi-public figures in specific news topics, often or usually have not been exposed in personal interviews. The result, as I stated in my premise, is not a biography, but a collection of published facts.Wikipedia doesn't systematically call these articles biographies. The articles seem to become "BLPs" in discussion, but in the main space, they are just articles. Their content sometimes tends to expand from a collection of published facts into what appears to be a biography. The result is a false impression about that person's life -- an apparent biography that is instead a collection of summarized news clips under a heading that seems to indicate a bio. The difference in that and the actual news clippings is the clippings are archived in a context that indicates they were the news of the time, but not that they are the predominate facts of a person's life. If a person searches "John Doe" in an online news archive, they can know all the results with old dates are old news, not in the context of either current events and usually not in the context of the person's entire life history. We can discern from the narrative of the articles whether they were intended to explain particular events or whether they were composed as a personality profile. In the original context, discernment is possible. Compiled out of context, a collection of summarized news clips can appear to be a biography.From the numerous biographical articles of little-known persons I've read in this collection, I've found no compelling reason (aside from general, widespread and overwhelming concerns about the efficacy of such exceptionally loose editorial management as Wikipedia seems to advocate) to reject publication of these articles except that the no-original-research bans exactly what any responsible biographer, nay, any responsible writer would do. Contrary to ethical guidelines of most biographical publishers, subjects of Wikipedia articles aren't routinely contacted about contents of articles that claim to describe their activities. I find nothing in Wikipedia guidelines or policies that prohibits such contact, but a general arms-length attitude toward subjects and sources implied by no-original-research suggests a Wikipedia bio need not be believable to its subject if it can be documented with other published sources. That doesn't fly with me, but that's not my point. If people want to write poor narrative and no one says they are personally hurt, our critique would usually be toward the general quality of the narrative, and not about the negative impact on the subject. My point, in the context of responding to the above proposal, is that when subjects of biographical articles contact Wikipedia to complain about a bio, they might not be prepared to expose the differences between an actual biography and a user-generated collection of news accounts, but they can be negatively impacted all the same. Their ire might or might not be well articulated.The least Wikipedia can do is to recognize that these collections of news items about little known persons are not biographies. As such the introductory sentence "John Doe is..." often has little comprehensive meaning and can easily misinform people who John Doe is. John Doe might in fact be the man who streaked naked through a televised college football game, but that one fact about John doesn't tell us much. It's certainly not the story of his life. If John contacts someone from Wikipedia and says "look, off the record, I was recently divorced and running with some old buddies from my alma mater, but that was 15 years ago. Now I'm the candidate for CFO at a major firm. Could you please at least remove that fact from an article under my name and place it in an article about "streaking" or "Streaking at College Football Games"?There is no reason other than stubbornness I can imagine to deny John's request. There might or might not be legal reasons to honor his request. The reasons offered in the policy trial balloon above primarily consider the impact on the subject of the bio, but the impact on public appreciation of narrative is also worth considering. If as some suggest, Wikipedia can serve as an alternative text book, degradation of standards in Wikipedia could have a cumulative effect if collections of news items became widely considered tantamount to biographies written by professionals trained to expose the psychological, social and cultural influences that shaped a person. It seems the core question is whether Wikipedia wants to campaign for a cause, which would be the right or privilege to publish anything that can be remotely construed as factual regardless its value to any meaningful narrative, or whether Wikipedia wants to produce meaningful narrative. In summary, there are humane reasons to heed the advice of little-known subjects when publishing biographies, there might be legal reasons not to misrepresent narrow slices of their lives as comprehensive accounts and there are definitely reasons related to the integrity of knowledge.Jill Hemphill 21:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alf's idea

message: Currently:
*The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or idea. 
"Originating" + "new" = tautology.
Tyrenius 02:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tautology

message: A person can often be notable because they are part of a significant group or development, the study of which would be incomplete without them, although they are not themselves the leading light or originator. Their status is boosted by association. They may not be the subject of multiple dedicated works, but they are mentioned multiple times in surveys of the group or development. One might say minor or lesser notability, but notability nonetheless. I suggest adding a clause:
*The person has an integral and recognised position within a significant group or school of work.
Tyrenius 02:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Asking for trouble! Even a lot of 1-line mentions doesn't make a decent article. I'd leave it instead to a case-by-case look at whether there are any sources in sufficient depth. Mereda 08:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Person as part of a school

message: Currently:
*The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. 
If the award is significant enough, then merely one nomination can bestow notability (e.g. the Turner Prize). I suggest:
*The person has received a notable award or honour, or has achieved a high level of prominence through nomination, shortlisting or being placed.
Tyrenius 02:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need for any more supposed "exemptions". People (or anything) are notable or not for one reason and one alone-there's enough secondary source material on them, or there's not. No awards, group membership, or anything else matters. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 02:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be suggesting that the whole of the "Special cases" section should be deleted. My suggestions do not significantly add to that section (1 clause deleted, 1 added = net gain 0). There is a desire to have this section accommodate what is currently being proposd under Wikipedia:Notability (artists). I believe the tweaks will help to accomplish that. You are mistaken if you think that the clauses in this section are "exemptions". It states clearly at the top of the section that they are useful pointers and that the main notability criteria still apply. If we are going to have a "Special cases" section (and there has always been something that fulfils this) then it should be as useful as possible. Tyrenius 03:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest shortening this to "The person has received a notable award or honor." The other cases would get through under other guidelines on multiple references/nominations, especially if nominated by their peers. Mereda 08:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Awards

message: Currently the page states: The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. A person doesn't necessarily have to be involved in a specific field of pursuit to contribute a historical record in it. As an example, I'll cite a notable event in baseball. I should warn you I don't follow baseball, so I may have the team/cities mixed up. A few years ago a fan caught a baseball which could have been caught by a player in an important game. I think it was in Chicago and had the fan allowed the player to catch the ball it would have been an out for the Cubs. Because the fan caught it, the hit became a home run instead and the Cubs went on to lose. I apologize if I mangled the specific baseball data, but the point is the fan wasn't in the field of professional baseball, but he affected the history of it. Since it is possible for an outsider to affect historical events, I propose changing the guideline to read: The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field. Anynobody 07:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change "their" field to "a" field? 

message: FYI for those here who haven't seen it yet: Wikipedia:BLP courtesy deletion was posted recently (not by me) as a proposed policy or guideline. Your comments are appreciated. I know some of you have  commented on similar proposals already and I hope those commets are taken in consideration in deciding whether the proposal is approved. Kla'quot 19:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for deleting BLPs 

message: :Discussion moved to here from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive. —Doug Bell talk 22:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Relocated to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/nobel - there is too much to dump into this talk page, in the middle of other issues. --Kevin Murray 23:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Including alleged Nobel Peace Prize nominations in bios 

message: Any thoughts on notability criteria for diplomats?  For example, List of Ambassadors to Canada currently links to every ambassador by name.  Are they all notable, and if not, how do we pick out the ones who are?  Jpatokal 17:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  simple, those whose notability is confirmed by several non-trivial second person references. Right now we have members of governments being automatically notable, not ambassadors. So the references of notability would not be that they are an ambassador but that they are ambassadors who are notable for something besides doing their jobs, or for doing a job above and beyond their duties (i.e. saying publicly that their government is fabricating evidence against another state)  AlfPhotoman 17:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diplomats 

message: I added the following just now:
<HR>
; Articles on Wikipedians
Some Wikipedians have articles on them, as seen on Wikipedians with articles. Their status as Wikipedians in and of itself has neither a positive or negative affect on their notability, regardless of whether they were Wikipedians before or after their articles were created (note: WP:COI and WP:VAIN still have bearing on their editing their own articles). If a Wikipedian meets other normal standards for inclusion, such as WP:BIO above, WP:ATT, WP:RS, and WP:V, their status as former, current, or future Wikipedians (editors, administrators, etc.) shall have no bearing on the inclusion nor the deletion of the article in and of itself; all articles, even these to avoid internal Wikipedia conflict of interests, will be judged solely by the applicable policies of notability and inclusion.
<HR>
Please review... thanks. I think this simple statement that the status "as a Wikipedian has no bearing" on anything would help to eliminate a whole mess of problems. - Denny 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I second that, but I would add that the fact that they are Wikipedians should only be added in the article if it has any bearing on the notability of the person. If it is irrelevant information it should be omitted  AlfPhotoman 19:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If RS mention it, and it's V and ATTable, why exclude it arbitrarly? just curious. - Denny 19:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then it is part of the notability of the person and is not in excluded, note the part about irrelevant information  AlfPhotoman 19:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it can be case by case, no legitimate reason to blanket exclude it. The main point is that the Essjay thing seems that many want it (the article) gone to protect a Wikipedian... I can 100% get behind that, but doing it feels wrong still. Why should we get special protections against our own actions being documented if they're notable (for better or worse)? If John Howard James Smith, who edits/admins on WP, becomes US President... cool. The fact he edits gives him no special bearing on the ultimate outcome of the article. If John Howard James Smith, who edits/admins on WP, becomes revealed as a notable serial killer... the fact he edits gives him no special bearing on the ultimate outcome of the article. Ditto for if he gains fame/notability BECAUSE he edits on WP. Circular, sure... but so what? Wikipedia is notable, it makes sense that notability flows both ways. Sanger and Wales are only notable initially because of WP, same as the others like Angela. My point is to just make it that being a user here doesn't give us any special rights/benefits vs. non-users. If Essjay were an editor on another huge encyclopedia, there wouldn't be nearly as much outcry, of if he were a journalist, say... - Denny 19:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The question is more : Is it relevant? If John Howard James Smith became president due to his editing Wikipedia it is. If not it is not. And if John Howard James Smith becomes a serial killer it is only relevant if he went on a rampage due to editing Wikipedia.  I think lot of the buzz of Wikipedia not being reliable is that we have articles with too much irrelevant information. And much of that irrelevant information is not even attributable  AlfPhotoman 20:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Is this really needed in the general notability guideline for people (it's a very very specific case)? It's essentially saying the obvious: that we try still to judge objectively on the notability issues pertaining to Wikipedia. If people think that that's not true, then challenge their comments, but this is giving undue weight in the guideline to something which is almost never an issue. Trebor 19:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can merge it into another section, but given that any person with a biography can register an account in 5 seconds and begin editing, it's probably overdue. what if someone is unhappy with their article, and registers? It's a safety measure that doesn't hurt to have there and protects against and hopefully limits abuses like seen in the Essjay mess (which will happen again surely as the project groups right?). - Denny 19:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How often does this issue come up? Compared to the number of deletion debates that reference this guideline, the number to do with Wikipedians is minute. Although the current situation makes discussion of articles on Wikpiedians seem important, I'm not sure that there's much of a problem with this in general. Trebor 20:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles on Wikipedians 

message: The more I look at all these discussion the more I am convinced that one of the problems lies in having too much irrelevant content in articles.
If we agree that the articles should be based on notability then we should also say that we should not include irrelevancies. The guidelines should specify that content not relevant to the subjects notability should be removed. 
Just put on my helmet...
 AlfPhotoman 17:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't work. When a subject is notable, then other aspects of their life become of relevance, and the greater the notability, the more aspects come under the spotlight. But I do think there's a sliding scale here. Tyrenius 02:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then let me ask you this, we have a person notable for singing, why is it necessary to go into the details of her dress that she wore while breaking her toenail while jogging? This stuff is irrelevant and wont even make a  footnote in two years time. We are trying to make something by which people can inform themselves, which is the original idea  of an encyclopedia. Overinformation leads to the same as disinformation at the end of the day  AlfPhotoman 14:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant content 

message: *Since this is N(people) the first paragraphs should be worded to  say "person" instead of "subject".  If there are no objections I'll make the change.DGG 15:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For my part do it, I find it Ok to say person subject of but hardly to say subject instead of person  AlfPhotoman 15:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "subject"

message: In this edit, I've made this stuff more concise and slightly tightened it. I'll explain. (I recommend opening that diff in a separate window, and flipping between that and this.)
*Nominations for certain awards are meaningful; for many awards, they're meaningless.
*"A notable award or honor", singular, sounded weak, at least as long as "notable" isn't defined. Take the PSJ awards, for example. Its newcomer-of-the-year award is not unnotable; it's certainly a contributory reason for providing an article. But it's hardly a sufficient reason. (However, either of PSJ's two main awards of the year certainly is sufficient.)
*"Significant expert" sounded odd in the context of creative professionals. (Perhaps the writer was thinking of something like watch repairers: thousands are experts, but few are significant experts.)
*Peers to me suggests contemporaneity (though it doesn't mandate it). I thought "or successors" would help.
*"Idea" sounded unnecessarily close to "concept". (I may have zapped the wrong one.) Adding "technique" seemed good for recognizing achievement as well as aspiration.
*"Works" seemed to include "documentaries" and, at a bit of a stretch, "reviews" as well. I'm unimpressed by ten-minute "documentaries".
*I've no idea what "the basis for respected curriculum" means, but suspect that its meaning is subsumed by one or more alternative criteria. The matter of citation has been moved up.
*Exhibitions are problematic. See the discussion not far above on this talk page, in which it's pointed out that significant exhibitions will anyway generate reviews, which are dealt with in another criterion.
Hoary 03:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Creative professionals"

message: From several deletion debates it appears that the criteria for dead people seems to be more robust. The problem with living persons is that many of the debated people articles are about people who seem to have a need for getting themselves listed as "notable" on wikipedia. These articles are typically about people who have their name in magazines and other publicity materials including vanity publications and websites. The incorporation of these articles about living person would only help in establishing "notability". There should be better guidelines especially for living persons. These articles by virtue of the living person biography guidelines further makes it tend towards hagiography. A vicious circle ! Shyamal 04:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There currently exists a separate set of criteria fro WP:Biographies of living persons, the WP:BLP criteria. What do you think should be changed about them? Best, --Shirahadasha 04:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of libel laws and the resulting WP:BLB, the articles on living persons tend to be more hagiographic. And in numerous cases, this primarily serves to make people more notable than they are. This is especially true of people who have articles on wikipedia by virtue of being bloggers, company owners, software authors, vanity book authors or others in need of publicity. The notabilty criteria should make note that notable living persons should not have a need for "publicity". If such a need is perceived - then it should be considered as an explicit criterion for deletion (even if there is apparent proof of notability in the form of numerous Google hits). This can be relaxed for people who are retired or dead though. Shyamal 05:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by a need for publicity? The current criteria seem to comparatively objective in character -- one either has appropriate reliable sources or not. How does one tell whether an individual needs publicity or not? Is there an objective way to tell this? Best, --Shirahadasha 06:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was prompted to point this due to this Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rajan_Sankaran debate. I noticed that all the links were mostly self promotion. The books written are mostly vanity publications and none by noted publishers. The person apparently run clinics and is essentially in a livelihood that needs publicity. Many of the supporters of the article say that the person is notable. No-one seems to note that the person is in need of publicity and is therefore found on a large number of google links. I am not sure if there can ever be an objective criterion for notability, but think it has to be tightened and especially so for living persons. I also note that because of the many guidelines, administrators do not seem to have any consistent checklist of guidelines to follow. Sometimes this seems to be leading to the delivery of keeps for articles with commercial and self interests. Shyamal 06:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To stress my point. Had this person been dead, I might consider a keep. So just as there are article guideline differences for living and dead, there should be notability guideline distinctions for living and dead people. Shyamal 07:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you provide an example of a living person who doesn't need publicity? Best, --Shirahadasha 07:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What an extraordinary question. Do you need publicity? I certainly don't. But then either (a) I am not famous, or (b) I am famous but I don't want to blow my cover; and anyway you have no reason to believe what I say about myself. So let's take people who are famous (famous by my standards, not Fox News standards). The first one that pops into my head is, for some reason, Elliott Erwitt. He doesn't need publicity. -- Hoary 07:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. And here is a person who needs publicity - . Obviously the administrators are lost and there should be a clear guideline when it comes to such articles as Rajan Sankaran Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rajan_Sankaran. Shyamal 01:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability : Separation of criteria for living and dead persons

message: The primary criterion currently begins as: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of ...".  Given that this is a notability guideline for people specifically, should it not read: "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of ..."?  I wanted to change this myself, but thought it best to see if there was a particular reason for writing "topic". -- Black Falcon 06:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The primary criterion: Topics or people

message: I'm unclear as to why this is restricted to people who have appeared in movies or on TV and not stage actors. I would like to add stage productions to this criterion unless there is some objection. Otto4711 03:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to Entertainers criterion 

message: Well, there don't seem to be any new views forthcoming. As I said, I would still need to be convinced of the argument that there are certain to be many non-trivial sources available for congressional election losers, particularly with regard to past elections.  So I believe the question of whether such a person should be considered WP:N in the absence of multiple such coverage is a valid one.  The sentiment above on that question seems to be very much be "no".  However, DGG points out that when the issue is coming up in actual debates, some editors seem to be under the impression that the policy is "yes".  So should the politician section of WP:BIO be amended to make the above consensus more clear?  You could argue that by the fact that congressional losers are not included in the first two bullets, the policy is already outlined by their omission. However, local elected officials are also omitted from the first two bullets, yet a third bullet was still added to clarify the point.  How about adding the above consensus to that third bullet, or adding a fourth bullet for it? Mwelch 04:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think it is necessary or desirable.  It is not necessary because the notability criterion of "multiple secondary sources" still applies regardless of anything.  It is not desirable because it may create the impression that non-elected officials are inherently not notable regardless of the availability of sources.  -- Black Falcon 04:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So . . . ''opposite'' change to politician section of WP:BIO? 

message: Can one significant feature article establish notability?  For example does a Playboy playmate of the month feature establish notability?  I would say that it does establish notability, almost like an award, although I would question the accuracy or independence of the biographical material.  --Kevin Murray 23:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, no.  I say that because I think that most interpretations of the phrase "feature article" would be "any multi-page article in my local paper's Sunday Supplement".  I would not consider a Playboy spread to be a "feature article" (although I'll admit that I don't know what I would call it).  Rossami (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suspect that our variance is based on semantics. --Kevin Murray 23:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely, in terms of a national or very important publication.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say yes.  Being a Playboy playmate of the month is, as you noted, analogous to receiving the highest award in the genre of softcore pornography.  I think the concern about a local paper can be easily solved by specifying that the feature article must be in a major regional or national/international newspaper.  I include major regional papers for the following reasons: regional newspapers can be more important than national ones for countries characterised by: (1) a poor and illiterate rural population, and (2) a concentration of industry and government in one or more select urban areas. -- Black Falcon 00:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Significant feature article

message: This guideline is too strict for amateur athletes.  There are amateurs, including high school athletes, who have received mountains of national press, are known by millions of people, yet who cannot be included in Wikipedia.  This is ridiculous and limits Wikipedia unnecessarily. -- TexasDawg 22:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  High School Athletes