Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 6

message: It seems like this argument is simply a matter of clarifying a couple of terms.
*Highest level
:I don't think there's any doubt that any of the below is considered the "highest level"
::FIFA World Cup finals
::Continental Tournaments
::Olympic football tournament
::UEFA Champions League group stage and beyond
::UEFA Cup final 32
:I don't think the below constitutes "highest level", but I can see opposing arguments:
::FIFA World Cup qualifiers - while it's one step away from the really, really highest level, most confederations allow all member tournaments to enter the final round. That means part timers from San Marino and Luxembourg are at the same level as World Cup finalists. 
::Champions League and UEFA Cup qualifiers - Like WC qualifiers, these tournaments generally involve notable clubs, but also includes champions from lesser leagues.
:I'm not sure about the qualification process for the below:
::Libertadores Cup
I'd argue that any player who hasn't appeared in any of the above events would have to be considered under the "fully professional" criteria, which gets a little tricky...
*Fully professional
:I've discussed this in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ludovic Quistin, and my basic point there was that a league not only has to have all professional clubs, but a league has to require professionalism. With the Conference in England, it will most likely be an all-professional league next season. However, that can change from season to season, and as long as it allows for semi-professionalism, it's not really a fully professional league. And this criteria is reasonable enough to apply to other countries, I think.
Basically, I'd clarify the WP:BIO for footballers as follows.
:1a. The player has to have competed at the highest level as defined here
or
:1b. The player has to have played in a fully professional (as opposed to simply all-pro) league
and
:2. The player's accomplishments have to be noted in multiple non-trivial independent publications.
Anyhow, that's my attempt at simplification. -- Ytny (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On Swedish wikipedia, we are into a great fight. I want to delete/merge some of the leagues on level 12 and below in the English system. Also some of the clubs, mostly younger, and a bunch of players on that level. The only defense the "keepers" have "en has it so we must too". So now they are trying to delete a friend of mine, pro player on Norwegian 2'nd level, former Allsvenskan player just because I question the existance of non pro level 14! Professionalism or at least clubs based on it are noteable. Players in these clubs are too if they have significant time on field. 100% benched players, or players in 100% amateur clubs not on the national team should be doomed to exclusion unless they have any kind of extraordinary reason to be included. --Boongoman 16:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarifying "fully professional league" and "highest level"

message: I disagree with the current criteria of notability of youth footballers, since it seem to stipulate first team appearences.
I would suggest that:
1. Being a member of a youth international team (such as Gavin Hoyte, Fran Mérida and Nacer Barazite of Arsenal) merits notability in it's own right, or at least under under the criteria of athlete notability p2: "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports" (or in analogy thereof). 
2. Prominent members of important youth academies merits notability in the same way as above.
3. Very promising players can be notable because of their talent, regardless of if their talent has been realised or not. Even if their talent isn´t realised they still can be notable as "the talent that never delivered". Using a simple linguistic definition of "notability" would mean the more well known the player is, the more notable he is. And there surely are youth players that are better known than lower level players, even if the latter has played for the first team. 
It can´t seriously be argued that a player who has made a couple of appearences for a League 2 team is more notable than a player such as Bojan Krkic, Giovani dos Santos, Fran Mérida etc wich most probably will be playing first team football (if not already be big stars) within the next years. Look at the attention G. dos Santos' selection of national team or proposed transfer has attracted in the football community. Or look at Theo Walcott who was included in the english WC squad without having played for the Arsenal first team. He never played during the WC, so before his first team debut at Arsenal, was it only his appearences for Southampton in the Championship that merited an article about him? Surely not!
My point isn't that membership of a u17 national squad automatically constitutes notability. My point is that there are youth players that may haven't yet broken in to the first team at a big club such as Arsenal or Barcelona, but nevertheless still are more notable than a player that may have appeared for a low-level first team such as Accrington. The requirement of first team football shouldn't be carved in stone. Sebisthlm 16:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Youth players

message: As has been the case before, there has been a healthy discussion and several issues have been touched, some of which are less relevant to the original purpose I intended. 
So to avoid condemning this discussion to just another one of those that end up archived and achieving no ultimate goal, I am going back to the grass roots of my pitch which was on a single point, and I propose:
:An addition in the form of a footnote with reference to the highest level (point 2):
: Any football (soccer) player who is a current member of a national team of a FIFA member country satisfies the criterion of competing at the highest level.
I would suggest that users vote to either support or reject this in point form below. I would also suggest that any addition to the discussion above could be entered there and not amongst the votes. I will try and let everyone who has taken part in this discussion know about this, and would suggest you spread the word amongst interested parties StephP 10:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary on the footballers discussion and a proposal and SURVEY

message: With this edit, Kevin Murray seems to have changed part of the definition of an entertainer into a definition of notability.  I don't think that someone whose entire acting career (for example) consists of nothing but a brief non-speaking role would be notable no matter how notable the movie.  But that seems to be what this guideline now states. It seems to me that this one small change has completely changed the meaning of the section.  Merely having an entry in IMDB should not, alone, justify having an entry in Wikipedia, IMO.  But maybe I missed some discussion, so I thought I'd toss this out before reverting.  Xtifr tälk 12:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your understanding is correct.  I think the rest of us missed the implication of the wording.  Please go ahead and fix it.  Rossami (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANYONE who has been in a notable film, etc.? 

message: Since the general notability guideline is central to most sub-pages, someone came up with the idea of creating a centralized template which will be consistent among the permutations from WP:N.  Please see whether we can make this work here.  The text is meant to be fairly generic, but it may make sense to add text following the template for fine tuning, or help us to make the template more applicable if it is not reflecting the consensus for notability.  I certainly didn't get everything that I wanted, but I'm very happy to see the compromises that make this a fairly representive of the attitude of the project.  --Kevin Murray 01:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using this is disputed, and I can't tell why. There is next to no difference between the templated version and the one already in the page. -Amarkov moo! 01:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then let's demonstrate that there is just as much consensus here as other places.  I support the transclusion of the template.  Rossami (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because there was a discussion in the writing of that template, that has nothing to do with replacing what has already been agreed upon here with it.  I don't see consensus in "other places" for this template.  --Oakshade 02:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There's no consensus for a template here.  There's no such thing as continuity, and we don't need it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't like the template, you should have put the previous primary criterion section back, which I just did. We need one in some form after all.--Dycedarg ж 00:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was an error on my part.  I didn't mean to remove that completely, it got lost in the crossfire.  whether we actually need it is a separate discussion, but that removal wasn't intentional. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General notability guideline template 

message: There are two AfDs right now that deal with whether a member of the armed forces is killed in action - without any other substantial claims for notability - gives enough material for the subject to be notable.  I am torn on the issue and maybe others, more familiar with the concept of Notability, could provide some input.
Links are: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matthew_Fenton and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aaron_Weaver
Thanks -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 01:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer is absolutely and unequivocally no.  Wikipedia is not a memorial is well established as both policy and long-standing precedent.  Rossami (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  KIA doesn't establish notability, but the presence of multiple reliable sources does prove notability. For me, the Matthew Fenton article is an obvious "keep" and the Aaron Weaver article an equally unambiguous "delete". -- Black Falcon 17:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Black Falcon - a follow-up question if you don't mind.  So if I understand what you are saying, coverage of a KIA in multiple reliable sources establishes Notability?  Remember, we are talking about someone whose life was otherwise quite normal - thousands serve their country in the armed forces.  Because if I understand what you are saying, it sounds like you feel that KIA, as long as it's covered, IS a valid criterion for Notability. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 11:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Regardless of whether you consider it a valid criterion for notability or not, it is still policy that Wikipedia is not a memorial. >Radiant< 11:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I do not feel that KIA is a valid criterion for notability. Then again, I do not feel that being General Secretary of the UN is a valid criterion. I feel that we, as editors, should not try to judge what does or does not constitute a "valid" criterion. Quite simply, a topic is notable if others outside of Wikipedia have found it worthy of note. We shouldn't argue about whether a topic is inherently notable or not, or whether a person has achievements that make him/her notable, as that's a hopelessly subjective exercise. Instead, we should try to prove that a topic is notable per the definition at WP:N or WP:BIO. If we cannot, then we shouldn't have an article on that subject. A head of government who has not been the subject of multiple sources cannot be proven to be notable (he may be notable or he may not be, but it's pointless for us to speculate in the absence of actual facts). Regarding the article on Mr. Fenton, I feel that it was rightly deleted, but do not think the reason of "not notable" was appropriate. I hope this clarifies my position. -- Black Falcon 16:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does KIA give notability? 

message: Can someone change the line:
"Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable."
to
"Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be verifiable." ???
ATT is not currently policy but proposed policy.  Miss Mondegreen | Talk   06:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Harryboyles 12:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Att no longer policy 

message: See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the debate. --Kevin Murray 18:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template:pnc]] nominated for deletion 

message: An admin should add Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) to the dab note at the beginning of the article.  --zenohockey 21:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit made. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested edit 

message: A modification to the deletion policy regarding biographies of living persons has been proposed. The proposal seeks to reverse the default retention of biographical articles that attain "no consensus" results at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. That is, it seeks to make deletion the default action for AfD discussions of biographical articles that do not reach consensus. Comments regarding the proposal are welcome and may be made here. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed policy change at [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]]

message: The version I've added as of 9:30a EST on 29 April, I think, incorporates many of the issues we've been dealing with since December.  Hopefully we can hash it out further if need be. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than rewritting it completely, why don't you discuss the objectives and make small changes?  This has evoloved with much cooperation over several months.  If you don't like the PNC version, why don't you try to suggest something else.  --Kevin Murray 20:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, seeing as the version I created was at least close to a consensus version (there was no evolution), I didn't think it was that major.  Can you point out the problems with the version that you saw? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please look through the edit history to see the development by many contributors, along with discussion.  The problems are numerous and typical of the author’s POV, not to mention removing sections and a confusing format.   This needs much work, and I would probably agree with some more inclusionary language, but let’s work as a team.  --Kevin Murray 06:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that doesn't answer my question. What problems were with the version you saw, considering its reflection of the most recent consensus version with some of those same additions you believe have support? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jeff, I suggest that we develop some discussion from the status quo rather than throw up radical changes which are hard for participants to follow.  I propose that we first work on the PNC message which no longer reflects that which is at WP:N and has been demonstrated to have flaws when it was proposed as text for the now defunct PNC template.--Kevin Murray 16:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the first answer is to get rid of the PNC message entirely - it never had consensus here, and doesn't exist anywhere else with the exception of WP:CORP.  Is there a reason it should stay here as opposed to having the consensus form that I brought it to? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jeff, it would be less frustrating for your peers if you stopped interjecting rhetoric in support of your position (e.g., claiming consensus, consensus, consensus).  This moves the thought process from discussing the issue to disputing your evaluation of consensus.  You asked me to work with you in a less combative format.  Can I ask for a less inflammatory method? --Kevin Murray 17:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honesty isn't inflammatory, Kevin.  The issue really begins with the evaluation of consensus - if there's no consensus for a PNC style wording, there's no sense in using it as a starting point.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jeff, this is not always true.  Ideally we would all perceive the truth in the same way, but someone can be wrong and honest at the same time.  Especially with something as elusive as consensus at WP.  I've in the past misperceived your position as being dishonest, and I was wrong.  I understand that you see things very differently than I do and from your vantage you are being honest.  Which comes first the idea or the consensus?  How do we evaluate consensus?  Is it consensus now or then?  Is it consensus here or in the greater notability discussion, or at AfD?  This is a multi edged weapon that seems to cut into all arguments, which is better sheathed here.  --Kevin Murray 17:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea comes first, but doesn't become implemented long-term without consensus.  The discussion on consensus is from here in the archives, combined with how it was attempted to be implemented.  If you want to discuss the idea, please do so, but not while assuming that your version is the consensus one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I won't claim any consensus one way or the other.  However, the term "your" implies that others were not involved.  Let's consider what is there now as an evolution which represents the status quo.  Admittedly, I have been among the most active of recent editors and structured much of the format; however, the "primacy" of the PNC predated my involvement.  Please look below to the new section discussing the PNC.  --Kevin Murray 17:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I regret the implication, then, that was not the intent.  What is there now, however, is not an evolution, but rather the result of what occurs when people strongarm things against consensus and is never resolved (thus the consistent warring back and forth and the persistence of the tag). --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New attempt with protection lifted 

message: We have some articles, like Lucie Blackman, that are "biographies" of people who only got media coverage because they were the victims of high-profile crimes. But the article turns out to be a detailed report of the circumstances surrounding her death. It seems to me that if this information is encyclopedic (and I'm not sure about that) it probably belongs in a different article. Do we have any policy/guidelines/essays for situations like this? I've seen the phrase "single incident biography" somewhere, but haven't been able to track it down. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cosby's kid, Michael Jordan's dad, and now Jessie Davis.  These biographies beg for better guidance.  To wit:  is it the person or the event that is notable?  And if it's the event, shouldn't we then just create an article about the event (this would also spare us having to write an article about the defendant(s), too).  And then, what events satisfy notability?  Is it the event itself or is it the media coverage of the event?  If it's an event then how is one murder more notable than another?  If it's media coverage, than do we simply write articles about everything covered by the media, or do we just transwiki it over to Wikinews?  Ideas?  Rklawton 18:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victims of crimes 

message: I just thought I should alert editors interested in this policy that there's a biography-related discussion on members of the British nobility going on at the notability talk page; see WT:N#Independent.2Bnon_trivial.3F_Debretts.2C_Whos_Who_etc. JavaTenor 18:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography-related notability and sourcing discussion going on at [[WT:N]] 

message: I support Jeff's removal of the PNC section and its mention from the footnotes.  I objected to the reformatting of the other aspects of the page.  However, I think that there could be some fine tuning as some problems have been pointed out in the specific criteria.  If a criterion is applicable to all people I think it should not be repeated in the "special cases" by profession.  I would support a continued attempt to keep the source based criterion in agreement with the standards that develop at WP:N, but for now not asserting or implying a primacy. --Kevin Murray 03:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing the PNC Etc.

message: Posted [ this] a couple of weeks back. Anybody really care? Is it best to just put a couple of these up for deletion and see what happens? 
Regards from under the radar, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 03:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Playboy centerfolds 

message: The following section was apparently omitted in a rearrangement on Feb. 17; I do not think it was deliberate. 
 Wikipedia:Notability (academics) -- Specifically for professors and academics, if the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor (based on the U.S. practice of calling all full-time academics professors), they can and should be included."
should it be restored? it is very widely used in discussion.  DGG 07:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The side bar has a link. There are also some other "people kinds" on the side bar. :) Shyamal 10:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: academics

message: In many fields (eg science) collaborations are the norm and I think we need something here to reflect this. The fact that Crick & Watson co-discovered does not detract from their notability, on the other hand not all the co-authors of the papers on discovery of the W and Z particles should get the same "credit", but they should all get some. What do people think? NBeale 06:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are notable they will have established this in their own right by being first author on important papers. You are right that collaborations are the norm but author order is important so establishing notability will have to be done on a case by case basis as it currently is.  Sophia 08:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though note that author order conventions vary with subject. In some fields (medicine?) the last-named is generally the head of the lab and presumably the most notable. 86.137.38.79 17:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Curiously Crick & Watson seems to have been Watson's first published paper, although Crick did one before. I think then situation is that if X is done by "A&B" then we should treat it essentially as if either A or B had done it.  However if A&B&C&D&E&F&G&H do X then there would need to be evidence that E (say) played a major role in X: or alternatively that E played a similar role in Y and Z (as is often the case with the head of a lab).  So I guess my suggestion would be that we say The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work,... NBeale 18:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being head of the lab doesn't necessarily mean they had much to do with that actual research at all other than probably checking it over. And number of authors again doesn't give you much of a clue as to how much of the work was done by whom - you just know from the order who did the most etc. In astronomy it's common to co-author someone just because it's their data without them having done any of the analysis at all. You certainly can't assume that because there are two authors they did 50% each.  Sophia 18:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree with all this - but I think the suggested wording is fine in the light of all these comments.  Let's be bold and try it? NBeale 14:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In some fields (particularly in the humanities and other places where large collaborative projects are rare), the order of names is often alphabetical and no hierarchy of contribution is implied.  Figuring out these norms across fields is a big problem that can only be solved by expert knowledge.  This is why the gold standard of notability is independent description of the academic's contributions.  Best -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaborations 

message: *The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.
Does this clause apply to those who have inherited titles? There's an ongoing debate over whether baronets, the lowest rung of inherited titles in the United Kingdom, are notable by virtue of their title alone. Is the term "received" intended to include honors received by virtue of inheritance and primogentiure? Or does it only apply to those who've received honors due to their own activities? There's a concern that interpreting this to include inherited titles would result in systemic bias because most nations don't have them.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 20:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not, because Wikipedia is not a genealogy database; as I recall certain proposed guidelines on the topic were deliberately skewed in favor of a British nobility. Feel free to drop some examples on AFD. >Radiant< 14:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't think baronets (after the first) are automatically notable. However, peers all were until recently, as they were all Members of Parliament and therefore meet other notability criteria. -- Necrothesp 15:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If you inherit a title you are not receiving an award or honor. The title is only awarded to the first holder. NBeale 07:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The person has received...honors" 

message: :Marcellus Hartley Dodge, Jr. was notable only by birth, but his death was page 1 in the New York Times. Notable or not notable? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a substantial article can be written on someone using reliable sources, they're probably notable, even if they only get attention because they are related to someone else. If such an article can't be written, they're probably not notable. I don't think that there's any special "inherited notability" case that must be considered seperately. -Amarkov moo! 03:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, one would assume that the amount of coverage he got was in relation to his fame. It's sorta like Paris Hilton before all her stuff went down - famous for being famous. Yes, it is inherited in some circumstances, and no, we don't handle those cases well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The criterion is used more for people who can be assumed to be notable because the children of exceptionally notable parents even though sources are not there yet--in that sense it applies to children of royalty, and heads of state. Whether it applies to anyone else in the same way is debatable; I think for children of wealthy people and movie stars and the like we would do best to wait for references, in which case its no longer inherited. In the Dodge case, there were the accounts, so it has nothing to do with inherited. I think we must still stick to the principle that any person with 2 RSs is notable. I find it highly counterintuitive-I think it leads to peculiar results-I think the community ignores it when it applies to news figures and crime victims and the like. But the more I see of AfD the more I think that firmly maintaining this as sufficient in absolutely all cases and sticking to it would eliminate about half the unnecessary wikidrama--it would have completely eliminated all of the very time consuming repeated afds of the last few weeks.  DGG 06:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If there was a page 1 story, I'd consider that substantial non-trivial coverage, so he gets in on that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Another example for discussion: this 3-year-old.  The title confers notability based on our guidelines, but I'm still not certain it makes a ton of sense to have an article about him - what exactly could it say, beyond the current content?  JavaTenor 04:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd suggest merging such articles to a larger article on parent or family, on grounds that there isn't all that much information available on most of such subjects. >Radiant< 11:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is notability inherited? 

message: An attempt to extend inherent notability to the councillors of large cites was smartly reverted. This arose because a group of editors wish the councillors of large Canadian cities to be notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eli El-Chantiry for example. Large is defined by them at 100,000 which is small even in UK terms - even little old England would consider large as 750,000 up! I see no reason to extend notability to city councillors since if they have any sort of profile they should be able to establish notability through WP:RS. Bridgeplayer 21:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  City councillors 

message: I believe that the notability guidelines for athletes is too broad and should be more strict.  Thousands and thousands of people have played sports around the world professionally, and many are not truly notable.  Often articles are created about an obscure footballer or cricketeer, yet he didn't play many games, has little sourcing and few google hits, and the article is only one sentence long.  Everyone who has a job does it professionally; why is someone notable just because the job was a sport?  Simply playing a sport professionally in a league or equivalent doesn't really make him notable; he may have been only a backup.  I'm not exactly sure what the rule should be, but I can help.  Any comments are appreciated.  Thank you  Reywas92Talk 20:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is too funny, I just suggested to a few other users that this topic be revisited.  I too believe we need to address athletes notability in a stricter, yet constructive fashion.  I edit a number of articles related to baseball.  That being said, the same rational stated above applies perfectly to professional baseball players. //Tecmobowl 00:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: * It makes sense to have some broad guidelines which will serve all sports.  Can this be done for atheletes here and teams at ORG? --Kevin Murray 15:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: * I'm not really sure that WP:ORG comes into play here.  A Guidelines page can be established for all sports. //15:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We tried, but it failed a while back, especially with argruements between a few users, me included. It can always be revived, in fact I'm going to look for it right now and try to make it an active proposal. Jaranda wat's sup 19:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * Reywas, do you have people turning up, paying money, just to see you work?  Sports people are people of interest, even the backups!  I'm not sure about common guidelines for all sports, however... other than the overriding need for WP:RS.  Professionalism shouldn't always be the guide, especially where sports have transitioned from amatuer to professional fairly recently, or if there is limited scope for professionalism in some sports (ie restricted entry (drafts)/rosters etc).  The-Pope 04:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Only the best actually get paid to play a game, so the fact that someone is a professional is a handy way to determine who is worthy of note in the field of sports.  Similarly, peer recognition or winning an award is a way to determine who is "the best" or worthy of note in other fields.  However, these are still just guidelines, so there are certainly professional benchwarmers who may not be notable.--Kubigula (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I do agree with raywas, right now the policy we have on athelete is fairly dumb, and everyone who ever played a "professional" game can have articles. The comment I really want to remove is "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports." Seriously with this crtiria, thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of college or former college athetles can get articles. That rule is commonly broken in AFD, but still. There is no point in having it. Jaranda wat's sup 19:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what criteria do you suggest then? The issue, IMO, is especially complicated in football (soccer), where there are tens of thousands of notable footballers. Obviously there are certain things a footballer can do that definitely makes him/her notable (for example making an appearance in the English Premier League or FIFA World Cup), but the issue seems to be a bit more difficult further down the tree (for example, League Two, which consists of some professional and some semi-professional teams, consisting of professional and amateur players, some of whom participating in definitely notable competitions like the FA Cup). ugen64 06:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  I suggest at the minimum to remove the highest level of amatur sports sentence as it will make wikipedia like a sports amlamac, having thousands of articles of people who never played proffesional. As for soccer, I don't know much about the subject for that, but if they played fully proffessional, or if they were a amateur player who had some gametime in the FA Cup and other competitions, we could keep them. Jaranda wat's sup 06:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to me, but at the same time there are some college basketball players (and college football players, etc.) that are much more notable than even some professionals (for example players who were in an NCAA Tournament winning team, nearly all regular players in big conferences like Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) and Big 10...). However I agree, that criterion in its current wording is too inclusive and should probably be removed. ugen64 06:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm going to remove it as subjective, any college athelete who ever played could be listed, but one thing I agree is that current starters of major Top 25 Division-A teams in basketball and football should have articles, but not like the punter or the backups or very weak teams starters like Temple University or FIU football players, but with one thing, if they fail to reach the top leagues in pros like the NBA, NFL, or starter in the CFL or AFL, they can always be discussed in AFD, or just prodding them. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 20:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't need to be blindly deleted without a replacement. I think verifiability cleans up a lot of the lesser athletes, since their university's media guide isn't an independent source. (Though yes, there's still a hole you could drive a truck through for getting amateur athletes in, or at least as far as AfD.) A criterion for amateur athletes needs to be in there, so I'm reverting. —C.Fred (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Another issue is about players who are "fully proffesional" and related wikiprojects guidelines. Minor league baseball players for example, WP:BASEBALL consider them non-notable, while it meets the fully proffesional part, same with youth soccer players and WP:SOCCER consider them mainly nn. Maybe a mention of that should be appropiate, as they are the experts in the subject. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 19:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I restarted discussion on Wikipedia:Notability (athletes). Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 01:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm cautioning people not to be too fast to resurrect old pages....people need to agree and know about it first.  Anyway, I don't see why athletes need their own guideline.  It's the same issue as with members of any notable group whether that's a corporation's executives, members of an art movement, political party, or a musical group, etc.  They must have their own notability.  If each of these groups had their own notability guideline we would have rule WP:CREEP on a large scale.  If there's anything special that makes things different with athletes you could just include a few words or a section in the overall notability of people article.  Wikidemo 23:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Athletes 

message: I'll admit I don't follow this page hugely, so apologies if this has already been discussed. I spotted recently - although I can't remember where! - an article for a set of twin babies who'd "played" characters in various shows. In my view they're non-notable, seeing as they nothing more than living props. I feel they fail the significant part of "With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions" the notability criteria for actors. They even fall below something like Moose (dog actor) because at least Moose "acts". But yeah, in my view, if they're just there as babies they should be deleted, if they grow up to do some kind of acting in a notable show, they can be kept. Thoughts? HornetMike 16:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick glance around the soaps provides us with: Isabelle Earnshaw, Niamh Earnshaw, Kevin Curran (actor), Matthew Silver and maybe Morgan Whittle and Alex Stevens. HornetMike 17:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Dear god, AFD them all. Jaranda wat's sup 19:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Baby actors

message: I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John T. Walker and from the feedback it appears I have missed reading Wikipedia:Inherently notable.  I am unable to locate this Wikipedia policy does anyone know where it is, or what it is called? Jeepday (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this was about an Episcopal Church  Bishop. Bishops of organized religious denomination are in general written about fairly extensively in reliable sources, so it can be reasonably assumed that such sources exist. That they may be difficult to find if they involved the pre-web era is not a reason to conclude they do not exist. The standard for inclusion in WP is verifiability, not verified. DGG (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Inherently notable

message: What is the significance of this guideline?  Why is wikipedia concerned with excluding articles about non-notable people?  What harm would be done if we included baby actors and mechanics and housewives?  In my opinion wikipedia can only benefit from more information.  The concern should be with verify-ability and not notability.  Notability itself implies a philosophical bias.  Does anyone agree? -ShadowyCabal 07:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many people agree.  If you read through the archives at WT:N and other places, you will find the similar points being raised.  However, the current consensus is that we need a notability threshold.  Verifiablity is not enough - I could write a detailed and verifiable article on the history of my car, but that would do little to further the encyclopedia.--Kubigula (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles about important people are harmed by the others: it implies that we will accept an article about anything at all, that we are merely a non-critical directory or blog, and that nothing here can be trusted.We are trying to be an encyclopedia--a reasonably reliable source of information about things that people will want to use an encyclopedia for. There is a place for MyPages, and there is a place for an encyclopedia.  DGG (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ditto on DGG, wikipedia in my opinion will benfit from less or the equal amount of information. Remember we are trying to build an encyclopedia, not a people directory. If we add info on everything, then wikipedia will be a utter joke, and no one will go there unless they want to add the history of themselves. Most admins, including me will leave the project if that ever happens, and wikipedia will likely decay until evenually it shuts down. A notabilty guideline is one of the most important things we need. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 19:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On Notability

message: Does winning the Military Cross confer notability? (It's the third highest medal of the British Army; before the introduction of the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross in 1993 I believe it was the second.) I ask because my grandfather won it in the war serving with the Royal Engineers near Bologna, and someone said there should be an article about him. (He later went on to work as an architect building municipal swimming pools and things, and served as a district councillor.) If it does confer notability, though, it would probably be a WP:COI for me to write it. Marnanel 19:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the Military Cross would confer notability and I beleive you are correct about the WP:COI.  Jeepday (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The [[Military Cross]] 

message: I having a discussion with the creator of Michael Pelster, an article which has been tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 (no assertion of notability), and the discussion has brought up a point which I was hoping to clarify. Apologies if I'm asking in the wrong place, or if this has been asked previously.
The creator asserts that the subject is notable because he has received a scholarship from his university. However, lots of students receive scholarships and most universities hand them out. Does an undergraduate scholarship scheme fit the definition of "significant recognized awards or honors"? I'd be inclined to say no, simply because of the sheer number of university scholarships, but I'd appreciate it if someone more knowledgeable than me had an answer! --kateshortforbob 21:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that is absolutely not the type of "significant" award that is contemplated here.  An appropriate award would be some type of peer recognition that would almost certainly guarantee that a person would be the subject of substantive coverage in reliable sources - and thus that an encyclopedic article could be written.  An academic or athletic scholorship does not do it.--Kubigula (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much for your quick response. As I mentioned, I sort of expected that would be the case. It seems like the deletion of this article may be being contested, but hopefully this information will make the situation clearer. --kateshortforbob 23:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to confirm this. National Merit scholarships, however honorable--and they are certainly highly honorable since they saw fit to award me one--are not sufficient for notability, nor are almost any undergraduate awards. Undergraduates have on rare occasions been notable for their undergraduate careers, if they have done something to warrant widespread media recognition, but there is nothing in that article to so indicate.  Nor could anyone familiar with the contents of Wikipedia have reasonably thought that there was.DGG (talk) 07:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I would go even further than that.  I have several friends who received very notable scholarships (such as the :Rhodes Scholarship, clearly among the most "significant recognized awards or honors" a young person can have).  Today, some of them are notable and some are not, but I don't think that any of them would claim that their notability (at least in the sense that it is used in Wikipedia) is based upon their having received that honor.  Receiving a scholarship is often more a recognition of the person's potential than of the person's accomplishments.  Notability should be based on the latter, not the former. Hopefully, many of today's scholarship recipients will go on to do great things and become notability for their contributions to society, but merely receiving the scholarship doesn't make them notable. -- DS1953 talk 14:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of "significant recognized awards or honors" 

message: The way it is worded now, it means all minor leaguers who ever played a game meets WP:BIO as the minor leagues are a proffesional league. There are tens of thousands of former and current minor leaguers who meets that criteria, the guidelines for WP:BASEBALL which are the experts of the subject says that they aren't notable unless they are a top prospect or broke minor league records, etc and tons of them have been deleted before in AFD. 
Can this be edited to include minor leaguers from all sports, or that some wikiprojects has their own guidelines to certain articles that are borderline here, as some people consider the minor leagues not to be fully proffesional. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 17:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's WP:BIO that matters. There should not be different rules for baseball than other sports. The major/minor league issue is an anomaly that only applies to a handful of sports, and only in North America. The long-established criteria for sportspeople on WP:BIO correctly applies similar standards of notability to those applied to people across the board: individuals are legitimate article topics if people not personally connected with them are likely to want to look them up from time to time. This is clearly true of minor league baseball players, indeed it is more true for them than for categories of sportspeople whose eligibility for articles is not disputed, such as lesser-known Olympic competitors. Brandon97 13:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *BIO is based upon precedent. If this page says one thing, but the common outcome on AFD says another, that's the time to fix this page for stating wishful thinking rather than fact. >Radiant< 08:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this were the case we'd have no special rules. WP:N is clear that the special rules prevail, and this has always been held at AfD not just about baseball players but everything. If you want to challenge the workgroup's authority to make the rules, I think that would be for WP:VP. If you think thy should change the rules, discuss it at the workgroup. What rules they ought to have is a matter of informed opinion, unless WPedians in general think their rules incorrect.  DGG (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Yea I'll likely mention this in WP:VP. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 19:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: User been blocked indef for disruptive sockpuppetry Jaranda wat's sup 19:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Leaguers 

message: Greetings, I added a longevity section.
:I deleted it as 'too specific' for the 'general guidelines' page. But we can discuss this here.Ryoung122 10:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, unless there is simply no media coverage or material about them. Also, I find it a bit disturbing to see the 'pro-living' bias. Wikipedia is not a newspaper; it is not a current event. If someone is notable in life, they should also be notable in death...and vice versa.Ryoung122 10:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree When a person becomes the world's oldest, no matter what country they are from, they are often the subject of enough media coverage that sufficient biographical information can be found for a full article. Cheers, CP 16:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree For the same line of reasoning as above. Cheers, CP 16:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: In my opinion these two are NOT equal in any way. 10th-oldest in the world=1 in 700 million people. Yet how many cities are there? a LOT more than 10 major cities in the world. If we divide the world population by the top 1,000 cities, that would be 'one in six million' people'. So, 'oldest by city' is NOT appropriate. Top-10 should be included unless the person has no media coverage.Ryoung122 10:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As for the others, I'm not sure yet. If the Gladys Swetland AfD were to be successful, I prepared and delivered a list of similar articles that I would propose for deletion, and I specifically left out any that were state/province recordholders - although I left the possibility open for future proposed deletion. As for living people, it's a bit tougher since Edna Parker was nominated for deletion when she was #7, then she moved up to #1. Then again, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. My hope was that with the AfD. we could have a discussion and set precedents instead of just complaining back and forth on each other's talk pages. So far it seems to be somewhat working. Cheers, CP 16:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, I fail to see a need for people other than the oldest man/woman Corpx 18:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longevity. 

message: I disagree with the qualitative approach of the above assessment, and offer my own.
1. WP: BIO is a 'guideline', not a rule. Ultimately, 'consensus' of the Wiki community determines notability.
2.Criteria for notability of people A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
Assessment of notability should not be a technical decision. Instead, it's like trying to choose which baseball players belong in the 'Hall of Fame'. Certain minimum standards are considered 'automatic' inclusion (barring scandal): 300 wins, 3,000 hits, 500 home runs.
In addition, other players who do not meet these standards but nonetheless demonstrated 'peak' talent (such as Sandy Koufax) are also voted in.
I note that standards 'do' change over time. Bruce Sutter was, in my opinion, dubiously elected based on a mere 300 saves, a standard which is less impressive now that Trevor Hoffman has over 500.
However, this is not (yet) the case with this article. If we check the List of living supercentenarians we find that, were Gladys alive today, she would rank fourth-oldest in the world (instead of ninth). At the time of Glady's death, several unusually long-lived persons were alive at the same time. Hence, standards are 'fuzzy', not concrete; a ranking alone should only be one variable. Other variables to consider include actual age and news coverage. If a person remained anonymous and was only known through a statistical records search and their age was not a recordbreaker, then perhaps they should not be included. This is not the case here.
Also, I disagree that the 'oldest person in a country' should automatically be included. Some nations are micro-states; others have huge populations. Being the oldest person in France means a lot more than being the oldest person in Monaco. Even in Belgium, the current oldest person is a mere 108 years old. Although first in the nation, I don't think Marcelle Droogmans yet warrants an article. If she is alive three years from now, her case may be on the cusp.
In the big picture of things,
Therefore, I propose the following general policy guidelines, not rules:
--the person's age should be accepted as validated by an established authority (i.e. Guinness, GRG, IDL) (and not a newspaper or nationalist source) and should be at least 110 years old (supercentenarian status). This would exclude the 'oldest living person' for places like Norway or Belgium in an 'off' year (i.e. age 107 or 108 isn't enough to establish worldwide notability). Exceptions could be made, however, to early historical age cases.
For those that meet the first condition (age 110), I note the raw numbers I have (for data through March 25, 2007):
age 117 and above:5 
age 116 and above:10 
age 115 and above:23 
age 114 and above:63 
age 113 and above:132 
age 112 and above: 278 
age 111 and above (subset of below): 550 
age 110 and above: 1054 
Before I go further, I might ask: how much coverage is too much? True, just about every major league baseball player ever counts as a 'notable' biography to some. However, this might be a case where I agree with the 'other crap exists' argument. The fact is, for better or worse our society as a whole values sports figures far more than elderly icons. Perhaps 'supercentenarians' are better to compare to a lesser-known sport (perhaps tennis). We know the top-10 players, maybe top 20 but that's about it.
Basically, we can say that age 110 'alone' is not enough to establish notability. However, a line at age '114' (just 63) is too small (not even a top-100). Therefore, I propose that anyone who has reached the verified age of 113 should be considered notable and warrant an article, UNLESS that person's age came only from official statistics and their identity remained anonymous to the public (i.e. Adelheid Kirschbaum) and they did not attain a first-position rank (i.e. Matthew Beard). Dropping these cases would reduce our tally from '132' to perhaps 100.
However, if we set the bar that high, it would exclude many cases that received extensive media coverage (such as Antonio Todde). Germany's national record is under 113. Sweden's national record is more than a year below Ms. Swetland's age (113 years 240 days vs. 112 years 150 days). Also, since only 10% of supercentenarians tend to be male, we could perhaps lower the bar to age '111' for males.
Also, I don't like to make 'strong delineations' based on numbers alone. I feel that age "113" should be automatic inclusion. However, we see that often there aren't even ten living 113-year-olds in the entire world (currently we have seven). Thus I would prefer an age-merit cutoff of about 112.5 years. Why? This is halfway between age 110 (lots of cases) and 115 (extremely rare). Age '112.5' or 112 years 180 days would be enough to assure that anyone in the 'top 10' would be included.
Ok, but what about persons such as Irmgard von Stephani? She is just 111 currently, but Germany's oldest person, and a strong personality with lots of media coverage. Germany (with 80+ million people) is an important nation. Thus, I suggest being the oldest person in nations with 50 million or more persons (and remember, since cases must be validated, this basically means the USA, Japan, Germany, France, the UK, and Italy). But then what about Spain? Australia? Is Portugal enough? Is Switzerland too small? Where do we draw the line? Why do we have an article on Rosa Rhein...Switzerland's oldest person?
To me, there are simply too many intuitive calculations to simply make arbitrary checklists. However, to review, a general guideline for inclusion:
--the case must be validated by a reputable, independent authority --the person's age --the person's national ranking status --the person's world ranking status --whether the person received significant media attention outside their local area
In summation, I consider age 112.5+ to be a 'definite' for an article, unless there simply is no material available. For those aged 110-112.49, I suggest inclusion of those that were the 'oldest living man'; the oldest person in a major nation; and those that were vaguely famous for something other than age.
Always keep
*World's oldest person titleholders 
*World's oldest man titleholders 
*Persons 113 and over whose life garnered significant national media coverage 
*Those in the 'top 100' all-time (and if they drop out, nominate them for deletion to see what the consensus is then) 
*Those who attained a top-5 world ranking 
May Keep
*Oldest person in a major nation 
*Anyone 112.50 to 112.99 whose life garnered significant national media coverage 
*Those notable for other reasons (i.e. WWI veteran, painter, etc). 
*Those who attained a 6-10 world ranking 
Might or Might Not Keep
*Those aged 112.00 to 112.49 
*Oldest in a U.S. state (major states yes; minor state no) 
*Those who attained an 11-25 world ranking 
*males aged 111 
Might not Keep
*Females aged 110 and 111 not known for something else (i.e. 'Canada's oldest person) 
*Those not national recordholders and not known for something else (i.e. Ida Fraboni-Saletta is Italy's second-oldest person and aged 110) 
*Those for whom no biographical material is available (i.e. Yasu Nishiyama other than what would appear in a list or chart 
*Those whose top ranking is less than the top-25 (my GRG list gives the ranking for EVERY supercentenarian at death)
 
So, with Gladys Swetland, we have a top-10 living, top-100 all-time, aged 113+ with significant media coverage. Hence, I say keep...and I've suggested where the bar should be set for other cases.
Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 10:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC
Ryoung122 10:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Longevity II

message: Hello, I've just created a seperate page proposing guidlines for noteability of Reality TV contestants and if they should have their own articles. I did this due to the mass number of articles being created and deleted on these subjects in recent months, and confusion among editors if they are in fact noteable or not. You can read this here. All edits and comments on the talk page are welcome. Thanks, Dalejenkins |  18:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really needed?   I think pretty much anyone who has attained notability outside the appearance on a show should be notable Corpx 18:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as many are confused about the noteability of contestants, as all pass certain elements of WP:BIO but may not essentially deserve and individual article. Dalejenkins |  18:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It was rejected, I was one of the few who supported it though. Jaranda wat's sup 14:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reality TV star noteability guidelines

message: Wikipedia:Notability (Reality Television participants) has been proposed as a new guideline.  Are these people significantly different enough to merit a new guideline?  Or is this rule creep --Kevin Murray 18:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Notability (Reality Television participants)]]