Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Archive 0

message: A side test for books to get a rough measure for "popularity" when print-run is unavailable,
Search for the book at,
*http://www.copac.ac.uk/
*http://catalog.loc.gov/
*http://www.abebooks.com/
*http://www.amazon.com
Any mainstream book should appear on at least 3-4 of them. Virtually all books published by a professional (read non-vanity) press should appear in at least one of them. --Imran 20:42, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Books popularity

message: : Recording musicians who have sold more than 5,000 albums, CDs, or similar recordings
All this emphasis on selling stuff is very disturbing. Martin
Nod. I thought of adding here the insight of another wikipedia. Differences of approach are interesting.
* for authors of books and such, are accepted 
** those who have published at least 2 books, at editor account
** or cited in at least one relevant (understand recognised) reference book (encyclopedia, dictionary...)
* Paint artists and such
**with at least 2 personal expositions
**or be represented in the expositions of a recognised museum
*Musicians and singers
**at least 2 musical records (editor, not personal)
**or at least having received a prize for a first CD or equivalent
I hope the translation is understandable. What I mostly meant is that none of us has based what "fame" is, on financial success. But rather by personal work and recognition by peers (ie, good enough to receive a prize, good enough to interest a museum or a music editor).
I think the sale aspect can not be worth on the net. Is also little worth for non-occidental artists. 
:Why?  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:25, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: (But it was ignored by many when it came to the Daniel C. Boyer article on French Wikipedia, who still argued for its exclusion despite the fact that I had then had five personal exhibitions (I have now had six) and my work had been shown at the Swedish American Museum, the Portland Museum of Art, the Museo Filatelica de Oaxaca, the Zoologische Institut und Zoologische Museum and the Fundacîo Pedro Ferrándiz International Center for the Documentation of and Research on Basketball.  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:25, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Small note: I've now had seven.  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The capitalists cometh 

message: It is unclear to me what the examples from the articles page are examples of.  --Daniel C. Boyer 19:12, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples from Article page

message: (to Martin) I have thought a lot about some of your points on these topics.  I can appreciate your concern about the subjectivity of relevance tests, and agree that the emphasis on commercial sales may be misplaced.
I wonder if one of the criteria for an article to be present (biographical or otherwise) should be that the content of the article can be verified using the resources present in a good library.  An encyclopedic work should not contain primary source materials, and I believe we've been over that ground already.  And any bit of knowledge not already present in the collection of an appropriate library is probably obscure enoguh that an article about it constitutes original research or reportage.
Not sure what a "good library" would mean.  In some cases a specialist library might be most relevant, such as the music library at a college, or a medical library, or an engineering library.
--Kat 18:14, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  a good library? 

message: This may be a bit US-centric, as the title professor is often given at a lower level of significance in the USA and Canada than in other English-speaking countries. A lecturer or senior lecturer in these countries would be called professor in the USA. Conversely, the 'average college professor' from the USA would not be considered of 'professorial rank' in most of the English-speaking world. Andrewa 20:10, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree about the US-centrism of the term. What is an "average college professor" actually expected to have done? How much is he or she expected to have published? / Uppland 11:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The Professor Test

message: This was a list of categories of people with absolutely no explanation as to what the list represents.  I added an explanation, which was my guess as to what we are saying:
Biographies on the following people should be included in Wikipedia. This list is not all-inclusive. There are numerous biographies on Wikipedia on people who do not fall under any of these categories, and no intention to delete them all.
I was reverted, 01:23, 2 Oct 2004 Rossami m (I think Anthony's edit overstates the current consensus. Articles on people in these classes may be allowed but are not necessarily actively sought).
Now, besides the fact that this page has no consensus in the first place, Rossami's problem seemed to be extremely minor - my edit suggested that we are actively seeking these articles (which I think it true), but Rossami believes they are merely allowed.  But, in any case, the simple changing of the word "should" to "may" addresses that point, so I re-added the paragraph again:
Biographies on the following people may be included in Wikipedia. This list is not all-inclusive. There are numerous biographies on Wikipedia on people who do not fall under any of these categories, and no intention to delete them all.
anthony (see warning) 18:57, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: People still alive

message: I have added "other search engines" to the Google search. We must not promote a particular website in Wiki. Also implies Google is the best or most reliable search engine, not appropriate here.--Squiquifox 14:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Google monopoly

message: EggplantWizard recently proposed the following criteria for politicians who failed to win the election in a VfD discussion.  The specific example was for a US House of Representatives election.  Should it be included here?  Rossami (talk) 22:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defeated politicians 

message: I demoted this page to "proposed" for several reasons.
* It conflicts with Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Policy_consensus/Conclusions, which says there is no consensus on the inclusion of local politicians.
* The page doesn't really come up with an agreed-upon set of rules of thumb; instead, it presents a bunch of "alternatives".  If this is a consensus guideline, then what has been agreed upon, exactly?
* I'm not sure it really got all that much attention.
* Wikipedia:Importance explicitly has no consensus, and this "guideline" seems to be in a similar state.
I would suggest putting this question to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus, which will definitely determine whether or not there is consensus support.  I would recommend putting the result on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Policy_consensus/Conclusions when finished.  VFD is where this guideline, whatever it may turn out to be, would have to be enforced, and so it should be closely associated so that this will actually happen. -- Beland 04:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of this page