Wikipedia talk:Notable alumni

message: Please comment on this proposed policy guideline.  I hope it's helpful. Thesmothete 05:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

message: :Redlinks among lists of "Notable anybody" should be deleted anyway: half the time it's a prankster's buddy. Guidelines never substitute for missing common sense: instead they get rigorously enforced by people from authoritarian cultural backgrounds. --Wetman 06:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that this should be its own guideline - we have too many separate and overlapping guidelines already. The nutshell version, however, should definitely be policy SOMEWHERE.. it would be good to have it clarified front and center. Perel 06:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You don't need a guideline for notable alumni.  We already have several guidelines that determine the notability of people for having their own article.  If your goal is to define who should be listed as notable alumni, we already have that covered.  They have an artivle.  Being an alumni is not a reason to have an article, in most cases anyway.  Vegaswikian 06:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Vegaswikian, I don't think I agree that "we already have that covered".  As far as I know, there is no current guideline or policy to address the situation where a person does not have their own article, but is listed as a "notable alumnus".  Also, I agree that being an alumnus is not a reason to have one's own article, and the proposed guideline does not suggest that.  This guideline is only about who should be put in a list of "notable alumni", it is not meant to affect who does and does not get their own article. Thesmothete 16:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuation from Village Pump

message: I think that if the policy were strengthened, it would be clearly useful, because it isn't covered anywhere else:  A listing of notable alumni for a school 'cannot include anyone who does not already have a wikipedia article about that person.  In other words, redlinks would not be allowed, nor would non-wikilinked names.
If the policy isn't strengthened, then I'd vote against having it at all, because, as noted above, there are likely to be a lot of discussions about whether a person is notable even if he/she doesn't have an article YET.  Those are time-wasting.  And if the policy isn't changed and a non-wikilinked person's name is deleted, with the policy cited, the next action is likely to be someone putting the name back with a redlink, then possibly making things up when the redlink is removed - in short, way too much time being spent on a single line in an article.   John Broughton  |  Talk 16:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it's actually necessary (since it's come up, perhaps it is), but I'd support such a stronger rule.  This makes the rule very clearcut.  No article, no list entry.  I'd even make existence of an article a minimum criteria, i.e. I don't think there's any particular reason to necessarily list everyone who has an article as a "notable alumnus".  -- Rick Block (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is a compromise wording: "A person should be included as a "notable alumna or alumnus" only if that person is already the subject of a wikipedia article or if an article about that person would undoubtedly meet wikipedia's guidelines for notability." GabrielF 19:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This policy ''is'' needed IF it's stronger 

message: The same would apply for famous citizens - players on football teams. Personally I think the policies already are in place to police such list and this guideline is only needed if it goes beyond what is already policy. Agathoclea 17:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What policies (or guidelines) are in place to polcie such lists? I am aware of policies/guidelines for notablitly as it pertains to an entire article, but not as it pertains to lists.Thesmothete 02:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable citizens 

message: I oppose this altogether, but at very most it should be a suggestion, not even a guideline, let alone a policy. If we insist that everyone who is added already have an article here we are just reifying ourselves, and using circular reasoning. There are obviously many people who are notable but do not have wikipedia articles - it is ridiculous to say otherwise.  Ideally, sure, we should have articles about all notable people but that's not realistic.  I do think, of course, that someone's friend should be removed - it's very easy, really, to determine if someone is "worthy" of being listed as a notable alum of a school, by the usual methods.  Wanting to include someone on a page doesn't mean one also wants to set up a page for that person.  Sure, I try to go for a minimum of red links on these listings, and a minimum of black, but I also recognize that the level of information one gathers about a school might vary based on the nature of the school.  So, for example, a school of mathematics might include someone who would be notable in that universe but may or may not have a page on wikipedia.  But that person should certainly be included. We need to get over the idea that we already know everything in the world that there is to be known, and if we don't have it, it isn't worthy. That's juvenile thinking.,  Tvoz 20:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A person who is a notable alumni of a high school might not meet the standard of being a notable alumni of a large and prestigious university.  Well, at least that's the way I think it should be.  The standard for Wikipedia is one rule fits all.  I don't think that's appropriate.  Someone might be a notable person for a particular town but not considered a notable person for the country.  Notable should be considered within the context it is being applied to. 216.121.144.59 (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: 1. Doesn't this policy as written now essentially say that "notable people should be notable"? Isn't that kind of obvious?
:In a way, it does, but since "notable" is a term of art for purposes of article creation, what this guideline is saying is that "notable" for purposes of a list is the same as "notable" for purposes of an article.  Or, rather, "notable alumni" means Notable alumni and not merely Notable alumni. Thesmothete 08:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. We are offering a consistent definition of "Notable" with respect to "Notable alumni" in Wikipedia articles, instead than leaving each group of editors to come up with their own definition. --Jdlh  | Talk 20:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Makes sense to me.  It hadn't occured to me before proposing the guideline that there are lists of "notable" people in articles that are not about schools. Are there any exceptions anyone can think of?  Thesmothete 08:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Bellingham, Washington#Notable people from Bellingham or with ties to Bellingham. About 25 names, 20% red link, 80% blue link, 0% black text. --Jdlh  | Talk 20:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needed, but with help 

message: A user edited out some alumni from the State University of New York at Stony Brook article because the user didn't feel their professions were worthy enough to be mentioned. (see here and here). I figured it was that user's bias against certain occupations or levels of notability. I and another user disagreed with that user, citing WP:BIO and WP:N. The deletions were reverted by me, anyway. This proposed guideline would be helpful to formally determine who should be in an alumni list, and maybe to prevent someone from imposing bias on the list. I'm neutral as to if it should be stated explicitly as a guideline when the same interpretation could be deduced through other guidelines or an essay, though. Tinlinkin 08:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's a good suggestion, but that wasn't the problem - the problem was an individual editor making a very POV edit to the list that had been posted - and the evidence of its POVness is in that editor's own comment on the talk page. Tinlinkin's reinstatement was correct.   The notability guidelines in effect on wikipedia apply here as well, so in my opinion, there is no need for additional guidelines. Tvoz 18:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable by profession 

message: I agree with this point, but don't think it should be in the nutshell.  Also, if we expand this guideline to "famous residents" it would be inapplicable. Thesmothete 15:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can imagine situations in which awarding an honorary degree would be notable. For example, if controversy ensued after the degree was granted or perhaps if it was the first honorary degree that someone who would later achieve notability received. Another example might be the first honorary degree awarded by an Ivy League school to a woman or an African-American. I would prefer to weaken the honorary degree criteria to something like "Individuals receiving honorary degrees should not be included unless the award was itself significant. (For example...)" GabrielF 18:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it's notable enough to be that notable it should be part of the text, not part of a list. I cannot think of an honorary degree notable to be part of a list that's not also enough to be part of the text - can you? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but it doesn't really matter if you or I can think of an example that works - this should be left to the editors of each individual page, which often do have different reasons for inclusion.  I tweaked the wording as a suggestion - I do certainly agree that honorary degrees should be distinguished from earned degrees as they are in the real world, but I do not think this "guideline", if we approve it, should be a rulebook about what can or cannot be included in some absolute sense. GabrielF's example is a good one, and we shoudl not be trying to prejudge notability here any more thn anywhere else on Wikipedia. Tvoz 19:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hipocrite - did you not see the edit summary note "see talk" before reverting the suggestion I made to the text?   I think the appropriate thing to do is actually see talk and respond, not just revert without any consideration of what I was getting at.  Tvoz 19:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I saw talk. The only comment was GabrielF's, and I thought it was without merit with respect to inclusion of individuals on a list. Should Harvard University be able to claim Bill Clinton as a graduate because they awarded him an honorary degree, even with an asterix? Absolutly not! GF's example is one where the person would certainly be included in the text, but not worthy of inclusion on a list. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonetheless, reverting a change wholesale is not helpful.  There is a difference of opinion here about whether there are circumstances where honorary degrees might be listed, and you can't think of them all nor can I, so we should not have such absolutes in a guideline.  My suggested text attempted to address that - you just reverted with "no deal" which is insulting. Tvoz 19:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The wording I suggested, that was reverted with "No deal" as the summary, was as follows. I'm sure it can be improved, but it is a place to start , coming from a different angle than that which was there:
 If individuals receiving honorary degrees are included, they should be identified as such - perhaps on a separate list.
Tvoz 20:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC
By the way, no I don't think Harvard should list Bill Clinton as a graduate. If it were deemed appropriate - and I'm not weighing in here on whether I think it is or is not because I'm not editing that page right now - then he should be listed as the recipient of an honorary degree, not as a graduate. And it doesn't have to be with an asterisk at all - there's plenty of room for a few words about each alum as it is, so there's no problem with saying "honorary". And I'd favor a sub-list or section anyway - if honoraries are included on any given page.  We should not and cannot try to figure out all possibilities - it's impossible to do so.
By the way, many schools here include "notable former students" - folks who attended but did not graduate.  That is also  totally acceptable, in my view, as long as they are identified as such.  Again we do not need a guideline for this either.   
At this time I'm still opposed to this being a guideline but I'm leaning toward  thinking  an essay on the subject would be acceptable and helpful.  Tvoz 20:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps I've missed something -- is there some source that says that individuals receiving honorary degrees ARE classified as alumni?  Because I've always assumed they are NOT.  John Broughton  |  Talk 01:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I think we're losing our way slightly here - right, holders of honorary degrees are not alumni, neither are students who don't graduate.  No one is claiming that they are. But the editors of some articles might choose to include either or both of these groups on their pages for whatever reasons they have.  So I think we here should not be saying that they can't do that - but it is reasonable for us to recommend that they meet the notability standard we're talking about, which is that the individuals have or could have an article here, by the usual standards. --tvoz | talk 05:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked because the title is "Notable alumni" - if the guideline also covers honorary degrees, then shouldn't it be retitled?  (And, by the way, a student who attends a school but does not graduate is STILL an alumni; if we want to change the guideline to cover only "Notable graduates", that's something else.)  John Broughton  |  Talk 20:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honorary Degress 

message: Excuse me - I just made a suggestion on the article page with a summary that said "see talk" . This edit was reverted with "no deal" as the summary - I think the appropriate thing to do would be to accommodate another editor's idea rather than just reverting in that manner.  FOr example, I didn't go and blank the page even though I personally don't think we need the guideline - I am trying to work with it and make it better.  Reverting completely without acknowledging the point raised is not at all helpful and is out of line. Tvoz 19:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said - I saw talk, and responded to it. I don't think that there is any reason a list of notable alumns should include people who were given honarary degrees. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, my edit summary said "see talk" where there is an ongoing discussion about honorary degrees. You don't think there there is any reason, but others might, so how about taking my suggested wording and editing it rather than pretending the idea of including honoraries isn;t still on the table?  Tvoz 19:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting rather than discussing 

message: I've added a paragraph about notable alumni to WP:BIO. That may address your concerns? >Radiant< 17:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, on a quick read I think the addition of that paragraph in WP:BIO may be more than sufficient for the aim of this guideline, and further renders this guideline unnecessary. I'll think it through, but this may do it.  Anyone else?  Tvoz | talk 01:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think that the new paragraph at WP:BIO addresses at least 90% of the problem, making a separate guideline unnecessary, at least at the moment.   John Broughton  |  Talk 04:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this paragraph, polished a little, could be enough.  Right now I find the wording a bit confusing. It goes from talking about a "list" to "such categories", as in "Editors who would like to add themselves to such categories". Maybe this should read "such lists".  I'm tempted to add the example of a town with notable inhabitants, to show that this paragraph isn't solely applicable to articles on schools.  And the language as it stands doesn't address my Verifiability issue, raised in the section below.  But I think this is a good step, Radiant. --Jdlh  | Talk 09:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BIO]] 

message: Hi, folks. On the talk page of the Royal Grammar School, Newcastle article, we've been evolving our own Notable Alumni policy. One issue we had was, how do we fulfill the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy with respect to the claim that a given person attended a given school?  Surely we should insist that Wikipedia somewhere cite some source that says person P attended school S in year Y.  We experimented with hanging citations off the entries for that person in our Notable Alumni list. Then we moved to requiring that the person a) have an article already existing, and b) the article mention attendance at the school and cite it.  I like that standard. Note that it puts us in the fairly hard-core "blue-links" only school of Notable Alumni inclusion.  What are your thoughts on verifiability of school attendance? --Jdlh  | Talk 20:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Schools often have alumni databases that can be accessed if there is a question.  I honestly have not come across any such problems - only an occasional question as to whether an individual attended and didn't graduate or actually graduated.  I'd certainly leave this up to the editors of each school (town, etc)'s page rather than trying to codify it - is this really a problem? (And couldn't a person up to no good edit an individual's page to include a school, only so that they could be included on the school's list?  Nah, I really doubt it. Assume good faith.)  Tvoz | talk 10:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Royal Grammar School, Newcastle has indeed had a bit of a problem with disputes about whether given people did or did not attend.  I think our disputes all involved uncited claims.  The question here is how to apply WP:V and WP:CITE for notable alumni. It's not whether verifiable sources, such as alumni databases, exist. If there's a policy statement that claims of alumni status need to be cited, and are subject to removal if not cited, it would help our situation.  --Jdlh  | Talk 04:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *There's no need to codify anything, but if it comes up a lot (and I'm not saying that it does) a clarifying statement may help. It is a simple consequence of policy that if users are in dispute about whether some person is in fact alumnus of some school, the people who claim that he is will have to provide factual verification, or the disputed statement will be removed from the article. >Radiant< 09:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is best posted on the talk page of the school itself or even as hidden text in the area of the notable alumni list, rather than as a separate Wikipedia guideline. Tvoz | talk 09:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability of school attendance 

message: I take it that the consensus of the discussion here last month was that we don't need the text at Wikipedia:Notable alumni, and instead the text at WP:BIO#Lists_of_people is sufficient. However, I don't think that the disclaimer at the top of Notable alumni is clear enough.  I propose changing it to make the point more clearly. 
* It now reads: "This is a work in progress. Editors are encouraged to improve it and discuss ideas on the talk page."
* I propose to change it to: "This was a proposed policy that was discussed in December 2006. The result of the discussion was recorded in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people. Please look there. This draft text is here only as a historical record."  Note that the "currently inactive" at the top of the article already directs people to the Village Pump to make more comments.
What do people think? --Jdlh  | Talk 21:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's fine, although I could imagine furhter developments in this area, so it might be useful to have a link back from WP:BIO to this discussion. Thesmothete 17:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify that this article is abandoned and refer to WP:BIO