Archive 2010

←

Archive 2013

Archive 2014

Archive 2015

Archive 2016

Archive 2017

→

Archive 2020

The text currently says "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." but this has often been taken to argue that even the most fleeting appearance in non-porn is an automatic pass. I'm not sure if the problem is the wording or the way that its being interpreted. For the sake of clarity can we agree what we mean by this text? There are two key words that seem to be open to question:

Featured - am I right that the meaning should be something similar to to include someone or something as an important part: The movie features James Dean as a disaffected teenager. [1]. To me this should me someone who the film revolves around. Perhaps someone who has headline billing or is used as a selling point for the film? Is this right?

Notable - Presumably this is the wikipedia interpretation that means has been discussed in detail by two separate independent reliable secondary sources. Per WP:GNG? or WP:NFILM? Correct?

I'd be very grateful for thoughts comments on this so that we can reach a consensus that avoids arguments about the interpretation of this section in future. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The word "featuring" should not be interpreted too strict in this case. Featuring in this case isn't the equivalent of "star billing" but merely as appearing.

As to the word "notable", it's not the amount of sources but the quality that should be determining. Keeping on insisting on multiple sources, may mean that an entire category becomes redundant because for various things regarding porn, you'd be hard-pressed to find multiple sources. In certain cases one - independent and qualitative - source could be enough to grant notability. The question/focus should thus not be on the number of sources, but rather on what exact is "notable mainstream media"? For me these are the regular independent media sources, namely television- and newspapers and their accompanying websites. In that WP:GNG should indeed apply. -- fdewaele, 29 December 2014, 18:02 CET

Thanks very much for your comment. I think I'm in agreement with the second part but I'm not entirely at ease with the first. The trouble is that both featured and/or appeared are such nebulous phrases and are easily distorted. Does an uncredited non-speaking cameo count for example? That's appearing in by plain language and shouldn't be something that counts towards a GNG pass for a BLP. Likewise, Equity in the UK expects a speaking part for a credit in the film but that can be just one line. Featured at least implies some significance. I'll see whether the archives offer any further insight. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

"Featured" definitely seems to be more substantial than "appeared". The latter would, I guess, be verifiable if credited ("second passerby", "fourth soldier"), but I can't see how that would make anyone notable, pornbio or not. And I don't see why for any subject we would need to drop the GNG requirement of multiple sources. Remember, subject-specific guidelines do not exist to circumvent GNG, but serve as a shortcut to indicate GNG is most probably met (for example, if somebody got a Nobel Prize, we can safely assume that multiple sources exist). --Randykitty (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Relevant previous discussions: bit difficult to link as comments often fall within wider discussion of the subject so I'm going to quote/paraphrase and link so you can see the context for yourselves:-
  • This was an inconclusive discussion but there was a strand that featured meant something more then appeared
  • Being "featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" obviously requires confirmation from a reliable source. There's got to be a reason why PORNBIO #3 exists in its current form...I just don't know what that reason is or whether it's a very good reason or not. Guy1890 (talk) 12:33 am, 7 October 2013, Monday (1 year, 2 months, 24 days ago) (UTC+1)
  • And we could make clear that appearing in multiple films is not by itself notable - it requires independent comment in reliable sources about these appearances that establishes notability.
  • When there is nothing to base an article on, then there shouldn't be an article. It makes no sense to require, on one hand, "has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media", and on the other hand declare entire classes of people notable where typically there is no mainstream media coverage at all. Hans Adler 12:36 pm, 23 November 2011
  • #3 refers to appearances in mainstream films, TV shows etc. rather than coverage in mainstream sources. The rationale for this is that supposedly only a top porn star would be able to make the crossover into mainstream entertainment. Epbr123 (talk) 6:10 pm, 2 January 2012,
• Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• We certainly shouldn't have a guideline which says that porn actors are notable if they have any two appearances in non-porn media, no matter how minor. For non-porn actors the standard is a "significant role" (WP:ENT), and something similar should be imposed here. Naturally any such claim should have a reliable source to back it up, as should any other claim to notability. Hut 8.5 18:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• I have the impression that the key factor here is how inclusive we want to be in this particular category. As Hut's comment indicates, once we decide that we can adjust the criteria to suit our intentions. There's obviously a difference of opinion on the basic question. I am reluctant to say that going by what I personally think important/unimportant should be the standard, and so I think should be anyone else on either side of the issue . Sometimes the best way to deal with this here is to compromise. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no problem with the guideline and it should remain the way it is. If you want, we can clarify what being "featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" means. I think that in order for an appearance to qualify as "featured" it has to be major and significant. For example, Gina Lynn appears throughout most of the music video for Superman (Eminem song). Here's the music video. Gina Lynn appears in the video from the start until 1:45 and at 2:10-3:05. She obviously has a major role in that video, so this qualifies as featured. Now, Jenna Jameson appears in Eminem's Without Me music video at 0:23-0:26, 0:30-0:32, 0:36-0:39, and 0:56-0:58. Four appearances lasting no more than 2-3 seconds each, a total of only 10 seconds in the entire music video, does NOT count as being featured. This mainstream appearance is still worthy of mention in Jameson's WP article, but just doesn't contribute to her notability. Another example of an appearance that DOES qualify as featured is a porn star having their life documented on E! True Hollywood Story (E! True Hollywood Story#Adult industry entertainers). Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• To myself, the third part of the current PORNBIO inclusion criteria has always seemed very similiar, in a very, very general way, to our GNG inclusion criteria, and I don't think at all that the third part of PORNBIO just refers to so-called mainstream films. It refers, IMHO, to any kind of media that is considered to be mainstream. Again, IMHO, "featured" means that (whatever the specific type of media in question was) the subject (of a Wikipedia article) had a prominent role in that particular media appearance (music video, documentary, newspaper article, magazine, talk show, etc.). Notable is a pretty simple term to define here...you can't wander very far through Wikipedia's myriad of guidelines without running into that term. As for "multiple", well...that simply means more than one, and I believe that we've been extensively over that point the last time that PORNBIO was modified (tightened). In the absence of any past, clear reference to why the third part of the PORNBIO inclusion criteria currently exists the way that it does, it seems to be, again IMHO, there to simply indicate how far a particular person has "crossed-over" (kind of like in music) into what most in society would refer to as the "mainstream". If one wanted to replace the word "featured" with "significant" in the PORNBIO standard, then I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that (since they basically mean the same thing to me)...but we're not at all just talking about film appearances here. Also, it's important to remember that PORNBIO is a sub-heading under ENT, which, to me, means that they already basically go together.

"Does an uncredited non-speaking cameo count for example?" IMO, no, it doesn't. Guy1890 (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Remove the clause completely. If a porn actor is to be considered notable on the basis of appearances in non-porn media, then any criteria relating to those kinds of appearances will be the same as for anybody else (other actors, musicians, etc.) – in other words, that person's case then simply becomes one of WP:ENT and will be evaluated on that basis. It makes no sense to have an extra set of criteria (presumably less tight than "normal" WP:ENT) regarding WP:ENT-type activities of people who also happen to be porn actors. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" criteria in PORNBIO is actually pretty strict. I haven't seen anyone with 1. minor roles in notable mainstream media, 2. major roles, but in non-notable mainstream media, or 3. (obviously) minor roles in non-notable mainstream media, being kept at AfD. We require not just one, but multiple significant roles in notable mainstream media in order to meet this criteria. This is a guideline that very few porn stars pass and anyone who does is certainly notable. Rebecca1990 (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be good if you could cite some examples so we can see how this looks in practice. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Isabella Soprano, Aiden Ashley, Raven Rockette, and Sensi Pearl. Their minor mainstream work was rejected as evidence of notability at AfD and did not save their articles from deletion. This criteria in PORNBIO is strict enough as it is. Rebecca1990 (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks,that was really helpful. 3 of the 4 examples had #3 misused . Do we have any examples of where it has saved an article from deletion? Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The PORNBIO inclusion criteria isn't "less tight" than our other biographical inclusion standards...it's (especially more recently) more tight...precisely because the general overall feeling on Wikipedia in more recent years is that Wikipedia apparently has "too many" pornography-related articles. I would caution again (as I did the last time that the PORNBIO standards were changed) that defaulting back to ENT for these types of articles will eventually lead us down a path to evaluating whether or not adult film performers have "a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following", which is a path that really no one should be willing to go down, since it's pretty much a path to nowhere. Guy1890 (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• My inclination is to remove it. We don't confer notability on academics if they've been featured in two non-academic works. Why is the notability of a porn actor dependent on (or otherwise impacted by) the amount of non-porn stuff they've done? Why is it even relevant? Seems like either a bone thrown to porn article creators to enable a back door to notability (no pun intended) or a bizarre "rescue from porn is inevitable" clause. The notability of an academic is based on citations/h-index or recognised work. The notability of an author is based on significant work. The notability of an actor is based on "significant roles in multiple notable films". All special criteria can be dispensed with in favour of WP:GNG. I'm not really sure why we have a special category for porn actors. In what ways is WP:NACTOR not sufficient? I imagine the suggestion is that all that straight-to-video porn might be significant to the industry but it will never be notable, right? I really can't see how its any different to any other d-grade actor who has only appeared in "made for the Syfy Channel" material. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

"I imagine the suggestion is that all that straight-to-video porn might be significant to the industry but it will never be notable, right?" I don't think that anyone has ever argued that any pornographic film (whether released online, on video, laserdisc, etc.) would ever qualify under the current PORNBIO #3 criteria. Again, we basically have "a special category for porn actors" in order to restrict the number of pornography-related biographies on Wikipedia. Guy1890 (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The question I have is who benefits from this standard? What is the point of having something contentious like this if there is noone who gets to keep an article as a result? I'd like to see some evidence that this standard is making a difference. I can't actually recall anyone benefiting in my many year at DRV and AFD but I do have a memory like swiss cheese. Can anyone help with this? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Apparently Air Force Amy, looking back at the discussion history. [2] Morbidthoughts (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm I'm not convinced we need this section forthe sake of preserving one article. Is there any other guideline retain for such limited utility? I think we could all find PORNBIO clearer if we remove an unnecessary ambiguity. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• I pretty much agree with Spartaz, Stalwart, and FutPerf. This criterion serves no useful purpose. It serves only as a loophole for performers who fail PORNBIO, have minimal other credentials that fall below NACTOR, and can't be shown to meet GNG standards. Many of the cases where it's invoked involve music videos that aren't notable independent of the songs they promote. Appearances in major music videos from the era when music videos were highly notable haven't demonstrated notability (the models in the Robert Palmer "band" being pretty much a paradigm); it's not reasonable for less commented-on performances in far less significant videos to more effectively confer notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
• An example I remember of the use of this criterium (because it was me who raised the point) is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judy Minx. And another one, similarly, is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yasmine Lafitte. Generally who is able to pass this criterium (and there aren't too many of these on the road) has a wider notability/real world relevance than many hall of fame inductees. Yes, the couple/three dozen subjects who pass this criterium are poised to pass WP:ENT, WP:GNG and even in some cases WP:MUSICBIO and WP:AUTHOR (which is not really a bad thing), but as long as it prevents folks from questioning the notability of Moana Pozzi, Eva Henger, Dany Verissimo (yes, I am deliberately choosing articles which are currently in poor shape, otherwise I would say Brigitte Lahaie or Lorelei Lee) it is very useful. I don't remember cases in which the criterium was misused, so if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Cavarrone 15:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

In #1: "...well-known and significant industry award..."

This is insufficient. Editors will argue all day long on the AfDs what is "well-known" or "significant". Let's have some restrictive definitions. And, how many award-generating bodies are going to be included?

In #2: "...or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame..."

The inclusion of Hall of Fame criteria essentially permits the industry to retcon everybody into notability to game the system over here at Wikipedia; for example, here's AVN inducting 28 people in one shot; (XRCO demonstrated commendable restraint in inducting only 9 last year) - are we to believe that the straight-to-video sex industry is generating 37 notable people every year with this one criteria?

At least with the "significant" awards (whatever they are), you know you're only getting a few per year.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Just leave it alone and give it a rest, will you. You seem intent to be an anti-porn crusader. You've been listing such AFD's all day, some which clearly pass WP:PORNBIO, and even a 2nd nom of an AFD which was closed only two days ago. Whereas you apparently find WP:PORNBIO to be too permissive, methinks it's too strict and would plead to loosen up this criteria, especially #1. -- fdewaele, 2 January 2015, 22:53.

I've been doing lots of things "all day". But let's not talk about me; I'm not the subject. --Раціональне анархіст (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

No but your behaviour is a bit questionable. You seem hell bent on reopening various discussions which already have been discussed “ad nauseam” and around which there is a consensus. For instance firstly the Hall of Fame point has already been discussed in full not more than five days ago. See the discussion above. I simply can’t believe you didn’t notice that. Why reopening that discussion at this point, when merely a couple of days ago there was a clear consensus to leave it be? Secondly #1 of WP:PORNBIO is clear enough in that it pertains to individual awards and in my humble opinion is even too strict by excluding scene-related and ensemble categories but I abide by that consensus. As to defining what a significant award is as to the name of awards: AVN and XRCO are a given, but I wouldn’t pin it solely on only those two. That might be to americentric. We don’t discard the BAFTA’s or the Cesars either just because the Oscars are the most well-known movie awards. I would thus plead to leave #1-2 just as they are. – fdewaele, 2 January 2015, 23:32.

This is WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, attempting to edit policy to suit one's own cause. You've constantly been nominating articles for deletion, and when the !keep votes cite PORNBIO as a policy or guideline, you're attempting to change that so they can't use it anymore. Tutelary (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a talk page; I'm talking on it. I have made no attempt to "edit policy" (edit PORNBIO) as you claim.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm 99% sure this user is a WP:sock puppet of Redban, the same user who started the discussion above for PORNBIO's Hall of Fame criteria. Раціональне анархіст is making the very same argument as Redban, they both think that the number of members in the AVN Hall of Fame is too high. The above PORNBIO Hall of Fame criteria discussion is closed and resulted in consensus to keep this criteria in PORNBIO because there is nothing controversial about it. Rebecca1990 (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I previously offered to bet you $100 over that Redban sockpuppet accusation (which you have now made three times in three different locations as a clear, concerted personal attack). I now increase my wager to $1,000. Let's pool the dough and git-r-done. While we're at it, we can do a WP:duck on you being an insider SPA. Are you game?--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:PORNBIO is too strict, more pornographic actors should be given a place in Wikipedia. Actresses with awards scenes are deleted and unknown athletes are here !?--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course, because Wikipedia should be flood-filled with unexceptional articles involving unexceptional people who spam each other with awards for doing unexceptional things that every human being on earth is also capable of undertaking with equal proficiently (screwing on camera).--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced AVN (or anyone else) is inducting people into their Hall of Fame for the sole purpose of "gaming" Wikipedia. I suppose we could look at something more restrictive (adding an additional "and" criteria) but what purpose would it serve? Even at 28 at a time, it's still not as many as the hundreds who make it onto national Olympics teams every 4 years, thus automatically qualifying per WP:ATHLETE or the dozens of authors who have books added to the NYTimes best-seller list, thus qualifying per WP:AUTHOR. Seems fairly restrictive already. St★lwart¹¹¹ 14:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to say I am in agreement with this. WP:PORNBIO in itself is already far stricter than those other notability criteria mentioned. I think some people are being lead by their dislike for the subject matter at hand, and are just hell-bent on changing the rules of the game to fit their own ideas. -- fdewaele, 4 January 2015, 20:31 CET.

They're stricter because screwing is not an inherently exceptional or difficult human endeavor; anyone can do it. (And, as the internet is eager to instruct, many amateurs are capable of doing so with far more enthusiasm and charisma than industry award-winners.) By contrast, even the worst Olympic athlete is still exceptional relative to the many who tried and failed to make the team, to say nothing of the rest of us couch-potatoes. (Since you brought it up, I would not be adverse to tighter notability requirements for Olympic athletes, for example that medal-winners be notable, with "losers" otherwise failing GNG directed to list articles.)

None of this addresses the problems in the wording: the awards (and granting bodies) that are acceptable are not listed, etc.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Nor are running, or throwing or walking "exceptional human endeavours". But they are when you elevate them to the standard of professional athletes, broadcast them around the world and ask those runners, throwers and walkers to compete against each other to determine the best among them in the world. The "worst" Olympic athletes are the guys who get selected for their national swimming team, though their country lacks an Olympic-standard swimming pool (like Eric the Eel). We all understand that you don't think pornography is a particularly productive use of human time, intelligence, money or effort. But the industry has wildly popular (with the public) conventions and exhibitions, pornography remains one of the most searched-for things on the internet, its been around since the Romans and Greeks (like the Olympics) and the industry recognise the best from among their own cohort with awards and Halls of Fame. There's no need to list them because only a handful exist and WP:COMMONSENSE suggests we don't need to account for every eventuality in guidelines. None of those "amateurs" you mention are going to be entered into halls of fame - just like amateur athletes are unlikely to make it to the Olympics. Amateur, home-made, b-grade and low-budget porn is where those amateurs hope to gain enough attention to make it to be "big time". The fact that those amateur streams of porn-making exist is no reason to make professional porn guidelines stricter. Its a comparison of apples and silicone implants. I'm still not convinced there's a need for WP:PORNBIO at all, but if we're going to have it the criteria should be reasonable and should reflect reality, not some ideological view of what porn should be. That's not how we work. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

re: "are we to believe that the straight-to-video sex industry is generating 37 notable people every year with this one criteria?" Why not? I.e., if you claim it is bogus, please state your reason. Otherwise please look up Wikipedia what kind of fallacy your argument is. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary criteria are by definition not reasonable criteria. Pax

Why do you suggest that inclusion in Hall of Fame is an arbitrary criterion? By the way, how do you define the term "arbitrary criteria"? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

re: Comparison with Olympic athletes. Big Sports is Big Money. Same with porn. Since we known porn money is huge, we may assume competition is fierce (or the market is infinite). Therefore to allege that major porn industry awards are just gimmes to each other is also a statement which requires proof. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That porn is "big money" is baloney. Pax

Good to know. Since this baloney is a popular misconception, is the info from your source added somewhere to Wikipedia? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW, along the same lines, may be your fear that pornstars overflood Wikipedia so that we have to somehow fight their influx, is just as overestimated? I clicked "Random article" 40 times and got only 4 sportsbio, 0 pornbio and 5 'useful' articles (ie non-bio, non-geography, non-album, non-disambig). Staszek Lem (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing links to "secondary sources" here a lot. Are we really claiming that coverage of (say) an author doesn't count as coverage of the person unless there are multiple primary documents being used? The GNG doesn't really talk about sourcing in this way, why are people different? Hobit (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Citation number 1 in the article is for Encarta. The link no longer works. Myrvin (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I might suggest some part of: "Worthy or deserving of attention, esp. on account of excellence, value, or importance; significant in size or amount; noteworthy, remarkable, striking, signal, eminent", from the OED on notable. Myrvin (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Myrvin: The phrase and reference were added 13 March 2008. The quotation marks were added in the next edit. Editors then had 19 months to verify or challenge the quote before: "The MSN Encarta site was closed on October 31, 2009". (see Encarta) WP:Verifiability does not require that a published source be available online for main space articles, and this is a project page, where long-standing wording, established by consensus, should probably be left well enough alone. (Wasn't Encarta published on CD also?)
Food for thought. —Telpardec  TALK  19:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm probably asking a question that has been made many many times, but archive search didn't clear it up for me. The section that reads The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. What counts? My specific question is, does a national honour such as an Order of Australia count, or inside that, what level in the Order would you need to be considered 'significantly awarded'. JT_dale^Talk~ 11:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

For Britain, it has generally been held at AfD that people holding honours at the level or Commander or Companion or above meet WP:ANYBIO #1. For the Order of Australia, I would say that equates to Officer or above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

In the past, yes, with the Order of Australia we have generally said Officer and above meets #1. But to address this properly: can we clarify this in the policy? I can't count the number of times someone has, in perfect good faith, created an article based on the fact that someone was awarded an Order of Australia Medal or something. How are people to know that the definition of "significant" has actually been quantified? Frickeg (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I agree so much that it needs to be written into policies or added as an addendum at the bottom of the page. The reason I asked was a local mayor who has an AM but there isn't an overwhelming amount of coverage so I'll give it a miss for now unless things change in the future. JT_dale^Talk~ 06:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The present wording at the beginning of Additional criteria invites capricious behavior. The sentence in question is:

People are likely to be 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.

The problem is that contributors writing a new article to the standards set out below this introductory paragraph, meet frustration when they submit the article to AfC and are met with rejection because the reviewer says "Meeting one of the criteria of WP:NAUTHOR does not guarantee that a subject should be included" There's not point in providing the standard if reviewers can simply ignore it.

I suggest that the paragraph be edited down to:

People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards.

...only.

Thoughts?

SageGreenRider (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not the standards for notability, but the quality of the work at afc . The criterion for passing afc is not notability. The criterion for passing is that the article is likely to be kept at AfD. This depends both on the material present, and the nature of the evidence for it. In doubtful cases, the articles should be accepted, but it's a matter of judgment. The quality of reviewing of material at AfC and the level of judgment being exercised there is so erratic that no wording to the notability standard will help. The only thing that will help is educating or removing the inadequate reviewers.

I would be very reluctant to change language in the is very widely used guideline just because of problems at afc DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That's very insightful. Thanks. I'm curious as to why AfC is so asymmetric with respect to AfD... AfD is much crisper. The nomination gets posted in various places. Three or four people chime in within a week or two. A consensus generally emerges. Then a neutral third (or fifth or sixth) party closes and caps it. In contrast AfC process is very fuzzy... SageGreenRider (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the only time AFC ever comes to my attention is because of a reviewer having made the wrong judgment to exclude an article, and the reasons for that have been everything from the reviewer's own lack of experience (in some instances, a lower edit count than the creator whose work they are reviewing!) to a reviewer citing the AFC backlog as an excuse for not investigating whether sources actually cited in the submission were reliable instead of just assuming (incorrectly) that they weren't. I don't know how common that kind of thing is, but I think it at least needs to be made more clear at every step that the process (for logged-in accounts) is completely voluntary, and so having a submission declined is at best an advisory opinion. I'd rather risk more worthless articles getting posted than anything of merit getting blocked and the editor given the false impression that it was a correct and final decision (which also sounds like a good way to lose new, valuable editors). postdlf (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The particular AfC draft I'm frustrated with the treatment of is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vince_Molinaro and any advice is welcome. SageGreenRider (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking of writing an article for Mac E. Barrick, who is cited in several articles in a way that makes it seem like some of his work is key in certain niche field(s). I'm not sure if he meets WP:BIO/WP:SCHOLAR because I'm having trouble finding general reviews of his work, but American folklore and associated sociology are not my field. One I did find an entry for him in American Folklore—An Encyclopedia, a volume in the Garland Reference Library of the Humanities (ISBN 0-8153-3350-1). And his entry notes that he "compiled a major regional archive of folklore from central Pennsylvania" that now sounds like it is a major special collection/publicized component at the university where it is held. Have I met the notability threshold enough for a stub? DMacks (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure that he would meet the criteria at WP:SCHOLAR but if his work is cited that way, there's a case to be made that he meets the requirements of WP:ANYBIO#2. Just my opinion, but it would probably be enough for me to argue for it to be kept at AFD. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Are members notable under WP:POLITICIAN? Do they count as sub-national legislatures or are they just local councils? AfD discussion here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe there is a problem with WP:POLITICIAN as it is currently worded. Point #1 currently reads: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[11] This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them." The first part of this seems OK, but the latter part (even considering the text of 'note' [11]), specifically the "...members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[11] This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them", and especially the "state or provincial legislature" part, seems very problematic. For specific examples, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives has 203 members; the New Hampshire House of Representatives has 400! A not insignificant number of these, especially in the New Hampshire House of Representatives, serve only a single term. Do we really want to confer "automatic notability" on anyone who served a single term in the New Hampshire House of Representatives, let alone somebody who simply ran a campaign for an office like this, and lost?!

I would suggest that we need to think about rewording WP:POLITICIAN (esp. the "state or provincial legislature" part)... Thoughts? --IJBall (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, don't see the need to change. Sub-national legislatures is a good cut off point for state, provinces, prefectures. Otherwise, cutting out sub-national legislatures would remove individuals elected by in elections involving possibly hundreds of thosuands of persons.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

So, it's simply the number of voters that confers "notability"? Or the single set of references that cover election night results? This seems extremely thin to me, as many state legislators have no notability in their own right, outside of the circumstance of their election (i.e. most don't have important laws authored or named after them, most don't chair important committees or are in their party's leadership, etc.). In other words, there will be no secondary sources for them, outside of election night coverage... While I'm fine with WP:POLITICIAN #1 at the level of national legislators, I don't think it should automatically include all politicians elected to (or even worse simply running for) "sub-national legislatures". Most such individuals, for wont of a better word, simply aren't "notable" enough. --IJBall (talk) 05:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

For those who do not win see WP:POLOUTCOMES, which results in a re-direct. Normally individuals who win a sub-national election at the legislature or executive level meet WP:GNG beyond just that single election. The alternate is that the position is notable, but the individual holding the position is not, leading to a list article being created; however, thus far, that idea has not gained a lot of traction here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

"The alternate is that the position is notable, but the individual holding the position is not..." – I think your statement here would probably describe my feelings on this issue quite well: the office of a state legislator is "notable", but that doesn't necessarily mean that the officeholder is "notable". Thanks for clarifying that for me in my mind... --IJBall (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: Parallel discussion on this subject is now taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 118#WP:POLITICIAN. Just FYI. --IJBall (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Please do not parallel discussion, please attempt to centralize discussion here IJBall.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast – FTR, I didn't start the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Both this discussion, and that one, in fact have spun off from topic at WP:ANI – Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Victoriadseaman. In any case, there's nothing I can do about the separate discussion now taking place at Village pump (policy), as I didn't start it. --IJBall (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Legislatures are where the actual work of government takes place. It is my experience, as the creator of hundred of articles on state legislators, that the information is out there, if somebody just does a little work. The proceedings and journals of the various sessions, the press coverage in the local papers: the possibilities are rich. While it is undeniably true that some national legislators of some countries are not adequately covered (how many British MPs are still redlinks?), I just don't buy the argument that state legislators don't inherently meet GNG. I would urge each state legislature, and each national parliament, to consider funding a position to research and then create or expand the articles for all their past members. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Individual office holders likely do, but not all. That is what is at issue here.

I can see the arguments for inherent notability (as this is given to anyone who plays in a major league sports game)(arguably less impact than being in a significant elected office).

The thing is, and this is a larger issue, should anything trump GNG?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think your last point is right on. The fact is, there is probably a significant portion of members of the New Hampshire House of Reps who never receive (significant) coverage in outside press and media. So the question – should state legislators like that be included in this encyclopedia just because they are "state (or provincial) legislators", even if there is no secondary sourcing for them?... --IJBall (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm always surprised that anyone would think "too many articles!" is a cause for concern or a meaningful reason for deletion. These discussions about whether any subject should be presumed notable for any reason are WP:PERENNIAL and often ignore that GNG is itself "merely" a guideline, and that, like animal species or named populated places, there are certain topics we simply want covered even if the best we can do for some members of that topic group are barebones facts sourced to (reliable) primary sources. So we've decided over and over that it is not worth spending any time arguing over individual cases in such groups, and that there is value to being as comprehensive as possible for those topics. Bottom line is, as OUTCOMES has shown time and time again, we are not going to start deleting state legislator articles, and any attempt to try is just going to cause bad will and a waste of time for all concerned. We have other ways of doing with COI, which was the reason the ANI thread started in the first place. Those who aren't interested in such articles are always free not to work on them. postdlf (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing a problem with the current wording except perhaps where it singularly mentions persons "elected", to the exclusion of appointees, which many judgeships and other political posts often are.--John Cline (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It uses the broader phrase "held...ofice" generally, which would include appointees. It only uses the term "elected" in the context of those who have won election but have not yet been sworn in (i.e., "assumed" the office). I suppose it could say "elected or appointed" there, as I guess there could be a similar gap in time between an appointment becoming formal (whether through confirmation or just an executive's decision) and the actual swearing in, though honestly I don't remember that ever being an issue. postdlf (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the sentiments are present, as you describe. Mine was a first impression, and it assumed quibbling that apparently has not transpired. I do not see the current prose as problematic at all.--John Cline (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

What a horrible idea. WP:POLITICIAN is already one of the stricter notability guidelines we have; there is absolutely no need for it to be watered down. To begin with, 99.9% of these people will pass GNG anyway without even breaking a sweat, if you know where to look. But even those that maybe take some more work deserve to be here, and taking that away will seriously damage the comprehensive nature of our coverage of politics. At the Australian project we've been making serious headway getting articles on state politicians, and I've never found one who I wouldn't have included were it not for WP:POLITICIAN. It's kind of standard to think that the guidelines in areas where we don't generally work are absurdly lenient (I for one find almost every criterion under WP:ATHLETE ridiculously inclusive), but this is one that works logically to ensure we have a comprehensive picture of important legislative history. Frickeg (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I think Frickeg nailed it - it's not that surprising that people who don't work in areas think those guidelines are lenient, but these people are notable, and you can't have a comprehensive and coherent coverage of state politics without articles on each legislator. There is far more coverage of state legislators than there is of people who played one major-league game, and to use IJBall's example - perhaps you couldn't source an article on each New Hampshire legislator, but I definitely could, and I'm in freaking Australia and don't have access to half your sources. Changing WP:POLITICIAN in this way would mainly serve to burn out editors working on politics worldwide: ensuring that editors have to keep stopping what they're working on to fight off deletion discussions on people who will inevitably pass WP:GNG (and AfD) by the depth of coverage that inherently comes with their position anyway, but wasting editor time and pissing off good editors in the process. It is definitely a horrible idea. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a severely short-sighted proposal. Please try visiting a research university library in any US state: you'll easily find dead tree coverage of any legislator from that state. You're not likely to find the Indiana Legislative Directory online, for example; Bill Long (politician) gets essentially no online coverage because he left office 30+ years ago, but he gets lots of printed coverage in the Directory along with every other Indiana legislator who held office since they started publishing it. Yes, this kind of source sometimes don't exist for 200-years-ago legislators, but they're covered in other publications; most of the 19th-century US state legislators were celebrated in county histories, as you can see with articles like Martin Wines, and these histories often aren't really findable by a Google search for the legislator's name. Your inability to find solid online sources proves that these people are obscure, but not that they're non-notable. Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• As an Australian, I can't help but agree with my compatriots above. I understand the logic of an argument that says not all members of a 400-person state legislature are going to be GNG-notable but that's an Ameri-centric POV. In an Australian context, we're talking about legislatures with a couple of dozen people; I think the ACT has only 12. To be more restrictive makes no sense outside the anomalous examples given. New Hampshire and its ilk seem to be the exception, not the rule. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

17, and soon to be increased to 25, but to be fair we're talking about more of a glorified local council than anything with the ACT; the rest of the state parliaments (Tasmania and NT excepted) are all 50+. Even with 400-person legislatures, I would be shocked if GNG were not easy to pass. The point of guidelines like this is not to waste people's time on deletion discussions that are never going to pass. Frickeg (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Really? 25! Bloody hell. That seems... Anyway, yes, if the NSW Legislative Assembly was a 400-member institution (perish the thought!) they would probably still all be very easily notable. There are plenty of local councillors that almost fit the bill. That's the level at which notability is a matter for debate in Australia. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I was thinking more along the lines of recent one-term legislators from places like New Hampshire that won't get coverage, not state legislators from 150 years ago (which were perhaps more likely to have gotten local press coverage in that era). And something like a "Legislative Directory" would likely count as another Primary source when I was explicitly discussing whether Secondary sources for some of these legislators would be available. But there's no need to bother any more with this – it's clear that "inclusionism" reigns as the philosophy here, whether every legislator will explicitly clear GNG or not. I'm now 0-for-2 on suggesting changes to Wikipedia guidelines. I won't be making that mistake again: lesson learned – whatever may be problematic in the guidelines as written, rest assured there are enough entrenched interests content with the current guidelines that they won't be altered, regardless of whatever defects may potentially exist in them or whether there's room for even minor improvement. Thanks to RightCowLeftCoast for the thoughtful responses. P.S. Nyttend – I have been visiting a "research library" a couple of times every week lately to try and improve the U.S. House of Representatives Elections articles by actually referring to book sources(!) – but maybe I should quit, because I obviously don't know where such a library is, or how to use one?!... --IJBall (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

That seems rather defeatist, especially considering the thread above yours is about 50/50 for a change to that guideline and one further above that led to significant concessions, the development of a new essay and movement toward a new guideline where one had previously been deleted (in an area of considerable disagreement). It's not that views are "entrenched" (by any stretch of the imagination) and few of those who participated are "inclusionist" by nature or record. But your proposal is based on a "problem" experienced in only one location and this isn't Ameri-pedia. If something might work for US editors but very much won't for the rest of the world, it is unlikely to enjoy much support. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't keep proposing things - the proposal itself was well-crafted, wasn't accusatory, identified an actual issue (though limited in geographic scope, it was a genuine concern for you) and you invited participation and then participated in the discussion. Everything else you nailed. Don't stop suggesting things can be improved just because (in this instance) people happened to disagree with you. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I have much less of a problem with this result – at least this one is grounded in an identifiable and rational "philosophy" (even if I don't agree with it 100%), and makes the guideline easily to follow actually. My experience trying to revise MOS:INFOBOXFLAG was the experience that really put me off trying to get guidelines revised – if something as trivial and schizophrenic as MOS:INFOBOXFLAG can't be improved... But, thanks for the encouraging words. --IJBall (talk) 07:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Please consult the books that I've spoken about, or just look at a Worldcat record: the Indiana Legislative Directory is a secondary source, compiled by the Indiana State Chamber of Commerce under the auspices of the state government. This is in contrast to most news publications, including the press coverage you mention for the 150-years-ago legislators, which are primary sources because they report what just happened, rather than benefiting from a chronological separation from the event being reported. These books, and others like them that I've seen (comparable to the Official Congressional Directory for the US Congress), are compiled by professionals who are able to concentrate on the significant components in their subjects' lives because they use primary sources like news media articles. Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Seconding Nyttend. Basically every state parliament has biographical dictionaries (under various names, but basically the same thing) outlining the histories of every person to hold legislative office in that state. Calling these "primary sources" is a comical stretch of the definition of a primary source: they're secondary sources, usually compiled by academics, that happen to come with the office. The combination of those and the inevitable press coverage is one reason why it's so easy to write a well-sourced article on any state legislator ever. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Nyttend and Orangemike. Another example would be the Wisconsin Blue Books compiled by the Wisconsin Legislative Research Bureau. And you also have press coverage. Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

New Hampshire is indeed a special case--the proportion of legislators / inhabitants is unusually high, but it's one specific case only, and not representative. It would be wrong to change a widely accepted general rule to accommodate it, or even to make a special exemption. The overall policy, one of the most basic policies at WP that has been a key factor in our success, is NOT PAPER. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I, too, oppose any change in the notability guideline for politicians, which works quite well in my experience. In contrast with New Hampshire, with a population of 1.3 million and a gigantic legislature, California has nearly 40 million people, and a very manageable State Senate of 40 members and State Assembly of 80 members. I can assure you that these people are highly notable with extensive coverage in reliable sources, and have been for 165 years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Some time ago, the definition of notability from Encarta was removed from this guideline with this edit on the assumption that the source was a deadlink. In fact the Encarta webpage has been extensively archived in the Internet Archive Wayback Machine under a slightly different URL:

• https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861683928/*
• https://web.archive.org/web/20110528053924/http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861683928/notable.html

I therefore suggest that the Encarta definition be put back in this guideline and cited to the Wayback Machine, in the absence of a positive consensus to change to another definition. James500 (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Done with this edit. James500 (talk) 07:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello -- Arthur goes shopping ! I Have been knocked back on this lady Bio several times as the reviewers say you is not a person of notability. ! well, There is already a published work on wiki under that name, so I changed my to her full name Mrs Hawayo Hiroumi Takata to distinguish it from the other piece of rubbish wich was IMO derogatory of her good name.

So I get knocked back again. for the same reason. 

Have you ""Arthur goes shopping"" bothered to do a general internet search on this lady Hawayo Takata ? No obviously not.

I am submitting again as I know Mrs Hawayo H. Takata is a person of considerable notability to a few million. or does that not count in you realm ?12:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)12:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)12:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)12:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elilat54 (talk • contribs)

@Arthur goes shopping:, in case you don't otherwise see this. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping Roger, as I would have missed this. I direct people to this guideline a lot, either directly or in decline templates, so I now have it watchlisted in case they should comment here on its talk page rather than elsewhere.

Elilat54, please be aware that none of the following are considered reliable sources, and they are therefore of no use in proving notability by Wikipedia's standards:

• anything in urbandictionary
• "James Deacons reiki pages", unless you can establish that Deacon is a Wikipedia:Reliable source
• references too vague to make locating the source possible, for example "1928 Tokyo news paper article by Matsui Shoo" or "Yasukuni Shrine"
• unpublished works
• "Hawayo Takata's Audio CD remastered talking about Hayashi, published by Elizabeth Latham 1997"
• "This new information is waiting to be released in the near future, now unpublished"

In addition, sources such as passenger lists, immigration records and ancestry.com dates of birth cannot contain sufficient detail to qualify as significant coverage of a topic mentioned in them.

If there is indeed an existing article on Wikipedia about the same person, your time would be better spent improving that existing article, than trying to create a separate new article duplicating the topic. The existing article does indeed appear to be much in need of improvement. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Can we rediscuss criteria for the notability of Ambassadors and Diplomats? WP:DIPLOMAT currently takes you to notability criteria for WP:POLITICIAN which is an extremely US-centric outcome (only in the US, among developed countries, are ambassadors frequently political appointees). The prior discussions, Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2014#Proposal:_remove_WP:DIPLOMAT, and Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2014#Ambassadors_and_Permanent_Representatives_to_the_United_Nations seemed to produce very little clarity on notability and the AfD discussions on diplomats are confused, to say the least. As a comparision, Military officers of flag/general rank are generally considered notable and those below flag rank are not. In most countries (e.g. the US) Ambassadors are considered the equivalent of flag rank with respect to Senior Civil Service / Senior Executive Service status, so I'd like to propose a stalking horse criterion: Ambassadors (and equivalent, such as High Commissioners, UN Permanent Representatives and EU Permanent Representatives) would be presumed notable but lesser diplomats (counsellors, first secretaries, consuls-general etc) would NOT (barring other reasons why they should meet WP:GNG). Fiachra10003 (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Stanning, Student7, Enos733, Necrothesp, Pburka, and Thincat: - all of you weighed in before, though in separate discussions. "Proposal:_remove_WP:DIPLOMAT" resulted in the current status. "Ambassadors_and_Permanent_Representatives_to_the_United_Nations" seemed to reach a different conclusion, but no action was taken, perhaps because of the conflict. Would you like to share your views again? Fiachra10003 (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with this proposal. Ambassadors and equivalent ranking diplomats should be presumed notable. Lower-ranking diplomats should not barring other reasons. I have long argued this. An ambassador is the representative of his or her government to another and is therefore a very senior figure. The fact that most are not well-known figures is not at all relevant to their notability as senior government officials. Wikipedia is not intended to be an encyclopaedia of celebrities or pop culture, although that is clearly how some see it (don't have "celebrity" status? Not written about on endless fansites? Not worthy of inclusion!). -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think there are two things here:

Stanning (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that there may be some disagreement or misunderstand over what a politician is. A politician is a person who is involved in influencing public policy and decision making. Politicians need not be elected officials (for example, a monarch is a politician). An ambassador generally has the same powers as a head-of-state (e.g. a president, king, or governor-general), even though they may not frequently exercise those powers (like heads-of-state, in many countries, where that role is largely ceremonial). It is my opinion that ambassadorships are international offices, ambassadors are politicians, and that WP:POLITICIAN should apply to them. Pburka (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That's too much of a generalization. It depends from country to country. It many countries diplomats, consuls and ambassadors are (senior) civil servants and not politicians. -- fdewaele, 29 January 2015, 21:27 CET.

@Pburka: Technically, of course, you're right – that's the dictionary definition. In practice, what you say is a bit of a stretch! A distinction is made in most democracies between party politicians in elected office and professional career civil servants who are (or are supposed to be) independent of party politics. It's clear from the wording of WP:POLITICIAN that it means people in elected office. (WP:POLITICIAN mentions "politicians and judges" – that's US-centric – it's rare elsewhere for judges to be openly associated with political parties.) In the UK, and as far as I know in any other European monarchy, nobody would refer to the monarch as a politician – the whole point of a monarch in a modern constitutional monarchy is that he/she is above politics – "politician" is understood to mean someone who engages in party politics. British ambassadors are called "Her Majesty's Ambassador to [country]" and that's not a formality: their oath of allegiance is to the Queen (that is, to the country) not to whichever political party happens to be in power. Category:Diplomats is not a sub-category of Category:Politics. If we can't agree that party politicians are distinct from career diplomats, we may as well abandon this discussion. Stanning (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Having participated and nominated many ambassador AfDs, I strongly disagree with granting ambassadors inherent notability. for a number of reasons,

• Pburka asserts "An ambassador generally has the same powers as a head-of-state". absolutely not true, they generally have powers of a senior public servant, in fact in Australia and many countries they are classed as and paid as public servants not a politician. they don't endorse nor produce legislation . the role of a public servant is to deliver the Government of the day's agenda. and that's what ambassadors do, they don't set the agenda. heads of state can sack governments and politicians and swear them in, can any ambassador do that?
• Almost all ambassadors get spikes in coverage when they present their credentials, and then disappear in coverage. if they get ongoing signficant coverage, then they satisfy WP:BIO.
• most ambassadors jobs are routine, eg hosting business delegations, attending meetings.
• clear consensus in various AfDs that ambassadors are not inherently notable.

LibStar (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ambassadors extraordinary and plenipotentiary are empowered to act on behalf of their head of state, and may, for example, commit their nations to treaties. While that power is generally reserved, it does exist. This is little different than, for example, a Canadian governor general who has the power to dissolve parliament, but only ever does so on the advice of the prime minister. If WP:POLITICIAN is intended to apply only to elected officials, and not appointees (such as cabinet ministers in the United States and senators in Canada) then let's make that explicit in the guideline. Pburka (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

ambassadors don't commit to treaties, foreign ministers or prime ministers/presidents do. doing things on behalf of the head of state/minister/government is the legislated function of a public servant, even a cadet. as for powers of Governor General, the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis shows you don't have to get advice from the Prime Minister. LibStar (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've said this before but I'm happy to say it again - in the vast majority of cases, ambassadors are simply senior public servants whose workstations happen to be located in a country other than their own. In some cases, former parliamentarians/congressmen are appointed - those people were already notable. In some cases, the diplomatic relationship is such that the person in the role is likely to already be notable or to become notable soon thereafter because of a spike in interest in them, their appointment, etc. In other cases, their work as the representative of one major country to another will make them notable over time, or the importance of the relationship (between neighbouring countries, for example) is such that the same will result. As I've said before, I've lived in Canberra where almost all embassies to Australia are located. My child played in a football team alongside the son of one ambassador, against teams that regularly featured the sons of other ambassadors. They were ordinary, regular people, paid lower wages than most senior public servants (by whom they were greatly outnumbered) and driving ordinary cars and living in ordinary houses. A handful have "residential" embassies (like the US) but then those are often the ambassadors who are notable anyway. People who have participated in these discussions with me before know I describe John Berry as a "rock star" who sweaters are almost independently notable. He was notable before he arrived on our shores and remains more recognisable than most of our Members of Parliament. But the majority of the others will never be notable by out standards, unless we introduce some silly arbitrary rule that says all ambassadors are notable, despite the fact that "real life" strongly suggests otherwise. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• As an aside, those pinged above are only those who have supported calls for the inherent notability of ambassadors. Those who have actively opposed such suggestions were, conveniently, not canvassed. Any "consensus" resulting from such a discussion would surely be considered invalid, so we're not off to a good start. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

agreed. LibStar (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm disappointed I wasn't canvassed, too. I agree with Necrothesp. I think ambassadors, like general and flag officers, should be presumed to be notable. As for the argument that they're just civil servants, sometimes that's true. Just as often they're patronage recipients and will continue to show up in public life. I wish we had a version of WP:DIPLOMAT that could enjoy consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that there were other supporters the OP forgot to canvas doesn't make the canvassing any less problematic. Perhaps you just weren't as emphatic in your support? We've discussed flag officers in the past and the comparisons between diplomats in the US (who have military-equivalent "ranks") and elsewhere (where military rank is irrelevant). There are always plenty of US/UK-centric views in these discussions and no real understanding that the diplomatic atmosphere and environment in the US and UK is very different to everywhere else. Given it's power, almost all US-to-wherever ambassadors will be notable. Likewise 90% of those posted to the US, given the importance of the US and that relationship, will be notable. You only have to experience things one country North or South to gain a different perspective. Otherwise we should just create separate WP:DIPLOMAT and WP:USDIPLOMAT guidelines. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Chris troutman and Stalwart111: I'm very sorry if I missed you - I went through the two discussions and picked out the names of ALL of the parties who weighed in in the 2014 discussions. I guess I missed out yours. Enos733, for instance, opposed the notion of inherent notability. If you know of anyone else who might have an opinion, please ping them or let me know and I will do so. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I moved your comment which split two others. Except that there were about 4 just last year. The point is that despite those discussions you looked at (in which the idea of inherent notability had support from the same editors each time) there were other broader discussions (including an RFC) where there was no consensus and plenty of opposition to the idea. And so we're back here re-hashing the same concepts all over again, responding to the same US/UK-centric arguments. Why? Everything suggested so far has been discussed several times before. Nobody has managed to put forward a cogent argument to explain why Australian High Commissioner to Kiribati should be considered "as notable" as the US Ambassador to Russia or the French Ambassador to the United Kingdom. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

if they continue to show up in public life, then they will easily satisfy WP:BIO or WP:GNG. the vast majority of ambassadors do not. LibStar (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Idea/compromise, how about this for a compromise. The office of an Ambassador, is notable. Individuals who don't meet WP:GNG, or other notability guidelines, are redirected to an article List of Ambassadors of X to Y. Those who are independently notable have a separate article that is linked in the list, others are redirected per something similar to WP:BIO1E, where the event is the individual is holding the position of a presumably notable office.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Because the office of "Ambassador" isn't notable. But do you mean like List of High Commissioners and Ambassadors of Australia or one of the many (non-notable) X-X relations articles? We don't need even more lists of non-notable ambassadors between random country X and random country Y. Again, the vast majority of people are coming at this from the perspective of the UK or US where the vast majority of ambassadors to and ambassadors from are notable, simply because of the importance of the relationship they represent. In most other countries they are mid-level public servants, without "flag" status, without military rank and less recognisable than the local Miss [Town] Fair 2014 or local television weatherperson. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

X - Y relationship articles are often notable, and an embedded list of ambassadors would make sense,if a stand-alone list article isn't thought to work well alone. It would give the list more context.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

We need to recognize that things have changed since the days of sail, when a Treaty was signed ending the War of 1812 and the memorable battle fought after the war which Americans like to remember since they won it!  :) After Franklin, Jay and whoever was trying to entice France into the Revolutionary War. Extraordinary plenipotentiaries, perhaps. Nowdays, we have instant communication, gag rule to surpress Eleanor Roosevelt at the UN. Few opportunities for real policy innovation. All done back home even for developed countries. Small countries are delegated ambassador to a number of countries. While this may seem like a "bigger" job, they really dilute the effect that a permanent ambassador might have.

Note also this article Diplomatic_rank#Traditional_European_diplomacy, which discusses why the rank of ambassador has changed. So ambassadors prior to a certain date might be considered notable in all cases. But with political correctness and rapid communication, this can no longer be the case after (say) 1940. (date is arbitrary). Proof of notability must be made today IMO. Student7 (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Attempt to summarize points of consensus. There's two issues here: (a) presumption of notability for certain diplomats and (b) whether the current status of WP:DIPLOMAT makes sense. Clearly there is no consensus to have an presumption of notability for any diplomat here. However, on the second point, nobody has disagreed with Stanning's point re. WP:DIPLOMAT: "Change point 4 of WP:POLITICIAN to say ...4. For the purposes of this guideline, ambassadorships granted to politicians are not considered international offices. ... Remove WP:DIPLOMAT altogether for the time being." In my view this makes a great deal of sense as it clarifies a policy sentence that currently makes no logical sense. If we need to retain WP:DIPLOMAT, why not simply reiterate that diplomats' notability should be determined in accordance with WP:PEOPLE? Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed Remove WP:DIPLOMAT altogether for the time being. If WP:DIPLOMAT is desired to remain a separate "Additional criteria" it should simple state something along the lines of "the notability of ambassadors should be made on a case by case basis." or something similar. --Enos733 (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment.I'm mystified by those who oppose inherent notability of ambassadors by saying they're "just senior public servants", since it seems to me obvious that "senior public servants" are notable. In Britain, it is usual to grant officials at this level honours, such as companionships or knighthoods, that easily meet WP:ANYBIO #1 (and have been held to do so in AfDs again and again, so let's not get into whether that's justified or not, since prevailing opinion is clearly that it is). This, luckily, means it's much easier to provide keep arguments for senior British civil servants and diplomats, but does discriminate against countries that do not grant such honours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Which is why I prefer the term "mid-level". By "senior" I simply mean "not junior" but I equally do not mean departmental secretaries, directors or CEOs. We're talking about public servants who have risen through the ranks to the point where they run a small division or unit within a department of foreign service/foreign affairs/state and are simply moved sideways to a similar role that happens to be overseas. Public servants that run major national-level departments that enjoy extensive coverage are probably notable. Those are the sorts who received such honours (like our OAMs and such). St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

"since it seems to me obvious that "senior public servants" are notable" that's ridiculous, you will find most heads of public sector departments/agencies do not have WP pages, if they do it's because they've moved on to become an elected politician and meet WP:NPOL, or satisfy WP:BIO through coverage of their achievements. A senior public servant would also include a deputy CEO, director general of a government department, WP Bios on these are even harder to find. The notion that "senior public servants are notable" is plainly false. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I am of the position that the position is notable, within the context of the foreign relations between country A and country B, and thus an embedded list would make sense, but the individual is not necessarily notable and thus must meet other notability criteria to have a stand-alone biography article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

My, my, LibStar, you really don't like people having opinions that differ from your own do you? The notion is not "plainly false", since it's an opinion, not a statement of Wikipedia policy. Not having a WP article yet does not mean they will never have a WP article, and using the fact to "show" lack of notability (in a WP sense) is therefore intensely flawed. This is a work in progress you know. As I said, British public servants at this level usually have honours that easily satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Lucky for those of us who write British biographies, since we're protected from daft notions about people only being notable if they're celebrities or politicians (but not, apparently, if they've got a lifetime of achievement and service in a job that the average fanboy on the web has never heard of), but a bit discriminatory against those who write biographies on countries without comparable honours systems. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

And the nature of British relationships with other countries (especially given its history of colonialism) means that many British ambassadors will be notable without or without such honours. That's not the case in Australia or Canada, France or Germany, Russia, Spain, Belgium, Italy, Mexico, India or even China. The UK shares that in common with the US and basically no other country. As I've said, notability-by-default is something likely to be enjoyed by UK and US ambassadors and high commissioners but extending that standard to other countries (that appoint diplomatic "nobodies" to represent not-very-important relationships overseas) is contrary to policy and consensus. Unfortunately, "achievement and service" have never been yard-sticks of notability here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that many British ambassadors, although not heading major national-level departments, hold the CMG, which does satisfy WP:ANYBIO (the OAM, of course, would not, as it's far too low-level). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Necrothesp, despite asserting in AfDs hundreds of times without any basis that ambassadors are inherently notable, even this discussion doesn't have consensus to give automatic notability to ambassadors. In the absence of inherent notability, I've never seen you actually search for sources to meet WP:BIO for an ambassador. Some of the arguments here like ambassadors somehow have powers of the head of state (implying they are notable like a head of state) )are stretching it. LibStar (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Rightcow's statement deserves closer attention. If the position is notable, can non-notable people fill it? He believes so. I'm not so sure.

I'm pretty sure that most people cannot name Sierra Leone's ambassador to South American (I would doubt that they have ten ambassadors, one is probably "roving"). And his accomplishments, if any. Probably not notable. People who imagine ambassadors to be some glorious position are thinking of the world of steam and 19th century history. Today, the ambassador is merely a functionary who routes stuff from home to the proper office in the country he's in. And transmits back information that might be helpful to his government. Sounds great on paper. Not so great in actual duties or performance. It's a job that may have outlived it's usefulness. When you have a Secretary of State flying from place to place, s/he conducts foreign policy initiatives that oldtime ambassadors used to conduct. While they probably ought to do away with the position, they won't becuase it gives them a chance to "honor" somebody with a useless title, like Knighting somebody. Brits will understand that. At least when the Brits do it, the person is already notable! In this case, there are no policy matters to consider and the position is merely titular in function. Student7 (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

So are "oldtime ambassadors" notable? Thincat (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps not "by default" but my view is that they are far more likely to be notable than their modern cousins. Ambassadors stopped wars (and started them), negotiated marriages between royal families, and served as critical messengers between allies and prospective allies. Ambassadors had a place in royal courts and (in an era without instant telecommunications) were responsible for representing their countries to Kings and Queens without the ability to go back to their own to "check" the diplomatic message-of-the-day. The presentation of an ambassador to a monarch was a big deal - easily big enough to generate significant coverage in reliable sources (by our standards). My favourite examples come from John Bargrave who wrote extensively about diplomatic intrigues of the 17th century. The ambassadors of Sweden to Italy (of that era) would have played a critical role, especially with regard to Queen Christina and her conversion and travel to Rome. By comparison, we haven't had an article about the five most recent holders of that post. We have articles for only 2 of the last 14, in fact. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me clarify the logic for support creation of WP:DIPLOMAT, just as a non-notable individual can become notable by receiving a highly prestigious notable award per WP:ANYBIO, and a previously non-notable individual can become notable by being elected to a political position in a regionally important city or to sub-national legislative office per WP:POLOUTCOMES, so can an individual who was previously not-notable be considered notable by virtue of being appointed to an ambassadorial office/position.

That being said, my position is a compromise one. If the subject is not individually notable per [{WP:GNG]] or other established notability policy/guideline/essay(s), than the individual should be included in an embedded list in the article about the foreign relations between nations A & B. If the individual is independently notable other than the position of the office of ambassador, than a stand-alone article is created, and a wikilink to that list be included in the embedded list. Therefore, WP:DIPLOMAT would actually be included in a section of WP:OUTCOMES.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a step in the right direction but WP:OUTCOMES is, by definition, summary position of common outcomes for related AFDs. In this instance, the common outcome is that they have regularly been deleted and kept only where they separately pass WP:GNG. We'd need to think about how that is presented. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

How about this, an essay can be created named WP:DIPLOMAT, with my above proposal (if a consensus can be found), and be included as a link to WP:BIO as is the current case for WP:SOLDIER.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've always thought that people at the top of any profession are notable. This applies to ambassadors, who are normally the most senior and distinguished people in their country's foreign service. In cases where the are political appointment rather than career appointments, they're invariable very important political figures (or sometimes very important businesspeople, etc. ) who would likely have been notable anyway. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That might be the case in the UK and US but Australia rarely appoints, "the most senior and distinguished people in their country's foreign service" and many other countries are the same. Our ambassadorial corps are littered with ex-political advisors, middle-management types. A random sample from this list quickly provides an idea of what I'm talking about. Before being appointed High Commissioner, one was the director of a business unit, within a division, within our Department of Foreign Affairs. That's like being the State Manager of Sales for a large commercial enterprise - a critical function but hardly "senior and distinguished". Compare that to Michael Potts (who doesn't have an article) - a genuinely senior public servant and previously Ambassador to Austria and Permanent Representative to the United Nations - now ambassador to New Zealand with whom we share multiple domestic sporting competitions, significant trade, banks, brands, cultural exchanges, migration, basically open borders, military treaties and a section of our constitution that would still allow them to become a state. Think I'll go and start an article... St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

As proof that my approach to this topic isn't sheer bloody-mindedness, I've gone ahead and created what I think is a nice little article about Mr Potts; a thoroughly entertaining character and (by all accounts) a thoroughly decent bloke. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

my vote is that Potts is just above the threshold. Lacking fewer incidents I don't think I would deem him "notable." Accepting off-road vehicles is something I (or you could do!) Student7 (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps only just, yes. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The job clearly needs to be in a policy-making capacity. Much of the time, higher level Civil Servants are not. They believe themselves assigned to their roles to "protect jobs" within their organization and to (BTW) save their own job. This differs substantially from a commercial organization where you are often expected to show increased efficiency each quarter, reduce your workforce, and, eventually, do away with your own job through merging with compatible organizations within your company. No such demonstration is required of civil servants, no matter how high up they are. Therefore, they may keep their jobs, but they are not notable. Infamous, perhaps!  :) Student7 (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast offers to write an essay (above). This could be worthwhile. Essentially, what he is saying (I gather) is that diplomats/ambassadors are not automatically notable. In his (and my) opinion.

And, IMO, anyone can write an essay saying just about anything, so he doesn't need my (or our) vote to do so. It has a neat WP name and could be useful.

Having said that, I've never seen an essay promoted to a guideline or policy. But I may not have been paying close attention. Student7 (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing the discussion that lead to the deletion of WP:DIPLOMAT, three editors Pburka, Thincat, and Enos733 overturned consensus that had existed since 2008. That seems rather bold to me.
Later a consensus for notability for Ambassadors and Permanent Representatives to the United Nations was built, yet it appears that no change to this page was made. Later, there did not appear to be consensus for a new form of WP:DIPLOMAT. Therefore I would like to point out that there appears to be a flaw that lead to the creation of the current wording found on this page:

For the purposes of this guideline, ambassadorships are not considered international offices.

As such, I would argue that the old 2008 wording be reinstated, or that we begin on building a consensus for a WP:DIPLOMAT essay with work from WP:INTR.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse new discussion - the old definition is worse than the new one (if you can call the new one a "definition" at all). I'd support the development of a new WP:DIPLOMAT which reflects current policy-based consensus (which would need to be gauged) and a non-UK/US-centric view (prevalent in those discussions which focus on examples of UK diplomats). It would almost be worth starting a new article for WP:DIPLOMAT so that we can use the talk page for a discussion about the guideline itself. But a discussion is an excellent suggestion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is my idea, as I proposed above. A position of ambassador or high commissioner or (insert title here) might be relevant to an article about the foreign relations between to nations (say Philippines–Saudi Arabia relations) and thus can include (if can be verified by a reliable sources) a list of ambassadors between the two countries in an embedded list per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Now, if an individual meets WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, or any other applicable notability guideline or well respected essay (such as WP:SOLDIER) an individual article can be created, otherwise, a redirect to the list is sufficient. (this would be similar to how some municipalities have a list of former mayors embedded within them, but the office itself doesn't automatically confer notability upon the office holder).
Another possibility is that the position itself is notable such as United States Ambassador to South Korea, but individuals who hold the position may not be notable (meaning that they may not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG requirements), and thus those who don't would fall under under WP:BIO1E rules and be redirected to the notable position.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The first is only problematic where the X-X relations article doesn't exist and shouldn't but is created just to house an equally non-notable list of ambassadors. The second is more problematic and seems far less likely. Where the office is notable in and of itself, the individual holding it should probably be considered notable in most cases, there not being all that many offices we consider notable. My preference would be for the first, then, with a specific note to discourage the creation of non-notable "relations" articles. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Late to the discussion here, but it seems clear to me that whether an an ambassador is notable depends. Just talking about "ambassadors" in general is no more useful than talking about "baseball players" in general (or whatever). It all depends, and depends entirely, on whether your a major leaguer or not.

An ambassador from one large and powerful country to another large and powerful country is prima facie notable. The Russian ambassador to China, the Indian ambassador to Germany, the American ambassador to Italy... these people are important people representing important countries to other important countries and therefore can be assumed to have been involved, or at least potentially involved in issues of at least peripheral world-historical importance. They should usually be in in, even if they don't meet GNG, provided there's enough material for a stub. The Slovakian ambassador to Thailand? The Sudanese ambassador to Spain? The American ambassador to Bolivia? No, I don't want to see an article about them unless they're otherwise notable and/or meet GNG.

However, how would you write WP:AMBASSADOR to reflect this? I'd write it "Ambassadors where both the sending and receiving countries had a population of 50,000,000 at the time of the ambassadorship are assumed to be notable, otherwise not" (however your write "sending" and "receiving" in diplo-talk). Why not? Herostratus (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

disagree with a 50,000,000 threshold, that gives a free pass to countries like Bangladesh, Burma, and Democratic Republic of Congo when in reality they are small players in international relations (just look how many embassies are actually based in these countries ). Singapore, Australia and Canada are more influential in international relations yet have sub 50,000,000 populations. LibStar (talk) 13:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment My thinking has not changed about the presumption of notability for ambassadors. I also believe that many ambassadors do meet WP:GNG, but I do not presume to believe that all (or even most) ambassadors would meet the reliable sourcing standards articulated in WP:GNG. However, when discussing policies, we must, contra Herostratus, consider ambassadors, as a class, similar to way way we consider all members of "state or provincial legislatures" notable per WP:POLITICIAN, or all baseball players if they "have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues" WP:WPBB/N. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, and we must treat all nations in a similar manner and the role and policy function of the chief diplomat for each nation is similar - meaning that we should not presume notability only for ambassadors from G-8 nations, but not for other nations. So, whatever guideline that is proposed must not be US/UK/G8 centric and accept the believe that the reason we presume notability for a class is a shortcut to finding independent reliable sourced material about the subject. Enos733 (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

well there's the rub, isn't it? That's Wikipedia for you. One person agrees with the principle but disagrees with some particular. 50,000,000 is a very gross measure true, but what are you going to do? "Over x% of the world's population AND X% percent of world GDP at the time"? or should be "...OR..."? And what should "X" be? or should it army sizes instead? subjective opinion? or what? And of course no general agreement on these questions is likely.

Another person is like "We have to have a clearcut line". This has the virtue of avoiding argument. On the other hand, you then have situations where every baseball player who "has appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues" rates an article, and that's just silly, and it's obviously silly. There's no good reason to have an article on a person who appeared in one major leauge game in 1903 and not allow articles on people are very much more accomplished, interesting, notable, important, worthwhile, and article-worthy except for this one virtue: clearcut line.

So then you have people like me. No, I am not going to support a standard where the Ecuadorian ambassador to Chad rates an an article, period (absent clearing GNG or having some other source of notability, of course). I'm not going to support that because it's silly and it goes against my personal standard of what level of non-GNG-clearing people should have articles. So there you have it, gridlock, as usual. Herostratus (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There will always be someone who objects, but consensus does not need to be unanimous consent.

An essay can be written by anyone, but the strength of an essay is the process that goes into building it, and how well it is defended. I think this is why WP:SOLDIER, while not achieving consensus for guideline status (mainly by those whom believe that only GNG should exist), has shown strength because individuals experienced in editing within the field of Military History were the creators, and they have used it as a further guidance tool on the "well-known and significant award or honor" portion of WP:ANYBIO.

If we can create at least an essay with strong backing, that can provide further guidance upon not so clear wording in an existing guideline, than WP:DIPLOMAT or WP:AMBASSADOR may be a net positive rather than instruction creep.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

How about this for the wording of an essay:

Positions of Head of mission are relevant to an article about the foreign relations between two nations (example: Canada–United States relations) and thus can be include (if it can be verified by a reliable source(s)) a list of Head of mission(s) between the two countries in an embedded list per WP:LISTPEOPLE. If an individual who is, or was, the head of mission meets WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, or any other applicable notability guideline, or well respected essay (such as WP:SOLDIER) an individual article can be created. Otherwise, a redirect to the list is sufficient. (this would be similar to how some municipalities have a list of former mayors embedded within them, but the office itself doesn't automatically confer notability upon the office holder (see WP:POLOUTCOMES)). If a non-notable "relations" article has not yet been created, do not create one for the sole purpose of creating embedded lists of ambassadors between two nations.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• I think that's a very good start. The idea of presumed notability for ambassadors is unsustainable, in my view. With regard to "classes" of people, "baseballer" is a class but then we set an inclusion threshold (the "line" referenced above), and likewise with soldiers, politicians and others. I'm happy for such a line to be implemented for diplomats but I don't think we're going to get agreement on what that line should be. There's no professional league for diplomats. Nor is there a population cap, GDP cap or combination of those that will accurately reflect the notability of respective ambassadors. So we either go for all (which opens the flood-gates to every nobody with a diplomatic numberplate) or we stick to GNG but with a complimentary essay that allows editors to argue exceptions to the rule in cases where making an exception is WP:COMMONSENSE. And there will be exceptions. And the essay should be drafted on that basis. Take the example given above of Italy–United States relations. Being a US ambassador, John R. Phillips has an article. But his counterpart, Claudio Bisogniero, doesn't. He has a profile and news feed here and has an article on it.wp (of course). He probably meets WP:GNG anyway, but even if he didn't, he should probably be considered notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that this essay is a good start. I am not sure about the wording of the first and last sentences - since they refer to articles about bilateral relations, rather than ambassadors per se. I also think that there needs to be something said about ambassadors to the UN, other international bodies, and other diplomatic posts. I probably would also like to see something in the essay relating to the previous criteria for notability included (to a certain degree) in the essay to suggest how diplomat other than the head of mission might warrant an article (although in all cases, WP:GNG is still the overriding criteria for inclusion. Enos733 (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I am open to suggestions. Wikipedia after all is a cooperative effort.

How about modifying the first sentence to read:

Positions of Head of mission are relevant to an article about the foreign relations between two nations (example: Canada–United States relations). Furthermore, positions of Head of mission to international organizations (IGO) are also relevant articles about a nation's membership in an organization (example: Fiji and the United Nations). Therefore, those articles can include (if it can be verified by a reliable source(s)) a list of Head of mission(s) between the two countries, or between a country and an organization, in an embedded list per WP:LISTPEOPLE.

I don't know if (given the brightline criteria for other fields is to reach the top level positions in that field (i.e. playing in a major league game)) the essay being crafted need to give guidance to non-head of mission diplomats, as there is WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO to cover those who haven't reached to top of their field. We can include a criteria like there is in SOLDIER like:

Other notable diplomats may include those who have received significant coverage in crafting a treaty or bilateral or multilateral agreement, or received significant coverage related to a notable diplomatic event (i.e. Trent Affair)

Therefore the essay would read:

Positions of Head of mission are relevant to an article about the foreign relations between two nations (example: Canada–United States relations). Furthermore, positions of Head of mission to international organizations (IGO) are also relevant articles about a nation's membership in an organization (example: Fiji and the United Nations). Therefore, those articles can include (if it can be verified by a reliable source(s)) a list of Head of mission(s) between the two countries, or between a country and an organization, an embedded list per WP:LISTPEOPLE. If an individual who is, or was, the head of mission meets WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, or any other applicable notability guideline, or well respected essay (such as WP:SOLDIER) an individual article can be created. Otherwise, a redirect to the list is sufficient. (this would be similar to how some municipalities have a list of former mayors embedded within them, but the office itself doesn't automatically confer notability upon the office holder (see WP:POLOUTCOMES)). If a "relations" article has not yet been created, do to it being non-notable per established notability guidelines, do not create one for the sole purpose of creating embedded lists of head of mission between two nations, or between a nation and an international organization.
Other notable diplomats may include those who have received significant coverage in crafting a treaty or bilateral or multilateral agreement, or received significant coverage related to a notable diplomatic event (i.e. Trent Affair).

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I would probably word it this way (not necessary changing any text:

Positions of Head of mission are relevant to an article about the foreign relations between two nations (example: Canada–United States relations). Furthermore, positions of Head of mission to international organizations (IGO) are also relevant articles about a nation's membership in an organization (example: Fiji and the United Nations). Therefore, those articles can include (if it can be verified by a reliable source(s)) a list of Head of mission(s) between the two countries, or between a country and an organization, an embedded list per WP:LISTPEOPLE. If a "relations" article has not yet been created, do to it being non-notable per established notability guidelines, do not create one should not be created for the sole purpose of creating embedded lists of head of mission between two nations, or between a nation and an international organization.
If an individual who is, or was, the head of mission meets WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, or any other applicable notability guideline, or well respected essay (such as WP:SOLDIER) an individual article can be created. Otherwise, a redirect to the list is sufficient. (this would be similar to how some municipalities have a list of former mayors embedded within them, but the office itself doesn't automatically confer notability upon the office holder (see WP:POLOUTCOMES)).
Other notable diplomats may include those who have received significant coverage in crafting a treaty or bilateral or multilateral agreement, or received significant coverage related to a notable diplomatic event (i.e. Trent Affair). ~~ Enos733 (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I see what changed there. One paragraph for the heads of state positions and two sentences regarding individual diplomats. Let me see what I can do with this, tweaking it a bit:

Positions of Head of mission are relevant to an article about the foreign relations between two nations (example: Canada–United States relations). Furthermore, positions of Head of mission to international organizations (IGO) are also relevant articles about a nation's membership in an organization (example: Fiji and the United Nations). Therefore, those articles can include (if it can be verified by a reliable source(s)) a list of Head of mission(s) between the two countries, or between a country and an organization, an embedded list per WP:LISTPEOPLE. If a "relations" article has not yet been created, do to it being non-notable per established notability guidelines, one should not be created for the sole purpose of creating embedded lists of head of mission between two nations, or between a nation and an international organization.
If an individual who is, or was, the head of mission, meets WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, or any other applicable notability guideline, or well respected essay (such as WP:SOLDIER) an individual biography article can be created. Otherwise, a redirect to the list is sufficient. (this would be similar to how some municipalities have a list of former mayors embedded within them, but the office itself doesn't automatically confer notability upon the office holder (see WP:POLOUTCOMES)).
Other notable diplomats may include those who have received significant coverage in crafting a treaty or bilateral or multilateral agreement, or received significant coverage related to a notable diplomatic event (i.e. Trent Affair).

I removed the strikethrough, and added "biography article".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Are there any objections or suggestions regarding the above wording?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It has been a week, without objection or further comment, I will create the essay now.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, here it is Wikipedia:Diplomatic notability.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The section above began with reference to "the discussion that lead to the deletion of WP:DIPLOMAT". In fact WP:DIPLOMAT hasn't been deleted: the redirect still exists, pointing to an anchor called "Diplomats" attached to point 4 of WP:POLITICIAN. That is nonsensical. Have we reached a consensus to actually delete the redirect WP:DIPLOMAT? Stanning (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Unless I've misinterpreted it, I think the discussion above is about crafting a new essay/quasi-guideline to which the WP:DIPLOMAT wikilink will point. I think we're pretty close to something (at least in draft form) that can be contributed to a something in a standalone page. You think we should delete the WP:DIPLOMAT redirect until that point? St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think leaving it as is is fine for now, while this is in process. Yes the changing of the wording for which DIPLOMAT now points to was done with a weak consensus, but as we're looking to replace the redirect with a stand alone essay (which may or may not be elevated to part of this guideline at a future date and time), I don't think a deletion of the redirect is needed right now. Now, Enos733, I had invited WP:FOR to the discussion here, but without a lot of input from the Wikiproject since.

As essays do not need a large consensus, what we're doing is fine for now. If we seek to elevate the essay to a guideline, than we can start an RfC and post to Template:Centralized discussion, when that time comes.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with the proposition that all ambassadors are notable, per the arguments of Necrothesp and others above. I think that objections that this would include the ambassadors of relatively small or, worse still, poor countries are exactly the sort of systematic bias that SNG are meant to avoid. (I say "relatively" because, compared to private organisations or towns, they are generally large, and have enormous power and wealth). I certainly oppose the suggestion that they should be excluded for countries with a population of less than 50 million, because that figure is clearly far too high. Objections that ambassadors are generally less important than they used to be at worst mean that we should confine the criteria to ambassadors appointed before a certain date, not that we shouldn't have a criteria. (The failure of this guideline to address the notability of historical figures is a serious problem. The criteria would generally be wholly unreasonable for a person living several hundred years ago. With this in mind, a draft proposal has been begun at WP:NHISTORY. I personally favour completely decoupling BLPs from other biographies by having separate notability guidelines for both.) I think that objections to the effect that some ambassadors are not highly paid are irrelevant because some populist governments will deliberately keep the wages of public employees as low as possible. Since notability criteria only create a presumption that a topic should have an article, none of the arguments against a criteria for ambassadors is particularly compelling, since they could be used to rebut the presumption in specific cases. James500 (talk) 06:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

To begin with, James, the above discussion kind of progressed from proposal, to refined proposal to draft wording to substantive essay. Your comments probably relate more to he earlier part of the discussion and it was probably close to being archived, but of course your contribution is welcome. The point I would make about your comments, though, is that we're not really talking about "poor" countries and the existence of "non-notable diplomats" applies as much to Australia and Canada as it does to Zimbabwe and Burma. I think everyone is agreement, also, that these discussions relate to ambassadors and diplomats of modern history rather than anyone earlier. My reading is that, typically, any ambassador given significant enough coverage to allow an article to be written would be fine. Also, the draft policy / user essay your reference contains some fairly out-there stuff. With respect, suggestions like, "In general, the longer a person has been dead, the more likely they are to be notable." would be a unique concept. I have lots of long-dead relatives but none of them are more notable than me, but nor am I any more notable than them. William McKinley, for example, probably isn't more notable than George W. Bush just because he's been dead for more than 100 years. I really can't see how a suggestion like that would be a practical addition to our policy "filing cabinet". St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

To begin with, someone else removed the heading that preceded my comments with this edit. I suggest it be put back to avoid further confusion. The proposition that historical importance increases with time appears to me to be fairly obvious. I think that sources can be found saying as much, particularly in relation to texts and artefacts. If we were to consider the Roman empire, for example, even a slave would probably be notable if we have substantial information about his life (primarily because of the relative paucity of information from that period). User:Bearian/Standards#Notability of persons in premodern times suggests that a person who died before the introduction of printing is notable if we know his name. That proposed criteria is (at least partly) based on the passage of time. So I doubt my idea is unique. James500 (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If we know the person's name (because things were written about them) then is stands to reason that a person could make a cogent argument that the individual in question has been the subject of significant coverage, coverage being more significant in an era where coverage was rare. But "the longer ago you lived, the more notable you are" isn't supported by policy, even if policy does produce a similar result in many cases. I have plenty of respect for Bearian but citing one user essay as support for another doesn't get us any closer to a policy-based argument. Anyway, none of this really relates to the discussion in question which, as noted, basically finished a month ago. Probably best for new discussions to be moved to the essay talk page or the talk page of your proposed policy. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

A draft proposal is not a user essay. Since a draft proposal is an attempt to create new policy, existing policies and guidelines are not necessarily relevant to it. "Significant coverage" is not an adequate test because we have never been able to agree what constitutes significant coverage, and a requirement that coverage be "significant" presumably tends to increase systematic bias in favour of recentism, partly because there is more publishing going on now than in the past. There is further criticism in WP:SCNR. User essays, such as Bearian's, may be evidence of consensus for a change of policy, which is what we are discussing here. The discussion regarding diplomats didn't finish a month ago, because I restarted it on 5 April, having been unable to comment earlier. Most of my initial comment was about (contemporary) diplomats, or other problems with this guideline, so it is relevant to this thread and this talk page and should stay. There is no deadline, consensus can change, and it is conceivable that other people may wish to comment. And, indeed, they have made further comments below. James500 (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This guideline doesn't include WP:DIPLOMAT anymore, that redirects to Wikipedia:Diplomatic notability which is the essay / policy proposal developed from the consensus discussion above which concluded on 11 March. You're welcome to re-open the discussion but your comments are likely to be far more relevant on the talk page of that new essay rather than here where they simply re-hash previous discussions. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Just an observation on relative notability. Recently we have seen articles on the mayors of some very small American towns kept at AfD on the basis that they have been covered a bit in local media (where you would expect them to be covered). Now, I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but it is worth observing that we have reached a frankly ridiculous situation where a mayor of a town of 10,000 inhabitants is considered notable, but the representative of a country with a population of millions to another country with a population of millions is not considered notable. I have to say I find this situation rather comical. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

because a mayor runs a town and its finances and services etc much like a president or prime minister does of a country. To compare this to an ambassador who does not run the country they represent is far fetched. This is again a long stretch for trying to grant inherent notability for ambassadors even from "large" countries. LibStar (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

So someone who runs a little town is more important than someone who represents a large country? Well, frankly that comment beggars belief! -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

My own view is that mayors of small towns should not be notable. However , mayors of large cities most cases easily pass WP:BIO and actually directly govern their cities. It's a comical analogy to say ambassadors govern the millions of the country they represent and to somehow suggest because mayors get notability, ambassadors should. If I give the example of Australian ambassadors, they don't even control or set the Australian foreign aid budget for that country. That is done back in Canberra. I've been in countless ambassador afds and unlike you I search for sources, many ambassadors even from large countries get very little coverage except routine, eg their credentials were accepted or they left their post. to suggest a free pass for notability is comical. LibStar (talk) 05:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

a mayor is also an elected position, an ambassador is never elected. LibStar (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Why on earth does it make a mayor more notable because he is elected? That is utterly and completely illogical. Is a president more notable than a king because one is elected and the other is not? Is an American judge more notable than a British judge because one is elected and the other is not? Sorry, but this assumption that elected officials are more notable than appointed ones is a load of POV rubbish with no basis in reality. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of people in their town can name their mayor , how many people can name the ambassador of their country to China or Thailand? ambassadors unless they meet WP:BIO do not become well known names. LibStar (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

And that is relevant how? Wikipedia is neither a popularity contest nor a directory of people well-known to the locals in small towns across America. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

That's true, but it is a collection of knowledge and so what people have a knowledge of is a relevant consideration. But I think the move toward an assumption of notability for small-town mayors is just silly. Some counties still elect dog-catchers; I don't think "election" is a good standard for notability. Biographical articles should be subject to the same WP:AUD considerations with regard to "significant coverage", in my view. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the h/t. I'm not sure there is widespread consensus about WP:DIPLOMAT. However, AfDs for ambassadors who held prestige or several posts tend to be kept. Insofar as those are concerned, a weak consensus has formed. Note that I have no standards of my own for diplomats. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@St★lwart111: WP:AUD is a mess and needs to be deleted. Its deletion is presently under discussion and will probably happen sooner or later. James500 (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Bearian - a weak consensus has formed in that regard. But that was the very basis of commentary in opposition to guideline that said all ambassadors are notable by default. The new version of WP:DIPLOMAT is simply designed to replace the old version (given there was general consensus for removal) and function as a conversation-starter to fill the vacuum created by total absence of direction. Thus my suggestion that further discussion of it be directed there. While WP:AUD might be a mess, I don't think there is consensus to remove it yet and it remains a common building block for arguments with regard to WP:CORPDEPTH. That follows from the "world at large" stipulation at WP:N. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Although not part of this WP:CORPDEPTH appears to be more relevant than WP:AUD

That being said, while I initially agreed with the position of Necrothesp, there is a reason why WP:GNG is the "general notability guideline", it is where all notability begins, and is then whittled down by specific notability guidelines (or so has become the evolving consensus as I understand it presently). Presumption of notability is based on the view that there are generally sufficient non-online sources (sometimes not easily accessible), to warrant the subject being notable. Whether that exist with ambassadors and other head of missions is under debate, and no consistent consensus has yet been formed, it has changed from the past where there was an assumption, to now where there is not (as with any guideline, this is not a unanimous view of all editors). Therefore, the essay was written based on the consensus formed by the editors who developed the essay Wikipedia:Diplomatic notability. Now can that essay use improvement? Possibly. Can that essay be elevated with sufficient consensus to support its content? Possibly, but less likely.

If it to be changed how? Does such a change have sufficient consensus to change the essay from its current wording? Lets discuss it civilly, and see what happens.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I welcome the fact that WP:DIPLOMAT no longer redirects to this notability guideline and instead links to a separate essay. I have made some comments at WT:DIPLOMAT. Thincat (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

People notable for only one event

When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.

It's time to retire this idea.

There are fully of legalistic Wikipedians getting around this. For example, see the many "Murder of ____ (insert name)" articles instead of just using the person's name.

Also many people have articles that are known for one event. Some people aren't even known for one event. The biggest violation is Patrick Bouvier Kennedy, who was an infant livign 2 days. He did nothing, not a single event. Malia and Shasha Obama don't have an article but that is because Wikipedians who are supporters of American President Barack Obama want to follow the President's request that his daughters do not have press coverage. Another violation is Byron Wells.

But the subject at hand is people known for one event.

I propose that if a person is known for one significant event, he or she may be the subject of a Wikipedia article. That is the way we currently do things even though it's not explained as such. As a result, my proposal is for no change in current behavior, just to clarify it. Dharahara (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I have a quick question: I'm in the process of checking some articles for the LVA and I was wondering if I could make some articles for people who have served in the Virginia House of Delegates or the House of Burgesses. I was initially assuming that this would be a "yes" since these organizations are on the state level to some degree (sort of oversimplifying the HoB) but I'd be adding these for people who were elected for their county. (Like Isaac Dabbs.) I'm interested in writing these but I know that for some there's a bit of a dearth of sources and knowing whether or not their political service qualifies them to pass POL would be helpful. It's not something I'm exceedingly familiar with. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, state legislators are entitled to articles because it's a state-wide office. It's the scope of the institution in which they serve that matters, not the size of the constituency that elected them there. postdlf (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Good to know! I was a bit hesitant since I want to make sure that everything is on the up and up if I create these articles. I wouldn't be making them for the LVA specifically (they haven't mandated that I create articles, although they've seemed happy at the idea of me creating them), but there would be enough of a COI in their creation (since I'd be using some LVA sources for most) that it'd be within my best interests to fully ensure that I'm understanding the specific notability guidelines prior to moving them to the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

There is an RfC on the subject of whether Wikipedia:Notability (publishing) should become a guideline, which is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Notability (publishing)#Should this become a guideline?. James500 (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

There is an RfC on the subject of whether Wikipedia:Notability (history) should become a guideline, which is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Notability (history)#Should this become a guideline?. James500 (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm writing a Wikipedia article about Philip Start, the fashion designer, But i'm not sure whether he meets the notability criterion. I've got a rough outline of a biography below but I'm over reliant on his Linked In profile. Any adive would be much appreciated. The area I'm having trouble with is clearly finding secondary sources.

Also having a bit of trouble interpreting: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

I have a primary source proving that his clothing line, Mr Start, was featured in London fashion week http://www.londonfashionweek.co.uk/designers_profile.aspx?DesignerID=1613 is this enough to fulfill: "(b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition"?

Any help would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdaklol (talk • contribs) 13:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The most bulletproof evidence of notability is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. A subject doesn't need to meet any topic-specific guidelines if it satisfies the WP:GNG. Do you have such sources on which to base the article? Pburka (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I recently had a bit of kerfuffle at an AfD and all that aside, it does bring up something that has frequently happened at AfD: there have been multiple times where we've had articles for published authors deleted. Now these aren't self-published authors, but authors who have been published via fairly major publishing companies. What I'm proposing is something that's more in line with criteria #5 of WP:NBAND, which I've used as the basis for the following criteria:

Has released four or more print novels, anthologies/collections (where they are the only author), or book-length works via a major publisher or through one of the more important indie publishers (i.e., an independent publisher with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of authors, many of whom are independently notable). Works that have been self-published (ie, CreateSpace, Lulu) or released via a vanity publisher do not apply. Journalists and academics who have only published journal articles do not qualify for this criteria.

While it seems a little broad at first, take into account that this would not cover self-published works and at this point it would only pertain to novels or other full-length works that have been released in print. If this works well then this can be expanded to cover e-book only releases and authors who have only published short works of fiction in various mainstream publications but have never had their works collected in one format or another. NBAND has been using this criteria for a pretty long time now and it's worked out relatively well for them. We could always add to this or expand upon it, but for now I think that it'd be reasonable to add this to the list. More people are getting published now than there were in the past, but getting published through a mainstream publisher isn't entirely easy and if the author has published multiple books under a mainstream publisher (think Penguin, Simon & Schuster, etc) then that should be something to count towards notability. I'd say we should start with two, as that's what NBAND currently has as a criteria for notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Here's an example in my userspace: User:Tokyogirl79/Eli Cantor. Cantor is an author who published multiple novels. Two of them were published by Zebra Books, one by Crown Publishing, and one by Outlet Book Company (ie, RandomHouse), all in the 70s and 80s. One of the books was even made into a film. By all accounts he should have coverage, but he doesn't. Adding in this criteria would allow authors like him to have an article. Now I am aware that this would open up a bit of a can of worms from people looking to create vanity page, but I think that we can handle pages like that. The big thing is that as long as these can be verified somehow (ie, a link to Google Books or similar) then I don't see where this would irreparably harm Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hey TG, what would we consider a "full-length" work? For example, that sentence is as full-length a work as I will publish anywhere today. Is there an established standard for such things? Aside: thoroughly worth considering - nice work. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• I would say anything that is over novella length and would be published as a stand-alone work. In other words, book-length works. I was thinking of that mostly for the non-fiction authors that have released multiple books under a mainstream publisher. I was going to include essay books in this (ie, ones where there is a short story or novella by the author that is accompanied by multiple academic essays on the work), but I think that this would be better off as a different criteria altogether since that would need a lot of tweaking. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Something like this would be slightly iffy as a full length work since it's 176 pages, but it has been published on its own in paperback by a major publisher (Simon & Schuster). It may be better to put the minimum books level at three, but I think that this would allow for a lot more authors to have articles. Making the requirement printed works instead of e-book only releases would help raise the threshold to where it'd be at least somewhat discerning since there are more than a few of the bigger publishers that have released a glut of e-books that would make this somewhat unwieldy. For example, I'd consider Ellora's Cave to be an indie publisher that would qualify for as a more important indie publisher (no comment on the various controversies surrounding them). They have released a ton of e-book only releases but they have published some works in print format. The print versions would qualify but not the e-book only releases. If this criteria does well then we could make a second criteria that addresses authors that are predominantly or solely e-book authors. I've got a few ideas for that (centering upon the e-book hitting the top ten of mainstream bestseller lists like USA Today or NYTBL, OR the author releasing multiple book-length e-works through a mainstream publisher), but for now I think it's best to focus on this criteria. In any case, I'm throwing out two more authors that would benefit from this work: Sunny, an extremely popular erotica author, and Gerry Bartlett, an author of a fairly popular chick lit vampire series. Both are published multiple books under Berkley Books, an imprint of Penguin, yet neither have really gained enough coverage to warrant an article as of yet per the current guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• The minimum number of books depends on the importance of the books. There are authors of a single book Harper Lee who are unquestionably notable (I realize there are just recently plans to publish another book), but still she will have written at most two. And there is Margaret Mitchell. DGG ( talk ) 07:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• DGG: I have no problem with the criteria being set at two. The main reason I'm lobbying for this would be for authors who have published multiple books under a major publisher but have never really received coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the other criteria of NAUTHOR. This would not be an exclusionary criteria since we would not eliminate an author solely because they do not pass this guideline. I see it as being more inclusionary since it'd allow us to have more articles on authors that would otherwise fail notability criteria. I can't tell you how many times I've participated in AfDs where people complained that we were deleting articles on authors that were publishing through mainstream publishers (most recently the Donovan AfD), so this would allow for more articles and hopefully, more incoming editors. The basic requirement of this is that the authors have books that are already published and available for purchase in print somewhere. This would still require confirmation in some aspect, so we'd still require a source to back up proof of publication. I imagine that these could be passing mentions in reliable sources (trade magazines, newspapers, etc), in-depth reliable sources (of course), and primary sources such as the publisher's website. I do think that for the final one it should be the publisher's website or something that is just as solid (like a Google Books link) so we can avoid people posting blogs to claim that someone published under this or that major publisher. I also want to note that this would specifically make it easier for us to have pages on foreign language authors where finding specific coverage may be difficult due to a language barrier. Many publishers tend to have English language portions of their website, so it would be easier to prove publication that way. This would result in a lot of bare bones articles, but in my experience people are more likely to expand an article if there is one to expand. The list of requested articles in any given WikiProject space will show that there are many who do not prefer to create their own articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• This also has the potential to be somewhat far reaching, so I would say that for now this should only pertain to novels or book-length non-fiction works. If this is successful in driving up editor numbers then we could see about expanding this to cover other areas like manga and light novel submissions. My idea for that is that author notability would be counted by series as opposed to each release, as it's common for there to be authors who release one multi-volume series through a major publisher/magazine but not really anything else past that point. The series would also have to be published in paperback (ie, like this manga or this light novel series). I'm not lobbying for that, but I did want to include this since it has the potential to allow us to be more inclusionary for authors that are extremely well known but for whatever reason haven't received the amount of coverage necessary to pass on other criteria. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• I also need to again state that while this would initially seem a little too inclusionary, take into account that this criteria has been in place with NBAND for a fairly long time now and it's still pretty exclusionary. We'd see an initial spike of pages getting created, but I see that as a good thing since it'd probably mean more editors and after the initial spike dies down it'd probably end up settling down. It'd also decrease the amount of pages that would go to AfD, which would also be beneficial for obvious reasons. (Fewer candidates on the list means more time can be spent on other AfDs.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

the question is whether you want to use this as an alternative to GNG or an additional requirement. If as an additional requirement, I think it's a very poor idea, because of the authors whose single books are notable, and even the very occasional author whose self-published book or books are notable. If you want to use this as an explicit alternative, then the rule needs to say so specifically, essentially the way WP:PROF does, because there will always be people arguing at afd that the only guideline is GNG, and anything else is only presumed notability, that can be contradicted by not finding GNG quality sources. I agree the way we use GNG for books or authors is absurd: anything can be done by manipulation of the keywords in GNG--in order to get reasonable results, I've always argued that local and even regional newspapers, especially from the author's region, do not show notability, on the basis that publishing them does not show editorial discrimination. In the other direction, it's been argued that SLJ and Booklist and the like are non-selective review sources. There's also an occasional argument that since all books from mainstream academic publishers get eventually reviewed in the special it academic journals in the fields academic publishers eventually get reviews in academic journals, these too are indiscriminate. I've always argued against this, again, in order to get reasonable results.

the problem is that all mainstream publishers publish trivial and unsuccessful books, usually in greater number than significant ones. If we include all the authors of two or more of them, it would be getting over-inclusive for even my views. But it might be the simplest, and if you think we can get consensus for it, I'll support it, at either the 2 or 3 level.

One thing is very easy for books in English from the major English speaking countries and should be no concern at all: every one of them will show up in worldcat, so there is no problem at all in verifying the publications. Books in the major European languages usually show up in WorldCat also. Books in any language from Asia can be another matter, unless a US library happens to acquire one. Though there are sources for some of the countries, such as Japan and China, which are usable only by people who know the language and are in libraries in those countries or in one of the very few other libraries that get those databases (Princeton gets them for Japanese, but that does me no good at all--there's not even an English interface). For the near East and India, the situation is hopeless. So we're going to have immense cultural bias. Perhaps it won't be worse than we do already.

On the other hand, I do wish to deprecate the GNG, because tBhe results from it are totally inconsistent.

• @DGG: It'd be an alternative to GNG and not an additional requirement- NAUTHOR is strict enough as it is and mostly I want to find a way to allow more of the "common sense" authors to have pages. (IE, authors that publish via notable publishers, sell extremely well, are extremely well known, but have never garnered enough coverage to pass GNG.) I'm open to raising the number of required books to a larger number (3-4+) if you think that it would keep it from being too inclusive. We could also probably restrict this further by saying that the author has to have released 2-3 books in hardback through notable publishers. I know that this isn't always the rule, but I know that publishers are more likely to release something in hardback if the author has routinely sold well enough to warrant that additional expense. It'd unfortunately exclude some of the authors I'd like to add (mostly old 80s horror fiction and young adult authors), but it would keep it from being too inclusionary while still allowing for more authors to have articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• In other words, it would still technically be part of NAUTHOR (since it'd be lumped in with that) but it would be one of the criteria that articles had to fulfill for notability purposes. Authors only have to meet one of the criteria and it would make it easier for these borderline cases if there was a criteria that allowed for authors to pass if they've published multiple book-length works through a notable publisher. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I didn't understand at first. I think it's a basically good idea, but I need to think about the details. Some of the restrictions, such as hardback , don't really apply in many genres (like sf, but there's no problem getting sf authors declared notable here because there are many fans) YA are sold in HB if they expect libraries to buy them. Some countries, e.g France, publish almost nothing in hb. Perhaps it should be limited to notable publishers with WP articles, which will help a little. I';d really like to use a list -- this is familiar to me, for it is similar to the way libraries buy books--they typically tell the dealers from what publishers they want to see books for approval. The problem with setting it at relatively restrictive at first and then opening it up is that each time thats done, there will be opposition. (There will be anyway, but let's look at some recent declines at afd. My idea & I think yours, is that it should not really be more inclusive, but should make it easier to decide. and more consistent. We got WP:PROF accepted because absolutely everything who worked in the field accepted it. I;'m not sure that will be the case here. DGG ( talk ) 09:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• I like the idea of requiring that the publishers have articles and making a list- I've never really seen one of those, but I've heard of them. What you've written is pretty much what I want- I'd like it to be easier to decide at AfDs, although an added bonus would be that it'd take a lot of frustration out of creating and keeping articles. When compiling a list, is there anything that I should do when discarding a publisher as unusable for the purposes of the list? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

If authoring two books and having those two books by a major publisher is sufficient to pass WP:NAUTHOR, one could argue, being an Ambassador is sufficient to be notable. How is it that notability can be seen as writing two books, while it takes someone being a recipient for their nation's highest medal for valor to be notable? Something more stringent please. Perhaps being the author of a book that has received a major significant award (thus clarifying the notable award criteria of WP:ANYBIO), is something to be looked at. But just being a published author doesn't make one notable, otherwise, every major journalist is a published author of notability after publishing two long form articles, based on one way to interpret above suggested addition to the guideline.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Going back to the original proposal here, what qualifies as "a major publisher?" What makes WP:NBAND work is that there is some agreement on what constitutes a major record label. The other question about this change is that it would likely change the approach WP:PROF, since many professors may meet a more open criteria of WP:NAUTHOR. Enos733 (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
• I think that one of the best ways to describe a major publisher is that it'd be one that has received substantial coverage in reliable sources, enough to where they'd warrant an article themselves. They'd also be a publisher that has routinely published works that have received enough coverage to where either the authors or their works would pass notability guidelines as well. As far as the concern over the journalists go, this criteria would only pertain to people who have published book-length works through a major publisher, meaning that the works would typically be 300+ pages on average. This would not cover newspaper articles regardless of the length, as it is extremely unlikely that the average newspaper (or even a journal article) would have a submission that is of book length. This can be changed to specify that this does not cover journalists or academic journal articles, a change I've made above. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

With WP:PROF, the effect may be still substantial, since many of the major academic presses, i.e. Harvard University Press, Yale University Press and the University of California Press, all have their own Wikipedia pages. The consensus on WP:PROF was "simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient." In addition, changing the standard for published books (with a major publisher) (and especially to two), would unintentionally provide notability to academics in certain fields where research is traditionally published in book form (versus journal articles).--Enos733 (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Also, the number of minimum works can always be raised, so to address those concerns I've changed this to four books instead of two, although three is probably better. This could very easily be further changed to raise this bar. The thing is, publishing isn't easy. It is cheaper and easier for major publishers to put out works, but this hasn't really turned it into a free-for-all where anyone can submit a book to Berkley (or even Zondervan and they're fairly liberal) and get accepted. There's still a very rigorous screening process and most will not get published at all, let alone in print. Even if the person gets a contract for this or that number of books (usually about 2-3), there's still no guarantee that this contract will be honored and it's entirely possible that a poorly performing author will be dropped before they've published the promised amount of books. There can also be a coda added in that if the author has only worked on one book series (ie, an ongoing series with one character) and the series is notable enough to have an article, then it would be better for the author's name to serve as a redirect to that series page. The thing about all of this is that books are pretty niche and unless something really grabs the public eye, you can have extremely successful authors that solidly fly under the radar despite having large followings and selling large amounts of books. This can be extremely offputting for incoming editors because for them it just won't make sense. Now I'm not talking about someone who has published a few books under an obscure publisher, but people who have published multiple books in known publishers that have published extremely notable authors (that are not in the public domain). This would enable people like the ones I've listed above to have an article, as well as people who have received some limited coverage for their work, but just barely fall shy of fulfilling notability criteria. It would revolutionize notability guidelines to a degree, but in a good way since it'd give us a way to keep most of the "common sense" articles that get nominated for deletion or get turned down at AfC. It'd also help give us a way to have articles on authors that published during a point in time where publishing was extremely difficult and any truly in-depth coverage has not been put on the Internet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• Here's an idea: how about we include the book amount but also require that the books be held in a certain number of institutions on WorldCat? For example, what if it was as follows:

Has released four or more book length works that have been published via a major publisher or through one of the more important indie publishers, and are held in a minimum of 200 libraries throughout the world. Book-length works are defined as works of fiction, non-fiction, and/or anthologies/collections where they are the only author that are over 250 pages long. Qualifying publishers, including indie publishers, are defined as publishers with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of authors, many of whom are independently notable. Works that have been self-published (ie, CreateSpace, Lulu) or released via a vanity publisher do not apply, nor do works by authors that are contracted to ghost write for another author (ex, Andrew Neiderman) unless they are the sole ghost writer and the author passes notability guidelines. Journalists and academics who have only published journal articles do not qualify for this criteria.

This will need to be whittled down more and it'd be best if we could make up a list of publishers, but this would still be fairly exclusive. For example, a WorldCat search shows that the aforementioned author Gerry Bartlett would probably fail this criteria. She'd pass on the amount of books published, but so far only two of her books are substantially carried in libraries throughout the world. Eli Cantor would also fail this criteria, as likely would a number of authors, but at the same time there would be a lot of authors that would that have otherwise failed notability criteria. Sunny would pass this criteria as four of her books are held in over 200 libraries, so she's an example of an author that would benefit from the version I've posted above. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• I've added a bit about ghost writers, which would also help whittle down the qualifications even further, although I'm open to this being left out. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I think this is still too inclusive. I think something about clarifying what "notable awards" means in WP:ANYBIO when it comes to authors means (as I suggested above). If the author's work(s) (say three or more) have received significant coverage in non-primary (and non-publisher related) reliable sources (and have not won a major award), it should be fair to say that is sufficient to say that the author themselves have received significant coverage for more than one book release, and thus are notable beyond WP:BLP1E (where the event is the book release), than that should be considered notable. Just cause someone has X number of books published might not make the author notable, especially if the books being published aren't notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• What I'm trying to accomplish with this is to help show notability for books and authors that haven't received enough coverage to pass the current guidelines but for all practical purposes should pass notability guidelines. The thing about publishing in print is that it's not entirely a free for all- for someone to publish a certain amount of books through a notable or major publisher isn't a small feat. However I can see where this may seem too inclusive, which is why I added the information about the author having to have 4 of their book-length works held in over 200 libraries on WorldCat. Now where publishing alone may be too inclusive for some, publishing and having your book in over 200 libraries is not an easy feat. Publishing doesn't guarantee that libraries will purchase the books for their shelves, especially nowadays when many libraries are downsizing their collections and trying to only include the books that they know that patrons want. Some libraries are able to afford more books than others, but by large libraries have to be exclusive in what they choose. DGG could probably back me up on this since he works in a library. Now this isn't 200 libraries for all four books, but 200 libraries per book. That's where it'd be a little more exclusive since this addition would exclude a lot of authors unless they achieved notability via other criteria. For example, Sunny's Mona Lisa Awakening is held in over 200 libraries and she has three other books that have similar holdings above 200. Gerry Bartlett (I've had a chance to look a little closer at her books) also passes this criteria with several of her books ([3], [4], [5], [6]). However at the same time this would exclude a lot of authors who publish but don't have enough of a demand to warrant libraries purchasing their work. For example, Lucy Arlington has three books that are in many libraries but her fourth book is only held in 139 libraries. This means that unless she has coverage that would otherwise allow her to pass notability guidelines, she would fail this criteria, as would many other authors who would say, have a series that is popular and successful enough that their publisher would continue to honor their contract but not to the point where libraries would carry that author. The issue I've run into is that we've frequently had articles for people that for all practical purposes should have articles but fall just shy of notability guidelines. A great example of this would be authors like Jamie McGuire. She has an article now (although the article's sourcing is exceedingly shaky right now), but I know that for the longest time she would continually fall shy of the notability guidelines despite having an overwhelmingly large fandom that managed to catch the eye of Atria Publishing, who contracted her for multiple books. Basically this is a way of proving that the authors have a large enough following to warrant an article. This is one case where we really do need to be more inclusive because there are a lot of authors that continually fly under the radar of reliable sources to where they don't gain in-depth coverage to satisfy notability guidelines but do get repeatedly published and have a fairly substantial number of libraries that carry their work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If the books of the author don't achieve GNG, than why should the author? If any of the books of the author don't receive a notable award, why should the author be notable? GNG is the general guideline. POLITICIAN works, as it is shown that there is a presumption that there are sufficient offline sources that any sub-national legislator has sufficient non-primary reliable sources to pass GNG. I don't think the same can be said about the authors which this attempted advised guideline would bring into the fold. The WorldCat based guideline is subjective, as far as I can understand.

Again, if the authors books are sufficiently notable per GNG, than it is safe to assume that the author themselves will have received sufficient significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to pass GNG. Again, if an author has written a book that has received a notable award, than it is safe to assume that the author meets criteria #1 of WP:ANYBIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• The same thing could be argued of musicians, which actually has a similar policy in place. Under that same argument the notability criteria for musicians/bands to pass if they have two or more albums via a notable indie/mainstream company should fail. However at the same time that criteria takes into consideration how incredibly difficult it actually is to release multiple things through a notable publisher. The same thing applies to notable publishers of written work. While yes, this would allow more people to have books it is not as inclusive as you're implying. It's still very, very difficult to pass because many libraries will not purchase books unless they are sure that there will be enough circulation to warrant adding them, so it's not as subjective as you may think. This is not as simple as someone walking up to a library and handing them their book for free- it still costs money to add and circulate even one book so it's actually fairly difficult to get a book added to a library nowadays, let alone to get one added for 200+ libraries. The same thing can be said about publishers to an extent: they will not publish multiple works in print if there is not at least some degree of success with the author. If they don't sell well and have a good fanbase that purchases the works, they won't publish future books and they certainly won't put the works in print since that costs money. The problem with the criteria for NAUTHOR is that it's just simply too exclusive and the literary world as a whole is not one that tends to get gobs of coverage unless it's something very mainstream. This usually means that the authors that would really benefit from this are the ones who has been mentioned in one or two RS and trivial coverage in passing, but has not received enough to pass notability guidelines. While no, we're not here to make up the difference, I do think that it's a bit overkill to say that someone who has published multiple books through a notable publisher and has their work contained in a substantial number of libraries does not pass notability guidelines because they haven't received X number of reviews or articles. Why should NAUTHOR not adopt a policy that is similar to one that is already successfully followed on at least one other guideline? It's not like we're short on storage space and it's not like this would open the doors for truly non-notable authors to gain an article. Authors like the guy for America Deceived will still be non-notable, as this would only include the notable publishers and it would help to push for a more comfortable keep for authors like Rebecca Donovan whom I still believe would fail the current guidelines on Wikipedia because most of her coverage is/was trivial. I also hate to pull the "this is why people stay away from Wikipedia" card but this would also make it more inviting for newer editors to come on, edit, and remain. It's sort of what users like E.M.Gregory were arguing about at the Donovan AfD: stuff like this can really drive users away and to be honest, numbers on editor retainment on Wikipedia stink. This isn't a reason to include this per se, but it would make it more inviting.

Ideally what this policy would do is enable us to keep articles on authors who have yet to actually receive those in-depth reviews in reliable sources but have received one or two articles and multiple trivial sources (NOT just routine notifications of book announcement dates). It'd enable us to finally push for notability for authors that are extremely well known in their field and even hit the specialized bestseller lists for the NYT, but for all practical purposes fail notability guidelines due to a lack of coverage. Most of the times it's for the reason I said above: the mainstream publications that typically give reviews overlook them because they're not mainstream type titles (romance, sci-fi, etc). Believe it or not, despite romance and sci-fi being extremely well known genres, they are very rarely reviewed by many sources unless they are by someone who is already known or the person has an extremely good marketing company to drum them up as the Next Big Thing. Basically what I'm asking for here is to add a policy that would add a little WP:COMMONSENSE to the equation like the policy for NBAND does. This would still imply that there would be some sort of coverage in reliable sources, but it would allow us to include more common sense authors that have extremely large bibliographies through notable publishers and are held in multiple libraries but still fail notability guidelines. Believe it or not, there are actually authors out there who have works that are held in over a thousand libraries a piece yet they don't cleanly fit notability guidelines. I'm all for proving notability but I don't think that this policy really takes all aspects of publishing into consideration like other notability guidelines have and there's nothing out there to show that the world will end if we make it easier to take these common sense cases into consideration. We wouldn't really lose anything in the process. I think that you're seeing this as a way to add in some Joe Schmoe that's published off the wall books through some no-name publishing company, but that's not the case here. It would allow us to have niche authors who have published 10+ books through Simon & Schuster (one of the top publishers in North America) to have articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The counter argument of course being that then WP:NBANDS is too inclusive.

I can see being notable for making certain highly notable and well read lists (such as NYT best sellers charts) though. That is fitting with WP:NSONG, that a song is notable if it makes notable charts.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Another criteria that could be said to meet WP:GNG is if the author has multiple books that meet WP:BKCRIT, than the subject could be said to have met #3 of the current wording of WP:CREATIVE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'd really rather have something that would recognize authors that have successfully published multiple works carried in a large amount of libraries, but if this can end with us recognizing the NYT bestseller lists as a sign of notability that would still be awesome. I think that it would be best to only recognize the ones that hit the top ten of the lists, though. There's still somewhat of an issue with people buying their way onto the lists, but I've noticed that the worst and most easily identifiable offenders of this usually do not crack the top 10. Real Marriage is probably the most visible exception, but otherwise the books appear to get on there by their own merit (or at least they're far sneakier about their campaigns). However I still maintain that if an author can continue to successfully publish works through a notable publisher and the works are held in a large amount of libraries, that this can show notability. I don't really think that NBAND is too inclusive because it's still incredibly hard to meet notability guidelines for an article and hundreds of band/music related articles are deleted at AfD each month for failing notability criteria. I can't tell you how many get deleted via speedy and declined at AfC, but I'd wager that it's probably at least triple whatever the number is at AfD. This would open the floodgates, but I do not think that it would irreparably harm Wikipedia and it would allow us to be more thorough but without turning into a hot mess. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Either way, changes to a guideline, need more consensus than two or three editors. This is why WP:SOLDIER remains an essay.

WP:NSONG doesn't limit it to one specific chart, but perhaps one way to avoid those sources that buy their way into the chart, is requiring that the book be on the chart for a sufficient period of time, and that the author is notable only after several books make that criteria.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The most obvious way to improve AUTHOR would be to remove the word "multiple" from criteria 3. I can see no reason for the present restriction. I can see no significant difference between having one book review and having the two book reviews presently required. The present restriction appears to be merely sorting the sheep from the goats. (There is an strong case for ripping the word "multiple" out of the notability guidelines wherever it occurs in relation to sources). James500 (talk) 06:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Having multiple reliable sources provide significant coverage of a subject meets WP:GNG, bullet point sources:

"Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3]

The viewpoint of removing multiple from notability guidelines is a minority view, and one that I do not support.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"Minority" is being generous. I'm yet to see said "strong case" made in any of the many AFDs in which I have participated. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The strong case is that there is no valid reason whatsoever for GNG itself to require multiple sources either (apart from the fact that this is not an absolute requirement). The only reason that WHYN manages to offer is some nonsense about neutrality. And of course it is obvious that neutrality does not depend on the number of sources. The truth of the matter is that the average (reliable) book review is significant coverage, and if it is the only one, it is certainly due weight to cite it. There are no reliable statistics on how widely this viewpoint is held; certainly nothing to justify calling it a minority position. As for AfD, I suspect that participation at AfD is primarily by a small minority of the community who are not a representative sample. James500 (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether AFD participants are a representative sample or not, it and DRV are the "coal face" of the notability debate and the extent to which AFD impacts on policy and guideline discussions here and elsewhere is evident in the number of discussions that result from AFDs, cite AFDs, are based on common outcomes at AFD or relate to queries first raised in the context of AFD. Isn't the simple answer that we require multiple sources to ensure that articles aren't written based on one person's interest in one thing one day - that subjects given coverage here are of interest to the "world at large" (at least, more than one person)? That's WP:N in a nutshell. In fact that's exactly what the "in a nutshell" section says at WP:N. The "world at large" is bigger than one person, so we reflect that by requiring that more than one person has been interested in something enough to give it coverage. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• I also have to disagree with the idea of only requiring one review to establish notability. It doesn't really show a depth of coverage, to be honest. Most articles cannot be kept on a single source unless that source asserts something so strong notability-wise that it'd merit a keep on that basis alone. This would set the threshold a little too low, far lower than what my suggestion would have. However... it may be a good idea to combine the two together somehow, like so: the author has released a set amount of books released through a notable major or indie publisher, that this set amount of books are in a specific number of libraries, and the author has received at least one review in a reliable source, that this author would be considered notable enough to pass notability guidelines. This would be somewhat in keeping with what I had in mind with the above guideline. My rationale for my proposed criteria is that the author would have received some limited coverage but would still fall shy of notability criteria as it's currently set. As for the minority viewpoint at AfD, the issue there is that we're kind of limited to how the notability criteria reads and how it is most commonly interpreted. It's kind of unfortunate but a lot of criteria in general (not just NAUTHOR) are usually created after a specific AfD where someone tried to manipulate a loophole in the criteria and as such the guidelines may be a little too strict with some of the more borderline cases that probably should be kept but still fail notability guidelines. (These specific AfD cases were for topics that really weren't notable in the slightest like the infamous America Deceived AfD, where rules had to be changed to make sure that this specific book/author/topic couldn't be re-added and exploit the loophole.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
• Whether AfD is representative is enormously important because we have an editor retention problem, and deletion is said to be the cause. A single periodical review probably doesn't reflect one person's interests alone. That review will or could be read by everyone who reads the periodical (whether by subscription or other purchase or at a library). In other words, it is likely to be read by a large number of people, since we are talking about the readership of newspapers, magazines and scholarly journals, which is generally very large. Moreover, the choice of which book is reviewed will almost certainly be based on what the readers of that periodical want to read, or at least, what the reviewer thinks they want to read (which will normally be the same thing). In any event, multiple sources doesn't significantly improve on one person's opinion. If the "world at large" isn't one person's opinion, it isn't two people's opinion's either. In fact, by that logic, ten or even a hundred reviewers wouldn't come close to being enough, because that is still a tiny group of people. I have no doubt that isn't what "world at large" means. I think it is clear that it is referring to the independence of sources, not the number of sources. Turning to depth of coverage, I don't think there is a significant difference between one review and two. It isn't a significant increase in volume (which I would equate with a factor of ten rather than a factor of two). Moreover, since novel reviews are generally favourable (P N Furbank, "Twentieth Century Best Seller" in Boris Ford (ed), Pelican Guide to English Literature, Volume 7: The Modern Age, Penguin Books, 1961), even if we have multiple reviews they will probably all say more or less the same thing, no matter how many there are, so there is little point in requiring two of them. (Furbank goes on to say that reviewers "do tell the public what it wants to know", and that reviews do influence public opinion and sales. I don't think the fact that reviews tend to be favourable is unsurprising because reviewers are not likely to review something no one wants to read.) Even if we did want multiple sources, the guideline is worded in such a way that the other source could be supplied by something that isn't a periodical article, such as an entry in an annotated bibliography. So requiring one periodical article doesn't necessary mean there will only be one source. That said, I support any relaxation of this guideline that allows a single periodical review to be considered. James500 (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment, why don't we model of of existing accepted guidelines, as I suggested with WP:NSONG. I dislike WP:NBAND myself, but WP:NSONGs requirement of chart standing is decent, and perhaps can be improved upon.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
• I'm willing to shelve my recommendation for the time being if it means that we can start using the bestselling lists as a sign of notability. So... I guess we could model it as such:

Has been ranked on significant bestseller charts such as The New York Times Best Seller list, USA Today Bestseller list, or (other lists here). Bestselling lists created by merchant sites such as Amazon, Barnes & Nobles, and iTunes do not qualify for this criteria.

I think that the question here is which bestseller lists should be used? Obviously the NYT and USA Today lists should be used, but lists hosted by merchant sites like Amazon should not since those aren't entirely impossible to alter and besides, the website doesn't have a set published list like NYT and USA Today does. It also changes extremely frequently, so that makes it harder to verify. It's not inconceivable that an author could try to sway sales for their book and get on one of the bestseller lists for a tiny subsection and then claim that they pass that way. It's just easier to say merchant sites are unusable and leave it at that. I think that Publisher Weekly's bestseller list would be usable enough since they base their numbers on Nielsen rankings, although I've never seen them as a really visible bestseller list. The LA Times and the WSJ's lists would be usable as well, although this opens up the possibility that someone could claim that any newspaper's rankings are usable, so we need to say which are or aren't usable. I think that saying that the list has to be done on the national level for the country may help this out. I'd also like to get some examples of bestseller lists from other countries since most of my bestseller list knowledge is very US centric. I did a quick search and found that Oricon publishes a list that's considered to be the NYT equivalent, but we need ones for countries like India and so on. I know that this will really help a lot of India related authors since some will hit the bestseller lists for a long period of time but not really gain much coverage. Indian authors tend to get the short end of the stick when it comes to publishing, unfortunately. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

If the list is notable itself, than it should be acceptable for use, IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• I got a little sidetracked and forgot to come back here. I'm going to open up a small subsection of this for "votes" on whether or not we can use bestseller lists for notability if the list is notable and the book hit the top 10-20 of the list. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm officially proposing that we consider bestseller lists as a sign of notability akin to how we will see a review as a sign of notability. By this I mean that holding one of the top 10-20 spots on a notable bestseller list for any number of time will count the same as say, a review for one of the author's works. A notable bestseller list would be considered a list that has achieved standalone notability enough to warrant its own article on Wikipedia (ie, The New York Times Best Seller list), merit a subsection in its parent article (ie, requires sourcing), and/or has been republished in places that are independent of the original paper and would be considered a reliable source. Lists reprinted by publishers whose books appear on the list would not count for the third criteria. Right now the only one I can point to that would fulfill the first criteria is the NYT list, but the USA Today list would probably pass on the third criteria since this list is republished on various RS websites. If this ends with this only having the first two criteria then it'd still be wildly helpful with NAUTHOR. I'm pinging @RightCowLeftCoast:, @DGG:, @James500: for this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me, but without a large consensus, this is more of an essay level proposal. For guideline level proposal it takes a lot of consensus. A reason why SOLDIER is an essay and not a guideline.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree. AfD has a presumption against deletion. A topic is notable unless there is positive consensus that it is not. SOLDIER cannot be marked as a guideline for purely technical reasons because it is a WikiProject subpage. Move it to the mainspace, drop the references to the WikiProject, and it could very rapidly become a guideline. James500 (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• I see some obvious parallels with WP:MUSICBIO, #2 of which requires that a subject, "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." I suppose in that context, the The New York Times Best Seller list might be considered the equivalent of a "national music chart" (as pointed out above) but such a list in the Hoboken Reporter (with all due respect to it's authors and editors) might not. So we would need a supporting guideline similar to WP:CHART, yes? St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it. Is there a wikiproject we can work with to develop a book chart essay like WP:CHART?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Literature maybe? St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Can I go there and ask for participation in this? I know that I may not necessarily get a large enough participation to get a large consensus, but I can dream. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course that is what the Template:Please see is for ;-) .--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Just wanted to make sure- I want this to pass so badly that I want to make sure that I don't trip myself up in my eagerness. (Still holding on to that dream of a large consensus suddenly appearing, XD) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Well, while only a few have commented, nobody has rushed to shout it down. I suppose the thinking is that the devil might be in the detail. But if you can get the mechanics right, having a literary equivalent to WP:MUSICBIO seems eminently sensible. Arguably you should be just as notable for writing a novel that makes it onto the NYT best seller list as for writing a pop song that makes it onto the Billboard 100, if for no other reason than the NYT best seller list is a smaller list. If you're sensible about which lists are included, it will be very hard to argue against, I think. If you're unsure, start with the really obvious ones and suggest that anything else would need to be argued out at AFD until such time as there is consensus for adding them to the list. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Being on the bestsellers list doesn't make a book notable, so why would it make an author? Its been argued many times before that a book should be considered notable if it sells well, but always some people argued that even if you have proof it has sold millions of copies, it doesn't matter, those are just WP:BIGNUMBERs. How many people buy a book doesn't matter, only whether or not any random person in the media felt like reviewing it. Accomplishments of anyone, writer or scientists or whatnot, are judged by media coverage, winning notable awards, or being used in textbooks. I support making the author and the book considered notable if they are on a bestsellers list, but from past long winded never ending discussions had elsewhere, I doubt either will be made to happen. Still, never hurts to try. Rules change all the time based on whoever is around to comment at the time and argue long enough to get what they want. Dream Focus 12:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• I think it's important to remember that specific notability criteria are intended to support a presumption of notability, rather than demonstrate notability. It's reasonable to assume that a book which has been at the top of the New York Times best seller list has probably been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm not as confident that notability should extend to the books' authors. But I could support a change like this as long as it's sufficiently conservative: the more specialized or obscure the best seller list the less likely it is that independent secondary sources exist. Pburka (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• WP:NOTABILITY clearly states "it meets either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." It doesn't have to meet the GNG of having been the "subject of significant coverage in reliable sources" so you don't have to presume it does to prove its notable. Scientists are notable for their accomplishments, measured by if their work is used in textbooks and awards they have won, even if no information about them is available, some not doing interviews or having people writing about them at all. And many bestselling novels are never reviewed in any reliable sources at all, such as most of the Star Wars novels, and other such things. A musician who no one knew anything about because they kept their life private, can still be notable if nothing was written about them as a person, if their music is successful enough. Dream Focus 22:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Which is where I drew parallels. Our guidelines allow obscure writers of one-hit-wonders to be considered notable because their song made it onto a major chart. We likewise consider athletes notable for competing in the first heat of any Olympic competition. This is based on the presumption of notability under the circumstances. It might be the case that someone could write a book that makes it onto the NYT best seller list while remaining completely unknown, but the argument would be made that their impact on their field is sufficient enough to make them notable, even if they might not pass GNG (like Edan Lepucki before her book was subsequently reviewed). I'm not suggesting that we must have a guideline like this because we already have WP:MUSICBIO but it does make sense. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• In my opinion the consensus of the last RfC at WT:NBOOK was that bestsellers are notable, and that the community will formulate a criteria for them ASAP. The only problem is that there seems to be a rough consensus that some lists that purport to be "bestseller lists" are unreliable in that they are not credible indicators of bestseller status. There is, however, a simple solution if we don't want to compile a list of acceptable lists: omit the explicit reference to lists. Then you have criteria that read something like "a book is notable if it is a bestseller" and "the author of a bestselling book is notable". That will allow the community to decide which lists, and which academic definitions of the word "bestseller", it is prepared to accept as credible on a case by case basis at AfD. I don't think that would be a problem since it is fairly obvious that a "bestseller" is, roughly speaking, a book that achieves exceptionally large sales, and therefore one need only look at the number of sales. If anyone says this criteria is vague, I think it will be a sufficient answer that most of our existing criteria are at least equally vague. I think it more important to get some kind of criteria in place ASAP. James500 (talk) 06:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

  Some arguments years ago when I brought this up, was that the bestseller's list only list the highest sales for that time period. That a book that is at the bottom of the bestseller's list that week, can have another book at another time sell more copies than theirs and not get on the list at all. I suggested setting a number of confirmed sales necessary to prove notability, but couldn't get a consensus. The New York Times bestseller's list is considered a reliable source. No one can fake their way onto it these days, and haven't been able to for many years now. They did have problems decades ago when they only took a sample of numbers from certain stores, and people started buying books from those stores to drive up their numbers, but they don't do it that way anymore. Dream Focus 11:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'd say that these should be usable: New York Times Bestseller List, USA Today Weekly Top 150 Best Sellers, Wall Street Journal Best Sellers. I know that there's a weekly bestseller list in Japan that would qualify, but I can't remember its name. I'll ask over at WP:ANIME for the list name since I know that there's a manga and light novel specific list that is considered to be wildly influential. Lists that may be debatable would be Publisher’s Weekly Best Seller Lists and The Book Standard Bestsellers. They're fairly major and I don't see where their lists are really messed with all that much, so they'd probably be usable enough. I think that we can agree on most of the English language bestseller lists, it's the foreign language ones that would be a bit of a stickler. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
• Books are not considered notable for being on a best seller list, so why should an author be considered notable for it? —Farix (t | c) 10:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm trying to get this changed. Just because something isn't currently a criteria doesn't mean that it couldn't or shouldn't be added as a valid criteria. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Are we looking to modify WP:NBOOK, or create an essay to replace WP:NAUTHOR?
If it is the former, perhaps this entire discussion needs to be moved to Wikipedia talk:Notability (books). IMHO, if a Bestseller list is independently notable, than it should be able to qualify as a reliable source, and therefore, it weeds out non-notable non-reliable source lists.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• RightCowLeftCoast: A bit of both, probably. It might be a good idea to bring this up at NBOOK as well, since this could help a lot of books achieve notability as well. Basically, if a notable bestseller list could show notability for a book then it should show notability for an author as well, the same way that a review about a book could show notability for an author. In other words, we have authors whose books are not independently notable, however the combined coverage for their work helps them pass NAUTHOR. Adding the bestseller list to NBOOK would/should make it a criteria to help establish notability for authors. I'll bring it up at NBOOK as well as an option. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it is best to start a draft for the new language, get a consensus, and open an RfC to see if there is community consensus to support a new guideline.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've started a conversation here. I could definitely use some help drafting this, if more needs to be done. This is pretty much my first time proposing something like this, if you include this conversation here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
• I've signed my support there. Should we start a draft language here too to get that ball rolling for NAUTHOR?plange (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• It'd be a good idea. I don't think that I've made a draft version of this specific point on this page. I'll see what I can whip up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Here's what I've whipped up:

• The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles, notable bestseller lists, or reviews.

This would of course require a footnote for the bestseller lists remark, which could be something like this:

• "Notable bestseller lists" are bestseller lists where the list passes notability guidelines on Wikipedia or is published by a notable media outlet and is republished or covered by other reliable sources. Bestseller lists on merchant sources like Amazon or self-published sources like personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, wikis, and similar media are not considered to be reliable. Social media review sites like Goodreads and LibraryThing do not qualify for this criteria.

I don't intend for people to achieve notability on bestseller lists alone, so we could probably insert something like "Achieving bestseller status without other forms of coverage (reviews, articles, etc) will not be enough to satisfy notability." if people have a particularly big problem with this, but like I said at NBOOK, getting on the big lists like the NYT is pretty much the book equivalent of getting on Billboard's top 50 list. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm pinging @Piotrus:, as he expressed interest at this AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• I agree, through that raises the question about which lists are notable. Do we have a criteria for their notability...? I find the resurrection of Wikipedia:Notability (awards) a high-priority task in this context. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• That's not a bad idea. I think that the general rule of thumb for me is that they must have an article in Wikipedia or they need to be held in especially high regard, which can be proven through the list being republished in several independent, reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• James500 came up with a really, really great way to phrase this at WP:NBOOK as far as the notability via bestsellers goes: "A bestseller list is non-trivial if it is notable or it is published by a notable media outlet and is republished or covered by other reliable sources". I figured I'd repost this here and credit him with this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I withdraw this proposal due to overwhelming opposition. The status quo will be maintained. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)^{i've made a huge mess} 14:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC) I propose the notability criteria of politicians be changed to:

1. Members of national governments or legislatures are notable.
2. The above also applies to components of federal states (US states, Canadian provinces, Australian states etc.)
3. Local government or members of local councils are not inherently notable. ——Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)^{i've made a huge mess} 04:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Far too broad. There needs to be a better definition of what "members" are to avoid anyone that happens to just for the govt', and on point 2 I would argue that not every state-level congressperson is notable to start. --MASEM (t) 05:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have defined member as follows: "members of a cabinet such as ministers". --Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)^{i've made a huge mess} 08:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this revisitation is unnecessary: it just says functionally the same thing as the current wording but is a lot less clear about the details while not being much more brief for it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• There is one difference: not all politicians on a sub-national level are notable. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)^{i've made a huge mess} 10:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • What is the reason for this proposed change? It's always helpful to have a rationale of some kind in these situations. Frickeg (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
    • To tighten the criteria for inherent notability. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)^{i've made a huge mess} 08:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• On a sub-national level? You mean at the state level? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Only where sub-national government is not considered local government for that particular country. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)^{i've made a huge mess} 08:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

So what does this change? Broadly what groups would this shift from notable to non-notable? The United Kingdom, for instance, is not a federal state so would this mean members of the Welsh Assembly, London Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly and Scottish Parliament are no longer considered notable? If so I could not support this proposal as I cannot see them being less notable than the 400 members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. Davewild (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• "components of federal states" has been replaced with "sub-national divisions of which their government of which is not considered local government". Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)^{i've made a huge mess} 09:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
• My concern is that this would have a negative effect on articles for people in positions like the Virginia House of Burgesses, which operates on the state level. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• I thought they would have been ok due to the "above also applies to components of federal states" as the US is a federal state, but my point was I did not see why the different treatment to countries like the UK that are not federal states. At the moment I don't see how this improves upon the current guideline. Davewild (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Members the legislatures of Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are not covered, because their government is not considered local government. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)^{i've made a huge mess} 09:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• The current wording explicitly excludes local government. I confess I am completely baffled by this proposal. "To tighten the criteria for inherent notability" is not a rationale. Is there a previous discussion somewhere that should be linked to? I just cannot see what problem we are trying to address here. Please explain in detail exactly the purpose of this proposal and why you have proposed it (specifically the problems that exist with the current wording and exactly the kind of people you feel are getting through unjustly). I can see from the above I'm not the only person having this difficulty. Frickeg (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• The exact purpose of this proposal is to remove articles of members of city councils that have held no other notable office. For example, I feel that articles like Navin Shah, which only has a biography from the London Assembly website and his own website, should not be kept unless they can demonstrably meet WP:GNG. The current wording allows for sub-national government, which can be very broad, from US states to districts of San Marino. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)^{i've made a huge mess} 22:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Guidelines should reflect demonstrated consensus, not dictate it, and we certainly don't alter guidelines just to redraw lines to exclude articles we don't like. Further, WP:POLOUTCOMES shows that city council members from cities as major as London have tended to be kept at AFD. postdlf (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• I wrote "unless they can demonstrably meet WP:GNG". If an article does not meet WP:GNG, then it should be deleted. This has nothing to do with whether you like the article or not. If consensus shows that members of the London Assembly meet WP:GNG, then the article will be kept. The proposed policy says "not inherently notable" meaning no article should be kept if it meets only being a member of a local government. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)^{i've made a huge mess} 00:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• I still don't see the issue. The current wording defines subnational as "statewide/provincewide", i.e. not local government in any sense. All it says about local government is that they are not inherently notable, which seems to be what you are trying to argue. While I am inclined to think members of the London Assembly are probably inherently notable, I do not see that they are covered by WP:POLITICIAN as it currently stands. I cannot see any actual change between what the guideline currently says and this proposal, except that I think the current wording is clearer. Frickeg (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Inherently notable" means "there will probably be a lot of coverage in independent sources, because the person is a member of a national legislature or state legislature", and therefore it should not be deleted. What I am doing is simply arguing that members of the London Assembly should get a lot of coverage in reliable sources before they have an article created on them. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)^{i've made a huge mess} 11:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

That was not a response to Frickeg: the London Assembly is not subnational as per its definition in the current wording. This seems to amount to trying to very badly reword a clear and accepted longstanding guideline because you have lots of feels that members of one legislature shouldn't be included, all of whom realistically pass GNG anyway, as they would even if were your ordinary megacity city council. This does not seem to be a particularly sensible use of our time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I was only using the London Assembly as an example. If all members of the London Assembly pass GNG, that means they qualified separately, not because they were members of the London Assembly alone. Clearly there is a line between the London Assembly and the council of an average American suburb that is still legally a "city". Where do we put this line? Mexico City? Sydney? Dallas? Bayonne? That is what we are trying to answer in this discussion. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)^{i've made a huge mess} 13:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Neither the current guideline or your suggested alternative have any particular bearing on that line, since neither extends inherent notability to local government. That said, I could definitely write articles on every member of the Sydney city council and probably on the Dallas one, and would only be limited for Mexico City by the fact I don't speak Spanish. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

What I am trying to say here is that each member of the Council must qualify in his own right, not because they are inherently notable. Election to the aforementioned councils would undoubtedly grant a lot of coverage in independent, reliable sources. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)^{i've made a huge mess} 22:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

If that's what you're trying to say, you're in agreement with the current guideline, so why are we having this discussion? The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

However, the definition of "local government" would extend to certain first-order divisions under my proposal.Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)^{i've made a huge mess} 12:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Not any differently from the current wording. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this revisitation is unnecessary, While there is always a discussion on the notabilty of mayors and councilmembers (and other local elected officials), there exists only rough consensus (see WP:POLOUTCOMES and the AFD debates work to improve many articles. In addition, the differences in governments across the globe requires us to develop policies that do not just fit conditions in the US/UK. Enos733 (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of a derp moment, so I thought it best to check in here before I start setting my hat on adding this to the ever growing pile of "to create" articles in my sandbox. If someone was appointed to the Supreme Court of Virginia, would they pass notability guidelines on Wikipedia? I'm looking at the article on Horace Blois Burnham and it looks like he'd pass notability guidelines on that alone, but I wanted to make sure before I really started looking for other sources and added him to my "to do" list. I seem to remember hearing that being on the Supreme Court was enough, but I didn't know if it was the Supreme Court of the United States or if the Justices for the individual states would be enough. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Actually looks like this is being discussed in the section above me to some degree, so I'll check in on that. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• So it looks like he might pass notability guidelines as a member of Virginia's Supreme Court? Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, absolutely. From what I can tell from the existing policies and the suggestions at WP:WikiProject United States courts and judges, state Supreme Court justices are considered notable as a result of their office. North of Eden (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

What about cricket/football/wrestling etc players? is there any notability rules for them?--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you looking for anything that is not covered by general notability guidelines (WP:GNG)? Arnoutf (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

See WP:ATHLETE Jbh^Talk 18:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As a individual I have faced a lot of hatred, racism, discrimination. I have been greatly discreatited for others personal gains. When I post to wiki it's because it should be noted. I did make one mistake when I added my name to Simeon and it was focused on religious figures.

Personally I fit your guidelines , I just don't fit in as notable based on popularity or celeb status. I fit into each of the following categories as ME. Regardless of weather you've heard or not.

Additional criteria Edit People are likely to be 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.

Failure to explain the subject's notability Edit If an article does not explain the notability of its subject,[15] try to improve it by:

Adding the

This biography may need cleanup. Please review the Manual of Style for biographies and help improve the article.

template, which requests birthdate, historical significance, etc.

Rewriting it yourself Asking the article's editor(s) for advice. Insufficient sources Edit If an article fails to cite sufficient sources:

Look for sources yourself Ask the article's editor(s) for advice on where to look for sources.

Put the

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. Find sources: "Archive 2015" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this message)

tag on the article to notify other editors.

If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

Entertainers Edit Shortcuts: WP:ENT WP:ENTERTAINER WP:NACTOR WP:NMODEL Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc.

Edit "WP:AUTHOR" redirects here. For information about the authorship of Wikipedia articles, see WP:OWN. Shortcuts: WP:ARTIST WP:AUTHOR WP:CREATIVE WP:ECONOMIST WP:FILMMAKER WP:DIRECTOR WP:JOURNALIST Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Kaoszulu (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm rolling my eyes over "hatred, racism, discrimination", an accusation to which you resort so readily, as though there weren't thousands of articles on Wikipedia about Africans and people of African heritage. I find no evidence that you are regarded as an important figure, or that you are widely cited by anybody. And so forth. If you have such evidence, you may present it, but do not go around accusing other Wikipedia users of racism with no evidence that that is so. You are in violation of Wikipedia's police of assuming good faith. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, any editor could come here and claim they're "Simeon Oyeyemi", and the inspiration for a the NBA Street video game character. No one here can just take your word for it because there's no way for us to verify if it is the truth. Material in Wikipedia articles has to be cited to a reliable source, so if you can find something out there to support your claim, that's the way to proceed. Tarc (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Also note that it is highly discouraged that editors involves themselves with articles they have a personal stake in (and stakes do not get much more personal than the use of your name); as that will almost certainly involved a conflict of interest. Arnoutf (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Should we consider the co-chairs of nationally organized political parties as inherently notable? Would they not have held national office? Would state party chairs be considered to have held subnational office?--TM 11:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I am generally against inherent notability criteria for anyone. In the case of nationally organized political parties, I would only call their chairs notable if the party is of sufficient relevance that these people are more than likely to meat general notability criteria anyway, in which case there is no need for a special rule.

If we create this exception it might have weird consequences. The phrase "nationally organised political party" may already introduce problems. For example in a countries like Liechtenstein (total population ~37,000) Tuvalu (pop ~10,000) or Niue (pop 1,190) it may be fairly easy to organise a national political party (it may even be hard to organise non-national political parties in such small countries). Do want to make chairs and co-chairs of such parties inherently notable.

In addition when is something a nationally organized political party? Can you just claim that you are founding one (in which case everyone can do so and claim notability). Does that mean you have to have an office in each national subdivision? Do you have to be electable in each national subdivision? Do you have to have representation in the national parliament? And can we compare one-person-one vote type of democracies (like the Netherlands with currently 16 parties in national parliament) with district type democracies (like UK and US) where a few large parties dominate parliament.

In other words - I would rather not. Arnoutf (talk) 12:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) No. While these may be important people baring significant press coverage ie passing GNG, they are not notable for our purposes. Inherent notability is a pretty useless concept. Why have an article if there is no quality source material, or worse no material at all, on which to base one? All it does is allow poor sources, passing mentions and other low quality material (Press releases, ABOUTSELF statements etc.) that would not contribute to passing GNG to be used to cobble together a poor and likely POV article or alternately leads to the creation of perma-stubs which have no chance of expanding but still must be watched and maintained - particularly if it is a BLP. Jbh^Talk 12:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• No. There are lots of fringe parties. While the parties themselves may be notable, simply being the chair of a small party does not confer notability. Pburka (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I realise this is generally a US-based point, but from an Australian perspective I'd agree that codifying inherent notability is probably not a good idea given the proliferation of fringe micro-parties and the difficulty of defining what we could call a significant or major party. The relevant officers of the major parties would presumably pass GNG fairly easily anyway. Frickeg (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I agree. I haven't seen a spate of state party chairs with articles being nominated for deletion, and most of those that are notable are going to do so pretty comfortably on the basis of GNG. This is one case where I don't see a need to codify it: many of these people will pass GNG comfortably but it's completely reasonable and okay that they might not too. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Not inherently notable. A party chairmanship is NOT a "national office"; that refers to popularly elected (or in rare cases appointed) officials - lawmakers, governors, etc. In most cases a person who becomes the NATIONAL chairman of a MAJOR political party will be already be notable in his/her own right, based on GNG coverage for past activities. State/provincial chairs, not so much. If they are not already notable, becoming state/provincial chair doesn't make them notable. Even more true for chairs of minor parties. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• In general a chairperson is someone who directs and keeps order at meetings of an organization. Sometimes a chairperson is influential and well-known, other times not so much. It's better to use general notability criteria to decide. Also, it would be difficult to identify the equivalent of a "state" in all countries.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Would state party chairs be considered to have held subnational office?" No, it would not be a correct to assume that state party chairs have ever been elected to anything in the past (or future for that matter). Many of these type of positions are simply held by local party hacks. Guy1890 (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• No, a lot of these would not have sufficient source material to write a biography. For those who do, cite the sources and write the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Nothing should be considered "inherently notable". Though if it can be demonstrated that such party chairs typically receive enough coverage so as to meet GNG, then we could consider such people presumed notable. Resolute 21:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

What about large, national political parties like the Green Party of the United States and the Libertarian Party? Would you consider their chair or co-chairs to be inherently notable as nationally elected leaders of relatively large political parties?--TM 23:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing should ever be considered inherently notable. If there's sufficient reference material to write decent biographies of those people, we write those biographies. If not, we don't. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a misunderstanding of what we take "inherently notable" to mean. To me, "inherently notable" means that there are pretty much guaranteed to be the sources to get the subject past GNG somewhere (even if they're not available online). Hence things like WP:POLITICIAN - if for some reason someone elected to national or sub-national office did not appear to pass based on a Google scholar search, then we can assume that the sources are there and it may involve a trip to the library (and in the very rare cases where someone may not pass GNG on their own, well, that's unusual enough to warrant an article in itself). "Inherent notability" is a shortcut phrase that saves lots of pointless AfDs and ensures we have complete coverage of certain topics. In this case I am in agreement with the general consensus, although I would say that holding a position in large national parties suggests notability in many cases, but not in all. Frickeg (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

This is why many of us prefer the term "presumed notable" rather than "inherently notable." Pburka (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Pburka makes a good point.; although at some point the evidence of notability still has to be given. Frickeg, while there may be a number of pointless AfDs the project would be best served if people went to the library to find the sources before creating articles. Also note that the current post is not explicitly about "large national parties" as it does not exclude very small fringe parties (e.g. only having a dozen members). These parties themselves may not even meet GNG. And then a chair need not be the leader, in fact in most Dutch parties the chair is a part-time administrator that holds no political function outside the party itself (not in either chamber). I feel that labelling these people as presumed notable would be stretching it. Arnoutf (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree about this particular proposal - although I confess the stuff about chairs and so on eludes me and I am thinking about it mainly in the context of my own country, where positions that I assume are equivalent are things like state secretary and state president. I do not really agree that people should not be creating stub articles on certain presumed-notable (if you prefer) people without having to dig into library archives, but that's a discussion for another day. Frickeg (talk) 09:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Different countries, different ways of party organization I guess. That is why we need to be careful with blanket proposals like this. Example of the oddities in my country (Netherlands): Largest party (VVD ~ 26% of seats in lower house) provides the Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte - who is political leader of the party but neither the chair of the lower house fraction Halbe Zijlstra, nor the senate fraction Loek Hermans.

More importantly, non of these notable politicians are the chair of the actual party (organization)- instead this is the rather unknown Henry Keizer (although he is notable as chair of the largest and government leading Dutch national party look at how stubby that article is). Currently there are 16 (!) parties represented in the Dutch lower house and these are only half of the parties that one can vote for during election (with even more parties not being able to meet the requirements to appear on the voting forms). I would definitely not claim most of the party functionaries in these parties notable. Yup, that is a rather odd thing, so many national parties, and the separation of political position from party organization position. Just as example that we should be careful.

I may have overstated the point about libraries. In my view, people creating articles (either stub or more evolved ones) should make the case for notability. If that can be shown using on-line sources -- All the easier for everyone. But if no online sources can be found, they should at that time reconsider whether the topic is sufficiently notable to create even a stub. And if that means either dropping the topic, or putting in additional effort (such a going to the library to find non online sources) so be it. But as you said above, it is another discussion. Arnoutf (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I would propose the following language be added to WP:Notability (people)#Politicians, following this discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Don R. Sommerfeldt. My proposal is inspired in part by the very throrough criteria at WP:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability.

• Judges of national appellate or trial courts, including specialty trial courts, are inherently notable. Judges of sub-national supreme courts, such as state or provincial supreme courts, are inherently notable. Magistrates of national courts and judges of other sub-national trial courts are not inherently notable, but may still meet other criteria for notability.

Thanks for taking a look at this. North of Eden (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support but I'm not sure "politicians" is the right place for it - perhaps the judiciary should have its own section. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. The phrase "inherent notability" is not used anywhere else in this guideline, so I think that should be given some more thought. Otherwise, this seems like a good addition. - Location (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That's a good point. I think it's only needed for accentuating the last point. I made a few revisions to the initial proposal, including to reflect this. North of Eden (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The role of supreme courts seems fairly different between common (e.g. US, UK, Canada) and civil law (Most of mainland Europe) and tends to be much less important in the latter. Supreme courts under civil law tend to have many members that are hardly involved in the public debate on personal title. Also many such supreme courts have many members (e.g. the Supreme Court of the Netherlands has 41 members. None of those have an entry at en.wikipedia, and only 4 have an entry in nl.wikipedia (twice at start, twice at stub level). The addition of this line would, in my view, impose a singular view on the importance of supreme courts across different types of legal system. Even in the case of common law, do we really believe that all members of the Supreme Court of Nauru (pop 10,000)are by definition notable. All in all, I do not agree that in each and any country of the world, and in each and any of its subdivisions the mere membership of a supreme court is a sufficient claim to notability. In most cases there should be more than enough additional published evidence of the notability of the judge based on his individual achievement beyond mere membership. Arnoutf (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • You make a very valid point about civil law supreme courts, and one that crossed my mind when drafting the proposal. At the same time, members of any provincial legislature in the world are suitable for inclusion, and are likely just as notable as, for example, Dutch Supreme Court justices. North of Eden (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    • That is more an argument for tightening NPOL rather than adding yet another class of inherently notable people. Jbh^Talk 21:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Understood as well, but there are no decent, sitewide guidelines on notability for judges. I think it's worth clarifying to some degree, and the class of people in question (federal judges) is generally agreed to be inherently notable. Federal trial judges in the US and Canada, for example, are not technically covered by notability policies and often are only sourced by a federal biographical directory. Nevertheless, they are agreed, perhaps by tacit understanding, to be notable. I think it would be worthwhile to codify this within the notability policy. North of Eden (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
        • I tend to have the opposite view. If there is currently only a 'tacit understanding' then it is not something that should be/needs to be enshrined in guidelines. As long as it is consensus at AfD then if things go overboard and people start creating lots of perma-stubs there is some recourse to and consensus can swing the other way. Once they are 'declared' notable someone will start creating non-sustainable articles about every judge of whatever type(s) with inherent notability using poor/no sources. Inherent notability is a truly terrible thing when dealing with people. What is notable in one country is often not in others and sources are what allow us to make that determination. If there is not enough coverage to pass GNG there is not enough coverage to write a useful article. Often it is not even possible to know if they are BLPs or not. Jbh^Talk 23:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Oppose per my comments above. Jbh^Talk 23:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - I am generally opposed to the idea of inherent notablity for anyone. But my real opposition is that there is no need for it ... It's all covered under General Notability (WP:GNG)... if a Judge is notable, there will be coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If there is no coverage in independent sources then the judge simply isn't notable enough. It really is that simple. Blueboar (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I will defer on voting on this particular proposal just yet. However, I would like to state my position as to Judges in the United States. I generally agree with the guidelines published by WikiProject United States courts and judges. As we well know by recent events, Article III Judges of the United States hold a very high degree of power. I thus believe in the "inherent notability" standard for Article III Judges. I would extend that to certain Article I Judges as well as State Supreme Court Justices. Other Federal Judges and most State Judges should be required to meet WP:GNG. For example, Florida Judge Belvin Perry got his article by way of WP:GNG in regards to the Casey Anthony and other high profile cases. Safiel (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with your comments, and I would classify US magistrate/bankruptcy judges as not inherently notable (I believe this is the WikiProject's view as well). North of Eden (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC).

• Agreed with that point, magistrate and bankruptcy judges are not inherently notable and VERY rarely pass WP:GNG, the exceptions generally being those magistrates who are nominated to be District Judges. Safiel (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too general. Higher court judges are notable. Lower court judges generally are not. For instance, in England and Wales High Court Judges are notable but County Court Judges and District Judges are not. All, however, are judges of national courts, as the UK does not have state or provincial courts and all judges are nationally appointed. The same is true throughout most of Europe and many other countries, where even the most junior judges are national-level officials. Unfortunately this proposal, like many other similar proposals (and indeed WP:POLITICIAN itself, which assumes most judges are politicians), seems to have been formulated with the assumption that all countries function like the United States. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose For the reasons given by Necrothesp. However, for judges in the United States, I would like to see a reference on the page to WP:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability. Outside the United States, judicial structures and concepts vary too much to allow for a uniform policy. Safiel (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with The Drover's Wife in the first comment above: this may be valid, but WP:Politician is not the place. Although in the USA some judges identify with political parties and run for election, or are appointed through party machines, in most countries judges are definitely not politicians. Stanning (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• I think it's clear that a comprehensive approach isn't really workable, given the major difference between North American and (for lack of a better term) other judicial systems. Thanks to all for your engagement on this; it's been a very educational discussion. User:Necrothesp in particular raises an argument which is hard to oppose. I would still like clearer notability standards, but I think any wording would likely cause complications due to the intricacies of each nation's judicial system. North of Eden (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Just to clarify, lest I seem like an Americentrist dweeb ;) -- I do understand the structure (both historical and contemporary) of the English judiciary, but it's something I didn't consider when drafting this proposal. It would be interesting to, at some point, have a fairly comprehensive notability guideline that would discuss the English/Wales courts along with those of the US. Thanks again to all for your engagement on this subject. North of Eden (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'd oppose any loosening of notability guidelines just on general principle. But here, judicial structures vary regionally to a degree that precludes a one-size-fits-all guideline. Tarc (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think I'd lean oppose here too. Either they'll be notable under GNG, or academic notability. And profile varies tremendously between countries. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. They're notable if they've been extensively noted (and we've got the sources to back that up), else they are not. No inherent notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking to cut/paste the entry for a person that's currently located at 12th_Virginia_Infantry#Fletcher_H._Archer. He was active during the Civil War, but his major claim to fame is that he was Petersburg's mayor at one point in time. (Petersburg, Virginia) At one point in time the city was fairly major and while it's certainly well enough known within the state now, it's nowhere near as prominent as it once was. It's because of this that I'm hesitating to move this to the mainspace. Part of me wants to move it partially because the current article is a little WP:UNDUE in the main article and because it's just nice to have a pre-written article ready to go that only needs (at first glance) some tweaks. What say you guys? I'll leave this in the main article if you don't think that there's enough notability here and try to whittle it down over time, but it'd be nice for it to have an article. (Of course nice doesn't pay the notability toll...) Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'd especially like another set of eyes on it since I'm feeling a little burnt out today, so I may be missing another claim to fame here. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'd support a standalone article for Fletcher H. Archer. He is included in the http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Archer_Fletcher_H_1817-1902 Encyclopedia of Virginia] and he is mentioned in many other articles and books found on Google.--TM 15:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I would not be against it, but I think it needs more than a little tweeking as the section you want to split of is not sourced at all; which may mean substantial parts of it need to be rewritten or even removed. Arnoutf (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have a few sources (the EV is the first one I have, of course) but I wanted to make sure that he'd likely pass before I do any big searching since I'm not finding the sources as easily as I thought I would. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: Definitely appears notable, I found about 40-50 mentions of him on Newspapers.com in Virginia Newspapers (there appears to be many more in Pennsylvania and other states as well. Sadads (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought we had guidelines on this, but I can't seem to find anything relevant. MSJapan (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK we have guidelines on businesses – wp:Notability (organizations and companies) – but not on businesspeople. Ordinary guidelines apply – wp:Notability (people). But of course some businesspeople are in business because they're (ex-)academics, creative professionals, entertainers, politicians or, especially, "sports personalities" and are therefore considered inherently notable. Stanning (talk) 10:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Euhm no. People are notable because they either meet general notability guidelines - or specific guidelines for their (ex)profession. E.g. just being an academic does not make you inherently notable. Arnoutf (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "inherently notable" - absolutely everything is subject to the Notability rules. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yet some are more equal than others cf WP:ATHLETE. Relating to this though, businesspeople - CEO's, Entrepreneurs etc - fall under WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO there are no specific notability criteria for 'businesspeople' nor should there be. Jbh^Talk 20:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems indeed that most special cases tend to put in additional, stricter, notability requirements. E.g. personally I would probably pass general notability criteria (I have been interviewed and quoted on several, unrelated topics, in different reliable newspapers and radioshows). However, this has all been part of my "normal" duties as academics, and I (justifiably) do not meet notability requirements for an academic (at least not yet ;-). Hence no article about me should be written at this time.

In other words, I would like to turn around this (and many a similar) discussion by putting forward that general notability guideline may be too low a bar, at least if normal performance in a field would almost automatically result in meeting those criteria. In that case additional requirements may be put in place. Or in summary - let's get away from all kinds of presumed / inherent notability discussion but instead discuss when we deem General Notability not notable enough. Arnoutf (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

SNGs are meant to be a lower bar than GNG, not higher. If a subject passes GNG any applicable SNG is irrelevant. An SNG cannot be used to exclude a subject that passes GNG. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Arnoutf and Dodger67: Euhm yes, for practical purposes there is such thing as "inherently notable". We avoid the word "inherently" in our guidelines, but that's what we mean. We say "presumed notable". People are "presumed notable" if, for example, they

• have appeared in at least one game in any one of [certain] major leagues ... (WP:NBASE)
• holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research ... (WP:NACADEMICS)
• held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents ... (WP:SOLDIER)

To pretend that in these contexts "presumed notable" doesn't equate, in practise, to "inherently notable" is angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff.
An SNG cannot be used to exclude a subject that passes GNG, but an SNG can be used, and routinely is used, to include a subject that doesn't pass GNG – we presume that such a subject passes GNG even if there's no evidence, because evidence is presumed to exist. If that isn't inherent notability, I don't know what is.
Anyway, this is off topic and I should apologise for using the provocative, heretical expression "inherently notable". For the OP's purpose, AFAIK there's nothing in the notability rules that even refer to businesspeople as such, let alone presume notability. Stanning (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

No, the difference between "presumption" and "inherent" is of fundamental importance, it's not at all an "angels on pins" matter. A "presumption" is subject to test and rebuttal, while "inherent" is not open to argument, it is a permanent irrefutable declaration. It's a real pity that anyone ever uses the term "inherent" notability on WP - because it does not exist. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Rebutting a 'presumption' of notability requires proving a negative ie proving 'there are no reliable sources in libraries, archives, online or offline, public or private, that might now or in the future be used to write an article'. Maybe that is not 'inherent' but I would like to see an illustration of a practical difference between the two. Jbh^Talk 12:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm entirely with User:Stanning here. This is pure semantics. In practice, determined by precedent over thousands of AfDs, "presumption of notability" is indeed invariably taken to mean "inherent notability". -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm mildly tempted to write an article about the Library of Virginia's State Librarian, Sandra Gioia Treadway, or one of the prior people that have held the office. This isn't something that I was asked to do (rather, I don't think it even crossed their minds that they could ask me to do this), but something I was somewhat thinking about doing just because there can be a gender gap with articles, which was brought up at the recent conference in DC.

Anywho, before I even get started I was wondering if holding the position of State Librarian would be enough to warrant an article by itself. I think that I could probably find some coverage for Treadway, but it's the prior ones that I'd be more worried about, especially since I can't always guarantee that newspaper coverage of an individual would survive the passage of time.

If I were to make these I'd probably just leave them in my userspace and get someone to look over them, but I figure that before I do any of that work it'd be good to see if the position itself would show notability. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Also State Librarians also frequently tend to be Secretaries of the Commonwealth as well. Didn't know if this factored into anything or not. Treadway was also one of the editors for the DVB, which is independently notable outside of the LVA, but was released through it. Didn't know how that'd factor into things either. Anywho, I haven't told my manager here that I'm thinking about doing this. I didn't want to say that I was thinking about doing this and then have them eager for a page that won't happen. I have no problem telling them no and I have on one or two things with Wikipedia, but it's just easier this way. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I had a brain fart just now- are people who served on the Constitutional Convention considered noteworthy? Edgar Allan would pass because he was part of the early Virginia Senate, but I figured that it'd be good to ask about the CC in general since I do have bios for people who served there and in some political positions, but not on the state level. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

We need to ask that people who live to 110 are presumed notable if they become the oldest person in a country or In the world. The AFD discussion show that a majority of people believe that. 166.170.47.78 (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Generally there is sufficient media coverage about some person becoming the oldest person in the world to meet general notability guidelines, so no need there. This would be similar for most countries, so again, no strong need for a presumed notability guideline. In fact, would someone in the rather geriatric micro nation of Vatican City (pop around 850) be notable for being the oldest and 110+? Not in my view. (ps please provide a link to the mentioned AfD so we can see what happened there) Arnoutf (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Tillman is at a standstill because we don't have a GNG for her. She was the world's Oldest person for a whole FIVE days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.47.78 (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

In that case, there seems to be more than enough media-coverage to ensure notability. That people may have to go to archives to find these on microfilm or some similar physical format does not constitute the need for an exception to GNG. The editors who do not agree to the provided, dated media coverage do not follow Wikipedia policies in my view, and should go outdoors and locate the microfilms. Arnoutf (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• This seems like a case of WP:BLP1E. If someone receives a burst of coverage simply for one event (briefly becoming the oldest person in a region), and if that coverage doesn't persist beyond the event, they're not automatically notable. Additionally, reliable records regarding births are a very recent development, and are still rare in some parts of the world. Therefore it's very difficult to establish that somebody is the oldest person in their region, especially historically. Pburka (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment There's no consensus for any language in either direction. If you examine Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Article alerts/Archive there were a number of AFDs deleting individuals who were the oldest persons in the world but the more recent discussions (see Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Article alerts) have resulted in a number of votes to keep them. I can't think of any wording that will reflect the consensus at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

What types of things would a producer (film and theater) need to have done in order to qualify as notable if there is not a whole lot about the person that would make a general GNG pass? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Notable award nominations/wins certainly comes to mind. The Academy Award for Best Picture, for example, goes to the film's producer(s). There might also be an argument for producers of financially successful works. postdlf (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

What about music producers (and DJs to this bunch)? Every bboy with bling is a producer today. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• I would think that WP:CREATIVE would apply to all different types of producers. Guy1890 (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

In practice, the role of producer of a film seems to be considered here as less important than that of director--as judged by comments in many AfDs. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Companies_notable_for_one_event. We have there a consensus to at least make a copy of ONEEVENT for organizations, and this a logical suggestion that it should probably be moved to GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• This could be a good idea, although I don't know that this could work as well with books and film necessarily since controversy/attention for these can be a little more difficult to categorize as one event. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:NCOMPANY at WP:AUD section notes that an organization needs to receive coverage in non-local sources. How about biographies? Is an article in local newspaper, or a documentary in local TV like, let's say, CUNY TV, enough for one's notability? If you think yes, then we would have a weird situation, one in which the same local newspaper, same edition even, published two similar articles - one on a person, and one on an organization, and we call it enough for the person, but not enough for an organization. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I would like to see a a clear requirement for use of 'regional' sources. It is very easy for someone to get coverage in small town/city and local news sources - even quite a bit of coverage - but they are not someone who should be covered in Wikipedia. Local fame is not WP:N.

On a related matter, I think it would be a good idea to have a specific section similar to WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GEOSCOPE for biographies. This would manage 'local only' notability as well. Jbh^Talk 13:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I have opened a page for Rich Skelton, a world champion team roper who has notable recognition in the world of team roping and rodeo and it wont publish stating that I have to give more sources.

Help??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich Skelton (talk • contribs) 18:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Um, are you Rich Skelton? EEng (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear everyone,

I am planning to write an article about a unique Spiritual Guru, Sivaguru Sivasithan who is based in Madurai, TamilNadu, India. His contributions to humanity in the field of health, spirituality and overall well-being, are significant and at the moment not very widely known. I am based in the UK, and I happened to come across his unique work which is both selfless and of tremendous value. I am so thrilled about his work and very keen to spread the word, for the betterment of humanity. He has a number of facebook pages on different topics and thousands of followers online and hundreds of people attending his Yoga centre on a daily basis.

These are few of the many existing reference sources of the Guru: https://www.facebook.com/ShreeVilvamYogaCentre/ http://shreevilvamyogacentre.com/ https://www.facebook.com/32sivasithanvaasithega/ https://www.youtube.com/user/ngobikannan2010

I am wondering if this makes the Guru, a notable person? Do, I have an initial go-ahead to write an article about him?

Many thanks for your kind help. KJ1111 (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, facebook and youtube sources do not establish notability as they are not considered to be reliable sources. Also, generally speaking, a person who is not very widely known is not notable under the guidelines. Lastly, if you are convinced that spreading the word is important, see WP:COI. --Bejnar (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Bejnar for your kind advice. Before going down the WP:COI route, just wanted to get a quick clarification on not very widely known aspect. I mentioned, that on the national and global context, but he is certainly popular and well known for his Selfless service among thousands of individual in and around his hometown and his State. When it comes to the field of Vaasi Yoga, he is the only living Guru who is very notable on the web, and who teaches this pure art form with phenomenal outcomes. The youtube channel and some public facebook pages contain first-hand accounts from people who share their unique experience. There is not much information on the web about what is possible in our current period with this yoga art form, and definitely no links to a skilled guru who can provide advice on its true practice. My humble opinion is that the wiki archive around this yoga art form and its exponents are sparse, and adding more articles on that topic would be a valuable contribution to the humanity who seek the truth. Kindly advice, how to proceed. KJ1111 (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This is really not the place for this discussion. This page is for discussion of the guidelines, as guidelines, not their application in a specific instance. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yoga for discussion of improvement of yogic articles. --Bejnar (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Is the Legion of Honour (Officer level) an WP:ANYBIO qualifying award?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure. The article mentions there are about 20,000 living officer and higher classes awardees around, with another 70,000 knight ranks (with about a million awardees throughout history). While a very high award, a recipient is far less rare/notable compared to the US Medal of Honor (~3500 awarded since 1861), Victoria Cross (~1350 awarded since 1856) or Military William Order (~5900 awarded since 1815 - only 4 living knights as of nov 2015). Arnoutf (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It's the highest honor given in France, which weighs heavily in favor. But possibly more dispositive is whether there is necessarily or almost always documentation of the individual who is given the award, whether it's by the bestowing authority or because of secondary sources tending to cover it. postdlf (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

As with other countries' orders, there are several levels; the lowest grade, chevalier, although it translates as "knight", in practice doesn't exactly read across to, for example, a modern knighthood in the UK, which is a high grade in each British order. A British knighthood is a "well-known and significant award or honor" (WP:ANYBIO) but lower levels of British orders are not; IMHO a chevalier de la Légion d'honneur is not a significant award (despite the Legion of Honour itself being "well-known") although of course the holder may be notable for other reasons. TRPoD specified Officer level (officier) of the Legion of Honour, the grade above chevalier; the artice says this has been awarded to 17,000 people and I would have thought it would be supportive of notability but borderline, whereas the next grade, commandeur, is certainly a significant award. In any case, of course, and as Postdlf says, a WP article needs supporting documentation besides the award itself. Stanning (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! The guy died in the 1950s, the promotion to officer was covered in an english language trade publication. he probably meets GNG but the coverage of most of his work is mostly in French and in the google books its in snippet view and so I was hoping to be lazy and just toss the stub of the legion of honour but I guess I will have to do some work! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, absolutely. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• No, it isn't. Commandeur and above would be, but not Chevalier or Officier, which equate approximately to an MBE and OBE respectively in Britain, both of which we have long held (consensus over many AfDs) not to confer inherent notability under WP:ANYBIO. It's the highest order in France, but that doesn't mean members in every grade are notable; this always seems to create a bit of confusion among those unfamiliar with honours systems. See my totally unofficial page on this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Moving this off ANI from here.

A question is raised if beauty pageant winners should be considered notable because of winning the pageant. Obviously this begs the questions of what level the pageant was held (state vs national), systematic bias of coverage in the media that favors Western coverage, and so on.

My argument that I laid out at ANI is that WP:BLP1E applies. In contrast to most other awards which are given out to the recipient based on a merit of note they have done earlier in their life, the pageant winner is given that title for what they did at the here-and-now, and not necessarily for anything they might have done before, which means there is no automatic notability here. They may have been notable before that point, they may become notable after the pageant, and you certainly have cases like Caitlin Upton that are clearly notable for something that happened during the patent that they capitalized on. But that's all GNG-type notability. The average pageant winner gets their 15 minutes of fame over the year they hold the title and then that's it. There may be a number of news stories and press releases about the winner appearing at various places, but that's just an extension of being granted the title, and is routine coverage that comes with it. This is a clear example of how BLP1E should be applied. We can certainly list pageant winners in a table for that specific beauty contest, and give brief bios, etc. as that's a notable facet of the actual contest.

The same logic, incidentally, applies to things like game show or reality show winners. That can potentially lead to other facets for notability (such as Richard Hatch from Survivor). --MASEM (t) 21:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

USA The pageant industry in the USA is far more developed then most of the rest of the world. To win State you generally have to win a local Miss Springfield, and you might have to get through a 'sweepup' contest to get to State. No one is suggesting the local winners are notable, but if she wins Miss Oregon pageant enthusiasts tend to write up all the lower stuff, plus the standard Vying for Miss Universe where it takes a paragraph to say they lost. In the expanded articles there is trivia about how she was the first red head from East Dakota to win anything, who had the crown before her, and who took the crown after her. Sometimes we even get who won "sister" pageants.

They also fluff up the article with minutia and WP:RTP and WP:DOB violations, and names and occupations of parents, names of siblings (all against the privacy of non-notable individuals) high school attend, college attend with major & minor, extra-curricular activities, favorite color... all because they did nothing noteworthy so to fill out an article all; tIf the girl appeared in any minor tv spot that gets its own section.

Reality is coverage of the state level winners is almost always "local person wins an award" thin and then vanishes. Miss type activities during the year are rarely covered at all in the media, and if mentioned, its just a name check. Then they might be name checked the next year when the new winner is crowned. And that is usually it. A Miss America or Miss USA deserves their own article because they generally get a lot more coverage in RS.

International Winners are a bit of a different problem. Franchisees for different countries are sold so girls can be sent to the international events. Usually there are no State level or local events - it is just apply to be Miss BVI where the winner had to beat 5 other girls to get a sash and a plane ticket to the international event. Some places just hand pick the "delegates" without even an event. Therefore Miss Cuba or Miss Ukraine is not nearly as notable as Miss America.

I believe that WP:NOPAGE applies exactly to the vast majority of International (non-US) and State pageant winners. Their name, hometown, age (maybe), and year won goes on a list with references. End of story. The exception is if the girl goes on to do something notable in film, TV, modeling, politics, serious crime, or wins a Nobel prize they then qualify for an article that can include the pageant win as part of a larger context. Legacypac (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Note that WP:BLP1E cannot be extended to WP:BLP2E. ssт✈^(discuss) 08:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

But in this case you might argue that the local Miss Springfield event is basically the selection round of the state event, which (arguably) would make it a single event. Arnoutf (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should update the WP:NMODEL criteria with the words 'pageant winner'. We are seeing pageant winners kept with vastly less RS coverage or impact then minor actresses, models, entertainers ect. After all is a pageant not mainly a form of modeling with some performance? Legacypac (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well I see many sportswomen getting kept with, as you say, vastly less RS coverage or impact than pageant winners. sst✈^(discuss) 08:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

there are specific guidelines for sports. So you agree? We need a category to establish notability under and entertaner/model/actress is the best one. Legacypac (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: add 'pageant winner' to the ist of examples of people under criteria known as WP:NMODEL.

• Support as nominator. Legacypac (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This is a knee-jerk bad reaction. At least with sports people that meet NSPORTS, these people will generally have a career history in the sport they play in to fall back to build articles on (Mind you, I still disagree with some of NSPORTS, but this at least is a fair argument). There is no evidence to support that a pageant winner automatically has notability before the pageant (excluding and discounting any "lower" pageant they had to win to get to the present level, which is just part of the process), and there's no evidence that after the pageant win they will get notable coverage either, save at some levels which unfortunately rings of systematic bias given how much coverage US winners get over other countries. So there's no real standard to assure inclusion in a notability guideline.
  To be more appropriate, we need, across the board, to avoid articles on persons (living or dead) that are not quite BLP1E violations but still gives no significant importance to the person. If all the article can contain is a fill-in-the-blanks bio (born on, where born, what school, their parents, what degree, etc.) and one or two sentences to explain what appears to be their notability (and this is assuming all sources have been exhausted), that's not helpful, making us appear as a Who's Who, which is explicitly not appropriate per WP:NOT. Particularly for pageant winners, all these details can be easily included in a list of winners on the specific pageant itself (which I presume is notable). --MASEM (t) 23:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support I've been through this. One particular editor took a similar stance as Masem above and used it to bulk nominate some 30 individual world pageant participants. Let me say, this wasn't easy because of international sourcing, but I was able to find significant coverage of every one; celebrities in their home country, going to the major international pageant as their representative. Just like international athletes selected to the Olympics, each must win the national pageant. Most can be tracked to winning smaller local pageants if you can find access to the sources. They don't just pop up like a Cinderella story. This clearly means they are notable for more than one event. They all receive significant coverage at the international event, with individual photo sessions and interviews. WP:GNG is satisfied in all cases. I learned a lot about the forms of digital distribution news organizations are using in small countries. Many rely on crude social media outlets like Facebook, but the content is really that of the major newspaper in the capitol of the country. It is the same respect that some blogs are written by major newspapers, some are written by knowledgeable fanatics and some blogs are written by internet crackpots. When looking, we need to trace and accept those valid sources as WP:RS both for people and WP:NSPORT situations. We have to look beyond the domain name and realize that not all smaller countries have the same technological resources as first world industrial countries. We also should not be prejudiced against those countries and their citizens because they are not as easy to find. Trackinfo (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • First, if someone mass noms 30-some international pageant winners for AFD simultaneously, that's likely more an issue to claim fait accompli on, and a separate discussion. But my point above is that if we assume that a typical pageant competitor starts with a local win, then a state win, then a national win, that's all part of the same effective event and if there's nothing special about the lower wins compared to the national, that's not helpful to the overall process. Now, I will grant at the international level, that's something and with international pageant winners where the pageants are covered across the globe, sure, I can see the winner being covered as well as perhaps the contestants. (This parallels the idea that all Olympic athletes, most whom are generally amateur sports players, are notable for the same reasons here that they are representing their country, and are bound to have coverage from their local country about being at the Olympics). But you can't readily go down lower to, say the national level and say all competitors there are notable. The arguable about using Facebook, blogs, and the like in lieu of other RSes or where other RSes don't exist isn't going to happen; that's forcing non-verifiable content into the encyclopedia just to support the existence of these articles. --MASEM (t) 23:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I've been through a lot of pageant AfDs and looked into the sourcing carefully. The pageant fans think that winning a (US) State level event is automatic notability. However, the coverage is usually: brief "local person wins award" mention in a paper, maybe a press release from the pageant organizer about the event that names the winner and runnerups, then a year later they get name checked as they hand off the crown. To this editors add wedding announcements, facebook posts, twitter page links, blog posts etc to get up to 4 or 5 "RS". Sometimes they get lucky and find where the Miss State gets arrested for DUI, gets a little press as part of a University sports team or has a famous brother who almost married someone else. Sourcing in the USA is paper thin, and no other entertainer would pass AfD on it.

When they win the pageant organizer does a little feature bio (if she is lucky) [7]. After a year the bio gets replaced with the next winner and the past winners go on a list [8]. If the organization that awards the crown reduces the win to a name on a list, why should Wikipedia have a whole page on each person plus coverage of the event for each year plus coverage for the title overall? Now if the winner goes on to modeling or singing or goes to outerspace, now we have something that passes GNG. Legacypac (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support Proposal enables pages for cases in which the contest and/or contestant demonstrate notability in several ways (including significant, extensive and reliable media coverage, which some regional pageants may have) while avoiding the accumulation of pages about winners of non-notable pageants.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose the addition of 'pageant winner' to the list of examples of people under criteria known as WP:NMODEL. The vast majority of beauty pageant contestants are not professional models, nor will they ever become professional models, so WP:NMODEL is totally irrelevant to pageant contestant notability. Starting with the obvious fact that professional models get paid for their work, while beauty pageant contestants never do. BTW, if anyone here actually wants to have a serious conversation about pageants and notability, I would be happy to engage on it, but I have spoken my piece over and over so many times on Legacypac's various forum shopping sideshows, that I do not want to engage further here unless we can do so productively. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Kindly stop the personal attacks. We all know you consider every pageant winner notable and that this clarification will reduce your walled garden of articles. NMODEL covers all kinds of entertainers, and a pageant is a combination stage show/modeling/talent show that might be televised or live audience. Pageant winners absolutely do it for a combination of fame and prizes often labeled scholarships. Legacypac (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that every pageant winner is notable. I think that there are plenty whose notability can be legitimately questioned, you just can't figure out which ones are which, so you mass nominate them all, notable or not. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

My edit history shows I've edited dozens of pageant winners that have some claim to fame beyond a single win, and I don't AfD them. Legacypac (talk) 08:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• I oppose any change at this point. Subject-specific notability guidelines have a tendency to be misinterpreted. Their purpose is to indicate the kind of people likely to have sufficient WP:RS coverage to be included, and to set a bar below which you'd need compelling evidence to include per WP:NOTDIR. Actually they are interpreted as being a target which, if you can argue they have been met in any particular, will be used to crowbar the article in regardless of sourcing. Most pageant winners are not notable. MOst pageants are not notable either. There's also a historical problem in that the pageants themselves are a throwback and really should have died out decades ago, hence the reducing amount of non-tabloid coverage they get these days compared with, say, the 1950s. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• I think local pageant winners should not be considered notable, and any kind of notability should come from winning (or maybe being a runner-up, whatever) only at the national level. If a pageant winner passes GNG that's different, of course. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support for state or regional level or higher, oppose for local competition winners. MB298 (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The second factor under WP:ANYBIO reads "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." In light of the associated footnote, isn't this redundant, in that such a person would already be covered by WP:GNG? —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I wonder whether everyone who's "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" would necessarily be covered by WP:GNG's basic criterion of "significant coverage"? Suppose you have someone, say a biologist of the 18th century, who's mentioned in many sources but only with passing references like "this species was described by R. Lingens", and maybe things named for him like Creatura lingensi. Then R. Lingens would have made a widely recognized contribution that's part of the enduring historical record in the field, but the coverage of him wouldn't count as significant? Stanning (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The footnote calls for the person to have been "written about, in depth", which seems to exclude passing mentions from qualifying. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I see this as two different ways to pass the bar. The biologist that tolled far from civilization describing species may not have gained significant coverage but made a significant contribution to his field. Legacypac (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, the provision I'm asking about doesn't remove the requirement of significant coverage. So it doesn't help the biologist who hasn't been "written about, in depth". —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Sort of yes and no. Ideally a person meeting these guidelines will have a ton of coverage, however there are some occasions where someone will lack the amount of coverage typically expected of someone who made a large impact. I've seen this more with scientists and long dead authors than anyone else, since coverage of them tends to occasionally be niche. With cases like that I typically consider them to have made an impact if there are multiple RS (especially academic) that use terms like "influential" and "pioneers" when discussing them, even if they're mentioned in passing. I know that Stanley Salmons would fall under this criteria, since I remember arguing for inclusion for this after discovering several sources that mentioned him as a pioneer. From there others more familiar with searching for academic sources kind of took over and found more sourcing to help establish notability. I think that the key though, is to look at who is saying this and where. If it's in an academic work published by a strong source, especially if it's written by someone that would be seen as an expert (ie, a RS) then the source would show notability if it identified them as influential. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• But the catch here is that typically there will be coverage. This criteria is pretty much there for those very, very rare cases where someone wouldn't have a ton of stuff on the Internet or easily accessible for whatever reason. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• "... even if they're mentioned in passing." But, as I've been saying, the reason I brought this up is that the second factor under WP:ANYBIO doesn't remove the requirement of in depth coverage. So the "in passing" mentions that someone is a "pioneer" or "influential" wouldn't qualify under that provision any more than they would under WP:GNG. However, since you're the third person who's made the same point, I'm thinking that maybe a situation like the one you cited is the type of situation that the provision was intended to cover—and then perhaps, later, someone undermined it by adding a call for coverage "in depth" to the footnote. So now there's a mismatch between what the provision calls for and the cases that, on the surface, you and others are supposing the provision is meant to cover, but, by its explicit terms, doesn't. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• I agree. The footnote seems to undermine the sentence it purports to support. If the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources (as the footnote says), then there's no need for the topic-specific guideline, as it's already covered by WP:GNG. I believe the footnote should be removed, or completely rewritten. Pburka (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'd opt for rewriting, and making it explicit that while there still needs to be documentation in reliable sources, that the prominence implied by the references is a substitute for the quantity or depth required by WP:GNG. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• I agree. The more we remove specific cruft and reference the core WP:GNG, the less friction we get. One standard. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• There are no "substitutes" for the quality and depth required by the GNG. Either there's sufficient reference material to write a full article, or there is not. If there's not, maybe they could be mentioned in a parent article, but shouldn't be in a permastub with paper thin references in passing. "Pioneer" or otherwise. We can always have a redirect to the appropriate parent article section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• That WP:BIO, WP:CORP, etc., exist, reflects consensus that there are substitutes for meeting WP:GNG for certain classes of topic. Why would all these lengthy pages exist if they were to be interpreted as nothing more than repeated admonitions to follow WP:GNG rather than as lists of alternatives to WP:GNG? Having said that, my inquiry here is about a provision that seems to be misworded because, as it stands, it doesn't provide a route to a finding of notability not already provided by WP:GNG and, as such, seems to be serving no purpose. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

No, that is precisely the misunderstanding these guidelines create. They describe the types of subject that are likely to meet WP:GNG, but they do not replace WP:GNG because that rests in turn on canonical policy - Wikipedia relies on reliable independent secondary sources, and without substantive coverage in such sources, we cannot ensure that an article meets WP:V and WP:NPOV. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The canonical policy, at WP:N, says

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and ...

In other words, WP:GNG or alternative criteria that are available for particular classes of topic. Not WP:GNG or alternative criteria but then WP:GNG anyway.

As for WP:V, that's covered by one reliable source, as long as there's no dispute. This is a discussion of WP:N. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It is presumed to be notable. Where people go astray is to think that means it is automatically notable. Passing a SNG creates a rebuttable presumption that sufficient reference material to write a full article will exist. If it turns out such referencing does not in fact exist, it's not notable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: Theoretically it's a rebuttable presumption, but with historical figures particularly, rebutting is impractical and presumed does become automatically. For example, notoriously there are many WP articles on 19th- and early-20th-century sportspeople, based only on flimsy references but protected by WP:NSPORT because it's impossible to prove the negative – to show that the presumed real referencing doesn't in fact exist. I don't complain about this (any more) but it's a fact of WP life. Stanning (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I've been seeing a lot more pushback against NSPORT and the like, but it takes time, especially in areas that have a lot of fans who are editing. It took ages to get the in-universe fiction stuff cleaned up (again, the legions of fans...), but it did happen. The growing dislike of it actually resembles the fiction situation a lot, so hopefully, the athlete areas will not be too long in getting their own cleanup. I generally try to be patient with things like that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The worst are those created by small special interest groups, who redefine what constitutes reliable in order to try to include people who spectacularly fail the core guidelines. WP:PORNBIO, for example, contains no references to anything that would be considered a reliable source by anybody sane. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh gawd, don't even get me started on PORNBIO. That's a BLP disaster waiting to happen, but it seems to stay that way nonetheless. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• Just remove the footnote. The footnote is misleading, and redundant with GNG. Cavarrone 11:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• People, to whom BLP does not apply, that satisfy the criteria of ANYBIO should not need to satisfy GNG or BASIC as well. SNGs exist because GNG is so vague and subjective that it is impossible to know whether a topic satisfies it, or to deflect the sort of trollish "no matter how much coverage there is, I won't accept it is enough" arguments that one sees far too much of at AfD. They exist because GNG, in its present form, is garbage because it is too vague, meaning that objective criteria are necessary. If inclusive SNGs are subordinate to GNG, that would be free license for trolls to try to delete topics that have plenty of coverage by maliciously wikilawyering about the meaning of GNG. James500 (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• As Largoplazo points out, GNG shouldn't have been added into ANYBIO. Remove it. SNGs are designed to include content that fails GNG and many editors want this encyclopedia to be more inclusive. (WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:NACADEMICS are my favorites.) Chris Troutman (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Not redundant. Unlike pop-stars, most higher-than-average scientists do not have "in-depth coverage" in the pararazzi sense. What is more, their descriptions are in terms of their work, written by experts and for experts, hence this temptation to "redirect" a scientist's bio somewhere. Often this is impossible: people make many different notable contributions, and their impact is cumulative, not One Big Thing. Therefore if a person in several surveys described as "influential" or something, it is sufficient for SNG, and the subsequent description of his contributions from multiple brief refs is not "WP_SYNTH" not OR, as I've seen sometimes. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)