Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
"WT:BIO" redirects here. For WikiProject Biography, see
WT:BIOLOGY
.

Question re: WP:ANYBIO

In a current AfD discussion, I've raised a question about the application of WP:ANYBIO point 2 ("The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field") in the context of a person who is widely cited and quoted on Wikipedia itself (see Brittany Spanos Draft:Brittany Spanos). This seems like a somewhat unusual circumstance (as was pointed out by the editor who created the stub), and may merit consideration here too. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: To add more nuance – what I'm getting at is the idea that someone who is mentioned, quoted, or whose work is cited hundreds (or thousands) of times here on enwiki may in fact be notable by virtue of that fact alone. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked over the AfD, but I'm not a fan of the argument being presented here. Wikipedia articles can be created and edited by anyone, and as such I don't think they are part of the "historical record in a specific field" in the same way we presumably wouldn't really put any significant weight on someone being "cited" by a plethora of random blog posts. Ljleppan (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you have less of a question and more of an effort to
canvass support at an AfD. For what it's worth, I think you're stretching the guideline well beyond reasonable limits. As always, I caution editors to wait until a subject had died before we try to assess things like "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record". Chris Troutman (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
As someone who voted delete, I don't think Cl3phact0 is trying to canvass. Mach61 (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Mach61.
WP:APPNOTE on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Brittany Spanos AfD
– the possibility of such mispercption being a thought which occurred to me only after posting my note here, if you're interested). I do apologise if I've left you with that impression. Again, I'm not particularly interested in the subject of the article itself (though she seems to be someone who's building quite a reputable body of work in her field), but I do think there is merit in the notability discussion that has resulted from the AfD.
I've actually been thinking quite a lot about both the interpretation of
WP:ANYBIO (especially point 2), as well as the point about the very high number of internal Wikipedia citations that Dsp13 makes in the AfD discussion (as well as the other points I've raised in that same discussion and here). Essentially, might we be underestimating the potential value of Wikipedia itself as a reference (in some very specific cases). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Any wiki is going to change with time, so at one point an author's work might be cited a lot but those citations might be replaced with others in five or ten years' time. Let's also remember that Wikipedia fails
WP:CIRCULAR. We can't have editors citing particular works to make the works and their authors de facto notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Agree with the worry that it creates additional incentive for puffery. But that incentive is unfortunately there anyway, and we already have to cope with it. Dsp13 (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we accept that there are instances where death as a prerequisite for assessment of the impact of an individual's contribution to the historical record might be overly cautious? In my view, the example of Draft:Brittany Spanos is clear-cut case of a living person, relatively early-on in their career, making what is an enduring contribution to a field. (Again, she is quoted and/or cited over 1,200 times in this encyclopaedia alone – fully accepting that this in itself does not confer notability, and notwithstanding the fact that this evolutive encyclopaedia is far from complete). In much the same way as with ANYBIO#1 or NPOL (i.e., SIGCOV or not), I would argue that the contribution to the historical record clause of ANYBIO#2 applies to Spanos. Common sense would argue that her work isn't going to just suddenly vanish; it is abundantly probable that it will remain in the public record (and in our pages); and unless she meets an untimely demise, will only increase over time. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We require thousands of citations in published academic papers for most academics to pass NPROF C1. We do not need the much lower bar of being cited on wikipedia, by anonymous editors whose motivations and affiliation with the subject are unknown, in a format that is inherently temporary and impossible to verify reliably (AFAIK we can't search all of the revision history for every article). It's hard enough figuring out a regex to search through references just for the purpose of adding author-links, no way should we be basing notability off it. How would that work at all for people with very common names? JoelleJay (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that common names mean you can't use a text search to tell you automatically. In the case of Brittany Spanos, after creating the page (before it was deleted at AfD) I manually checked each mention and added the wikilink. For an individual to have over 1,000 mentions on WP is highly unusual - a different bar, and one less measurable for the reasons you give, but not I think a lower bar than NPROF C1. (There are some interesting structural similarities between citation and WP linking. In both cases there is systemic bias. E.g., with respect to gender, see User:Dsp13/Gendered link bias. Dsp13 (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely a lower bar than NPROF C1, because it is not recognition by independent reliable published sources. I agree it can be an informal indicator that the person might be notable (I even include potential wikilink #s in the STEM bio list on my userpage), but it cannot be considered a valid argument for notability at AfD or elsewhere. JoelleJay (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think I may have have misunderstood you! Clearly, 'NPROF C1 or over 1000 WP mentions' is a lower bar than 'NRPF C1'. (I am certainly not suggesting that NPROF C1 should be replaced by over 1000 WP mentions. But I understood you to be directly comparing the two criteria, and saying that over 1000 mentions would be a lower bar than NPROF C1. This confused me, since if anything the size of the sets involved would be the other way round.) Dsp13 (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1000 mentions on WP is a much lower bar than 1000 mentions in IRS, and even 1000 mentions in academic sources isn't enough to meet NPROF C1. JoelleJay (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is never a reliable source for itself. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
It'd be so much better if we simply aligned NPROF with GNG... SportingFlyer T·C 11:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The place where notability of a particular subject is decided is
Phil Bridger (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with your summary of process in your first four sentences. I don't fully agree with your final sentence. First, cites on Wikipedia certainly mean something to someone. For example, automated systems (e.g. those used to guide web search and implement NLP solutions) use them as a signal of relative importance. And while anyone can edit Wikipedia, by-and-large bad edits get reverted. So someone having an extraordinary level of wiki-citation is a genuine achievement, even if one not reflected in notability guidelines. Second, by the way, an additional argument against using number of inlinks as a notability criterion would be that inlinks are seriously gender skewed: links to women are only about 6% of those to men. So such a criterion would in general disadvantage women. Thirdly, I do think that journalists with prolific bylines, who end up for that reason being repeatedly cited en passant in books and wikipedia, are not well served by the current general notability guidelines. Dsp13 (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are still not getting that Wikipedia is an unreliable, user-generated source. Appearing in it in any form will always count for nothing in establishing notability. JoelleJay (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get it: Cites on WP are meaningless; WP is unreliable; Appearing in WP counts for nothing – my word, why do we bother with this thankless task? In any case, my point (above and elsewhere) is that ANYBIO#2 (like ANYBIO#1, ANYBIO#3, NPOL, and a number of the other "Additional criteria" and/or WP:BIOSPECIAL cases) seems to exist in an intentionally ambiguous zone where we arrive at acceptable, common sense criteria for article existence/creation – sometimes in lieu of SIGCOV and without necessarily ticking all of the GNG boxes. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ANYBIO does not consider recognition by unreliable sources, and the amount an author produces does not count toward ANYBIO at all either. Per ANYBIO: Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.
WP:N also requires IRS SIGCOV be possible for all articles, not just ones that presume notability through GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recognition by unreliable sources was not suggested (at least not by me). I'm simply reiterating that as written, the guidelines seem to allow for multiple paths to notability (with some that don't necessarily include SIGCOV). Sorry if that wasn't clear.
As for the statement that "WP:N also requires IRS SIGCOV be possible for all articles", please point me to where that is unequivocally defined. Thank you.
Also, thanks for the copy of the ANYBIO#2 footnote, which adds nuance. [NB: I've seen it written elsewhere in this thread that footnotes aren't technically part of the policy or guideline. Is this indeed accepted practice?] -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the first and penultimate sentences of
WP:WHYN. JoelleJay (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, of course. I've tried – as much as possible – to read what's been written about the matter (which is how I ended up joining you in this particular forum). I suppose the most glaring inconsistency (or ambiguity, if you prefer) is this: Why do we have WP:SNG at all? Why not just say "Wikipedia excludes any subject that has not received SIGCOV" and leave it there (if that is indeed what we want)? As soon as one strays from the main WP:N (of which the very first point states that a worthy article: meets either the general notability guideline [...] or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline – creating a fork in the road from the outset, for what it's worth), the number of potential alternative paths multiplies. Nearly everything that's being discussed here supposes that the numerous caveats and carveouts defined by various clauses of WP:SNG guidance (as well as "additional criteria" and "special cases" and footnotes or whatever) create situations whereby there is at least a possibility that certain articles could (and should) exist regardless of SIGCOV or other generally accepted GNG N guidelines. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of "rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty" :), I would offer the following as a list of notability-related questions on which the community does not in fact agree:
• is a specified depth of coverage in each RS required of all potential article topics?
• is a specified depth of coverage in at least two (or three) RS required of all potential article topics?
• if a specified depth of coverage per source is required, is it based on what can be used to construct an encyclopaedic article, or the threshold higher?
• are certain subjects inherently more relevant to an encyclopaedia than others, so that they should have a stronger presumption against deletion than other topics?
• for subjects believed to be inherently more encyclopaedic, is verifiability the minimum threshold required to activiate a presumption against deletion? If not, what (higher) level of RS coverage is required for the presumption to apply?
• for subjects believed to be inherently more encyclopaedic, at what point does the presumption against deletion cease to apply, e.g., is there a point at which a lack of sources can be "proven"? If the RS only support a stub article, does that stub still have a presumption against deletion?
These aren't the only such questions, of course, but these are some notability-related issues where the community doesn't agree in principle - different policies and guidelines imply different answers (or a different range of answers) to these various questions and sub-questions. While the community may agree on a few edge cases - we should not retain unverifiable articles, and BLPs and organizational articles should meet certain norms not required for other articles - in my experience, editors disagree about notabiliy issues far more than they agree. The relationship between GNG and SNGs and the interpretation of SIGCOV requirements represent, in my view, wave crests on this stormy sea of non-consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest thing to understand is that there is a difference between presumption of notability and demonstrable establishment of notability, and how that ties into NEXIST and our policies. Articles are permitted on subjects if there is a presumption, through meeting either GNG or SNGs, that enough IRS SIGCOV sources
exist to fill out a comprehensive article, even if those sources aren't currently cited. That's why, e.g., stubs are allowed to stay in mainspace indefinitely if they merely assert a sourced presumption of notability (such as being a historical president of some country, cited to some non-SIGCOV governmental list of presidents), and why even an unsourced assertion that presumes notability is generally enough to avoid speedy deletion. We have a policy that all articles be based primarily on secondary independent sources, so even though a primary source may be sufficient to show a subject meets some SNG, that doesn't mean the page is automatically and inherently compliant with policy as-is--it merely presumes that the subject has the coverage for such a page to become compliant. JoelleJay (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
While agreeing with almost all of this comment by JoelleJay, I have one reservation - I would underline that the question, whether permastubs (ones that satisfy WP:V and at least one notability criterion) should be retained in article space indefinitely, is one of the issues about which the community does not agree. In other words, is it necessary that all topics have the potential to fill out a comprehensive article to be retained? For some of us, factors such as navigability and the category system come into play here as user-oriented reasons to retain stub articles that play well with other articles, lists and categories. But as the debate around biological species shows, other editors would rather favor consistent depth of treatment over user accessibility and navigation to the topics they seek. Newimpartial (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is all very interesting, but is getting away from the topic under discussion. There are areas of disagreement, but I think there is a strong consensus that Wikipedia cannot be a source for notability of any subject. The OP seems to be arguing against that consensus.
Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Firstly, thank you all. This discussion is very instructive – unanimous consensus or not, there's a great deal of valuable information and nuanced opinion here. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thinking.

Having absorbed much new information and gained deeper understanding: I (the OP) concede that per the guidance as written, Wikipedia, in and unto itself, is not a reliable source for the purpose of establishing notability. [NB: I do maintain that in the case of someone who is cited or quoted hundreds or thousands of times, it's a red-flag and we ought to pay careful attention; we might want to have some sort of switch that trips a buffer that protects nascent stubs from premature demise; or a special knob to tweak that eases something somewhere along the sometimes arduous path to notability (standby for more specific details about what this might actually entail).]

That said, the topic under discussion has also expanded somewhat since my original post. Others may have it all sussed. Not me. Not yet, anyhow. I'll need time to ponder the above, as well as the meaning of that non-trivial "either/or" fork at the top of WP:N (and how, if one takes the "or" branch, it implicitly impacts the clauses that follow). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Military Officers Notability

Hello, I believe that the rules of notability should be edited to include automatically notability of certain military officers. Military generals and commanders should automatically be notable on Wikipedia, because they are a high ranking and command many people. As per

Wikipedia:POLITICIAN, politicians that hold high rankings are automatically presumed as notable, so it does not make any sense as to why high-ranking military officers should not be automatically presumed notable. An example of an article falling into this scenario is an article I created, Oskar von dem Hagen. He was a military general during World War II who received the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, yet he is being deleted for "not having notability". Military generals and any military officers, especially ones with major awards, should be automatically presumed notable on Wikipedia. Please let me know what you think. Antny08 (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

@
WP:SOLDIER) had its time and has since been eliminated. If you cannot find sufficient sources on a subject, then we cannot write a decent article about them. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
That is talking about the Military history project guidelines, not the guidelines for Wikipedia itself, just the guidelines to be included in that project. Antny08 (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:SOLDIER. Schazjmd (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
That is talking about the Military history project guidelines, not the guidelines for Wikipedia itself, just the guidelines to be included in that project. Antny08 (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:POLITICIAN has been allowed to stand for so long. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, it really doesn’t make any sense. Wikipedia is a place for information, and I believe that people who command entire army groups should be able to be notable enough for Wikipedia. I really do hope they do eventually change it one day. Antny08 (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that makes a subject notable is significant coverage in independent sources, if the subject doesn't get that they aren't notable. "Presumed notable" means that we can presume that such coverage exists, it won't for the vast majority of officers. Therefore we can neither presume or grant automatic notability to military officers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANYBIO and presumptive notability

Many editors take the position that ANYBIO, particularly ANYBIO #1, conclusively establishes notability. See, for example, @Necrothesp's notability criteria for receipients of honours. In my view, under the guidelines as currently written, this is incorrect and significant coverage is still required. The additional criteria section states:

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.

This issue recently came up at at two AfDs that I was involved in: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarn Willers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lena Townsend.
I'm indifferent regarding whether meeting ANYBIO #1 should establish inherent notability, but I think this is something that the community needs to decide one way or the other, rather than being decided ad hoc at individual AfD discussions. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that ANYBIO does not confer notability, and would also point to the
WP:WHYN section at N that requires multiple pieces of secondary, independent, significant coverage in RS exist for all subjects regardless of whether their presumption of notability is through GNG or an SNG: Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Also the Lena Townsend one seemed to hinge on an entry in UK Who's Who, which is GUNREL on RSP. I've removed that source from the bio. JoelleJay (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, WHYN does not require multiple pieces of secondary, independent, significant coverage in RS. It requires secondary coverage, and independent coverage, and significant coverage, but it pretty clearly does not require multiple sources that feature all of the above. For example, if multiple secondary sources were required, the current language specifying the existence of at least one secondary source would be more than a little bit misleading. I assume that WHYN means what it actually says. Newimpartial (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also related is
WP:BIOSPECIAL, which expands on the "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" but is rather inconveniently hidden at the bottom of the page where I doubt most people have even seen it. Ljleppan (talk) 07:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
...this is something that the community needs to decide one way or the other, rather than being decided ad hoc at individual AfD discussions. This just looks like another attempt to undermine AfD by imposing additional, unnecessary "rules". Discussion is what AfD is (or should be) about.
WP:ANYBIO #1 is sufficient for an article to exist, as illustrated here for British honours. We very much need to stop the drift into a divide between Wikiworld and the real world, as some editors seem to desire. There is a very good reason that people receive high honours. It's not receiving the honour that makes them notable; they receive the honour because they are already notable. That doesn't just mean that lots of people have namechecked them on the internet or social media; it means they are notable for their achievements, even if they are relatively low-key. I have found that some editors really do not get this. If Wikiworld does not consider someone to be notable (usually largely because the individual does not have heavy internet coverage) but the real world does, then I'm afraid there is something severely wrong with Wikiworld and all we do is drift further towards the concept of Wikipedia being a pop culture site rather than an encyclopaedia. That's not what I want to see, and I sincerely hope it's not what most other editors want to see. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
  1. WP:CCC
    . Tarn Willers (an Oscar winner with no independent SIGCOV) closed as no consensus, and myself and several other editors have questioned the idea that ANYBIO, as written, confers inherent notabilify.
  2. Discussion is what AfD is (or should be) about. I agree that AfD is about discussion, but it should be discussion about whether a particular article meets notability guidelines, not what the notability guidlines mean.
  3. This just looks like another attempt to undermine AfD by imposing additional, unnecessary "rules". I'm not proposing to impose new rules; ANYBIO already exists and I'm proposing we clarify what it means. I don't see the benefit of keeping this guideline ambiguous. If it means what you say it means, it should state that clearly.
voorts (talk/contributions) 15:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inherent reliability (vs for example presumed reliability) has never been endorsed by the community in any context. It doesn't exist in either policy or guideline so I'm not sure that people are actually making that argument per-say (and if they are they need to stop participating in AfD). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When people use the word "inherent", I assume they're using it as shorthand for unrebuttable presumption, for example, NACADEMIC, which creates an unrebuttable presumption that certain academics are notable (e.g., professors with named chairs), notwithstanding how much SIGCOV they have. People make the same argument under ANYBIO, which I think is incorrect under the current wording of the guideline. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not an unrebuttable presumption because it exists in the context of the higher WP:N "Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with your reading. My point is that there's a large group of people who regularly argue at AfD that the opposite is true. For example, see Necrothesp's list of AfD honours outcomes. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have a basic misunderstanding about notability... They aren't notable because they got the honor, they're notable because they got coverage and that coverage can be presumed to exist because of the honor. The honor doesn't actually contribute to notability at all, it just indicates that significant coverage in reliable sources is likely to exist. Nothing besides coverage influences notability, everything else we talk about is just a proxy for the likelihood of coverage existing there is no other notability criteria. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But good luck getting rid of it. Folks love having their own pet SNG and insisting that it's the special one that gets an exception to GNG. Probably others who just get a special tingle when they can cite WP:ABCDEFG and feel super smarty pants at AfD. Trust me, it's not a battle you're gonna win. GMGtalk 17:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All notability guidelines (GNG and SNGs) establish a form of presumptive rebuttable for notability, that even if the criteria is met, it can still be challenged later if there is a lack of further sourcing or that the reason the criteria is met is weak. Meeting something like NBIO1 and claiming it during a first AFD process is fine, but after that, the presumption rebuttals allow for that to be challenged in future AFDs, particularly if no new major sources have been offered. No SNG establishes a criteria that can never be challenged. --Masem (t) 17:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think NPOL and NACADEMIC do. My reading is that if someone has served in a state legislature or received a named university chair, their articles get to stay forever, because those SNGs expressly state as such. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"their articles get to stay forever, because those SNGs expressly state as such" they say no such thing... That assertion is directly contradicted by the text of NACADEMIC, for example "Note that this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may exist." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you're saying, but I don't think it works out that way in practice. First, NPROF actually does explicitly say "screw GNG, we're special". Beside that, I fully expect that if someone went around nominating NSPORT permastubs for deletion, they'd quickly get dragged in front of the court and topic banned from AfD as disruptive. People argue these standards as if they're gospel, and people close the discussions the same way. GMGtalk 18:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except with the recent change in NSPORT from a few years ago, previously "protected" permastubs have now been properly questioned for their inclusion. Yes, there are still those that insist that having stepped on the field once is enough to make an athlete notable, that attitude is no longer accepted by consensus. — Masem (t) 19:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that seems to be what's happening with some articles about people who meet ANYBIO #1. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What discussions still have editors claiming that "having stepped on the field once" is automatic notability? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting an RfC?

  • Given the lack of consensus here, I am thinking of starting an RfC. Do others have thoughts? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a major problem that needs to be solved. - Enos733 (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'm reading is essentially that there is a deletionist interpretation and an inclusionist interpretation of: 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. If we agree that it is possible that a person could meet ANYBIO criteria 1, 2, or 3 without necessarily generating SIGCOV, then this leaves some cases open to interpretation.
    There are small ambiguities throughout the NBIO guidelines (e.g., someone could have work represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums; or have an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary without necessarily generating SIGCOV). These ambiguities seem as though they are designed to allow for a bit of adaptability. If we don't want this, then the guidelines ought to be worded more rigidly (with proscriptions and exclusions defined – rather than implicitly allowed by caveats and carveouts).
    My own (inclusionist) belief is that we should allow multiple paths to notability and be capable of applying a modicum of common sense to the edge cases – which is how I interpret the current wording. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note, I don't consider myself a deletionist or an inclusionist; I try to apply the deletion guidelines as written and think that they should be clear so that the average editor doesn't need to be aware of a local consensus regarding one of the particular guidelines. I'm also limiting discussion to ANYBIO #1 right now.
    conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. As myself and others have argued above, an interpretation of ANYBIO #1 that means that articles about persons who earn certain awards should never be deleted, notwithstanding the existence of SIGCOV, is incorrect. If there's a consensus that it should say that, then it should actually say that, which is why I'm proposing an RfC. If there's consensus that we should allow multiple paths to notability and be capable of applying a modicum of common sense to the edge cases, that's fine with me, but I disagree with that as a current plausible reading of the guidelines.
    If we agree that it is possible that a person could meet ANYBIO criteria 1, 2, or 3 without necessarily generating SIGCOV, then this leaves some cases open to interpretation. I also disagree with this point. Per Necrothesp's list, what usually happens is there is a flood of !votes from a small group of editors who insist that certain awards make a person per se notable, notwithstanding whether there is any SIGCOV. There's usually no "interpretation" or nuance in those cases. (See for example the Tarn Willers AfD, where my interpretation of NBIO was met with a circular argument.)
    There are small ambiguities throughout the NBIO guidelines (e.g., someone could have work "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums"; or have "an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary" without necessarily generating SIGCOV). I don't see how these are particularly ambiguous; "notable galleries or museums" means galleries or museums that are notable—that is, they meet NCORP or GNG—and a "standard national biographical dictionary" is clearly defined. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this whole discussion presumes a consensus about what
    WP:NCORP
    , which establishes minimum thresholds that must be met by all sources before they count towards the notability of corporate topics. For those who interpret SIGCOV more flexibly, it is likely that anyone meeting ANYBIO will generatee coverage that meets SIGCOV as well - particularly because independent and reliable sourcing must be provided for the claim made to satisfy ANYBIO. On the other hand, for editors who read GNG as following the same logic as NCORP, there will be many more cases where ANYBIO is satisfied but GNG is not.
    Given surrounding environment of uncertainty and non-consensus - clearly illustrated in the discussion under this subject heading - I don't see how an RfC about ANYBIO's relationship to GNG could produce a meaningful result, since the interpretation of each and every !vote would depend on that editor's specific interpretation of GNG/SIGCOV. Newimpartial (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are sometimes cases where there is literally no SIGCOV in a reliable source to be found. For example, the Lena Townsend example I cited. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oftentimes, that could be due to not enough effort being put into finding sources (especially with older topics). I haven't looked at Townsend though. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At AfD, the burden is on the keep !votes to present SIGCOV because the nom is presumed to have done a BEFORE search. Nobody in that discussion turned anything up (as was noted in this discussion, the Who's Who source is apparently depracated); all of the keep !votes relied solely on the fact of obtaining an honour. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And there are some times when it is simply impossible for editors to find sources even when we know they are 99.9%+ likely to exist; e.g. someone who received the highest honor available in, say, Uzbekistan 100 years ago, is basically certain to have received coverage, but it would require an outrageous amount of effort and editors learning new languages, paying massive fees, etc. to find said sources. That is where ANYBIO should come in to play – "Keep. This person was recognized as the most impactful person in Uzbekistan in 1924, but we don't have any 1924 Uzbekistani sources available." BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like a poor example... We know that there were no reliable 1924 Uzbekistani sources. Its not a question of availability, we know for sure that as a class they do not exist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a major problem to completely disqualify anything from a country or time period due to media availability factors. It goes against
    WP:BIAS as it turns this into a pay for play scheme. Obviously, there should be some kind of guidelines in place to prevent people from putting up anybody, but people winning various important awards, being heads of the country or other things are in general safe bets on being notable. KatoKungLee (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    So we should just delete any and all historic Uzbekistani figures because we somehow know that they had no media or writing of any kind (which is quite the startling and extreme claim)? That doesn't sound like a great idea. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to be conflating sources in general with reliable sources. Note that by 1924 Bolshevik control was complete and there was no functioning independent media or formally published writing of any kind. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So we should just delete any and all historic Uzbekistani figures? You could also replace Uzbekistan with over a hundred other countries – what about Myanmar, Guyana, Madagascar, Mauritius, Senegal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Romania, etc. etc.? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course not, only the ones which lack significant coverage in reliable sources should be merged or deleted. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...which brings us back to the original question – how do we "know" they "lack significant coverage" if we cannot in any way access sources from that nation without outrageous and extremely cost and time-consuming efforts? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is where the concept of presumed notability comes in, unless a reasonable effort has been made (which for a non-english speaking origin subject would mean a fluent speaker has conducted a search) they are to be presumed notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And if we have no fluent speakers? And if the nation's media is 100% and wholly offline? And does the same presumed notability apply to those from Uzbekistan in 1924? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it does, the problem is with sources from 1924 not with subjects from 1924. I am not aware of a nation whose media is 100% and wholly offline, its actually more common now for outlets in less developed countries to be fully online with a print edition being something of a luxury. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The vast majority of coverage of a notable person is going to be when they had their most notable accomplishments. For most less developed nations, the vast majority of historic sources prior to the past few years are offline. Do you know of any Tuvaluan – or Uzbekistani – or Nigerien newspapers prior to the 2000s that is available online? Besides Uzbekistan, what about the people from other non-Soviet countries in 1924 whom we have no access to sources from that year? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The whataboutism is getting tiring but presumably all of those archives will be digitized at some point and if they are genuinely lost or destroyed then they're of no use in building an encyclopedia either until found and republished. You have to also keep in mind that the vast vast majority of truly historical sources (everywhere, including the US and UK) are not reliable sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the vast vast majority of truly historical sources (everywhere, including the US and UK) are not reliable sources [citation needed] BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, show me a source that would count towards notability from before 1800. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm... one of the many prominent newspapers published around that time, e.g. The Charlotte Observer or Hartford Courant? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not familiar with the Charlotte Observer of that era but the Hartford Courant was a shitshow by modern standards... You could literally pay to have an article changed. Modern standards of journalistic ethics and fact checking hadn't even been invented yet. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But that still doesn't very that the vast vast majority of truly historical sources (everywhere, including the US and UK) are not reliable sources – a claim I have heard only once ever, from you. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That older sources are in general less reliable and useful than newer sources is not I assure you just my opinion, it is in fact one of the basis tenants of modern academics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still not seeing a source for that, but, I'm taking a break from this discussion as we don't appear to be going very far. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think lack of any available sources runs into a major issue: How do we know the person isn't a hoax? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My sense is that BeanieFan11's proposed scenario implies having a reliable or authoritative source about this person receiving the honor, whatever it may be (award, office, etc.), but lacking the range of sources that would constitute multiple published secondary sources. In the scenario, presumably the award, or the office, went to a real person and not a hoax, even if the usual Wikipedian research tools (online research, not going to a physical repository of newspapers) makes it hard to know much more about the person beside their honor/office/etc. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The example I've been citing in this discussion, Lena Townsend, is that type of case. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think BeanieFan11 has very persuasively laid out the reason we have guidelines like
    WP:ANYBIO. The statement that We know there were no reliable 1924 Uzbekistani sources is indeed a startling and extreme claim. What is that implying; that people from Central Asia in the early twentieth century weren't capable of good journalism or reliable coverage? The implication is shockingly chauvinistic (in the national rather than gendered sense). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Did you follow me here to harass me or something? This seems like a personal attack and you have no history of commenting here that I can see. The implication is that people in the Soviet Union weren't capable of good journalism or reliable coverage because it was literally the Soviet Union. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BeanieFan11 and I have been describing the content of a post, not the character of a user. I'm sorry if it seemed as if either BeanieFan11 or I were talking describing you personally; that wasn't my intent, and I don't think it was theirs either.
    I've participated in multiple AfD discussions involving questions of notability, so this discussion is of interest. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel harassed, not by BeanieFan11 but by you. I would really appreciate it if you would stop following me around and aggressively taking positions against mine. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry you feel that way; I didn't mean for my participation in this publicized thread to make you feel so troubled. As a gesture of good faith, I'll leave this subthread aside for the remainder of any of my participation in this discussion about ANYBIO. I don't think we (BeanieFan11, myself, you, and voorts) are about to persuade each other anyway.
    I would
    remind you that [m]aking accusations of harassment can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    You didn't get here because it was publicized, you got here from my edit history. Clear evidence: [1][2] now stop, please. You don't need to stop participating and I wouldn't even mind it if you just added a comment on the end, what I mind is you jumping onto pages you wouldn't normally be on and attacking me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    WP:NPOL, stating that ANYBIO #1 is a secondary criterion and that meeting ANYBIO #1 is sufficient to establish notability notwithstanding whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources.
    Option 3: Add a footnote to ANYBIO #1 stating that ANYBIO #1 is an indicator of notability, but that significant coverage in reliable sources is still required to establish notability.

    voorts (talk/contributions) 15:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Again, what is the problem that you are attempting to solve here? Is it that editors could flood AFD with their own sense of which awards are "well-known"? There are always disagreements of interpretation, whether it is about whether an award is "well-known" or whether a source meets the expectations of significant, independent coverage.
    My view of notability is that we operate in a "fuzzy ecosystem" and the guidelines generally work. Yes, there are edge cases, but there will always be edge cases. There will always be disagreements in interpretation.
    But my sense of ANYBIO #1 is that the point is to allow people to start an article once an individual wins a major award - perhaps a (non-acting) Academy Award, a local reporter winning a Pulitzer Prize, or being honored with a National Humanities Medal, if there is not already an article. - Enos733 (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to your questions and points:
voorts (talk/contributions) 16:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the deletion discussion, Willers would easily pass GNG - (https://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/people/from-kimberworth-to-hollywood-bafta-winner-tarn-is-off-to-the-oscars-4546123). - Enos733 (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I'm not sure that changes the analysis. At the time of the deletion discussion, it didn't meet GNG, and it could've been refunded and that source added to a draft. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I'm still not sure that Willers meets GNG with that one piece of SIGCOV, given that the rest of the sourcing at the time of the deletion discussion were interviews or trivial mentions. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since everything needs to meet
WP:V
, all your proposal does is push editors to have discussions about what meets SIGCOV. Editors have disagreements (or polarized thoughts) about the nature of interviews (especially if there is context provided before the interview), and editors vary on how much weight to give to a primary source.
Our notability standards have inconsistencies. And that is OK, because the purpose of this project is to have factual articles on topics people care about. WP:AUTHOR is is a good example - multiple notable reviews are sufficient for a stand-alone page of the author of the book(s), even if the reviews do not focus on the individual author.
Finally, while we hope that editors do a thorough BEFORE search before nominating an article for deletion, there can be great variations on how well the search was performed, whether sources use an alternative name (or spelling of a name), or whether there is even online sources. Enos733 (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing for a particular outcome to this RfC. See my reply to Horse Eye's Back below. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess we could do an RFC. Though, option 3 in my opinion is equivalent to abolishing it entirely as it then has no weight in determining notability (from how I've seen similar used with NSPORT). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a fourth option that is a middle ground? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Set some sort of moderately-strict list of what exactly constitutes a "significant" honor? Anything that makes ANYBIO not a direct giver of notability (i.e. something that makes saying at AFD "Keep - passes ANYBIO" invalid) is effectively making it entirely useless. (NSPORT was changed this way and I don't think I've used it once to help me create things since.) BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the number of awards in the world, that list would be exceedingly long I think. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, to note, option 3 is what I read the current guideline to be saying, so this footnote would confirm that reading; as I've stated above, I'm indifferent to how this RfC turns out, and if the community wants to infer "inherent" notability on people who win major awards, that's fine with me. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In order to add option 2 you would have to strip significant chunks out of other sections which directly contradict it. At the very least a rewrite of both WP:N and WP:V would be required and we would need to strip
    WP:NPOV of its non-negotiable status. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Option 2 is just mirroring NPOL, so I'm not sure what the issue is regarding N, V, and NPOV. In any event, I think as this discussion shows, others would disagree with you, and this would be a fine !vote during an RfC if we start one. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 2 is rather different from NPOL, it escalates it significantly. Are similar and mirroring synonyms as far as you are concerned or do you mean to make a significantly different point here than above? I would also note that footnotes aren't technically part of the policy or guideline, they're more like mini essays. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If by escalate you mean expands "inherent" notability to a larger group of people, then I would agree with you. As I have said, I am not arguing for this point of view, but it is onewon held by several editors (see, e.g., Necrothesp's argument above that anyone who wins a certain British title should have an article about them). You and I can say "they're wrong" all we like, but at some point, I think we need to resolve this issue. Even if an RfC ends in a no consensus close, at least that would show we're unlikely to settle this issue, but at least we tried. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand the proposition. NPOL doesn't give anyone inherent notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per
    WP:POLITICIAN has been consistently interpreted to accord presumed notability to members of subnational parliaments (legislatures) in federal nation-states." Their articles always marked patrolled at NPP, regardless of SIGCOV or lack thereof, and I can't think of a case where one wouldn't be kept at AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Yes, presumed notability... Not inherent notability. Those are completely different concepts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that presumed notability is different, but in practice, they're accorded inherent notability. See also the footnote, which describes it as a "secondary criterion" and explains that the SNG ensures that we have complete encyclopedic coverage of politicians meeting the SNG. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So the argument is now that NPOL doesn't at all say that... But in practice something happens. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. How would you word the proposal for option 2? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How about: A person who meets ANYBIO #1 is notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Same issues, you'd have to rewrite a half dozen pages (many of them much more prominent than this one) to enact that consensus. Its the equivalent of a ballot initiative which you know is unconstitutional, even if it passes it won't happen without changes to the constitution which require a completely different process. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said before, that seems like a good !vote for an RfC. The issue is that several people hold this point of view and they keep applying it at AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Including it would be the definition of disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Like making one of the options "ignore NPOV" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    WP:ANYBIO #1 ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times") establishes inherent notability, notwithstanding whether there is significant coverage of the article subject in reliable sources, or whether it establishes presumptive notability, requiring significant coverage in reliable sources.
    The question presented is does ANYBIO #1 establish inherent notability or presumptive notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Wikipedia:inherent notability is an essay. First you would need to figure out a way to bring inherent notability into official existence and then you could ask that question. Its begging the question because it presumes that inherent notability is a viable option but inherent notability has never been established as a viable option. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think NPOL pretty much establishes inherent notability, and NPROF pretty explicitly says that significant coverage isn't required so long as an academic meets one of the criteria. Additionally, several editors would disagree and have indeed argued that ANYBIO #1 establishes per se notability (see some of the AfD's listed on Necrothesp's honours list). I also agree with @GreenMeansGo's comment above. That's why we need an RfC in my opinion. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't need an RfC, because it's not going to work. I've argued this for years and you're not going to get a consensus except in the most bleedingly edge cases. GMGtalk 18:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CCC, and it appears that there are a lot of strong arguments against inherent notability. I don't think there's ever been an RfC on this topic, the issue has been percolating for years, and I don't see the harm of an RfC. If it ends in no consensus, that's the status quote and so be it. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    It says that "this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may exist." so no it does not establish inherent notability explicitly or otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The GNG is also a guideline. In practice, NPROF and NPOL are treated as rules and I doubt you'd get traction at an AfD arguing that an article on an academic meeting one of the criteria or a state-level legislator should be deleted for lack of SIGCOV. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes... Hence my earlier point that you would need to change other policies and guidelines in order to get a guideline to establish something as "inherent" (as in there are no exceptions). In practice competent editors do not treat them as rules, because they are not rules. If someone is doing otherwise that is a behavioral issue not a policy or guideline one. You can speculate all you want about what would or wouldn't happen at AfD, but it won't become relevant no matter how much you do it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't have time to read all the comments that just appeared since I last checked, but ultimately, in my opinion, there should be criteria separate from GNG which give "automatic" or "inherent" notability – at least if we want to keep any potential new contributors and provide the best experience to our readers. E.g. I surely would not have lasted if the current sports criterion (meets GNG or else TNT) was in place when I first started (Of course, the vast majority of my early creations – which I created due to a now-deprecated SNG – do satisfy GNG, but I wouldn't have been able to prove it back then and likely would have left the site after a few AFC rejections, etc.) And aside from that, I do believe that there are certain topics that are simply encylopedic to have, e.g. the king of a nation example I gave above – and I don't see what benefit deleting those topics would bring. (Whether getting a badge for working with Liz Truss is automatic ANYBIO notability...that should be a different debate) Just my thoughts. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have the time to read everything above, but I would again highlight
    WP:BIOSPECIAL, which states "Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria: If neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article, but the person meets one or more of the additional criteria [then merge the article]". Note that "fails basic" is practically the same as "fails GNG", so e.g. the case of "meets ANYBIO#1 but fails GNG" would fall under this by my reading. That said, I do think there could be some value in identifying whatever is meant by "a satisfying explanation" and whether this should be highlighted more prominently in the page by e.g. directly incorporating it into the preamble of § Additional criteria. -Ljleppan (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Perhaps "a satisfying explanation" could be defined as "common sense" in this context. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cl3phact0 - Correct. KatoKungLee (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you rephrase the sentence in whatever way you would incorporate "common sense" to it? I'm having some trouble following what you mean. Ljleppan (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    WP:BIOSPECIAL
    Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria like this:

    If the subject meets one or more of the additional criteria, but appropriate sources cannot be found, first apply common sense. If there are no reasonable grounds to keep the standalone article, then:

    [NB: I would also reorganise the section putting Failure to explain the subject's notability first; Insufficient sources second; and Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria third.]
    For what it's worth, this entire section seems to lean towards trying to keep the articles in question – of the 10 bullet points, not one mentions deletion. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC proposal

Since the above attempt resulted in more general discussion, I am starting a new subsection to discuss how an RfC should be phrased. Please avoid general discussion or arguments about the merits of either side. Here is my current proposal based on the discussion above:

There is currently a dispute amongst editors as to whether meeting

WP:GNG
.

The question presented is: does meeting ANYBIO #1 conclusively establish that an article should be kept at a deletion discussion, or is the article subject required to meet NBASIC or the GNG.

Note that this RfC does not address what awards or honors qualify under ANYBIO #1.

Pinging @JoelleJay, Ljleppan, Necrothesp, SportingFlyer, BeanieFan11, Horse Eye's Back, and Hydrangeans. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

]
Do you have any issues with the way the RfC is framed? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being new in this corner of the wiki-verse, I'm cautious not to speak out of turn. My view, based on what's already been said in this thread (as well as above in Question re: WP:ANYBIO), is that it seems unlikely that the RfC will achieve consensus as worded. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question re
WP:ENT

I have raised a question about the application of WP:ENT based on

WP:ENT? TLAtlak 14:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

@I'm tla I think whoever wrote that part of the essay is pretty clearly wrong, subscriber counts obviously do not mean that a person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Hell, the keep/delete table on that page shows minimal correlation with subscriber counts past 1M and AfD outcomes.
I'm talking out of my ass a bit, since I don't participate in this field much, but generally coverage as a YouTuber is more likely for those who can be analyzed with a "serious" angle. For example, I know that Korea Grandma, who has been covered in the context of age and gender in South Korea, is notable, and that Dolan Dark, a meme channel with more subscribers, is not. Mach61 17:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mach61 Sorry, let me rephrase. I don't think subscriber count should contribute to notability, however, if the person has indeed made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment, as reported by reliable and independent sources, should it qualify? What I'm saying is would a YouTuber classify alongside actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors, models, and celebrities? TLAtlak 13:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you do that? NYOUTUBE is a
WP:GUIDELINE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Question re
WP:NPOL

According to

WP:NPOL
people who have been elected to national parliaments and state, province or equivalent legislatures are presumed notable but not people in local bodies.

My question is what about the autonomous regions that we have in India? They are parts of a state but these aren't mere districts or municipalities, they are far larger than districts and sometimes cover most of a state. In most countries similar autonomous regions are their own province/state.

Tripura has 8 districts but

LAHDC Kargil covers half and half, covering all of Ladakh, etc. There are other states which are smaller and less populous than some of them. Should the people elected to these bodies also be presumed notable similar to state bodies? MrMkG (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

I remember this came up at
GNG in recent years (for good reason, in my view), so I'd recommend not creating an article unless you have in-depth sourcing, especially given that the NPOL argument is an edge case at best. But the situation at AfD is still unsettled; this one closed as keep while this one (and the one I linked above) closed as delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I would say no right now, only because it's not clear whether members of these bodies meet
WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 09:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:ANYBIO
at AfD

Despite what has been said above, a small number of editors continue to assert at AfD that certain honours confer notability irrespective of a lack of in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Butterfield, with a considered deletion rationale was closed as no consensus where the only two editors arguing explicitly for keep cited nothing other than ANYBIO #1. This article was also created by a SPA and appears as a de facto résumé. It seems ANYBIO now effectively overrides any and all other policies and guidelines regarding sourcing and notability. I'm not sure when and where the community endorsed this interpretation. AusLondonder (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that ANYBIO #3 does override the GNG requirement for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, i.e. a single source is sufficient. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD was about ANYBIO #1. AusLondonder (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp maintains a list at User:Necrothesp/List of AfD discussions for individuals with a CBE or above which lists many instances of where CBE holders have gone through AfD. Though it seems the vast majority are kept, there are a number, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clifford Mayhew Dodkins and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Lewis (Royal Navy officer) (2nd nomination), that have been deleted on the basis that Almost no sources on [them] have been found. Curbon7 (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's definitely a
WP:LOCALCON situation here, embodued in the Necrothesp list cired by Curbon. I didn't start an RfC after the prior discussion because nobody seemed interested, but at this point, the worst that could happen is a no consensus outcome. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think that shows anything resembling local consensus (Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time) at all; that list consists of many dozens of AfDs over the last 19 years. Our notability criteria is constantly evolving, and you are welcome to introduce an RfC whenever (though I would recommend pre-planning at
WP:VPIL). Curbon7 (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I think there's a group of people who have re-interpreted ANYBIO to mean that it creates inherent notability, and who regularly !vote as such at AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly that. Moreover, a handful of editors strenuously insisting some honor confers automatic notability in many AfDs, even when almost all of them are closed as "keep", does not mean this interpretation of ANYBIO reflects global consensus. It only reflects the consensus of the tiny number of people who show up at those particular AfDs. JoelleJay (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the issue is that AfD is supposed to be about good-faith discussion of sourcing, whereas we are instead getting rationales solely based on the assertion that many British honours simply override any and all other policies and guidelines. That's a blatant misrepresentation of what ANYBIO actually says: "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. Many editors above didn't even realise this is an ongoing issue or that anyone is misrepresenting ANYBIO in this way. AusLondonder (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion, as should be obvious by now, is that there are not two worlds, wikiworld and the real world, which seems to be the principle on which some editors operate. There is in fact one world, the real world, and in that world high honours granted by legitimate governments should be seen as proof of notability. Wikipedia simply becomes a laughing stock if it does not consider people notable when the real world does. And high honours are not handed out like sweets. In the UK, anyone who has received a CBE or above (that's generally no more than about two hundred people every year in a country of 67 million people) should be seen as notable. It seems to be some sort of misconception that I am claiming that non-notable people are notable simply because they have a high honour (hence the misciting of
    WP:COMMONSENSE (which I appreciate will, of course, immediately be sneered at as being "merely an essay" by the aforementioned editors): Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    What do you think about the part of ANYBIO that says "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included"? Also if an individual has received a substantial honour, proving they are notable, why are we unable to find the source coverage required, particularly with a living person? AusLondonder (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly? Given that clause makes the existence of ANYBIO utterly pointless I tend to think it's utterly extraneous. What's the point of adding a notability guideline and then saying it's not valid? None at all. Also if an individual has received a substantial honour, proving they are notable, why are we unable to find the source coverage required, particularly with a living person? Because not every notable person is endlessly talked about online! A distinguished career equates to notability, but it doesn't have to be a career that interests those who post on the internet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly? Given that clause makes the existence of ANYBIO utterly pointless I tend to think it's utterly extraneous. I'm glad you have officially confirmed you simply ignore the part that clarifies what ANYBIO is because it doesn't suit your agenda. ANYBIO is designed to indicate someone who is likely notable, for whom we should be able to locate sufficient sourcing - not award notability in and of itself. Because not every notable person is endlessly talked about online! A distinguished career equates to notability, but it doesn't have to be a career that interests those who post on the internet What part of Butterfield's career is particularly distinguished? Serving as "Non-exec Director in the recipe box business Mindful Chef"? it doesn't have to be a career that interests those who post on the internet - you know we're not looking for Facebook posts? We're looking for newspaper coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What part of Butterfield's career is particularly distinguished? That sounds like you think you know more about what makes people's careers distinguished than the committees which award honours. Which I would suggest is just a little bit arrogant. His CBE was awarded "For services to the Advertising Industry". Are you maybe an expert in that industry? I'll quite happily admit that I'm not and defer to those who are to determine who in that industry is deserving of honours. you know we're not looking for Facebook posts? We're looking for newspaper coverage. Most of the many pop culture individuals we have articles on probably have no newspaper coverage whatsoever, so that's simply not true. They might have extensive internet coverage, but not newspaper coverage. The problem, as always, is that if we consider this to be the most important thing then we are in danger of becoming an encyclopaedia of pop culture rather than the all-inclusive encyclopaedia that we aspire to be. We have to acknowledge that some people have highly distinguished careers but barely get a look-in on the internet and not discount them because of it. There are other ways of determing notability and that's what ANYBIO is there for. To catch individuals who are clearly notable by real-world standards but maybe not as high-profile as others. As usual in these debates, I really wonder what the point is. If I was arguing that some nobody who lived down my street was notable then I'd understand the opposition, but why argue that someone with a high honour shouldn't be regarded as notable? What does it actually achieve? We don't have rules on Wikipedia that need to be enforced at all costs. We have guidelines that are meant to be mutable, open to interpretation and have exceptions when not to make an exception is clearly not in the interests of building an encyclopaedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect your position of presuming notability, but I think !voting keep in every discussion without a rationale other than "meets ANYBIO #1" goes beyond presuming. Recently we had an AfD about the headmaster who became a knight and then lost his knighthood (I forget the name), where nobody could uncover any sources about him prior to his knighthood. Additionally, the source about the granting of his knighthood showed that it was a political stunt by Labour to honour headmasters who turned around failing schools. The fact that he became a knight rather than another honour appears to be chance more than anything. At what point would you !vote delete? Do I need to fly to London and tell you that I searched through microfilm of newspapers and turned up nothing about this otherwise unremarkable headmaster who lost his knighthood in scandal? voorts (talk/contributions) 12:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another question: what's the point of an underscored paragraph stub that has no real chance of being adequately sourced after experienced editors couldn't find sources at AfD, rather than deleting the unsourced info and adding the name to a list with redlinks? voorts (talk/contributions) 13:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you questioning the whole validity of stubs then? I have seen many poorly sourced stubs in the past later being adequately sourced, so I don't think this is ever a valid reason for deletion when the stub deals with a topic that is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I think stubs and short articles are fine. I'm questioning the validity of keeping articles based on "ANYBIO #1" when editors have come forward in deletion discussions and said "I made a good faith search, and I couldn't find anything about this person", when said articles consist mainly of un- or poorly-sourced material. If the only verifiable information we could include in a stub is "X person has a CBE", then why not just add that information to a list and redlink it to encourage someone to do more research and turn the red link blue (if they can, which I don't think they can in some cases)? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect your position of presuming notability, but I think !voting keep in every discussion without a rationale other than "meets ANYBIO #1" goes beyond presuming. As I have said, I believe it is convincing proof of notability, so obviously I also think it is a perfectly valid rationale for keeping. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This statement bears repeating: Wikipedia simply becomes a laughing stock if it does not consider people notable when the real world does. In fact, perhaps it should be enshrined in some guideline or policy or other font of useful information. Personally, I would second the inclusion of the concept in our guidance as a fundamental principle (per
    WP:COMMONSENSE). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    If the real world considers someone notable, they'll be covered in the real world in a newspaper or magazine, for example. Inherent notability per ANYBIO is doing the reverse: taking people without real-world notability and awarding them permanent notability on Wikipedia based on selective reading of a guideline. AusLondonder (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you that this is usually true. However, there are exceptions and edge cases that, for what ever reason, don't fit neatly into pigeonholes created by newspapers or magazines. Is this not (at least in part) the reason why we have "additional criteria" in the first place? Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have said, I believe it is convincing proof of notability
    WP:ANYBIO: "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" if you think that section should be removed, start a RfC. Otherwise, you're plainly wrong to assert it's convincing proof of notability. It's like asserting an apple is an orange. It's simply demonstrably false. AusLondonder (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Wading into this - I think two things can be true at once. 1) Yes, real-world notability/significance is important. As Cl3phact0 states, not every subject fits "neatly into pigeonholes created by newspapers or magazines." Common sense should apply, both in terms of types of verifiable sourcing and the level of significance of a topic. 2) Not every notable topic "will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page" (
    WP:N). I think it is ok to evaluate the real world significance and reach the conclusion that the subject need not have a stand-alone page even with GNG-passing sourcing. In the case of people with high governmental honors, this is where a mention in a list article might be a viable option. - Enos733 (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Wikipedia simply becomes a laughing stock if it does not consider people notable when the real world does. (1) People in the real world don't know that the criterion for including an article on Wikipedia falls under the rubric of "notability". (2) "Notability" as used on Wikipedia is not a one-to-one match with the dictionary definition of "notability"; the fact that we have pages and pages of guideline to define the wiki-concept of "notability" is an obvious indication of that. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My guess is that people in the "real world" don't care about us and our criteria for inclusion. They come here looking for information. If they don't find what they are looking for (say, some influencer with millions of followers) they roll their eyes and write us off as a bunch of out of touch fogies (for example). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but if the issue is finding what you're looking for, I don't see why a redirect leading to a list entry with the limited information we have doesn't accomplish that. If your argument is that means we need to expand the definition of notability to be more inclusionist, that's fine by me. I just think if we're gonna go through the trouble to have all these guidelines, we should at least apply them consistently and according to their plain meaning. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's obviously tricky interpreting our own rules and guidelines, even for the most seasoned editors with years of experience. My experience in these matters is still pretty thin, and I haven't participated in so many AfDs, but I have picked-up a lot of helpful information since first stumbling into this corner of the wikiverse (thanks).
    I have also seen AfDs that end in a rather expedited manner without much of what might be considered consensus by a rational (real world) person, and where the article seems a perfectly good candidate for inclusion (at the very least as a stub), yet it still gets axed in a summary manner. This can be enormously frustrating for a good faith editor who just wants to help build this encyclopaedia, not get into some sort of contest.
    One of the wisest comments I've seen (from said earlier discussion above about the same topic) is this: The relationship between GNG and SNGs and the interpretation of SIGCOV requirements represent, in my view, wave crests on [the] stormy sea of non-consensus. And so here we are again. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that interpreting some of our guidelines is tricky, but I think ANYBIO #1 and the prefatory two paragraphs directly above it are very clearly written, and none of those paragraphs say that ANYBIO #1 establishes a common sense rule or conclusive notability or such strong notability that an article will rarely be deleted. See my reply to Phil below as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll also note that if it were up to me, we'd eliminate most of the PAGs on Wikipedia, and operate on a smaller, core ruleset, but that will never happen. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Nobody is forum shopping; asking a question here will not change the AfD outcome that @AusLondonder cited, and AusLondonder didn't participate in that AfD. The question is forward-facing and one that is clearly coming up pretty often (given that this is the second discussion opened here in as many months about this topic). voorts (talk/contributions) 21:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't appreciate the accusation of forum shopping to be honest. The AfD is closed. I think this is an ongoing issue worthy of community discussion. AusLondonder (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of continuing to debate what ANYBIO #1 means, which is just going in circles, let's just get at the root of the issue and have an RfC on the topic of whether ANYBIO #1 should establish that a person is notable rather than that a person is presumed notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But every notability guideline, including
    Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    It seems like a large group of editors disagree with that assessment, given how many people !vote "Keep - meets ANYBIO #1" at AfD. (Also, NACADEMIC establishes conclusive notability of certain academics, such as professors with named chairs.) voorts (talk/contributions) 18:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NACADEMIC needs to be removed or purged as well, though, to better align with GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 19:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's deal with one issue at a time. Reform of
    Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Yes, it's like the cricketers are running the cricket project. SportingFlyer T·C 19:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That large group of editors is part of the consensus that decides things.
    Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Yes. I understand that. Let me break down what I'm trying to say for clarity:
  1. The "Additional criteria" section of NBIO, as you noted, mirrors GNG, in that it says that "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."
  2. ANYBIO #1 is a subsection of "Additional criteria".
  3. Thus, ANYBIO #1 does not establish that a person is notable; rather, it establishes that a person is "likely to be notable".
  4. Notwithstanding 1-3 above, people at AfD seem to believe either that (a) meeting ANYBIO #1 inherently establishes notability or (b) meeting ANYBIO #1 creates such a strong presumption of notability that an article that meets that standard should never be deleted, notwithstanding what the delete !votes say or how extensive the BEFORE search was.
  5. The fact that a large group of editors believe either (a) or (b) is an issue that ought to be resolved, either by clarifying the guideline to either say (a) or (b), or by clarifying that ANYBIO #1 does not say (a) or (b).
  6. We should have an RfC to settle this issue. If the outcome is no consensus, then things continue in the confusing, unpredictable, and inconsistent status quo.
voorts (talk/contributions) 21:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed RfC

I am proposing the following RfC. Please use this subsection to discuss the RfC proposal, not to further debate the merits of the issue.

Recently, there have been several discussions (1, 2, 3) about the meaning of

reliable sources
have been found, while other editors believe that ANYBIO #1 does not. To resolve those conflicts, the following options are being proposed:

  1. Amend ANYBIO #1 to establish that a person who meets that criterion is conclusively or inherently notable, analogous to certain politicians covered by
    WP:NACADEMIC
    .
  2. Clarify that ANYBIO #1, like most other
    SNGs
    ,     only establishes a rebuttable presumption of notability, and that reference to ANYBIO #1 alone—without evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources—is not a valid rationale to keep an article at AfD.
  3. Maintain the status quo.

voorts (talk/contributions) 01:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Clear, although, in my view, it's less likely to generate tangential debate vis-à-vis other SNGs (and likely to get less pushback) if you trim delete the clauses: (1) analogous to certain politicians covered by WP:NPOL and certain academics covered by WP:NACADEMIC; and (2) like most other SNGs – both of which open a world of possibilities for ongoing (and inconclusive) discussion, as well as disagreement with the actual question confusion about the actual proposal (which pertains only to ANYBIO #1). These other SNG clauses may come up in the ensuing (confusing, unpredictable, and inconsistent) discussion anyhow, but they're almost certain to if the RfC mentions them explicitly. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WHYN, I don't think any of the SNGs actually establish notability in the absence of IRS SIGCOV, and so claiming that currently NPOL or NPROF directly confer notability is inaccurate and definitely contentious. Just drop the whole "analogous" clause. JoelleJay (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Pinging @Cl3phact0 as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you delete like most other SNGs too, then there will be no confusion about what you are proposing. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)&oldid=1221100864"