This page is not a forum for general discussion about NNDB. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about NNDB at the Reference desk. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 17 April 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This site has been added to the external links sections of more than 150 articles. It doesn't seem to merit inclusion at WP. Thoughts? — Jeandré, 2006-01-01t12:50z
I agree with — Jeandré,. I have just come across an editor of some scores of biographical articles who has added links to entries in the NNDB. As far as I could see the editors in the NNDB do not state its sources. In fact they encourage people to send in infomation (without sources being needed) which the site owners apparently then consider using in the database. The possible problem I can see with this database is that we dont know anything about the rigour of the checking process which the data goes through. Indeed for all I know, not having done a thorough check, the database may offer little more than can be found in Wikipedia. Judging by the WP article on Alan Turing which is what alerted me, everything on him in NNDB can be found already within the WP article.
So what is the value of such an external link to an NNDB entry? If it were a reference to verifable source data which we could use to support the WP article then I would find it useful, but as it is you have to search elsewhere to find reasonable verification for what I found in NNDB. I think links to NNDB in the external links of wikipedia articles could be removed without loss to WP. -- Op. Deo 09:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
There should be transparency in who a biographical compilation is being created. NNDB lacks this. NNDB is not being updated in most cases that I have examined. The correlation of additions to NNDB from IMDB can't be ignored even if you want to argue more about it. Personally, if there's a NNDB entry that's reasonably accurate because it's been added to NNDB recently, then I'd leave it alone, if it's incorrect, then remove it. It would be be bizarre to find that robots are taking entries and entry content from the Wikipedia and then later returning to the Wikipedia to link from here to their aggregated content. patsw 18:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
A scientist article, George Gabriel Stokes, which I checked in NNDB was a straight copy and paste from 1911 Britannica, so that is OK. Curiously the one bit that was wrong was added by the editor classifying him as English, when the article clearly indicates an Irish birth and home. I also happen to know he had a strong Irish accent. This does not say much for the editorial process! As well as lack of transparency (good point) the site may be unreliable. -- Op. Deo 20:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The 98 out of 100 entries fact is sourced from NNDB itself. If it is 97 out of 100, or 99 out of 100 the article can be corrected. If NNDB's inclusion policies change to no longer reflect an entertainment industry bias, then the article can be changed to reflect that it once had this bias and no longer does.
The information added later about the Wikipedia is irrelevant to the NNDB article , but a "See Also" entry could be added to point to an article that discusses biographical inclusion bias, if any, in the Wikipedia. patsw 18:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not original research to show in the Wikipedia a significant, relevant fact about NNDB which NNDB itself shows on this page. NNDB links to the films of actors, but not to the research areas or discoveries of those physicists entered five months ago.
What would satisfy you, Quatloo, to demonstrate that there is a selection bias in NNDB or Wikipedia or any other DB? Or do you believe that such assertions can't be shown?
On hand an example is required, but if an example is offered it becomes original research A general statement is subject to the charge of generalization. A specific example becomes an annecdote. It seems to me you've rigged the game here. patsw 14:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Should some of NNDb's factual inaccuracies be included? Being someone who is nitpicky about having correct dates of birth, I noticed that NNDB has incorrect listings for
Jennifer Lopez,
Joseph Stalin,
Whoopi Goldberg, and
Paulette Goddard (to only name a few). Not to mention they rarely (if ever) update their pages when corrections are submitted, even when extensive documentation including voting and residence records are found.--
Fallout boy
22:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that alot of NNBD (at least from what I've seen) are inaccurate. They are also lacking sources, which I think is important. I mean COME ON!! If they don't know whether the celebrity is gay or not, do they just assume?? *shrugs* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.104.167 ( talk) 10:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the NNDB site is far from objective. I don't know if its developers claim or intend it to be. For one of many examples, check the entry on Dr. Laura Schlessinger.
Mother Teresa, Ann Coulter, Michael Moore and others have slanted entries as well. Links to Rotten Library pages, often vicious themselves, are provided for many.
keep I have looked at a dozen history articles and they are of good quality--often as good or better than Wiki. The criteria for deletion is not whether a source contains some mistakes. If so we wouldn't have Wiki. Rjensen 04:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Do we really have to have the "source" tag here? If so, then we need one for "1911 EB" as well. This is self-sourced, as is IMDb, and as Wikipedia is not supposed to be. This seems to me to be a placating of a disappointed loser in the deletion debate. NNDB is a most imperfect source, as are all sources. As we have recently seen incessantly, the fact that something is published anywhere, including The New York Times, doesn't necessarily mean that it is true, but just that it has been published in The New York Times, which is still superior to citing its publication in the National Enquirer, Weekly World News, The Sun, or The New York Post. Rlquall 12:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
If this isn't NPOV, then this article is entirely written by people who really consider the NNDB a legitimate newssource. Of course this article is largely written by NNDB employees, for what that's worth... I tried to put in, as politely as I could, the line "Whereas these statistics are based solely on submitted information from anonymous readers, the information is largely unsourced and is often marketed toward those seeking entertaining gossip," and it was deleted with no discussion. The NNDB is a gossip site at best, with little to no sources or efforts thereto, and gaining spikes of popularity earlier this year entirely through writing sassy, shocking, sensationalist articles with no sources. That's not my opinion, that's just what they did. No one there is trying to be objective, so having an article that doesn't mention their most universally accepted attribute--their slant--is just a lame attempt at getting more backlinks from the wikipedia. -- Mrcolj 22:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
and should not be used as a definitive news source in Wikipedia bio pages. NNDB profiles are consistently plagued by one-off judgments about the lives and works of the "notable people" it features, and until the writing quality improves several times over it should not be linked to from Wikipedia. JDG 01:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, these links absolutely should not be used, as they do not meet the standard criteria under Wikipedia:External links (specifically on being an encyclopedic and valuable source, as well as avoiding linkspam/self-promotion, etc.). We can;t just institutionalize a massive googlebomb on this project anytime some idjit wants free publicity for a half-assed site. It's bad enough that Find a Grave is on so many pages, this site is just a Wikipedia Wannabe of no value. DreamGuy 16:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I find the writing quality on NNDB far better than most of the articles on Wikipedia. I agree that it hasn't established itself as credible site to be used as a source (yet), but I fail to see the shabbiness that you speak of. Lcduke
Jimbo also slams NNDB, but only when used in a <ref>. There have been two attempts to delete Template:nndb name, but it was kept. So we are straddled for now. -- 70.231.154.13 20:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems to be an orchestrated effort by some loser to try to turn his or her site into a majpr net presense by spamming the hell out of it to this encyclopedia. It's upper crap, nonencyclopedic, and we don't need link to it when so much of them are jus pointless when there are already IMDB, etc. links. 216.165.158.7 20:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The site is full of POV statements and the "ethnicity" category leaves much to be desired. Instead of Irish, English, Spanish, Lebanese, etc., it just says "White". The same for other races. Very shoddy.
Actually, it rather inconsitently categorizes Spanish people, even if wholly European, as "Hispanic." One curious exception if the Spanish royal family, they are listed as "white." 129.108.27.89 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC).
Why does it have it as a risk factor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.118.88 ( talk) 11:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I assume that, like homophobia, it isn't meant to be taken seriously. Toupée is on there too. -- Mrdie ( talk) 22:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Unlike homophobia and toupee which don't have any harmfulness to that person, yoga can in theory be harmful if you strain yourself too far and injure yourself or break your spine/neck going wild. 08:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmharding ( talk • contribs)
NNDB has some strange issues with designating ethnicities for certain people. It notes Hispanic as a race, when it is not. I know this because when a person is of mixed Hispanic and non-hispanic white, they're listed as "multi-racial". Two examples of this are Freddie Prinze Jr and Christina Aguilera. But then when Cameron Diaz is listed, who is likewise half Hispanic, half non-hispanic white, she is listed as just being Hispanic. Another thing that is really stupid is that the site lists people from the middle east as being "Middle Eastern". What the heck is that? There is no race or ethnicity that says one is Middle Eastern. I mean this just reads like common man talk (Hispanic a race, this guys is Middle Eastern), not a well researched database. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.232.29.249 ( talk) 15:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, aside from the fact that those standards do not reflect reallity, they apply their own standards unconsistently. I will give you some examples, all of them people born in Spain and with Spanish parents (one or both of them): Troquemada, Velázquez, Salvador Dalí, Joan Miró, the Prince of Asturias, the king, Ferdinand and Isabella Catholic Kings &c. are classified as "white". Antoni Gaudí, Goyta, Zurbarán, Penelope Cruz, Elsa Pataki (by the way her mother is Romanian), José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Fernando Alonso, &C., are classified as "Hispanic". That's not all. Ritha Hayworth, née Margarita Cansino, whose father was an Spanish dancer with whom she made her first performances is... "white". Martin Sheen, AKA Ramón Gerard Antonio Estevez, son of a Spanish inmigrant is... "white". Cameron Días, whose father was Cuban is "white", &c.. it is all ridiculous. The son of a "white" american and a "white" Spaniard, is mixed race? The son of an Italian and a Spaniard? Portuguesse/German/French/... and Spaniard? All of them are mixed race... I can believe such a nonsense is a "standard". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.6.242 ( talk) 19:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
That almost suggests they think Spain "used to be a white country" but along the way ceased to be so... 129.108.27.89 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC).
Is NNDB a reliable source for a BLP?-- Nowa ( talk) 23:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that certain articles have sections that cite NNDB as a source. Should we remove claims that only cite NNDB as a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandPhilosophe ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking to nominate this article for deletion, 13 years after its first such nomination, but I seem to be getting way too much template when I try to add it as a second nomination. Anyone like to jump in? (I noticed the page after a Roy Cohn edit by Ronz ( talk · contribs)... perhaps you would look into it?) Lindenfall ( talk) 20:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
This page is not a forum for general discussion about NNDB. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about NNDB at the Reference desk. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 17 April 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This site has been added to the external links sections of more than 150 articles. It doesn't seem to merit inclusion at WP. Thoughts? — Jeandré, 2006-01-01t12:50z
I agree with — Jeandré,. I have just come across an editor of some scores of biographical articles who has added links to entries in the NNDB. As far as I could see the editors in the NNDB do not state its sources. In fact they encourage people to send in infomation (without sources being needed) which the site owners apparently then consider using in the database. The possible problem I can see with this database is that we dont know anything about the rigour of the checking process which the data goes through. Indeed for all I know, not having done a thorough check, the database may offer little more than can be found in Wikipedia. Judging by the WP article on Alan Turing which is what alerted me, everything on him in NNDB can be found already within the WP article.
So what is the value of such an external link to an NNDB entry? If it were a reference to verifable source data which we could use to support the WP article then I would find it useful, but as it is you have to search elsewhere to find reasonable verification for what I found in NNDB. I think links to NNDB in the external links of wikipedia articles could be removed without loss to WP. -- Op. Deo 09:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
There should be transparency in who a biographical compilation is being created. NNDB lacks this. NNDB is not being updated in most cases that I have examined. The correlation of additions to NNDB from IMDB can't be ignored even if you want to argue more about it. Personally, if there's a NNDB entry that's reasonably accurate because it's been added to NNDB recently, then I'd leave it alone, if it's incorrect, then remove it. It would be be bizarre to find that robots are taking entries and entry content from the Wikipedia and then later returning to the Wikipedia to link from here to their aggregated content. patsw 18:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
A scientist article, George Gabriel Stokes, which I checked in NNDB was a straight copy and paste from 1911 Britannica, so that is OK. Curiously the one bit that was wrong was added by the editor classifying him as English, when the article clearly indicates an Irish birth and home. I also happen to know he had a strong Irish accent. This does not say much for the editorial process! As well as lack of transparency (good point) the site may be unreliable. -- Op. Deo 20:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The 98 out of 100 entries fact is sourced from NNDB itself. If it is 97 out of 100, or 99 out of 100 the article can be corrected. If NNDB's inclusion policies change to no longer reflect an entertainment industry bias, then the article can be changed to reflect that it once had this bias and no longer does.
The information added later about the Wikipedia is irrelevant to the NNDB article , but a "See Also" entry could be added to point to an article that discusses biographical inclusion bias, if any, in the Wikipedia. patsw 18:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not original research to show in the Wikipedia a significant, relevant fact about NNDB which NNDB itself shows on this page. NNDB links to the films of actors, but not to the research areas or discoveries of those physicists entered five months ago.
What would satisfy you, Quatloo, to demonstrate that there is a selection bias in NNDB or Wikipedia or any other DB? Or do you believe that such assertions can't be shown?
On hand an example is required, but if an example is offered it becomes original research A general statement is subject to the charge of generalization. A specific example becomes an annecdote. It seems to me you've rigged the game here. patsw 14:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Should some of NNDb's factual inaccuracies be included? Being someone who is nitpicky about having correct dates of birth, I noticed that NNDB has incorrect listings for
Jennifer Lopez,
Joseph Stalin,
Whoopi Goldberg, and
Paulette Goddard (to only name a few). Not to mention they rarely (if ever) update their pages when corrections are submitted, even when extensive documentation including voting and residence records are found.--
Fallout boy
22:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that alot of NNBD (at least from what I've seen) are inaccurate. They are also lacking sources, which I think is important. I mean COME ON!! If they don't know whether the celebrity is gay or not, do they just assume?? *shrugs* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.104.167 ( talk) 10:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the NNDB site is far from objective. I don't know if its developers claim or intend it to be. For one of many examples, check the entry on Dr. Laura Schlessinger.
Mother Teresa, Ann Coulter, Michael Moore and others have slanted entries as well. Links to Rotten Library pages, often vicious themselves, are provided for many.
keep I have looked at a dozen history articles and they are of good quality--often as good or better than Wiki. The criteria for deletion is not whether a source contains some mistakes. If so we wouldn't have Wiki. Rjensen 04:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Do we really have to have the "source" tag here? If so, then we need one for "1911 EB" as well. This is self-sourced, as is IMDb, and as Wikipedia is not supposed to be. This seems to me to be a placating of a disappointed loser in the deletion debate. NNDB is a most imperfect source, as are all sources. As we have recently seen incessantly, the fact that something is published anywhere, including The New York Times, doesn't necessarily mean that it is true, but just that it has been published in The New York Times, which is still superior to citing its publication in the National Enquirer, Weekly World News, The Sun, or The New York Post. Rlquall 12:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
If this isn't NPOV, then this article is entirely written by people who really consider the NNDB a legitimate newssource. Of course this article is largely written by NNDB employees, for what that's worth... I tried to put in, as politely as I could, the line "Whereas these statistics are based solely on submitted information from anonymous readers, the information is largely unsourced and is often marketed toward those seeking entertaining gossip," and it was deleted with no discussion. The NNDB is a gossip site at best, with little to no sources or efforts thereto, and gaining spikes of popularity earlier this year entirely through writing sassy, shocking, sensationalist articles with no sources. That's not my opinion, that's just what they did. No one there is trying to be objective, so having an article that doesn't mention their most universally accepted attribute--their slant--is just a lame attempt at getting more backlinks from the wikipedia. -- Mrcolj 22:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
and should not be used as a definitive news source in Wikipedia bio pages. NNDB profiles are consistently plagued by one-off judgments about the lives and works of the "notable people" it features, and until the writing quality improves several times over it should not be linked to from Wikipedia. JDG 01:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, these links absolutely should not be used, as they do not meet the standard criteria under Wikipedia:External links (specifically on being an encyclopedic and valuable source, as well as avoiding linkspam/self-promotion, etc.). We can;t just institutionalize a massive googlebomb on this project anytime some idjit wants free publicity for a half-assed site. It's bad enough that Find a Grave is on so many pages, this site is just a Wikipedia Wannabe of no value. DreamGuy 16:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I find the writing quality on NNDB far better than most of the articles on Wikipedia. I agree that it hasn't established itself as credible site to be used as a source (yet), but I fail to see the shabbiness that you speak of. Lcduke
Jimbo also slams NNDB, but only when used in a <ref>. There have been two attempts to delete Template:nndb name, but it was kept. So we are straddled for now. -- 70.231.154.13 20:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems to be an orchestrated effort by some loser to try to turn his or her site into a majpr net presense by spamming the hell out of it to this encyclopedia. It's upper crap, nonencyclopedic, and we don't need link to it when so much of them are jus pointless when there are already IMDB, etc. links. 216.165.158.7 20:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The site is full of POV statements and the "ethnicity" category leaves much to be desired. Instead of Irish, English, Spanish, Lebanese, etc., it just says "White". The same for other races. Very shoddy.
Actually, it rather inconsitently categorizes Spanish people, even if wholly European, as "Hispanic." One curious exception if the Spanish royal family, they are listed as "white." 129.108.27.89 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC).
Why does it have it as a risk factor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.118.88 ( talk) 11:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I assume that, like homophobia, it isn't meant to be taken seriously. Toupée is on there too. -- Mrdie ( talk) 22:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Unlike homophobia and toupee which don't have any harmfulness to that person, yoga can in theory be harmful if you strain yourself too far and injure yourself or break your spine/neck going wild. 08:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmharding ( talk • contribs)
NNDB has some strange issues with designating ethnicities for certain people. It notes Hispanic as a race, when it is not. I know this because when a person is of mixed Hispanic and non-hispanic white, they're listed as "multi-racial". Two examples of this are Freddie Prinze Jr and Christina Aguilera. But then when Cameron Diaz is listed, who is likewise half Hispanic, half non-hispanic white, she is listed as just being Hispanic. Another thing that is really stupid is that the site lists people from the middle east as being "Middle Eastern". What the heck is that? There is no race or ethnicity that says one is Middle Eastern. I mean this just reads like common man talk (Hispanic a race, this guys is Middle Eastern), not a well researched database. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.232.29.249 ( talk) 15:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, aside from the fact that those standards do not reflect reallity, they apply their own standards unconsistently. I will give you some examples, all of them people born in Spain and with Spanish parents (one or both of them): Troquemada, Velázquez, Salvador Dalí, Joan Miró, the Prince of Asturias, the king, Ferdinand and Isabella Catholic Kings &c. are classified as "white". Antoni Gaudí, Goyta, Zurbarán, Penelope Cruz, Elsa Pataki (by the way her mother is Romanian), José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Fernando Alonso, &C., are classified as "Hispanic". That's not all. Ritha Hayworth, née Margarita Cansino, whose father was an Spanish dancer with whom she made her first performances is... "white". Martin Sheen, AKA Ramón Gerard Antonio Estevez, son of a Spanish inmigrant is... "white". Cameron Días, whose father was Cuban is "white", &c.. it is all ridiculous. The son of a "white" american and a "white" Spaniard, is mixed race? The son of an Italian and a Spaniard? Portuguesse/German/French/... and Spaniard? All of them are mixed race... I can believe such a nonsense is a "standard". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.6.242 ( talk) 19:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
That almost suggests they think Spain "used to be a white country" but along the way ceased to be so... 129.108.27.89 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC).
Is NNDB a reliable source for a BLP?-- Nowa ( talk) 23:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that certain articles have sections that cite NNDB as a source. Should we remove claims that only cite NNDB as a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandPhilosophe ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking to nominate this article for deletion, 13 years after its first such nomination, but I seem to be getting way too much template when I try to add it as a second nomination. Anyone like to jump in? (I noticed the page after a Roy Cohn edit by Ronz ( talk · contribs)... perhaps you would look into it?) Lindenfall ( talk) 20:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)