This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Notability (people) page. |
|
![]() | This page has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
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 Tripura TAADC covers 3/4ths of the state; districts and TAADC borders not matching. Meghalaya has 12 districts and is fully covered by 3 autonomous councils: Garo Hills ADC, Khasi Hills ADC and Jaintia Hills ADC composed of 5, 5 and 2 districts respectively. The LAHDC Leh and 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)
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)
Almost no sources on [them] have been found. Curbon7 ( talk) 20:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 internetWhat 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)
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)
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)
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)
As I have said, I believe it is convincing proof of notabilityWP: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)
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)
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)
Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria.If good-faith satisfactory searches to establish N do not reveal sufficient sourcing, no amount of presumptive notability afforded by ANYBIO should be able to overcome a delete or ATD rationale barring strong IAR support. JoelleJay ( talk) 01:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
[a] topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG). In my view, this either/or formulation (and the voluminous material to which it ultimately refers) creates many paths that lead to "N".
confusing, unpredictable, and inconsistentmanner, though mostly without rancour or malice). -- Cl3phact0 ( talk) 10:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
two types of presumptions: rebuttable presumptions and irrebuttable (or conclusive) presumptions.
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 [...], and ANYBIO 3 applies to people with an entry in a national biographical dictionary; these both are quite closely tied to the sources themselves. NPOL exists for a variety of reasons, but to simplify one reason, such figures tend to literally always have coverage even if it is not easily accessible on Google; thus as long as it surpasses WP:NOPAGE, it is considered sufficient. Curbon7 ( talk) 22:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
SNGs don't establish notability– Then why does the lead of WP:Notability state that notability comes from meeting
either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 01:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
[a] topic is presumed to merit an article. Then, when you look at the SNGs, each of which (with, in my view, limited exceptions, such as NPOL and NACADEMIC) make pretty clear that they don't establish inherent notability. Rather, pretty much every SNG states that they merely describe circumstances in which a topic is likely to be notable. For example, NATHLETE states that winning a certain competition makes an athlete likely to be notable – that is, that there is likely to be significant coverage about that athlete – not that an athlete who wins a certain competition is per se notable (although, as the guideline points out, it would be hard to find an athlete meeting those criteria that don't have some form of SIGCOV). voorts ( talk/ contributions) 02:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
[SNGs] weren't really written with the intent of being used as a cudgel to keep articles at AfD discussions, but that is how they functioned and have functioned for a decade-and-a-half-plus. As a sports editor, I can tell you that NATHLETE is completely worthless at this point (it used to be of value prior to March 2022, but not anymore since the changes you mention) – very few really use it, and those who do so to try to demonstrate notability are chastised (even when its topics where no one has looked at any relevant sources). I don't think ANYBIO should be the same – there must be ways other than GNG for notability when challenged at AFD, as otherwise very important figures who are notable (and even do meet GNG) are deleted because a few users who decide to participate at AFD cannot find the sigcov. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 02:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
as otherwise very important figures who are notable (and even do meet GNG) are deletedThat's probably the strongest argument I've seen so far for the need to have some SNGs that override the need for SIGCOV at AfD, but that's just not how our notability guidelines are currently written. What harm is there in having an RfC to determine if that position actually has consensus in the community? voorts ( talk/ contributions) 02:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
presumed to merit an articleif:
I get that some editors categorically reject the implication of this either/or fork – which is written right at the top of N, so rather difficult to simply ignore. Unless this wording changes (and without more robust agreement about the meaning of " presumed"), it seems to me that debate regarding many of these other matters will be ongoing. -- Cl3phact0 ( talk) 08:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)
well-known and significant award or honour( MBE, OBE, CBE, DBE/KBE, GBE, other)? -- Cl3phact0 ( talk) 12:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Should someone honored as "the best [ ]" in a country of 13,000 people really be afforded automatic notability even when IRS SIGCOV demonstrably does not exist?– I assume you have traveled to Tuvalu and Nauru and looked at all their offline historical archives, then? As otherwise you can assuredly not prove that someone named the most important person in a nation is demonstratably lacking coverage; as assuming that a nation's media would not cover their most impactful figure is patently absurd. Common sense indicates that someone receiving a very high honor will be covered somewhere; the fact that five-or-so editors who happen to do a quick Google search at an AFD can't find it does not prove that it does not exist. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 14:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
[t]he principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions.( WP:5P5) -- Cl3phact0 ( talk) 06:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
equitable treatment to all members of a class; I am standing behind the P&Gs that allow for verifiable information to be presented in an encyclopaedic way. If what we wanted was a set of summaries based on quantitiative thresholds of what has been published in relation to various article titles, LLMs could implement those kinds of decision rules better than humans at this point. An encyclopaedia for humans, by humans will make judgements based on well-informed semantics in relation to the real world. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy...
* We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources....
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) 18:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
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 WP:ANYBIO #1 with regard to its role at Articles for Deletion. Some editors believe that meeting ANYBIO #1 is sufficient to keep an article at AfD, notwithstanding whether significant coverage in reliable sources have been found, while other editors believe that ANYBIO #1 does not. To resolve those conflicts, the following options are being proposed:
Striking this proposal.
See below. 02:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
# Amend ANYBIO #1 to establish that a person who meets that criterion is conclusively or inherently notable, analogous to certain politicians covered by
WP:NPOL and certain academics covered by
WP:NACADEMIC.
voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
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
like most other SNGstoo, then there will be no confusion about what you are proposing. -- Cl3phact0 ( talk) 21:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
occasional exceptions may applyto guidelines (which WP:N is), and consensus could potentially develop to do so given that we're locked in a stalemate in these discussions. Obviously the RfC would be widely advertised, and hopefully consensus will develop one way or the other. If this ends in option 3 or a no consensus close in the end, at least we'll know where the community stands. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
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?There's clearly a group of people that would like those paragraphs to not apply to ANYBIO #1, and the point of the RfC is to try to establish whether the community agrees with that position. We can't exclude that option just because we might disagree with it. As an aside, at this point, I could be persuaded with a strong enough argument for option 1, although I haven't seen one yet. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
there is clear agreement here that ANYBIO #1 is not meant to confer inherent notability and instead presumed notability should be taken
− | + | Notwithstanding the preceding guidance, a person who has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times, is conclusively or inherently notable. |
− | + | A person who has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times, is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable sources, but is not inherently notable. Reference to ANYBIO #1 alone, without more, is not a valid rationale for keeping an article at AfD. |
Notwithstanding the preceding guidance); while many of our PAGs conflict with each other, they should be consistent within themselves. Curbon7 ( talk) 17:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
While this is a nice honor, so many of its hundreds of annual recipients are minor local officials, mid-level bureaucrats, common businesspeople, or other generic community leaders.You see, you're not talking about the CBE here. You're talking about all grades of the Order of the British Empire. Only about 200 CBEs and higher honours are awarded every year, and not usually to "minor local officials, mid-level bureaucrats, common businesspeople, or other generic community leaders". That would be OBEs and MBEs. Nobody has claimed they're covered by ANYBIO.
...I'll add that many of the recipients are also politically connected and getting the award because they at one point did a favor for the PM.I think if you actually analyse the people who get CBEs and higher honours you'll see that this is partisan rubbish that only applies to a handful of people. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
The following are presumed to be notable, which appears in other guidelines). Curbon7 ( talk) 17:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
− | + | A person who has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times, is presumed to merit an article, even if that person does not satisfy the basic criteria, or the general notability guideline. |
− | + | A person who has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times, is likely to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable sources, but is not inherently notable. |
meeting one or more [of these criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included, as no topic is inherently notable or deserving of a standalone article.JoelleJay ( talk) 01:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists, and goes on to say that the subject needs to either have
significant independent coverage or recognition, which IMO implies that ANYBIO is fine for notability. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 01:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally., WP:NEXIST clarifies that
Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources.voorts ( talk/ contributions) 02:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
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.voorts ( talk/ contributions) 23:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
under option 2, editors would need to show SIGCOV in RSes, as they must do for every other topic on Wikipedia– the thing is, N states that a topic is presumed notable for receiving sigcov, just as a topic is presumed notable for meeting SNGs:
presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG). That statement implies that there is no difference between meeting GNG and meeting SNG – that subjects passing one should receive the same treatment as a subject passing the other, which contradicts your statement that
SNGs [do not] establish notability– something that they actually have been used to establish notability for over a decade (and some such as NPROF still do without question). If the presumption of notability no longer applies when a subject is brought to AFD, then that is not a presumption at all! A notability criterion is completely and utterly worthless if it cannot be used to demonstrate notability. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 01:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
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.
Astronomical objects are notable if they have received substantial attention and coverage in reliable sources, usually the scientific literature and/or popular media.;
Whether an object meets these criteria must be established through independent reliable sources, following WP:NRV.
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:
Note that regardless of what notability criterion is being claimed, the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials.
A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level.
Wikipedia bases its decision about whether web content is notable enough
to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the web
content has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the web content, its authors, or its owners.
That's not something one can ignore for certain topic areas– yes, for certain topic areas. However, we need to use common sense. There are some subjects where it is simply impossible to find significant coverage, even though we know it is virtually 100% likely to exist, because of the sources being outrageously difficult to find (my hypothetical Joe Uzbekistan). We should not be tightly enforcing GNG requirements on those types of subjects. In all, it should come down to: "does having this improve the encyclopedia?" and "is this encyclopedic?" I'll also disagree that there's "no way to make a useful standalone article" without sigcov – one can absolutely write decent articles without "sigcov", and I've arguably done so several times. And even if something is a stub, that is not the end of the world – something is better for the reader, ultimately, than nothing, in my opinion (and in the opinions of many non-Wikipedians I've talked to). BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I would ask why someone would create an article for something without access to sufficient sources.– Because until recently, doing a short stub article on someone appearing notable was completely fine and encouraged. I agree with one of Jfire's points below:
When SNG criteria such as ANYBIO are applicable, the burden of proof goes beyond WP:BEFORE, in my view. If the sources are likely to be offline, than an offline search needs to be demonstrated, in the archives that are most likely to contain relevant sources. If they are most likely not in English, than someone who is fluent in the relevant language needs to be involved. The search should extend to specialty publications in the relevant subject area. Viewed in this light, few if any of the AfDs cited above are convincing to me as demonstrations of problems with ANYBIO #1's presumption of notability, because it is rare to see editors rebutting the presumption of notability by describing a failed search for sources of even BEFORE-level rigor, let alone the more thorough search that I think should be required.This change (option #2), from my view, would likely be similar to NSPORT, where people such as Kimba and Schwegler with major accomplishments are deleted even though no search whatsoever was done in relevant archives, which is why I oppose it. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 17:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
What we definitely do not want to happen is what was happening before the last major NSPORT revision ... This enabled an editor to mass create thousands of articles on cricketers and assc. soccer players based on pulling from a database and then populating a two-three sentence paragraph about them.– we've blocked that editor, though, and as far as I'm aware we don't have anyone doing that anymore (whether NSPORT, ANYBIO, etc.) BeanieFan11 ( talk) 15:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I would ask why someone would create an article for something without access to sufficient sources.- There's a lot of reasons. People disagree on whether the sources are sufficient enough. Some people have may have had or have seen the sources but don't currently have them (Foreign sources, sources pre-internet, anything that aired on TV and radio). Some may assume more exist. Some may not think it's a problem at all considering there's tens of thousands of articles here with limited sources. Some may also think that this is an an encyclopedia and encyclopedia's generally want information on everything within reason. Information also generally leads to more information because other people are usually mentioned in articles and if no information exists on that person, people like myself might go to find it. It's definitely an important part of topic building. KatoKungLee ( talk) 20:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
That would be when someone [...] knows of the existence of sufficient sourcesand
That doesn't apply to situations where they don't have access to sourcesare contradictions. To say that it is
disruptive editingto create an article, for example, on a subject who has a full biographical book about them that is exclusively WP:OFFLINE or they have an entry in a national biographical dictionary that is paywalled (like the Oxford DNB) simply because the editor does not have access to those sources (assuming there are sufficient sources to surpass WP:NOPAGE) is nonsensical. Curbon7 ( talk) 00:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
why someone would create an article for something without access to sufficient sources, so I rebutted (correctly) about paywalled/offline sources that firmly establish notability. Curbon7 ( talk) 21:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
How do you know that the entry in the encyclopedia is for the right figure if you have no idea what it saysthis is the entire point of WP:Authority control. This is how databases distinguish between, for example, Winston Churchill ( [1]) and Winston Churchill ( [2]). And as for
How do you know that the book is reliable and contains significant coverage if you haven't read it, if the book is titled " John Example: A Life" written by eminent historian X, then it is obviously going to contain significant coverage. Curbon7 ( talk) 00:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
presumed" in SNGs (or phrases like "presumption of notability") should be interpreted primarily (though not necessarily exclusively) as a statement about the burden of proof required to demonstrate either that GNG-level coverage exists, or does not exist. Where no SNG criteria that confer a presumption of notability are applicable, the burden lies on editors arguing that a subject is notable to demonstrate that such sources exist. Where SNG criteria such as ANYBIO are applicable, the presumption is that the subject is notable, meaning that the burden is on editors arguing otherwise to demonstrate that thorough searches in the relevant places have failed to locate suitable sources.
person who has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times, is presumed to merit an article, even if that person does not satisfy the basic criteria, or the general notability guideline.– That's how SNGs work – presumed notable based on accomplishments; the presumption of notability offered by ANYBIO1 is not based on coverage, so changing it to that option would do nothing. I'll repeat my comment about option #2 that you did not reply to:
your second (or third?) proposed option #2 makes even less sense: a person with a significant honor is likely (not even presumed!) to be notable ... if sigcov is demonstrated??? Whereas someone who does not receive a significant honor is presumed notable (higher level) just for having sigcov? That implies that winning a very high honor makes one less notable, which is completely farcical.BeanieFan11 ( talk) 21:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi guys, would anyone like to help me expand this article? On the it.wiki page there are 203 references ( https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabrizio_De_Andr%C3%A9), while on this page there are only 39; this difference is absurd. JacktheBrown ( talk) 15:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, all. This is to gauge the community's views about a specific criterion regarding the notability of artists, and specifically of artists who exhibit in galleries, e.g. painters, sculptors, and others. The guideline on creative professionals states that "a person is notable if...the person's work (or works) has...4.(b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition." I recommend that we consider the elimination of that criterion, because the field is full of vanity exhibitions, or, in other words, of exhibitions in galleries whereby the artist undertakes to pay all expenses and the gallery's fee. (A practice similar to vanity publications.) This is a significant, if under-appreciated by the wider public, problem for art appreciation. And the significant percentage of vanity galleries should prompt us to eliminate the criterion for an exhibition in a gallery on its own. It only demands one exhibition but asking for more than one will not ameliorate the noise. Here's a small litany of relevant reports:
It is asking too much of editors who examine the notability of a painter or a sculptor to peruse the history of each gallery in order to ascertain whether it is a legitimate, non-scamster, non-vanity gallery. Opinions? - The Gnome ( talk) 19:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting, etc. Notwithstanding, it provides useful information that I would imagine helps guide editors (and reduces the overall number of disputes about reliable sources). -- Cl3phact0 ( talk) 09:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail.
Does quantity ever equal quality? I've wondered this a lot. While "John Smith at Big Company said..." obviously isn't enough, does it make a difference is a publication turns to "John Smith CEO of Big Company" for their expertise on a range of topics related to the subsector in which Big Company operates? Does the fact that a range of reliable sources turn to John Smith as an authority about a topic count, if they never actually write about John Smith (except in the by-line when once again, an op-ed by John Smith gets published)?
In this case, John Smith feels notable, but doesn't appear to meet the criteria. (Assume there's adequate biographical information about them in non-independent reliable sources.) Is there any way to square this circle? Guettarda ( talk) 19:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Inspired by Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eashvar_Karthic: a director (producer... writer...) of any film (book... newspaper column...) that meets the requirements for an article (ref WP:NFILM) — no matter how marginal the sourcing justifying its notability — automatically passes NCREATIVE because the SNG header states the absolute "is notable" rather than "is presumed notable", and NCREATIVE#3 states "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)".
Absolute notability for NCREATIVE #1, #2 and #4 is clear. Where there is significant independent and reliable coverage of creator(s) as individuals or as a creative unit then they meet WP:NBASIC regardless of whether they meet anything else in this SNG. Where there are multiple works that would meet the notability bar, then even if there isn't sufficient coverage of the individual there's a clear benefit to having an article for interlinking purposes (eg: authors without independent biographical sources available but with multiple bluelinked works or a weight of reviews in aggregate that can be included in a single article).
Where there isn't such coverage, however, and there's a single work then I don't believe that the bar for notability of the individual has necessarily been reached (yes, WP:NOPAGE can be invoked to redirect, analogous to BLP1E/ BIO1E, but redirection in the absence of independent biographical sources is clearer without the individual being pre-judged as notable). I thus propose that "work or collective" is deleted from "significant or well-known body of work" making it "significant or well-known body of work" (that it's collective is implicit). ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 07:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Notability (people) page. |
|
![]() | This page has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
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 Tripura TAADC covers 3/4ths of the state; districts and TAADC borders not matching. Meghalaya has 12 districts and is fully covered by 3 autonomous councils: Garo Hills ADC, Khasi Hills ADC and Jaintia Hills ADC composed of 5, 5 and 2 districts respectively. The LAHDC Leh and 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)
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)
Almost no sources on [them] have been found. Curbon7 ( talk) 20:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 internetWhat 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)
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)
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)
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)
As I have said, I believe it is convincing proof of notabilityWP: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)
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)
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)
Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria.If good-faith satisfactory searches to establish N do not reveal sufficient sourcing, no amount of presumptive notability afforded by ANYBIO should be able to overcome a delete or ATD rationale barring strong IAR support. JoelleJay ( talk) 01:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
[a] topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG). In my view, this either/or formulation (and the voluminous material to which it ultimately refers) creates many paths that lead to "N".
confusing, unpredictable, and inconsistentmanner, though mostly without rancour or malice). -- Cl3phact0 ( talk) 10:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
two types of presumptions: rebuttable presumptions and irrebuttable (or conclusive) presumptions.
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 [...], and ANYBIO 3 applies to people with an entry in a national biographical dictionary; these both are quite closely tied to the sources themselves. NPOL exists for a variety of reasons, but to simplify one reason, such figures tend to literally always have coverage even if it is not easily accessible on Google; thus as long as it surpasses WP:NOPAGE, it is considered sufficient. Curbon7 ( talk) 22:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
SNGs don't establish notability– Then why does the lead of WP:Notability state that notability comes from meeting
either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 01:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
[a] topic is presumed to merit an article. Then, when you look at the SNGs, each of which (with, in my view, limited exceptions, such as NPOL and NACADEMIC) make pretty clear that they don't establish inherent notability. Rather, pretty much every SNG states that they merely describe circumstances in which a topic is likely to be notable. For example, NATHLETE states that winning a certain competition makes an athlete likely to be notable – that is, that there is likely to be significant coverage about that athlete – not that an athlete who wins a certain competition is per se notable (although, as the guideline points out, it would be hard to find an athlete meeting those criteria that don't have some form of SIGCOV). voorts ( talk/ contributions) 02:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
[SNGs] weren't really written with the intent of being used as a cudgel to keep articles at AfD discussions, but that is how they functioned and have functioned for a decade-and-a-half-plus. As a sports editor, I can tell you that NATHLETE is completely worthless at this point (it used to be of value prior to March 2022, but not anymore since the changes you mention) – very few really use it, and those who do so to try to demonstrate notability are chastised (even when its topics where no one has looked at any relevant sources). I don't think ANYBIO should be the same – there must be ways other than GNG for notability when challenged at AFD, as otherwise very important figures who are notable (and even do meet GNG) are deleted because a few users who decide to participate at AFD cannot find the sigcov. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 02:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
as otherwise very important figures who are notable (and even do meet GNG) are deletedThat's probably the strongest argument I've seen so far for the need to have some SNGs that override the need for SIGCOV at AfD, but that's just not how our notability guidelines are currently written. What harm is there in having an RfC to determine if that position actually has consensus in the community? voorts ( talk/ contributions) 02:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
presumed to merit an articleif:
I get that some editors categorically reject the implication of this either/or fork – which is written right at the top of N, so rather difficult to simply ignore. Unless this wording changes (and without more robust agreement about the meaning of " presumed"), it seems to me that debate regarding many of these other matters will be ongoing. -- Cl3phact0 ( talk) 08:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)
well-known and significant award or honour( MBE, OBE, CBE, DBE/KBE, GBE, other)? -- Cl3phact0 ( talk) 12:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Should someone honored as "the best [ ]" in a country of 13,000 people really be afforded automatic notability even when IRS SIGCOV demonstrably does not exist?– I assume you have traveled to Tuvalu and Nauru and looked at all their offline historical archives, then? As otherwise you can assuredly not prove that someone named the most important person in a nation is demonstratably lacking coverage; as assuming that a nation's media would not cover their most impactful figure is patently absurd. Common sense indicates that someone receiving a very high honor will be covered somewhere; the fact that five-or-so editors who happen to do a quick Google search at an AFD can't find it does not prove that it does not exist. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 14:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
[t]he principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions.( WP:5P5) -- Cl3phact0 ( talk) 06:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
equitable treatment to all members of a class; I am standing behind the P&Gs that allow for verifiable information to be presented in an encyclopaedic way. If what we wanted was a set of summaries based on quantitiative thresholds of what has been published in relation to various article titles, LLMs could implement those kinds of decision rules better than humans at this point. An encyclopaedia for humans, by humans will make judgements based on well-informed semantics in relation to the real world. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy...
* We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources....
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) 18:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
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 WP:ANYBIO #1 with regard to its role at Articles for Deletion. Some editors believe that meeting ANYBIO #1 is sufficient to keep an article at AfD, notwithstanding whether significant coverage in reliable sources have been found, while other editors believe that ANYBIO #1 does not. To resolve those conflicts, the following options are being proposed:
Striking this proposal.
See below. 02:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
# Amend ANYBIO #1 to establish that a person who meets that criterion is conclusively or inherently notable, analogous to certain politicians covered by
WP:NPOL and certain academics covered by
WP:NACADEMIC.
voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
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
like most other SNGstoo, then there will be no confusion about what you are proposing. -- Cl3phact0 ( talk) 21:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
occasional exceptions may applyto guidelines (which WP:N is), and consensus could potentially develop to do so given that we're locked in a stalemate in these discussions. Obviously the RfC would be widely advertised, and hopefully consensus will develop one way or the other. If this ends in option 3 or a no consensus close in the end, at least we'll know where the community stands. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
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?There's clearly a group of people that would like those paragraphs to not apply to ANYBIO #1, and the point of the RfC is to try to establish whether the community agrees with that position. We can't exclude that option just because we might disagree with it. As an aside, at this point, I could be persuaded with a strong enough argument for option 1, although I haven't seen one yet. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
there is clear agreement here that ANYBIO #1 is not meant to confer inherent notability and instead presumed notability should be taken
− | + | Notwithstanding the preceding guidance, a person who has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times, is conclusively or inherently notable. |
− | + | A person who has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times, is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable sources, but is not inherently notable. Reference to ANYBIO #1 alone, without more, is not a valid rationale for keeping an article at AfD. |
Notwithstanding the preceding guidance); while many of our PAGs conflict with each other, they should be consistent within themselves. Curbon7 ( talk) 17:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
While this is a nice honor, so many of its hundreds of annual recipients are minor local officials, mid-level bureaucrats, common businesspeople, or other generic community leaders.You see, you're not talking about the CBE here. You're talking about all grades of the Order of the British Empire. Only about 200 CBEs and higher honours are awarded every year, and not usually to "minor local officials, mid-level bureaucrats, common businesspeople, or other generic community leaders". That would be OBEs and MBEs. Nobody has claimed they're covered by ANYBIO.
...I'll add that many of the recipients are also politically connected and getting the award because they at one point did a favor for the PM.I think if you actually analyse the people who get CBEs and higher honours you'll see that this is partisan rubbish that only applies to a handful of people. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
The following are presumed to be notable, which appears in other guidelines). Curbon7 ( talk) 17:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
− | + | A person who has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times, is presumed to merit an article, even if that person does not satisfy the basic criteria, or the general notability guideline. |
− | + | A person who has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times, is likely to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable sources, but is not inherently notable. |
meeting one or more [of these criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included, as no topic is inherently notable or deserving of a standalone article.JoelleJay ( talk) 01:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists, and goes on to say that the subject needs to either have
significant independent coverage or recognition, which IMO implies that ANYBIO is fine for notability. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 01:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally., WP:NEXIST clarifies that
Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources.voorts ( talk/ contributions) 02:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
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.voorts ( talk/ contributions) 23:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
under option 2, editors would need to show SIGCOV in RSes, as they must do for every other topic on Wikipedia– the thing is, N states that a topic is presumed notable for receiving sigcov, just as a topic is presumed notable for meeting SNGs:
presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG). That statement implies that there is no difference between meeting GNG and meeting SNG – that subjects passing one should receive the same treatment as a subject passing the other, which contradicts your statement that
SNGs [do not] establish notability– something that they actually have been used to establish notability for over a decade (and some such as NPROF still do without question). If the presumption of notability no longer applies when a subject is brought to AFD, then that is not a presumption at all! A notability criterion is completely and utterly worthless if it cannot be used to demonstrate notability. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 01:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
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.
Astronomical objects are notable if they have received substantial attention and coverage in reliable sources, usually the scientific literature and/or popular media.;
Whether an object meets these criteria must be established through independent reliable sources, following WP:NRV.
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:
Note that regardless of what notability criterion is being claimed, the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials.
A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level.
Wikipedia bases its decision about whether web content is notable enough
to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the web
content has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the web content, its authors, or its owners.
That's not something one can ignore for certain topic areas– yes, for certain topic areas. However, we need to use common sense. There are some subjects where it is simply impossible to find significant coverage, even though we know it is virtually 100% likely to exist, because of the sources being outrageously difficult to find (my hypothetical Joe Uzbekistan). We should not be tightly enforcing GNG requirements on those types of subjects. In all, it should come down to: "does having this improve the encyclopedia?" and "is this encyclopedic?" I'll also disagree that there's "no way to make a useful standalone article" without sigcov – one can absolutely write decent articles without "sigcov", and I've arguably done so several times. And even if something is a stub, that is not the end of the world – something is better for the reader, ultimately, than nothing, in my opinion (and in the opinions of many non-Wikipedians I've talked to). BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I would ask why someone would create an article for something without access to sufficient sources.– Because until recently, doing a short stub article on someone appearing notable was completely fine and encouraged. I agree with one of Jfire's points below:
When SNG criteria such as ANYBIO are applicable, the burden of proof goes beyond WP:BEFORE, in my view. If the sources are likely to be offline, than an offline search needs to be demonstrated, in the archives that are most likely to contain relevant sources. If they are most likely not in English, than someone who is fluent in the relevant language needs to be involved. The search should extend to specialty publications in the relevant subject area. Viewed in this light, few if any of the AfDs cited above are convincing to me as demonstrations of problems with ANYBIO #1's presumption of notability, because it is rare to see editors rebutting the presumption of notability by describing a failed search for sources of even BEFORE-level rigor, let alone the more thorough search that I think should be required.This change (option #2), from my view, would likely be similar to NSPORT, where people such as Kimba and Schwegler with major accomplishments are deleted even though no search whatsoever was done in relevant archives, which is why I oppose it. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 17:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
What we definitely do not want to happen is what was happening before the last major NSPORT revision ... This enabled an editor to mass create thousands of articles on cricketers and assc. soccer players based on pulling from a database and then populating a two-three sentence paragraph about them.– we've blocked that editor, though, and as far as I'm aware we don't have anyone doing that anymore (whether NSPORT, ANYBIO, etc.) BeanieFan11 ( talk) 15:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I would ask why someone would create an article for something without access to sufficient sources.- There's a lot of reasons. People disagree on whether the sources are sufficient enough. Some people have may have had or have seen the sources but don't currently have them (Foreign sources, sources pre-internet, anything that aired on TV and radio). Some may assume more exist. Some may not think it's a problem at all considering there's tens of thousands of articles here with limited sources. Some may also think that this is an an encyclopedia and encyclopedia's generally want information on everything within reason. Information also generally leads to more information because other people are usually mentioned in articles and if no information exists on that person, people like myself might go to find it. It's definitely an important part of topic building. KatoKungLee ( talk) 20:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
That would be when someone [...] knows of the existence of sufficient sourcesand
That doesn't apply to situations where they don't have access to sourcesare contradictions. To say that it is
disruptive editingto create an article, for example, on a subject who has a full biographical book about them that is exclusively WP:OFFLINE or they have an entry in a national biographical dictionary that is paywalled (like the Oxford DNB) simply because the editor does not have access to those sources (assuming there are sufficient sources to surpass WP:NOPAGE) is nonsensical. Curbon7 ( talk) 00:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
why someone would create an article for something without access to sufficient sources, so I rebutted (correctly) about paywalled/offline sources that firmly establish notability. Curbon7 ( talk) 21:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
How do you know that the entry in the encyclopedia is for the right figure if you have no idea what it saysthis is the entire point of WP:Authority control. This is how databases distinguish between, for example, Winston Churchill ( [1]) and Winston Churchill ( [2]). And as for
How do you know that the book is reliable and contains significant coverage if you haven't read it, if the book is titled " John Example: A Life" written by eminent historian X, then it is obviously going to contain significant coverage. Curbon7 ( talk) 00:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
presumed" in SNGs (or phrases like "presumption of notability") should be interpreted primarily (though not necessarily exclusively) as a statement about the burden of proof required to demonstrate either that GNG-level coverage exists, or does not exist. Where no SNG criteria that confer a presumption of notability are applicable, the burden lies on editors arguing that a subject is notable to demonstrate that such sources exist. Where SNG criteria such as ANYBIO are applicable, the presumption is that the subject is notable, meaning that the burden is on editors arguing otherwise to demonstrate that thorough searches in the relevant places have failed to locate suitable sources.
person who has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times, is presumed to merit an article, even if that person does not satisfy the basic criteria, or the general notability guideline.– That's how SNGs work – presumed notable based on accomplishments; the presumption of notability offered by ANYBIO1 is not based on coverage, so changing it to that option would do nothing. I'll repeat my comment about option #2 that you did not reply to:
your second (or third?) proposed option #2 makes even less sense: a person with a significant honor is likely (not even presumed!) to be notable ... if sigcov is demonstrated??? Whereas someone who does not receive a significant honor is presumed notable (higher level) just for having sigcov? That implies that winning a very high honor makes one less notable, which is completely farcical.BeanieFan11 ( talk) 21:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi guys, would anyone like to help me expand this article? On the it.wiki page there are 203 references ( https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabrizio_De_Andr%C3%A9), while on this page there are only 39; this difference is absurd. JacktheBrown ( talk) 15:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, all. This is to gauge the community's views about a specific criterion regarding the notability of artists, and specifically of artists who exhibit in galleries, e.g. painters, sculptors, and others. The guideline on creative professionals states that "a person is notable if...the person's work (or works) has...4.(b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition." I recommend that we consider the elimination of that criterion, because the field is full of vanity exhibitions, or, in other words, of exhibitions in galleries whereby the artist undertakes to pay all expenses and the gallery's fee. (A practice similar to vanity publications.) This is a significant, if under-appreciated by the wider public, problem for art appreciation. And the significant percentage of vanity galleries should prompt us to eliminate the criterion for an exhibition in a gallery on its own. It only demands one exhibition but asking for more than one will not ameliorate the noise. Here's a small litany of relevant reports:
It is asking too much of editors who examine the notability of a painter or a sculptor to peruse the history of each gallery in order to ascertain whether it is a legitimate, non-scamster, non-vanity gallery. Opinions? - The Gnome ( talk) 19:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting, etc. Notwithstanding, it provides useful information that I would imagine helps guide editors (and reduces the overall number of disputes about reliable sources). -- Cl3phact0 ( talk) 09:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail.
Does quantity ever equal quality? I've wondered this a lot. While "John Smith at Big Company said..." obviously isn't enough, does it make a difference is a publication turns to "John Smith CEO of Big Company" for their expertise on a range of topics related to the subsector in which Big Company operates? Does the fact that a range of reliable sources turn to John Smith as an authority about a topic count, if they never actually write about John Smith (except in the by-line when once again, an op-ed by John Smith gets published)?
In this case, John Smith feels notable, but doesn't appear to meet the criteria. (Assume there's adequate biographical information about them in non-independent reliable sources.) Is there any way to square this circle? Guettarda ( talk) 19:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Inspired by Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eashvar_Karthic: a director (producer... writer...) of any film (book... newspaper column...) that meets the requirements for an article (ref WP:NFILM) — no matter how marginal the sourcing justifying its notability — automatically passes NCREATIVE because the SNG header states the absolute "is notable" rather than "is presumed notable", and NCREATIVE#3 states "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)".
Absolute notability for NCREATIVE #1, #2 and #4 is clear. Where there is significant independent and reliable coverage of creator(s) as individuals or as a creative unit then they meet WP:NBASIC regardless of whether they meet anything else in this SNG. Where there are multiple works that would meet the notability bar, then even if there isn't sufficient coverage of the individual there's a clear benefit to having an article for interlinking purposes (eg: authors without independent biographical sources available but with multiple bluelinked works or a weight of reviews in aggregate that can be included in a single article).
Where there isn't such coverage, however, and there's a single work then I don't believe that the bar for notability of the individual has necessarily been reached (yes, WP:NOPAGE can be invoked to redirect, analogous to BLP1E/ BIO1E, but redirection in the absence of independent biographical sources is clearer without the individual being pre-judged as notable). I thus propose that "work or collective" is deleted from "significant or well-known body of work" making it "significant or well-known body of work" (that it's collective is implicit). ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 07:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)