Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Robb Thompson

Is Robb Thompson a notable article? All references seem fake.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.170.81 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 15 March 2009

Hallelujah, do I get to be the first to use this shiny new board?! As article creator, I suspect the IP editor has flagged this article solely because some of the articles from the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago Daily Herald, Star Newspapers, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and Charlotte Observer are pay-per-view and harder to reach (accessibility is a WP:V question). As already stated in edit summary, notability is established by both WP:ORG (noncommercial) and WP:PEOPLE. I have removed the tag (again); I also have more source materials to add. If anyone has specific needs for quotes from the articles, I will be happy to provide. I'd hate to think that someone had an ax to grind against this topic.

Based on the stated purpose of this board, I think that at a minimum, any newspaper with its own stable WP article is sufficient to contribute accumulatively toward the notability bar for its covered subjects. The outside coverage itself for Thompson is linked at this version. However, I'm not certain that there is a real difference between this board and WP:RSN, because if someone objects that a source is too [obscure, biased, unfamiliar, young, dependent] to confer notability, doesn't that include an objection that the source is potentially unreliable? Could someone please comment on whether this is a useful board?

The classic breakdown is 1 significant, 2 reliable, 3 sources, 4 independent, 5 presumed. 1 means coverage is not trivial, mostly determinable by inspection. 2 is highly debatable and determined at RSN. 3 is satisfied by having multiple secondary sources, where "sources" has wide application. 4 is determined by relation of the source to its subject. 5 is determined by reference to other policy. Perhaps this board intends to inspect #3 ("sources") by questioning whether the sources are primary or tertiary? Or (#1 and #3) whether there are sufficient numbers and nontriviality among them? Is this basically just a forum for saying there is not enough coverage to confer notability, such as when there are only two mentions of two sentences each, other than primary or dependent sources? Please clarify. JJB 18:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. But I still think a third opinion from an experienced person might help clarify the matter. I looked at the source of each reference but there is no mention of Robb Thompson in some of them. If Wikipedia has to be a reliable source of information, I'm sure we can look around for better references. I have nothing against you, its just that I came across this page and could not figure out any more information why a mere pastor would be notable.

doesn't that include an objection that the source is potentially unreliable? Could someone please comment on whether this is a useful board? No. Some sources are reliable but don't confer notability. primary sources for example, also certain things like small town news papers, or even college news papers might not necessarily confer true notability to a subject. I've seen many successful arguments on AfD where simple coverage in a college news paper is not enough to confer notability to a subject even though we consider them reliable. As well not all reliable sources contain significant coverage of the subject. There are plenty of times where someone tries to establish notability through a notable and reliable source, but the content is minuscule. A simple name drop in a 600 word article. Many people have also successfully argued that this does not convey notability as it isn't significant coverage.--Crossmr (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of the cited articles do not contain the text "Robb Thompson". That is a huge red flag for me. patsw (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:WPTC

Straw poll here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Activity of this noticeboard, editabuse template, WikiProject Notability

I felt there was a need for this noticeboard, and I was surprised to be told that it exists already. I guess the main reason it is not more active is because it's not well know. To address this, I made it look a bit more respectable and asked for inclusion in the template that is at the head of the other comparable noticeboards. See Template talk:Editabuselinks#Notability noticeboard.

The next thing I learned about was WP:WikiProject Notability. There seems to be significant overlap in scope between this page and the more active talk page of that project. I started a discussion at WT:WPNN#Two things I didn't know. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources?

Are links such as this, this, or this considered primary sources; are they applicable in proving the notability of a creative artist? I've been dealing with an article previously deleted via AfD for non-notability, and the article's main editor (enormous COI) had it recreated citing such references as proof of notability via the WP:CREATIVE criteria of (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries, but I'm wondering whether such sources are legit proof of notability considering WP:BIO states that primary sources don't contribute to notability.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 20:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

2 of those links don't seem to work. If they're proof that the it exists in several notable galleries then it should suffice. However "several" is subjective. For some people it could be 3, it could be 6. How many notable galleries/libraries/museums (do they all have pages on wikipedia?) do they appear in? Primary sources may be sufficient depending on exactly which notability criterion you're trying to meet. They wouldn't be useful in showing significant coverage in reliable third party sources which is normally where we get the restriction on not using primary sources.--Crossmr (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Review of Save Indian Family

I'd like to request a few new eyes on Save Indian Family to ascertain whether or not it meets WP:N (via WP:ORG). By way of a brief history, this article is and has been very problematic since winter 2006. It was started in a dubious fashion by a user who was being paid to create wikipedia pages. See [1] and [2]. I and a number of other editors have worked to keep the page free from soapboxing and original research for over 2 years - however in that time I have never seen 1 book about this organization. All 14 references in the current state of the article are minor newspaper articles - no organization profiles etc. Most only tangential mention the organization and others are only there to support the groups position on certain issues--Cailil ^talk 17:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Are there any non-english sources that talk about this organization in India? I'm wondering if local non-english papers may have dedicated significant coverage to the org.--Crossmr (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Calil you still against Save Indian family

Cailil, this article [Save Indian Family] is started by me (Newageindian). On what basis do you accuse me that I was paid for writing articles in wikipedia? Any wikipedia editor from any where in the world (and also from India) can verify sources from the newspapers (English or Indian languages).Newageindian (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Burim Myftiu article

Dear friends,

This is my first wikipedia activity. I just register and I am new here. I need your help. I would like to edit the article of Burim Myftiu, Contemporary American Albanian Photographer. I don't know why the article about Burim may not meet the general notability guideline? How can I help to establish notability? I would really like to help improve this article. (Photofanatic (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)).

James Bristow

James Bristow was a low rank British soldier. He had written a very popular narrative in 1793: A narrative of the sufferings of James Bristow: belonging to the Bengal Artilley. His narrative is widely cited by secondary sources. (Google Book search on the narrative). Being the author of such a popular narrative, is he notable? This article was previously deleted under WP:CSD#A7. Thanks, Kensplanet^T_C 08:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Watts (blogger)

We have people questioning the notability of Anthony Watts, a TV personality, blogger, and today global warming skeptic. His blog is absurdly popular, getting more traffic than any other climate change blog by far. It has been argued that there are not that many reliable sources talking about him, although his surfacestations.org paper is starting to be talked about in peer-reviewed literature (e.g. Roger Pielke Sr has cited it, NOAA have responded to it). Is there any question mark hanging over his notability? Thanks for your time. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

TV personality, peer-reviewed literature, surfacestations.org paper -- it would be helpful to provide references to these so we may evaluate them. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I'm seeing the majority of the references that don't come from anthony to be about surfacestations, not anthony himself. If he has no independent notability then its possible it could be better to merge him into an article on surface stations.--Crossmr (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Great minds think alike. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Are press releases alone sufficient to establish independent notability?

Some may say that I might be taking this matter to almost ridiculous extremes, and I might be one of them. This is in regards to a conversation currently taking place at Talk:Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident. In the discussion on that page, repeated reference has been made to a press release from the United Nations stating that the event may have been staged which has repeatedly been used by people and organizations affiliated with Falun Gong as evidence of their claim that the event was staged. I haven't found any sources independent of Falun Gong, however, who even mention this UN press release, although they do mention Falun Gong's claim that the event was staged, nor has anyone brought such a soource forward yet. The question is whether this one press release, without to date any references independent of Falun Gong referring to it or using it as a source, sufficient to identify the claim as being independent of Falun Gong, or, without such independent citations, should it be considered to be only notable as one of the sources Falun Gong uses to put forward its cntention? This matter may have been raised before, at some point, in some other context, but I think it is important enough that, perhaps, there be some clear idea how to proceed if it is ever faced again, regarding some other issue. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Press releases? No. not even a little bit. Press releases are self-written promotional material. They've never been sufficient to establish notability. That being said, it only applies at the article creation level. Within the article, rules are different. if Falun Gong talks about it significantly and the US has released info on it suggesting it as well, then it is probably worth a mention. It depends on how much focus falun gong gives it, and if any other sources have reported on falun gong's claims.--Crossmr (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Honorary Doctorates

Are honorary doctorates considered notable awards in regards to WP:ANYBIO? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if this falls under "notable award or honor". Certainly not for every university. On the other hand, sometimes these things are very widely reported. Hans Adler 17:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

But then wouldn't it be the reporting itself of the subject of the article be what is considered notable, and not the fact that they were awarded an honorary degree? And if not all honorable degrees are equal, then from what universities/colleges are they notable from? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I was merely arguing why it might make sense to consider some kinds of honorary doctorates as bestowing notability. E.g. if the last 15 people who got such a degree from a certain organisation were 3 US presidents, 1 French president, 8 people with Nobel prizes, 2 UN General Secretaries and 1 person who would not otherwise pass WP:ANYBIO, then the odds are that the last person should be notable even though the press may not have covered the ceremony. But if the founder of a little company has no further claim to notability than an honorary doctorate from his local university, then the odds are he should not be notable. Hans Adler 18:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand Hans Adler's logic as to the "15th person" in his example above. However, I would be reluctant to say that an honorary degree confers notability in itself. On the other hand, receiving an honorary degree tends to be a sign of notability. After all, the person probably must have distinguished himself or herself in some way in order to be selected for the honorary degree. If someone has an honorary degree and there is uncertainty about their notability, the honorary degree is a signal that it would be worthwhile continuing to look for sources about them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. We must distinguish two levels: The general notability guidelines, which are sometimes hard to interpret, and the more specific guidelines that exist mainly to make deletion discussions run more smoothly in anything close to a borderline case, and to help us be a bit more consistent in our application of the GNG. I was arguing on the second level and didn't mean that the first level should be overruled if it's a clear case of failing the GNG even after an exhaustive search for sources. Sorry that I wasn't clear. Hans Adler 08:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Obituaries

Should Obituaries, from a reliable source, be used to support notability of an individual? When shouldn't obituaries not be used as the primary verification of notability?

For example if the primary source of information for an article are obituaries, and the information does not verify that the individual meets notability per WP:ANYBIO, is the individual still notable due to recieving "significant coverage" primarly through obituaries? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the type of obituary and the source. If it is an obituary published by a major newspaper (e.g., Guardian, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, etc.), these are articles which have the same editorial oversight as other articles in those publications. Such editorially-reviewed obituaries are appropriate sources to establish notability. On the other hand, "Death Notices" are typically submitted by friends or family members and are not subject to the same editorial oversight. Such notices are typically not appropriate sources to establish notability. Other variables come into play. If the source is a major metropolitan daily, it's more likely to show notability. If it's a small town newspaper, it's less likely to show notability. There are exceptions to the foregoing, but I don't think there can be a firm rule that obituaries "do" or "do not" establish notability. Cbl62 (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If the obituaries only come from local reliable sources, would that effect notability? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Local, as in the death of a notable businessman in Manhattan being reported in The New York Times? Is that what you mean by local? What exactly do you mean by a "local reliable source", and where exactly is that term specifically used in any of our guidelines and policies? Local? Local to what? Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As stated in the opinion of Cbl62 an obituary published by a major newspaper would support the subject of the obit being notable; however, if it is a small town newspaper where the obit is published there is less likely to show notability. Therefore, my question is if a city where the subject of the obit resided is only covered by a major newspaper, therefore no chance that it can be published by a small town newspaper as non-exist in that area, would it still confer the same level of notability.

For instance say person X's obit is only published locally, in community Y where X had resided in life, if the size of the community is not taken into account, then all obits that are only covered locally would be around the same level of "small town newspaper". However, if person X's obit is published locally in community Y, and published in non-local newspapers as well, then it would definitely show notability. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

To clear up your confusion for the last time: 1) Obituaries in major newspapers, such as the The Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin are reliable sources. 2) Both obituaries were published in papers having a circulation of 142,000 and 64,073 respectively. 3) Both obituaries were also published online. 4) With the advent of online editions of newspapers, the terms "local" and "non-local" cease to have any relevance. 5) Reliable sources are best evaluated by their authoritativeness, accuracy, and currency. Whether a source is local or non-local is not important. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There is not confusion, but a differing of opinion. The question is not regarding specific obituaries, but obituaries in general. The reliable source nature of any specific publisher is also not in question.

Most reliable source news references are connected to an offline publisher, therefore local and non-local are relevant to the question that I asked for clarification of the opinion of Cbl62. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Please show me a reference to a research guide that discusses the distinction between local and non-local sources. Please keep in mind, all of our guidelines concerning the use and application of sources can be traced to standard research practices, that are practically universal. It seems to me that you are inventing distinctions where none exist to argue for your POV in an AfD discussion. If I am wrong, then you will kindly point me to a discussion of this in the literature. Viriditas (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

if an obit is something that is submitted by the family and run in the obit section, I don't think it provides any notability at all. Anyone can submit those. If the obit is an obit style story run by the paper about the individuals life, that is a different story.--Crossmr (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct. We are talking about obits written by large, Hawaii-based newspapers, concerning notable people in Hawaii. Viriditas (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

So long as the choice for the subjects of these stories isn't random, then I would say an obit style story carries as much weight as a regular story about the individual. However 1 article isn't usually enough give someone notability as it isn't exactly significant coverage. Generally the threshold would be at least 2 articles.--Crossmr (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• My point above is that an obituary in a small-town newspaper may not be enough to establish notability. If the local paper in Small Town, USA publishes an editorial about the guy who operated the grocery store on Main Street for 40 years and served as the president of the local Elks Club, the publication of the obituary by the Small Town News is not going to confer notability. The hypothetical grocer may have been a beloved member of the community, but that doesn't make him notable for encyclopedic purposes. At the opposite extreme, papers like The New York Times typically publish obituaries only about highly notable persons, and so a NYT obituary is a pretty strong indicator of notability. There's a lot of gray area in the middle, and each case needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Cbl62 (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

  1 obituary? No, not at all. If there were 2 or 3 then it would be sufficient. I wouldn't accept that a single article in a local newspaper whether the person is alive or dead is remotely enough to qualify as significant coverage.--Crossmr (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Employer awards

At what point would an award from an employer being considered a notable award per WP:ANYBIO.

For instance would an award from Transamerica Corporation, to a top earner be considered a "notable award". --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Only if the award itself has received coverage. A notable award would be an award that would qualify for an article on wikipedia.--Crossmr (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

National register of historic places

Hi: Is inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places sufficient for notability? Ray^Talk 15:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

My opinion would be yes. It has received national recognition, and most likely would be on a similar state list, which would add to notability. All that being said proper references would still be needed to verify said inclusions. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"National" + "Historic" = Notable  :) œ^™ 12:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)