Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2022

Can we add the shortcut WP:BIOSPECIAL to the Special Cases section?

Hi! I was thinking of adding the WP:BIOSPECIAL shortcut to the special cases section of the guideline. I'm just not sure if that falls under WP:PGCHANGE, so if anybody feels strongly about it, feel free to share. Cheers, Pilaz (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

It came up a couple of times in an AfD discussion, so I thought it could be useful in the future. Pilaz (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

New Explanatory Supplement NSUBPOL

I've created a new Explanatory Supplement regarding subnational politicans and presumed notability. It can be found here: WP:NSUBPOL. I propose to add a link to this in the Politicians and judges section following "or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels." Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Good stuff, Goldsztajn. Being mainly interested in European polities, I think the Explanatory Supplement needs discussion with respect to the following: Italy and Spain (on paper unitary, de facto quasi-federal "regional states"; Spain considered federal in the supplement, but not Italy); discussion on whether there is a cutoff point for specific federal entities (United States county-level, United Kingdom county-level positions); current states with limited recognition also need discussion as to whether it is appropriate to list their legislative bodies under the ones of recognized states, when sovereignty and control are contested, such as for Cyprus/Northern Cyprus, Georgia/Abkhazia and Georgia/South Ossetia, Moldova/Transnistria, Ukraine/DNR and Ukraine/LNR, Serbia/Kosovo, Armenia/Artsakh. Pilaz (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Pilaz Thank you for the positive response! A few quick reactions. On Italy, I expect much the same as the French regional councils and the Dutch provincial councils (ie no presumed notability). The cut-off point is the status of the body, it is legislative or not; US/UK county/borough council bodies are not legislative, at best they only possess subordinate powers. I think for the limited recognition states it will be case by case; it's hard to standardise across such disparate bodies (ie comparing something long established like Northern Cyprus against something in existence for a few years). Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  Gonna expand on Italy/Spain in the Talk section, but agree with all the rest. Perhaps worth considering whether limited-recognition states could be added below the main list of established states Pilaz (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Are producers creative professionals?

Do producers count as creative professionals for the purpose of Wikipedia:Notability (people) § Creative professionals? 15 (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that that depends on what they produce. Producers of widgets are probably not, but producers of TV series might be. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Is an actor's talent agency something that belongs in the lead?

I think such information is rather insignificant, and serves more as promotion for a talent agency than to inform readers of useful information. If a reliable secondary source is found, I could see including that information in the body of the article, but not in the lead. I would like to hear others' opinions on this. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, if they paid for the Wikipedia article, they should get to pick positioning. Oh wait... Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely that it would belong, because it's highly unlikely that it would be one of the things that most independent reliable sources dwell on. I suppose there may possibly be one or two cases where one of the main points of an actor's notability is the relationship with the agency, but I certainly can't think of any. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both. Fred Zepelin (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Well-known, significant and notable

WP:FILMMAKER has The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work. What is the relation of well-known or significant with respect to notable? If a work is notable (there is an article), can it be considered well-known? Can it be considered significant?

Is well-known one level above notable, because WP:WELLKNOWN, which is about BLPs, suggests that there are high-profile and low-profile (notable) individuals, and the high profile can be considered well-known? Or is well-known a synonym for notable in wikipedia?

Significant on the other hand appears to be one level below notable. WP:SIGNIFICANCE suggests that it is one possible criterion for notability. If a work is considered significant in some aspect (and it can be proved), it is notable. But I'm unsure about vice versa. Is a notable work considered significant in some aspect? WP:SIGNIFICANT which is a two-liner essay seems to suggest that the word (unlike notable) is totally relative (and should not be considered in Wikipedia?). Jay (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

• In the past, I've seen it interpreted as "notable", but I disagree with that interpretation, and believe we should make it clear that this is a step above "notable". I believe we should make the same thing clear for WP:ANYBIO #1. BilledMammal (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Are you referring to both terms - well-known and significant? Wikipedia:SIGNIFICANCE does say Significance is a lower standard than notability. Hence, I interpreted significant as a step below notable. Jay (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
    • We use different definitions of significant in different places. In WP:NACADEMIC "significant" is a higher bar than "notable". BilledMammal (talk) 11:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
      • I agree. I guess the meaning of significant changes by context. The meaning in Significant coverage or significant impact is different when compared to its meaning in significant work. Is it just a weasel word as this archived discussion hinted? Jay (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
        • It probably is - I think that is an issue we should correct, but I'm going to focus on WP:NACTOR first. BilledMammal (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
• I would make the opposite decision: I think we should make clear that the CREATIVE criteria, including NFILMMAKER, apply to those who have produced Notable works, rather than any higher bar. Newimpartial (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The issue with that is it is arguing that notability is inherited. BilledMammal (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
    • NOTINHERITED is only supposed to work in one direction. Authors do not make their works Notable, but works make their author Notable. CREATIVE reflects this (reality-based) "rule". Newimpartial (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
      • That's not correct; Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable.
      • If we don't have significant coverage of the creator then we can't write an article on them; we should redirect the creator to the work in that case. BilledMammal (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
        • I understand what INHERITED says. It also says that four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances, and in fact, none of the "bad arguments" listed at INHERITED are of the kind I am talking about, where the notability of a creator is presumed from the Notablility of their work as documented in sources.
        • Anyway, INHERITED is pretty much bound to respect the NBIO criteria, since NBIO is a guideline and therefore has higher WP:CONLEVEL than WP:ATA, which is an essay.
        • And about significant coverage of a creator is concerned, I am coming to regard "significant coverage" as a weasel phrase (WP:SIGCOV as a guideline is better). The resources we have to write CREATIVE biographies are the same as the ones we have to write PROF ones, except that for creatives we are pretty much guaranteed some discussion of the creator in reviews of their work, which isn't true for academics. Newimpartial (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
          • People meeting NPROF almost always have substantial reviews of their works. JoelleJay (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
            • Reviews that address directly and in detail their contributions as individuals? I doubt very much that this is true, in some fields (though it may be true in others). Newimpartial (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

• There are several film articles in wikipedia that do not have a bluelink for its director or producer. Per what Newimpartial is saying, every one of these directors (and producers too?) are inherently notable, and can have an article provided there is enough reliable sourced content. What is the parent-child hierarchy for films - is a filmmaker a parent of his notable film, or is he a child of the film (which is his product)?

To put this discussion in perspective, there is an undeletion request for director Pushpdeep Bhardwaj. I had the same interpretation as BilledMammal, and considered the subject not passing WP:FILMMAKER, as his film was notable, but not well-known. The undeletion requester on the other hand, considers well-known and significant as synonyms for notable. Jay (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, I for one agree with the requestor that any Notable film fits the criterion set out in FILMMAKER. I also believe that, from the standpoint of encyclopaedicity and of the category system, it is positive for Wikipedia to have as many bluelinks for the directors of films as possible (the status of producers and other contributors is less obvious, depending on my view on their actual contribution to the film, but the director's contribution is always sufficient for the link, I feel,

Now that doesn't mean that all directors of Notable films are guaranteed an article. All Notability criteria - including GNG - offer only the "presumption" of an article, not a guarantee. The main class of directors where I see an argument to redirect is those who have made one, and only one, Notable film, and who themselves are poorly documented in sources - this approaches BLP1E and BLPPRIVACY territory, and some of these cases should redirect to their one Notable film. But I regard these as edge cases, and the ruling principle there is NOT more than WP:N. Newimpartial (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

With that, I have undeleted Pushpdeep Bhardwaj, and will wait to see how it unfolds. Jay (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Question about NPOL

Would all past members of the Delaware Senate, Delaware Supreme Court and Delaware House of Representatives meet NPOL? Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes they would. Hut 8.5 18:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Obituaries

Is an obituary in The Times (or any other major national newspaper) sufficient to establish notability? See the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Archer ("Sagette"). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• No. 1 obituary is never in and of itself enough. We require multiple significant sources to pass GNG, so one obituary can never be enough on its own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• An unpaid obituary in a major paper like the Times is a strong indicator of notability, much like an entry in a dictionary of national biography. It's reasonable to infer that there are other off-line sources, but it may take significant effort to find them, given the time period. I'd say it's a waste of everybody's time to nominate such a page. pburka (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• The guideline is extremely clear: multiple published sources are required for notability. -Ljleppan (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Apparently common sense and intelligence are no longer required to advocate deletion of articles. The likelihood that the only coverage of such a subject would be in such an obit is about the same as the Raiders winning the World Series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.149.176.56 (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a set of obituary articles, but it must be based on secondary sources. If you can find an obituary in a major newspaper, you can almost certainly find other sources. You should however find other sources, and not just build the bio from the obituary. One source is not enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
• An obituary in a major newspaper may indicate notability, but it's not enough by itself, and context matters. The obituary in question appears to be a regional news item by a paper of record. If the person is of general interest, at least one other independent source should show non-trivial coverage. The significance of that other coverage was disputed in the AfD debate. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
  • In the U.S., at least, major newspapers of record like the Times and the Washington Post are simultaneously local papers, and may have coverage of topics of purely local interest. We need to avoid a sweeping assumption that an obit in one of these papers constitutes by itself sufficient evidence of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Notable(?) musician?

With everybody and their brother having a soundcloud these days and a number of bands playing local bars, to what extent is a musician considered "notable"? Specifically I'm looking at the Jeremiah Skiba article, but I could see this question applying to any number of local acts. Lindsey40186 (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• WP:NMUSIC has some help in judging notability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:AUTHOR interpretation

I should maybe have started this conversation here, but oops, I didn't. Would welcome contributions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#WP:AUTHOR_is_two_decent_book_reviews_enough?

Thanks for the suggestion User:Extraordinary_Writ CT55555 (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPOL question (Tynwald)

Does a member of the Tynwald satisfy NPOL? I think it does, as the Isle of Man is a self-governing dependency, and thus this acts as its devolved legislature, but I'd like a second opinion for verification. I am asking regarding this draft. Curbon7 (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind I figured it out lol (it does satisfy NPOL). Curbon7 (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Should REVDEL be mentioned as a possible remedy for DEADNAMING?

Your feedback would be appreciated at this discussion regarding WP:DEADNAMING and WP:REVDEL at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:NACTOR - "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions"

I think this guideline needs to be reworked; it doesn't reliable predict notability, because notability is not inherited - just because an actor had a significant role in two productions that narrowly meet our notability guidelines doesn't mean they are automatically notable. For an example of where this fails, see Andrew Jenkins (actor).

I instead propose that we require that the actor has had significant roles in "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" productions. BilledMammal (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I oppose this proposed formulation in principle. NOTINHERITED applies to these relationships in one direction only: the creators of notable works are to be presumed Notable (barring such considerations as BLP1E, and minor contributions to a Notable work). While NACTOR is not currently listed among the exclusions from NOTINHERITED at the WP:ATA essay, this is clearly an oversight, as the logic of NACTOR 1. is identical to that of AUTHOR 1 or COMPOSER 1, which are listed. Newimpartial (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

• Also oppose change as too restrictive and subjective. The WP:NACTOR guidance still requires a pass of WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a common misunderstanding of NOTINHERITED. Of course people inherit notability from their notable works. pburka (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Steve Bartman

Can we find another example to link to, maybe from someone dead or about something positive, for naming how to name an article that is about one incident in a person's life? This guy has been trying to return to obscurity for twenty years now. valereee (talk) 10:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Is your goal to remove his name from the title of Steve Bartman incident? Or to remove his name from WP inasmuch as possible? —Bagumba (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

No, I think the article name is correct. It's probably the WP:COMMON NAME. And I don't want to remove his name from WP, just replace it in this policy guideline -- where it's simply being used as an example -- if we can find an example that doesn't drive traffic to a BLP that is about an extremely negative incident that happened in the life of an otherwise obscure living person who clearly wishes they could return to obscurity. It just seems unkind to use this here unless it's the only such example we can find. (In which case, do we really even need an example?) valereee (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I've clarified what was a confusing choice of words. valereee (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I support removing the example. We don't need a real example. We could use a fictional one for the purpose of illustration. Huggums537 (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

At the very least, we could find a notable event that isn't something embarrassing... Huggums537 (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to argue that unless we can come up with another example, this is such an uncommon situation that we literally don't even need this example. I just started paging through Category:Living persons and got dozens of pages in -- got to last names beginning with Af -- and found literally not a single redirect to an incident named for a person. Not one. Every redirect was to a band, a murder, an incident of terrorism, a list of awardees, etc. The only incident I can personally think of is Dick Cheney hunting accident, and that doesn't fit the example of an incident named for an otherwise non-notable person. I think we can just remove this example altogether for now and if someone comes up with one that is named for a dead person or isn't embarrassing, we can add that in. valereee (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I found Travis Walton UFO incident and another good one is Michael Fagan (intruder). (I prefer the intruder article over the UFO incident, but either one would work.) Huggums537 (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Hm...I don't think Travis Walton seems to enjoy the spotlight any more than Bartman does. And the Michael Fagan article is named the same way we name most bios. valereee (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point about the Michael Fagan article now, but I think you might be very wrong in thinking Travis Walton doesn't seem to enjoy the spotlight considering he wrote a book about his experience, allowed a film adaptation (where he made a brief cameo appearance), made UFO convention and television appearances including high profile ones such as Larry King, The Joe Rogan Experience, and The Moment of Truth (American game show). This despite the fact the event allegedly occurred nearly five decades ago. The largest section in the Travis Walton article is devoted to publicity about Walton and his claims, not "the event". I would say this is all evidence of someone who is very comfortable with attention rather than one who would shy away from it. Also, the Travis Walton article might be a good example to use that fits the profile of what I was talking about earlier of how we don't need a real example, and could use a fictional one for illustration since UFO abduction isn't real, but the article is still a good example. Haha. Huggums537 (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'd certainly go for switching to Walton until we find a better alternative, at minimum. valereee (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Done, although I had to introduce a dab. :D valereee (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Your changes do not seem to be appearing on the page even after I purged the cache and partially cleared my browser history... Huggums537 (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

How weird...they appear for me. Hm. I do not know what that's about! valereee (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just realized the name was mentioned in two different places and I was looking in just one. I fixed the other place too... Huggums537 (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

"Notable" alumni from Columbia University

Hello Today I came across Adam Cohen (government official), noting that there's no WP:SIGCOV, the only mentions are from employers or organisations that Adam is part of including his alumni from Columbia university. I have subsequently nominated the article for deletion. It then occurred to me that actually there is a pattern of such articles created by CatchedY. I am tagging Catched for transparency and WP:AGF - I do not want them to think that they are being spoken ill of or not given opportunity to contribute to a discussion about articles they have created. Catched has created a tonnes of stub articles about "alumni" from Columbia University. Almost all of them read like online bios/CVs/resumes. I presume this is so that their names can be linked in categories and other articles. However across all of them there is the common theme of reliance on sources from Columbia Uni and almost always organisations they work for praising their achievements. CatchedY has declared on their userpage that they are acting on their own volition and not being paid, sponsored or encouraged to edit by anyone else. I did just want to bring this to wider community attention. I'm not sure if this is the correct place for such discussions, but I am not an expert on Bio pages. However, I am concerned about the large influx of stubs about Columbia alumni and whether they are truly notable. Other examples include: John Clubbe (academic) and Neil Harris (historian). Some obvious cases where WP:NACADEMIC or other specific notability guidelines apply too. Appreciate everyone's thoughts. CatchedY's too. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 14:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lil-unique1: Please post this to WP:COIN. This talk page is about the notability guideline. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

My question was more about whether the stubs created are notable but I understand what you're saying and will post over there. I don't think CatchedY is COI as such, but rather my concern is the notability of the articles that have been created. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 15:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, while the article is still in a rudimentary form, I find it hard to follow your argument that Neil Harris (historian), who held a named chair at a highly prestigious institution, University of Chicago (Criteria 6 of WP:NACADEMIC), won a Guggenheim Fellowship (Criteria 2 of WP:NACADEMIC), and is currently a member of the prestigious American Academy of Arts and Sciences (Criteria 3 of WP:NACADEMIC) fail to meet the criteria of notable academics. I hope to expand the article at a later time and expect other editors to join in too. I am happy to provide a list of justification of all 425 articles I have created on Wikipedia. CatchedY (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Given WP:NOTABILITY (and associated) are WP sidewide guidelines, the fact that there is an article "X" is usually considered as Prima facie evidence that "X" is notable. If that's not true, then it doesn't merit an article. Stubs are articles. If a stub doesn't even make the barest assertion of subject notability (and for a bio article, include a ref), the article needs to be draftified or deleted until someone has enough time and references to bring it up to that minimal standard. DMacks (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Lawyers

I think we need a separate paragraph for lawyers. Clearly, these professionals benefit from inclusion of wikipedia, so I am pretty sure their bios are cropping up (but I dont monitor this area, so I may be mistaken).

I was prompted to write this post by running into two "opposite" cases: one that I want deletion: Draft:Darren Oved and one I support inclusion in the Afd: Marsha Levick. In the first case we have a lawyer who did REALLY big bucks, but merely because he represented really fat cats. In the second case we have a lawyer who was instrumental in removing grave abuses in juvenile justice, but clearly she lacked celebrity-type coverage. As with many non-entertainment professionals, unless they are EXCEPTIONALLY prominent, you will not find many texts covering their bios "in depth", and the texts that cover "in depth" their work somehow are not treated as "covering the person in depth".

To alleviate the work of the reviewers, I suggest to add the following criteria for lawyers:

• (a-Yes) represented a side in multiple landmark cases, such as cases before Supreme Courts
• (b-Yes) recipients of multiple awards from professional associations
• (a-No) rankings from various "promotionist" websites, such as SuperLawyers.com or topverdict.com must be discounted

Any other suggestions ? Loew Galitz (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Appointments

Do you think the guidelines around statewide office apply only to those directly elected or to those appointed to statewide/provincewide offices like Superintendent of Schools?-- User:Namiba 13:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see why so much store is put on election. As far as I'm concerned, the heads of all national/sub-national agencies and posts of equivalent seniority should generally be seen as notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Whether to make a standalone article on someone should be determined by whether there are multiple independent secondary sources providing significant coverage of the subject. If we make articles solely because the subject has been elected or appointed to some position, and that position has not been shown to garner SIGCOV, then we are essentially creating a directory, not an encyclopedia. JoelleJay (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but there is also the question of what defines significant coverage. That is why defining the boundaries of presumed notability is important.--User:Namiba 14:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

NPOL footnote

The footnote at WP:NPOL reads "This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion. Biographers and historians will usually have already written about the past and present holders of major political offices. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless." however this isn't true... state/province–wide office and legislative members on that level are almost never WP:GNG as those aren't "major political offices." So where does this footnote come from and does this sharp contradiction need to be addressed? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

That feels like a relic of the past; in fact, I went through the page history just to prove that: that tid-bit was added by Uncle G way back in 2006, when the idea of notability criteria seemed to still be very much in infancy (diff). Obviously things have changed a lot since then, and now NPOL#1, along with NPROF, are among the few SNGs considered in lieu of GNG. As such, I concur that the footnote is unnecessary at this point, 16 years later. Curbon7 (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I actually feel that the footnote does a really good job of illuminating the consensus, the part that TBH doesn't fit is "state/province–wide" which directly contradicts both the footnote and the spirit of the consensus. The consensus is that those who hold major political offices can be presumed to be notable because coverage can be presumed to exists (and for major offices almost always does), but that doesn't apply to "state/province–wide" offices because they almost never have the coverage to get them over GNG because they aren't major offices. This is further muddied by the recent addition of "(for countries with federal or similar systems of government)" which seems to limit the state/provincial pool again (although it doesn't actually improve it, there is just no world in which all of Brčko District's officials can be presumed to be notable). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Assuming I'm understanding you correctly, the point about the federal offices is important because it excludes first-order subdivisions in unitary countries, such as UK counties (ex. Sussex); this means that it includes first-order subdivisions of federal nations, such as American states (ex. Florida).

Tangential: the case of Bosnia that you cited is very complex, due to the nature of that state, so that case should definitely be clarified, perhaps via RfC. The federal nation of Bosnia is composed of 2 states, one of which is the federal state of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, of which (for example) Una-Sana Canton is a canton in. So following NPOL, it is reasonable to assume that it is a pass, but that is very uncertain. Even more uncertain is the case of Brčko District, which is a condominium between Bosnia-Herzegovina and Srpska, which is also a federal state within Bosnia. A confusing situation.

Tangent aside, without re-hashing old arguments, unlike other SNGs, NPOL#1 in practice doesn't consider GNG at all; longstanding consensus is that a provincial legislator (in a federal state) is by-nature notable. Why? That's just the consensus that had been reached, long before I became an editor, but I'm sure it's in the archives somewhere. Curbon7 (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

"Federal state or equivalent" part was only added in 2020 [1] as a result of this discussion Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2020 "Clarifying "sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office" despite that discussion not actually coming to a consensus to do so, the OP basically bludgeons until theres nobody left and then makes their preferred edit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• We have articles like Charles M. Dawson. Since he was Lieutenant Governor, I am sure one could find contemporary sources in newspapers that say more of him. I strongly suspect he also held other government offices. The current state of the article, based on a statement on a public genealogy website that is said to have come from his great grandson, and a source that only name checks that he held the office without saying anything more is quite poor. I will take a look, but it may take someone with access to some newspaper databases I do not have to find more. It also probably will be a bit hard, because I am sure there were other people named Charles Dawson, and some references may not have the middle initial, while others may have his full middle name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Google books gives me a federal hearing that has a Charles Dawson as state head of the Federal Housing Administration in 1954. Charles M. Dawson was born in 1893, and served as Lieutenant Governor from 1941-1945, so this looks like it is probably the same person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Change to Sports Personalities section

To reflect the current WP:NSPORTS guideline which is based on significant coverage rather than achievement, I propose the following rewrite of WP:SPORTSPERSON:

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 the Wikipedia:Notability (sports) 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. –dlthewave ☎ 04:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support. It's really for the most part a reshuffling of the same points, that kinda-sorta (maybe?) foregrounds the most important element a little better. If nothing else, there are a couple of just slightly confusing semantic choices in the present version--for example, the first "indicate" should obviously be "satisfy" or something to that effect, and the fact the verb is repeated in the next clause makes me wonder if it was a writing error. In any event, the differences are marginal at most but I think they all run in the direction of improvement, hence support. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose and stick to the current wording which allows for one good reference and effectively the probability of offline sources that don't pop up in a quick google search. This is important for subjects from countries with limited internet, we shouldn't aim to be a mirror of google, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't mind tweaking the first sentence, but I oppose this rewrite for three reasons: (1) It would create new and special hurdles for sports, in particular confusing and ambiguous requirement that sources be both "intellectually independent" and "independent of the subject." I have no problem with the existing guideline on WP:INDEPENDENT, but the rewrite creates confusion that something else is required. (2) The proposed rewrite eliminates important language that was adopted earlier this year as a result of the lengthy Village Pump debate as follows: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject." (3) It also eliminates the existing language reaffirming the ultimate supremacy of WP:GNG as follows: "Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to meet the GNG (general notability guideline)." Cbl62 (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The requirement that sources be both "intellectually independent" and "independent of the subject" could be reworded, but it isn't new; the first requires that the sources be from different authors and organizations, the second requires that the source is independent of the subject - both of these match WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 03:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support – this is taken verbatim from WP:SPORTCRIT, so there isn't anything new here. SPORTSPERSON is supposed to summarize NSPORTS, and this is, for better or worse, what NSPORTS says. (Another option would be to just say "for guidance on the notability of athletes, see WP:NSPORTS": that way, we wouldn't have to worry about summarizing NSPORTS at all.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I could support EW's idea of simply referring to NSPORTS as a whole -- the duplicate 'independent' wording could be addressed/clarified there. Cbl62 (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The proposed text is copied verbatim from WP:NSPORTS and reflects the current consensus, so this wouldn't actually change the notability standard for these individuals. "Presumed notable" no longer applies and needs to be removed in any case. However, I would support Extraordinary Writ's suggestion to simply refer to NSPORTS as this would eliminate the need to keep the two guidelines in sync. –dlthewave ☎ 13:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

EW's suggestion makes the most sense. Let's just do that and any issues with the wording can be worked out there. Cbl62 (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose not a productive change, and I am one of the parties that doesn't support coverage over achievement.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support EW's alternative suggestion; duplicating guidance leads to confusion as well as the possibility of parts becoming out of sync with other aspects. However, if there is no consensus for this alternative, support the initial proposal as an improvement over the status quo. BilledMammal (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support the suggestion of merely linking the guideline. It saves the trouble of finding the way to sum it up while at the same time brings it up to date with the established NSPORT usage. Avilich (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment What exactly is this replacing? WP:SPORTSPERSON redirects to the sports-specific criteria. Would this replace all of the sports-specific criteria (in which case that should have been explicitly stated as it is quite a radical change), or just be an addition to them? This needs to be clarified so people can make an informed !vote. Smartyllama (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
  • This is about Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Sports personalities. Someone recently retargeted the WP:SPORTSPERSON redirect; I've undone that to prevent confusion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support EW's proposal. This reflects the current guidelines more accurately. JoelleJay (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose ...if they have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level is wrong, as most sports figures are notable from having merely participated in a domestic league or competition, not necessarily "international". It appears this overlimiting wording has been at WP:NSPORTS, though it didn't reflect NSPORTS' previous content either.—Bagumba (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  as most sports figures are notable from having merely participated in a domestic league or competition Not according to any extant guideline. We are not relitigating the NSPORT RfC here; sportsperson guidance on NBIO should reflect the current notability standards. JoelleJay (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Bagumba is correct about the phrasing of "success in a major international competition at the highest level" -- and I don't believe that language was enacted pursuant to (or endorsed as part of) the NSPORT RfC, so this is not re-litigating anything. Cbl62 (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe "participating" isn't the right word since JoelleJay is correct that mere participation no longer satisfies NSPORT in most cases, but most of the guidelines that still exist relate to the subject's involvement in domestic competitions - for instance by winning an award in that competition, getting elected to that domestic competition's Hall of Fame, or achieving some other honor like high draft pick or top scorer. Which in turn is related to their participation in said competition, even though participation itself doesn't satisfy it. Bagumba's comment wasn't worded in the clearest way, but I get what he's saying and he's correct. Smartyllama (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Support redirect to NSPORTS As nom. Instead of trying to maintain consistency between two different pages, we should simply direct folks to the actual guideline. –dlthewave ☎ 18:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support These would not be new guidelines for sports, it would be the same guidelines we apply everywhere else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I'd remove both SPORTSPERSON and NSPORTS and replace them with the GNG. Which is what the new version essentially says anyway, just in a more confusing way. It's pointless having a page of sports specific guidelines if they don't actually have any application. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I should clarify that I officially oppose this change because I don't think the sports notability guidelines and GNG are compatible as they're currently written and they need to be to make any further changes. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Atlantic306, Ortizesp, and Bagumba for the same reasons they have spoken of. Huggums537 (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose This doesn't trump the so-called "requirements" that sports biographies include at least one source demonstrating significant coverage, since an article which meets this requirement would pass GNG regardless of whether the sources were actually in the article, and this page is quite clear that an article which does not meet the requirements listed here but does meet GNG can be kept. The point of that language is to prevent articles like "Person X played one game in the English Third Division, coming on as a substitute in the 89th minute" when they've gotten no real coverage beyond that. And under either this language or the current language, they would be deleted. Further, under this language or the current language, someone who has received significant coverage in multiple independent sources which are not cited in the article but do exist, would pass GNG and the article would be kept independently of any SNG they may or may not pass. That being said, I share others' concerns that this language is unnecessarily confusing and it would probably be better to just redirect to NSPORT. Smartyllama (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  sports biographies include at least one source demonstrating significant coverage, since an article which meets this requirement would pass GNG That's not true; if only one source of SIGCOV exists for a subject, GNG is not met. JoelleJay (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  • @JoelleJay: Sorry, by "this requirement" I meant the requirement that was being proposed here in this thread. Smartyllama (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

    Which requirement was that? JoelleJay (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support - the "redirect" idea (just referring to NSPORTS) is best, as it reduces duplication, but second choice is the nom's original proposal. The revised version is in line with the NSPORTS RFC; the current version no longer reflects consensus, so it should be changed on way or the other. Levivich (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support, this change conforms with the underlying shift in consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Why has the proposal been moved to the middle of the discussion? I tried to move it back up but it appears to already be at the top where it belongs when I go to edit. Smartyllama (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It's because of the archive box interfering with other "boxes". I've changed the proposal template from quotebox to tq -- hopefully that's ok with dlthewave. JoelleJay (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Olympic Art Competition

Have we ever discussed whether Olympic Arts Competition medalists count as notable under the current guideline on Olympic medalists being notable?

Have we ever had a discussion on whether Olympic art competitors are notable?

The guidelines we have had and currently have related to Olympians all seem to have been formulated with the sports competitions in mind. The art competition was never seen as being the top art competition in the world.

In 1936 there were 15 categories to give medals in for the art competition. For 3 of these the judges gave no medals, and for another 3 they gave no gold medal. Has there ever been any sport competition where no medals were given? It appears that many of these articles were created on the assumption that Olympic art competition participation gave default notability, but what little I know suggests that was not the case.

It does not seem that there was some group selecting a British painting team, an American sculpting team, or a Swedish drama composition team. The very fact that the art created and presented had to in some way relate to sport meant that it was not just a competition to find the best artists period.

The articles we do have also often only say John Smith (1895-1955) was an American competitor in the 1936 Olympic painting competition. In this hypothetical case, you may look up John Smith and find that in fact he was an active artists for a few decades, who created a body of work, but none of that is in the current version of our article. I tried to post something about this issue on the Wikipedia arts project page back in February, no one responded. I may have scared them off by estimating the numbers of Olympic Arts competitors there were.

I really think we need to treat this group as distinct from the sports competitors in the Olympics, and either say they need to pass standard notability guidelines for artists, or if we do have a specific threshold for saying an Olympic art competitor is notable, we need to base it on the actual coverage of participants in this field of endeavor and have rules specific to it, not apply rules to people in an arts competition developed for a sports competition.

Since the Olympic arts competition last happened in 1948, I would guess most people do not even realize it existed. Which is probably why it has received so little mention (which might even be no mention at all) in discussions about the broader subject of what sub-set of Olympic competitors are notable.

Does anyone know. In the RfC last fall, did anyone even mention the Olympic Arts competitors?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure my paragraph breaking above was done correctly. I realized that the original block text would have overwhelmed people. I was also pretty sure I should not sign each statement separately. I apologize if there was another way I should have broken up my statement for readability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Example:

• Gert Heinrich Wollheim at least from my initial encounter causes me to think it is an example of a very good article on someone in the Olympic Arts Competition. It does leave me wondering though if we should categorize people by being part of the Olympic Arts Competition. Such seems to run against the spirt of the rule against categorizing performers by performance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• AFAIU, we add new rules for common situations. Otherwise each and every occupation may claim rules for them. IMO Olympic arts competitions are is a too narrow field to design special rules. The article Art competitions at the Summer Olympics says: "While several of the Olympic art medalists have achieved at least national fame, few of them can be considered well-known artists globally". This is the major distinction from sports Olympics. And therefore I conclude there is no inherent notability in these winners and no special rules for them. Loew Galitz (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• If any individual who won any Olympic medal isn't seen as being notable enough to have sources about them then there's already the scope to send them to a deletion discussion. No further discussion is needed here and I suggest we let this die a death. I note, fwiw, that the OP is under ArbCom sanctions which ban them from "participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed" which came into effect on 2 August, although by the time of this post the decision was bound to pass. This seems awfully close to being a set of hundreds of deletion discussions by proxy. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Prod deletion

Several members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom/Parliament of Great Britain, at least some of whom served in the 1790-1810 time range recently had their articles put up for Proposed Deletion. I removed the proposed deletion because such clearly meet NPOL as it exists. I have not done any searches to see if more sources can be found. These in general had been created by a now banned editor, and not been edited at all (I mean zero edits period) since then, which has been at least 6 months. I have not tried to find additional sources or done looking to see how much the sources listed actually say. James Wildman may actually have enough sources presently meeting GNG. I at first thought this might be something that would open up into a discussion of why we only need verifiability for politicians. However, this might actually be more "is a source like [2] reliable and indepdent when considering members of the UK/GB Parliament" for example.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:ECONOMIST" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:ECONOMIST and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 19#Wikipedia:ECONOMIST until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Recent bold edits by User:Loew Galitz

I'm writing on this page in the spirit of WP:BRD regarding these three edits by Loew Galitz. The edits link the term "presumed" to WP:GNG or a subsection thereof, though I do not think that this is the intent of the "in a nutshell" statement on the page. I believe that the link is made in error; this is not the general notability guideline, but an WP:SNG. The section in WP:N on subject-specific notability guidelines seems to describe what presumption entails, stating that topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia. I brought this up in my edit summary when I reverted Loew Galitz's bold edit. Rather than try to explain my rationale in edit summaries or accusing anyone of not reading my edit summaries, I'd like to open a discussion here regarding what the appropriate link is. I would also ask that Loew Galitz self-revert pending discussion, in line with WP:PGBOLD. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• The terms defined in boldface in WP:N: Presumed, Significant coverage, Reliable, Sources, Independent of the subject are general-purpose Wikipedia-specific terms applicable to all sub-guidelines. It will be a huge mess, if each subguideline will define its own meanings of these terms. But even if for some reason it be deemed necessary, they they must be clearly defined in the lede of the corresponding sub-guideline. Lacking such "overriding re-definitions", we must use the ones used in the main policy. Loew Galitz (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  With respect, you are referencing a section of the general notability guidelines, which contains definitions that are relevant to the GNG. The meanings of things like "independent" change depending on subject-specific notability guidelines; WP:ORGIND is much more strict than GNG's ordinary notion of "independence" and the WP:NBIO's criteria of intellectual independence is also much different than the ordinary meaning of independent for GNG purposes. The subject-specific notability guideline section is what applies to the subject-specific notability guidelines, not the GNG subsection. And the SNG subsection gives its articulation of what presumed notability is (i.e. that things can pass the guideline but can still be deleted), as is noted in the green above. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

As for the disputed term "presumed", the key part is ...creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article.. Every now and then someone uses the buzzword "presumed" as a 100% iron-clad cast in stone argument to keep an article and ignores WP:COMMON-based counter-arguments, e.g., in favor of merging. Loew Galitz (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Federal judicial nominees - Notable

The current Wikipedia policy is when the president of the United States sends a nominee to the US senate for a federal judgeship, they are not considered notable until they are confirmed. I am asking the Wikipedia community if we can get that verbiage changed so that as soon as the nominee has officially been sent to the US senate for consideration, they are considered notable. There are several reason why I am asking for this change. I will list them below.

1. When a person is a nominee for a lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary, they have been thoroughly vetted & usually has had years within the legal community. These nominees will probably had argued several cases in front of various federal courts & probably even the US supreme court.

2. The nominee has to go through a hearing in front of the senate judiciary committee where they are questioned by various senators. This is recorded & sent out on television, multiple media outlets & will probably have stories about the hearings in several news outlets. The process between the hearing & confirmation vote can take months if not over a year. There is a large community within the readers of Wikipedia that would like to read up on the nominees during this time but can't if the pages are not allowed until they are confirmed.

3. Even if the nominee is not confirmed, they should be considered notable because there is usually an extraordinary circumstance as to why they were not confirmed.

4. The judiciary is one-third of the US government. Any nominee for a lifetime appointment for one-third of the government should be considered notable from day one as the other two branches of government are not appointed for life.

An example of pages that are not being allowed due to the verbiage in Wikipedia are Tiffany M. Cartwright & Jorge Alberto Rodriguez. Thank you for your consideration.

MIAJudges (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)