Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Some practical advice[edit]

I don't know where this fits in, but it's excellent advice for a Jewish writer on writing biography — both online and off. The expression "maran" means our teacher:

Beauty pageant contestants[edit]

Currently the closest rationale is under WP:NACTORS for models. I think we REALLY need to establish some firm rules for notability for these women (and indeed, men) as a separate section, maybe with the WP:NBEAUTY redirect. What I suggest is:

Minimum criteria for biographies of contestants/winners, in addition to BLP rules, the criteria should be:

  • Subject has won one of the Big Four international beauty pageants (Miss World, Universe, International, or Earth), or an equally, demonstrably notable equivalent.
  • Subject has represented their country at one of the Big Four (or equally notable equivalent) through winning one of the national/deciding heats. (usually appropriate for a basic stub entry in line with sportspersons.)
  • Winning a regional heat or being a runner up is not notable unless there are other, valid reasons to find the subject notable.

If a pageant that is not one of the Big Four (or equally notable) is shown to be notable, then the winners should be simply listed in the article (with a redirect there if appropriate) unless there are good reasons for them to have their own article. So if Bobbi Worldpeace is made Miss Podunktown 2014 and Miss Podunktown passes notability in itself, then Bobbi Worldpeace should only be mentioned as the 2014 titleholder in the article and not have her own article.

For beauty pageants: claims of international notability should be supported by INTERNATIONAL sources. A claim to represent the world should have proof that this is recognised by the worldwide press - if the majority of your coverage is in Manila or Timbuktu, with maybe a couple mentions in Denmark local-interest press because a Danish girl was in the show, then that really doesn't sound truly international does it?

Anyway - I really do think we need to establish some rules, as I'm kinda getting frustrated with all the beauty pageants and Miss Anywheres coming up for deletion discussions and it would be nice to have some firm notability rules established in simple straightforward terms. Mabalu (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

A big problem with this is that many articles about beauty pageant contestants are created by someone who is a professional beauty contest organizer (but undeclared) and that I have a nasty idea that he uses sock puppets and/or meat puppets to work on beauty pageant related articles. Unfortunately, I have only recently start my investigation into it so as for now, I am unable to prove it. The Banner talk 11:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with this. I think we really, really, really need some solid rules for this field just to make sure that there is a solid guideline - there seem to be 200 related AFDs a year coming up which is silly. Given that sportspeople are deemed notable if they have played in at least one match at a professional level, I think the suggested criteria is more than reasonable (plus more than generous!) and easy enough to police as per notability, (ie, Miss England almost certainly notable, Miss Bognor Regis definitely not UNLESS she becomes Miss England.) as long as there are basic sources to support the BLP and show that they held the national title. Mabalu (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how active Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants is but that'd be a good resource to see what's considered important. I would also include the Miss America winners given the legacy of that pageant.
Comparing with footballers is rather tricky, because there are several adjacent rules to determine the notability of a footballer (for example: playing in a fully professional league, what excludes many players even when playing at the highest level in their country).
So I would suggest to makes the rules more strict and more clear: Subject has ended in the top three of one of the Big Four international beauty pageants (Miss World, Universe, International, or Earth). Nothing more and nothing less. The Banner talk 17:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I do think that going on to represent your country in one of the Big Four is not to be sneezed at. You are representing your country in a BIG pageant and that should meet notability on a national level for your country albeit certainly not in any way that I personally would consider important. So making it to the highest level competition is an achievement in itself that should be recognised. Particularly if you've made it to more than one of the Big Four. Mabalu (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
So a Miss Verysmallcountry, appointed national miss due to lack of competition, is automatically notable when she reaches the stage alive? The Banner talk 18:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@The Banner: If I'm interpreting your proposal correctly, Miss America 2013 Mallory Hagan is not notable, is that correct?Naraht (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, when the pageants are her only claim for notability, she would fail. But she can try to comply to the standard notability guidelines, like WP:GNG. The Banner talk 18:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
That's ridiculous that Miss America winners are relegated to "Miss Verysmallcountry" status and would lose notability. That pageant preceded the Big Four and has substantial notability in secondary reliable sources, including Hagan's article. It's like Indy 500 winners being surpassed by NASCAR. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree with AngusWOOF there. We accept people who are demonstrably notable in their country even if they are not notable in English language sources. I feel that, as long as sources exist to confirm BLP, anyone who has gone on to represent the entirety of their country in a notable pageant should be considered at least stub-worthy. Acting as your country's representative is a big deal in these things. I think that's a very simple, valid minimum standard that any idiot should be able to grasp - no runner-ups, no second-place winners, just the overall finalist. Mabalu (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Is there any reason to believe that WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO are insufficient for beauty pageant contestants? I haven't seen any argument made explaining why the existing general guidelines are insufficient. Pburka (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Because so many articles are created for beauty pageant contestants based on primary sources or kinda weak sources, and at AFD there has traditionally been a tendency to argue that because someone represented their country in an international, notable pageant they deserve a stub article. I agree with this at its most basic level. But I think there need to be rules firmly spelled out somewhere in Wikipedia policy, so we can point the hard-of-thinking at it. The rulea as they stand now are vague, nebulous, and as much use as a chocolate bosom is to a wax nun in a fiery furnace. Mabalu (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
They still need to meet WP:GNG with the significant secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I wouldn't create any stub articles of contestants until that is in place. Those who won their nationals should have lots of those sources (assuming they aren't from the same news agency or from a niche beauty contestant media). The winners of the Big Four can be stubbed because they're expected to have that level of coverage for winning the highest levels of competition. I agree the regional contestants (those competing to represent their country) and below are not automatically notable. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Is it possible they'd win these national competitions, without getting coverage in their nation? Not every newspaper is in English, so searching is difficult, and not every newspapers has access to its archives online. If there is no possible doubt they would've all received coverage, then we need a guideline to just say they are notable, and leave it at that. We have the same guy going around mass nominating them now because its hard to find sources in other languages. Dream Focus 03:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is researching foreign-language sources hard? If Google Translate covers the language it's not hard. Sounds like a convenient rationalization to do mass deletions. -- GreenC 04:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Not all media can conform to wikipedia's tunnel vision relative to WP:RS. While Facebook might be a perfectly functional means of distributing content from what might be an original RS in a foreign country, it looks to WP like just another jerk on Facebook. Frankly, without boots on the ground in each country, speaking the native language and knowing local media, from a distance we have no idea what is important or not in Verysmallcountry. The concept of a free media, a reliable source in general, is not something we can assume in every country. Take North Korea, who could we trust to deliver factual information? Certainly not the official media. Back to Dream Focus' idea. How could we not assume a national champion to get extensive coverage in their country? Even in a country of a few thousand people, whoever is on the selection committee needs to go beyond the local pageant and raise the necessary funds to send the girl to the world pageant (probably with handlers, national costumes, hair, make up, coaching). It cannot help but to be a big deal even in a small country. Maybe even a more important source of national pride in such a small place. Trackinfo (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

With the case for national coverage above being the first event, the contestant is then taken into a second event, the worldwide media frenzy of the worldwide pageant, where respected media loves to cover pretty girls in pageants--its a G rated way to increase readership exploiting the female anatomy. In the case of Miss Universe which I have had to learn about, the Los Angeles Times, Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Las Vegas Review-Journal each do a (different) photo section on every contestant. Time Magazine Style covers the girls in interesting national costumes. Then its a world wide televised event. Thats not even mentioning all the gossip columns, low quality media, Facebook/social media and trumped up media to hype the event. For the week of the event, these contestants are all, each, individually doing media events, photoshoots and interviews displaying their great intellectual capabilities. OK thats sarcasm. The point is, they are celebrities. They are what the cameras are pointed at. We have WP:NTEMP, we have WP:NSPORTS as an example. This is the top level these girls can achieve in the field. Trackinfo (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to point out the artificial urgency of this discussion, User:The Banner speaking above, has apparently used this discussion to motivate a move to force his side of the decision. He created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayako Hara, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Radonjić, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salome Khomeriki, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celeste Marshall, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farah Eslaquit, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camila Vezzoso, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winfrida Dominic, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheillah Molelekwa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsakana Nkandih, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhana Yaneva, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Godoy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcelina Vahekeni and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrienne Murphy that I have discovered so far. I can't think of the exact policy, but this is not exactly kosher for the way this kind of policy discussion should go. I also do not see any linkage of this discussion to any of those timely AfD's attacking 2012 contestants, post dated to his participation in this discussion. Is he trying to get decisions under the radar? I would think he should know better. Trackinfo (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Your constant accusations of bad faith are also not kosher, mr. Trackinfo. Are you trying to get decisions under the radar, by claiming that all beauty contestants are automatically notable, even when they have only Google hits on related websites related to that single event? (Main round and preliminary rounds are not two events but just one.) The Banner talk 09:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Your prejudicial "qualifications" in the sentence are not true. Otherwise, based on the constant, virtually overwhelming coverage each contestant receives during the pageant WP:GNG, yes. It should be assumed to meet GNG in the standard of notability as we are discussing here. Exactly as any Olympic athlete is assumed to reach the highest level in their field in WP:NSPORTS. Trackinfo (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay - what's the official word on interviews?[edit]

It seems I often see arguments in deletion discussiuons that interviews don't count - e.g. "Only sources are interviews, delete!" but I'm not so sure about this. Do we have an official line on interviews? Obviously a small-paper interview or a blog interview isn't likely to count as a source, but if notable or significant publications are writing on the subject, including interviews as part of their article, surely we aren't supposed to just dismiss them offhand as "interviews don't count?" I've tried to find something like WP:INTERVIEW or similar but I REALLY can't find anything. Apologies if I'm missing the relevant page but is there an official line or guideline on interviews being used to scratch a person's notability anywhere? Obviously not talking about Single Event stuff here. Mabalu (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

They're treated as primary sources per WP:NOR, see the footnotes on that page. The questions and surrounding background information could be used to prove that the person played a particular character. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • If a major publication includes an interview with someone then that should be taken as an indication of notability. Interviews vary enormously in the amount of independent coverage - some include a significant amount (e.g. in the introduction to the interview) but others consist solely of a list of questions and the answers. We shouldn't exclude sources simply because they contain interviews, especially of they also contain independent coverage. --Michig (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I have to disagree, this would mean that every "talking head" on various media would be considered notable. The subject that their talking about maybe notable, not necessarily the person talking about the subject. Furthermore, if an actor or actress is interviewed about their roll in an upcoming movie, say on YouTube, that does not make the actor or actress likely to be notable themselves.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Stradivarius has recently created Wikipedia:Interviews and has been seeking input on its talk page. Location (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Crime victims and perpetrators[edit]

After a brief discussion in 2012, the section pertaining to crime victims and perpetrators now includes a brief mention to people "wrongly convicted". Per that same discussion, I outlined that there various other individuals who have some relationship to a criminal event or trial. I am wondering if there are any thoughts on replacing the current version with the proposal noted above that refers not just to perpetrators, victims, and those wrongly accused of crimes, but also to "others associated with a criminal event or trial". Although the wording has been changed, I believe I have preserved all the points that currently exist in the section. - Location (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Quotes by experts[edit]

Oftentimes a reliable news source will quote a non-academic expert on a particular issue to give an opinion or otherwise inform the reader. Sometimes the quotes can be extensive. My question is, can this be considered "significant coverage" for the purpose of WP:BIO for the expert him- or herself? Clearly the article is not about the expert, it's about the issue. At the same time the news source has implicitly (sometimes explicitly) endorsed the person's expertise (and perhaps their prominence in the field).

I also wonder if the consensus answer should be added to this guideline. It seems important enough. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I would echo the importance of providing clear guidance on this... it comes up very very very often in notability discussions of one sort or another. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I think WP:LOWPROFILE would apply for experts. Someone who is high-profile should have writeups about the person beyond their column or interview. -AngusWOOF (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I would expect that in most cases where there would be enough of this to matter, the individual's notability has already been established in other ways. This could be enough to tip the balance in a few cases, I suppose, but I wouldn't expect this to be the deciding factor except in a few rare WP:IAR-type cases. @Demiurge1000: If this is coming up a lot, could you please give a few examples? I haven't been hanging around AfD a lot lately. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I could be mistaken but don't think AngusWOOF or Philosopher quite address my question. Let's take a concrete example, the one that led me to initiate this discussion. Suppose I wanted to write an article about Grant Scheiner, a Texas criminal defense lawyer. I couldn't find any secondary sources about him, but I did find quite a number of sources in which he was quoted talking about his clients, or about other cases where he wasn't directly involved. Now consider this source from The Hindu Indian daily newspaper. It's about Scheiner's client, not about Scheiner himself, but Scheiner's quotes make up the majority of the story. Significant coverage? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I misunderstood the question. First, a few weed-out questions: Is he merely parroting a party line? Is the coverage going to fall under WP:ONEEVENT? Is the coverage simplistic or short? For case which aren't trivial, as above, does the information contain concrete analysis where the paper was interviewing the expert in significant part because he is an expert and not merely because he is working for a client that is being covered. In this last case only, I would consider the significant coverage to apply to him even if the coverage is written to look like it is about the client. However, it would be weaker evidence and I would probably want to see more of it than I would of the more "normal" coverage.
The reason I would accept this indirect coverage is a question of scope more than of directness of coverage – the English Wikipedia should probably include people who are widely recognized as experts in their fields (or, in some cases, sub-fields), and this might be a way of countering bias against those fields where there is less directly-on-point coverage of these experts. The reason I wouldn't treat this more cautiously than "normal" coverage is because it can be difficult to judge who is a significant expert based on such coverage alone. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The articles just cover his normal work on cases. While I'm sure he's trying to get notability for his firm as any businessperson would, he would have to get onto local and then national media sources as a high-profile contributor as with real estate businesswoman Barbara Corcoran writing columns for magazines, appearing regularly on The Today Show, and then landing gigs like Shark Tank. If there are notable cases that he is not associated with where the secondary media regularly ask his opinion then those would show more intention to be high profile. -AngusWOOF (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)