Talk:Forbes 30 Under 30

Number of annual honorees

I've rewritten the lead to explicitly state the number of annual honorees. This is sort of WP:OR but also sort of WP:CALC. My concern is that to do otherwise would leave the door open for misrepresenting the significance of the award. I have seen far, far too many Wikipedia articles which use press releases to just say so-and-so "was listed as one of Forbes 30 Under 30" without actually mentioning that there are far more than just 30 listed every year. Far too many promotional mentions do not actually mention which list is being cited. Again, this is arguably a bit WP:OR, but WP:NPOV would be damaged by leaving this info out. Grayfell (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Just revised a bit further--I don't object to saying the total number in the lead but I do think we need a source before we do. I'm not certain it's the case there's never overlap between lists (especially across regional editions) so the number might be lower. I think since we give the number of lists and how many people are on each, that's enough for people to ballpark it for adequate context without the WP entry committing to a specific unconfirmed figure.

Relatedly, I added a note clarifying that this summary refers to the most recent set of lists, as previously there were fewer. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Works for me, I hadn't thought of the overlap issue. I would like a source, but lacking that it was a bit much for me to try cram that number into the lead like that. Grayfell (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

List of honorees

I've axed the 'List of honorees' section. As a form of promotion, the list is frequently cited by press releases and passing mentions which totally fail to provide any meaningful context for what the list signifies. There's also the issue that by listing some famous names without listing the thousands of non-famous people, the article is implying that the award is more significant than it actually is. We simply cannot list every honoree, so we need a clearly defined and highly selective criteria. Even doing a spin-off per-year list article would be excessively long and of very little encylopedic value. If any neutral sources of real substance cite specific people as being good examples of what the award means, or the type of person who is honored, that could be evaluated. Otherwise a listing like this is doomed to be arbitrary. Grayfell (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree, "neutral sources of real substance cite specific people as being good examples of what the award means, or the type of person who is honored" would be a good way to develop an honorees section if we were to add one back in. I'm fine without one, failing that. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOR

Per WP:No original research, please do not add material to this entry unless reliable secondary sources indicates its connection to the topic of Forbes 30 Under 30. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Came here wondering what "30 under 30" meant, and I'm still not clear what "under 30" means. Is it a funding thing? An age thing? The article makes no mention.Brianetta ^{Brian Ronald, UK. Talk here} 11:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOR and avoiding WP:PROMO

Hi WatersPhD, thanks for your additions to this page. I see they are all sourced to Forbes own site, making them stray a bit into the realm of original research and promotion which we try to avoid. Have any independent reliable sources discussed these events? Such sources would help us make sure we are giving a neutral account. Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Innisfree987, thank you for your message. You're right I should try to find other sources. When I do so, I'll change the references. Have a great day! WatersPhD (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)