Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ljleppan (talk | contribs) at 07:54, 1 March 2024 (→‎ANYBIO and presumptive notability: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WT:BIO" redirects here. For WikiProject Biography, see WT:WPBIO. For WikiProject Biology, see WT:BIOLOGY.

Social media influencers

Should there be a Wikipedia:Notability (Social Media Influencers) page? Cause this is something I feel like we as Wikipedia editors can make its own discussion. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, outside of what other NBIO criteria can provide (like NCREATIVE) or via the GNG. The only real metric that we could use for social media influencers would be number of followers or views, and those are extremely prone to artificial pushes. Masem (t) 20:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There could be a section. Propose what you think it should say. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That idea is almost certainly bad for a couple reasons: first, the community has turned against subject-specific notability guidelines like WP:NSOLDIER and WP:PORNSTAR and both of those had clear-cut guidance on who qualified. I have doubts you'd be able to grade social media people as easily. Second, so-called "influencers" are the LAST group of people who should ever be discussed in an encyclopedia. If those folks were noteworthy they would pass WP:GNG. There's no need for a lower bar. Finally, we already have too many condemnable fans bringing their fandoms here; we ought not invite any more. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair Point NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well put, Chris. I entirely agree. Bduke (talk) 05:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Totally agree, if an influencer is notable there will be significant coverage in reliable sources. There may be a discussion about what sources are appropriate (which should be held at WP:RS) but without such coverage there isnt really anything to write about --hroest 14:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like I am wondering specifically about certain youtubers like SuperMarioLogan. Cause I feel that he may be notable for Wikipedia. Are there any relaible sources out there that cover him. Cause it seems like there should be. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or at least just for a redirect to another page. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think he is notable, then you can show this by finding in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Please read WP:RS in detail if you plan to answer this question. The easiest place to start is with Google News, I see a total of 19 mentions and most of them seem to concern an instance where he paid a large amount of money at a charity auction to have a meal with Tom Brady. However, at first glance I dont see in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. So at first glance, I would say he probably doesnt meet the notability guidelines. --hroest 18:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks for answering. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about the fact that he was covered on Good Morning America in 2018? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Though I am not sure how reliable GMA is. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like he be just barely not notable for Wikipedia. I remember back in December 2017 his content was talked about throughout numerous different news outlets. But of course, notability on an encyclopedia is more than that. Just curious, did you ever hear of him before I asked that question above? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperMarioLogan - Wikipedia Ok, this explains some of my questions. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 05:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. But just to clarify, I am specifically and almost exclusively talking about YouTubers. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPOLITICIAN

Hello. Does being part of a state legislative body count as presumed notability for WP:NPOLITICIAN? Say, for example a member of the Louisiana House of Representatives. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Vaurie, indeed it does: that's what it means when it refers to "members of legislative bodies" at the "state/province-wide" level. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSUBPOL is a great resource to see which subnational legislative bodies do and do not qualify for NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I just wanted clarification before going on a streak of creating such articles. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would have been US First Ladies...

Just to check, the spouses of major party candidates who lost US Presidential Elections are not notable for that reason, correct? For example, Thomas Dewey the Republican who lost the US Presidential election in 1944 and 1948 is notable, but his wife Frances would not be notable for the fact that she would have been first lady if her husband had won.Naraht (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She may well have been notable in her own right under the GNG if the coverage of her is sufficient, but I don't think any SNG presumes notability for the spouses of failed political candidates at any level. Jclemens (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So by that logic, Margot Perot isn't notable on that basis. It does lead to the question as to whether Frances Dewey is notable for having been First Lady of New York though.Naraht (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no knowledge of either case, but suspect that RS coverage of either may be sufficient to meet the GNG. My observation is that when an SNG is unclear, the next question is not "How do we clarify it?" but "What would the GNG say in this case?" Jclemens (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be frankly surprised if there is a losing major-party nominee whose spouse did not receive sufficient coverage to meet the GNG. BD2412 T 00:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For a modern candidate yes... Pre-1950? Not so sure... At some point the answer does become no. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably c. 1880. Star Garnet (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bearing in mind that nearly a quarter of losing candidates for U.S. President later went on to become winning candidates for U.S. President, there are only 31 losing nominees who were never themselves President. Complicating this slightly is that, particularly in olden days, a lot of them had a first wife who died young, before they became their party's nominee. I'm making a list, and checking it twice. BD2412 T 01:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding subjects for whom we already have articles (primarily because they were well-known socialites or second ladies of the U.S.), and noting that a few presidential nominees were never married, the list of presidential runners-up without articles on their spouses is as follows:

Note that all blue links on that list are other people who happen to share the name. A few of them have sufficient content in the articles on their husbands to create an article right away. BD2412 T 03:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to go ahead and make redirects for the red links. BD2412 T 04:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying the guidelines

The first paragraph under the "Additional criteria" section states:

People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.

However, that section has as subsections:

  • WP:ARTIST, which states when a person is notable;
  • The footnote to WP:POLITICIAN, which states when certain politicians are inherently notable; and
  • A summary of WP:NACADEMIC.

To eliminate confusion, I propose moving, ARTIST, the part of POLITICIAN that states which politicians in particular are always notable, and NACADEMIC to a new section called "Secondary crtieria", with an introductory paragraph explaining that these criteria establish notability conclusively. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am opposed to this. First, both NPOL and NACADEMIC only says that subjects are presumed to be notable; it does not declare that they are (only NARTIST does this). Second, Subject-specific Notability Guides (SNGs) are not the only criteria, so a subject does not have to pass any one of these and arguably, the article might still be sent to deletion if the subject is not generally notable, regardless of picayune SNGs like these or others like NRODEO. Wikipedia is already too inclusionist and this reads like a solution in search of a problem. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this is a solution in search of a problem; the introductory paragraph directly contradicts some of the inherent notability guidelines listed here and could be confusing to new editors. Additionally, the footnote to NPOL says that national and state or province-wide elected politicians should always have articles and NACADEMIC says: "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." NACADEMIC also says "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH, etc., and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline." voorts (talk/contributions) 23:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the solution is to change the language at WP:ARTIST and WP:POLITICIAN. I am aware of at least a few cases were very obscure mideval MPs lost their standalone articles, so clearly the community doesn't think the latter SNG is immutable. Mach61 (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would require an RfC, and I'm fairly certain that would end with a no consensus outcome. That said, I'm agnostic about changing NARTIST and NPOL at this point. My current proposal is just to make clear that, as currently written, some guidelines actually do establish an irrebuttable presumption of notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question re: WP:ANYBIO

In a current AfD discussion, I've raised a question about the application of WP:ANYBIO point 2 ("The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field") in the context of a person who is widely cited and quoted on Wikipedia itself (see Brittany Spanos). This seems like a somewhat unusual circumstance (as was pointed out by the editor who created the stub), and may merit consideration here too. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: To add more nuance – what I'm getting at is the idea that someone who is mentioned, quoted, or whose work is cited hundreds (or thousands) of times here on enwiki may in fact be notable by virtue of that fact alone. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked over the AfD, but I'm not a fan of the argument being presented here. Wikipedia articles can be created and edited by anyone, and as such I don't think they are part of the "historical record in a specific field" in the same way we presumably wouldn't really put any significant weight on someone being "cited" by a plethora of random blog posts. Ljleppan (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you have less of a question and more of an effort to canvass support at an AfD. For what it's worth, I think you're stretching the guideline well beyond reasonable limits. As always, I caution editors to wait until a subject had died before we try to assess things like "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record". Chris Troutman (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who voted delete, I don't think Cl3phact0 is trying to canvass. Mach61 (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Mach61.
Chris troutman, that's not my intention (also see my comment re: WP:APPNOTE on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Brittany Spanos AfD – the possibility of such mispercption being a thought which occurred to me only after posting my note here, if you're interested). I do apologise if I've left you with that impression. Again, I'm not particularly interested in the subject of the article itself (though she seems to be someone who's building quite a reputable body of work in her field), but I do think there is merit in the notability discussion that has resulted from the AfD.
I've actually been thinking quite a lot about both the interpretation of WP:ANYBIO (especially point 2), as well as the point about the very high number of internal Wikipedia citations that Dsp13 makes in the AfD discussion (as well as the other points I've raised in that same discussion and here). Essentially, might we be underestimating the potential value of Wikipedia itself as a reference (in some very specific cases). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any wiki is going to change with time, so at one point an author's work might be cited a lot but those citations might be replaced with others in five or ten years' time. Let's also remember that Wikipedia fails WP:SPS and WP:CIRCULAR. We can't have editors citing particular works to make the works and their authors de facto notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the worry that it creates additional incentive for puffery. But that incentive is unfortunately there anyway, and we already have to cope with it. Dsp13 (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We require thousands of citations in published academic papers for most academics to pass NPROF C1. We do not need the much lower bar of being cited on wikipedia, by anonymous editors whose motivations and affiliation with the subject are unknown, in a format that is inherently temporary and impossible to verify reliably (AFAIK we can't search all of the revision history for every article). It's hard enough figuring out a regex to search through references just for the purpose of adding author-links, no way should we be basing notability off it. How would that work at all for people with very common names? JoelleJay (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that common names mean you can't use a text search to tell you automatically. In the case of Brittany Spanos, after creating the page (before it was deleted at AfD) I manually checked each mention and added the wikilink. For an individual to have over 1,000 mentions on WP is highly unusual - a different bar, and one less measurable for the reasons you give, but not I think a lower bar than NPROF C1. (There are some interesting structural similarities between citation and WP linking. In both cases there is systemic bias. E.g., with respect to gender, see User:Dsp13/Gendered link bias. Dsp13 (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely a lower bar than NPROF C1, because it is not recognition by independent reliable published sources. I agree it can be an informal indicator that the person might be notable (I even include potential wikilink #s in the STEM bio list on my userpage), but it cannot be considered a valid argument for notability at AfD or elsewhere. JoelleJay (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think I may have have misunderstood you! Clearly, 'NPROF C1 or over 1000 WP mentions' is a lower bar than 'NRPF C1'. (I am certainly not suggesting that NPROF C1 should be replaced by over 1000 WP mentions. But I understood you to be directly comparing the two criteria, and saying that over 1000 mentions would be a lower bar than NPROF C1. This confused me, since if anything the size of the sets involved would be the other way round.) Dsp13 (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1000 mentions on WP is a much lower bar than 1000 mentions in IRS, and even 1000 mentions in academic sources isn't enough to meet NPROF C1. JoelleJay (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is never a reliable source for itself. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Military Officers Notability

Hello, I believe that the rules of notability should be edited to include automatically notability of certain military officers. Military generals and commanders should automatically be notable on Wikipedia, because they are a high ranking and command many people. As per Wikipedia:POLITICIAN, politicians that hold high rankings are automatically presumed as notable, so it does not make any sense as to why high-ranking military officers should not be automatically presumed notable. An example of an article falling into this scenario is an article I created, Oskar von dem Hagen. He was a military general during World War II who received the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, yet he is being deleted for "not having notability". Military generals and any military officers, especially ones with major awards, should be automatically presumed notable on Wikipedia. Please let me know what you think. Antny08 (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Antny08: That rule (WP:SOLDIER) had its time and has since been eliminated. If you cannot find sufficient sources on a subject, then we cannot write a decent article about them. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is talking about the Military history project guidelines, not the guidelines for Wikipedia itself, just the guidelines to be included in that project. Antny08 (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Antny08, you might be interested in reading the discussion that resulted in the removal of WP:SOLDIER. Schazjmd (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is talking about the Military history project guidelines, not the guidelines for Wikipedia itself, just the guidelines to be included in that project. Antny08 (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANYBIO and presumptive notability

Many editors take the position that ANYBIO, particularly ANYBIO #1, conclusively establishes notability. See, for example, @Necrothesp's notability criteria for receipients of honours. In my view, under the guidelines as currently written, this is incorrect and significant coverage is still required. The additional criteria section states:

People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.

This issue recently came up at at two AfDs that I was involved in: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarn Willers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lena Townsend.
I'm indifferent regarding whether meeting ANYBIO #1 should establish inherent notability, but I think this is something that the community needs to decide one way or the other, rather than being decided ad hoc at individual AfD discussions. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that ANYBIO does not confer notability, and would also point to the WP:WHYN section at N that requires multiple pieces of secondary, independent, significant coverage in RS exist for all subjects regardless of whether their presumption of notability is through GNG or an SNG: Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also related is WP:BIOSPECIAL, which expands on the "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" but is rather inconveniently hidden at the bottom of the page where I doubt most people have even seen it. Ljleppan (talk) 07:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)&oldid=1211187459"