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 Kaoszulu (talk | contribs) at 06:38, 26 August 2015 (New talk section: The deletion of my name from nbastreet). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Some practical advice

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:

Improvements to NAUTHOR

I recently had a bit of kerfuffle at an AfD and all that aside, it does bring up something that has frequently happened at AfD: there have been multiple times where we've had articles for published authors deleted. Now these aren't self-published authors, but authors who have been published via fairly major publishing companies. What I'm proposing is something that's more in line with criteria #5 of WP:NBAND, which I've used as the basis for the following criteria:

Has released four or more print novels, anthologies/collections (where they are the only author), or book-length works via a major publisher or through one of the more important indie publishers (i.e., an independent publisher with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of authors, many of whom are independently notable). Works that have been self-published (ie, CreateSpace, Lulu) or released via a vanity publisher do not apply. Journalists and academics who have only published journal articles do not qualify for this criteria.

While it seems a little broad at first, take into account that this would not cover self-published works and at this point it would only pertain to novels or other full-length works that have been released in print. If this works well then this can be expanded to cover e-book only releases and authors who have only published short works of fiction in various mainstream publications but have never had their works collected in one format or another. NBAND has been using this criteria for a pretty long time now and it's worked out relatively well for them. We could always add to this or expand upon it, but for now I think that it'd be reasonable to add this to the list. More people are getting published now than there were in the past, but getting published through a mainstream publisher isn't entirely easy and if the author has published multiple books under a mainstream publisher (think Penguin, Simon & Schuster, etc) then that should be something to count towards notability. I'd say we should start with two, as that's what NBAND currently has as a criteria for notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here's an example in my userspace: User:Tokyogirl79/Eli Cantor. Cantor is an author who published multiple novels. Two of them were published by Zebra Books, one by Crown Publishing, and one by Outlet Book Company (ie, RandomHouse), all in the 70s and 80s. One of the books was even made into a film. By all accounts he should have coverage, but he doesn't. Adding in this criteria would allow authors like him to have an article. Now I am aware that this would open up a bit of a can of worms from people looking to create vanity page, but I think that we can handle pages like that. The big thing is that as long as these can be verified somehow (ie, a link to Google Books or similar) then I don't see where this would irreparably harm Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey TG, what would we consider a "full-length" work? For example, that sentence is as full-length a work as I will publish anywhere today. Is there an established standard for such things? Aside: thoroughly worth considering - nice work. St★lwart111 05:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say anything that is over novella length and would be published as a stand-alone work. In other words, book-length works. I was thinking of that mostly for the non-fiction authors that have released multiple books under a mainstream publisher. I was going to include essay books in this (ie, ones where there is a short story or novella by the author that is accompanied by multiple academic essays on the work), but I think that this would be better off as a different criteria altogether since that would need a lot of tweaking. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something like this would be slightly iffy as a full length work since it's 176 pages, but it has been published on its own in paperback by a major publisher (Simon & Schuster). It may be better to put the minimum books level at three, but I think that this would allow for a lot more authors to have articles. Making the requirement printed works instead of e-book only releases would help raise the threshold to where it'd be at least somewhat discerning since there are more than a few of the bigger publishers that have released a glut of e-books that would make this somewhat unwieldy. For example, I'd consider Ellora's Cave to be an indie publisher that would qualify for as a more important indie publisher (no comment on the various controversies surrounding them). They have released a ton of e-book only releases but they have published some works in print format. The print versions would qualify but not the e-book only releases. If this criteria does well then we could make a second criteria that addresses authors that are predominantly or solely e-book authors. I've got a few ideas for that (centering upon the e-book hitting the top ten of mainstream bestseller lists like USA Today or NYTBL, OR the author releasing multiple book-length e-works through a mainstream publisher), but for now I think it's best to focus on this criteria. In any case, I'm throwing out two more authors that would benefit from this work: Sunny, an extremely popular erotica author, and Gerry Bartlett, an author of a fairly popular chick lit vampire series. Both are published multiple books under Berkley Books, an imprint of Penguin, yet neither have really gained enough coverage to warrant an article as of yet per the current guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The minimum number of books depends on the importance of the books. There are authors of a single book Harper Lee who are unquestionably notable (I realize there are just recently plans to publish another book), but still she will have written at most two. And there is Margaret Mitchell. DGG ( talk ) 07:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG: I have no problem with the criteria being set at two. The main reason I'm lobbying for this would be for authors who have published multiple books under a major publisher but have never really received coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the other criteria of NAUTHOR. This would not be an exclusionary criteria since we would not eliminate an author solely because they do not pass this guideline. I see it as being more inclusionary since it'd allow us to have more articles on authors that would otherwise fail notability criteria. I can't tell you how many times I've participated in AfDs where people complained that we were deleting articles on authors that were publishing through mainstream publishers (most recently the Donovan AfD), so this would allow for more articles and hopefully, more incoming editors. The basic requirement of this is that the authors have books that are already published and available for purchase in print somewhere. This would still require confirmation in some aspect, so we'd still require a source to back up proof of publication. I imagine that these could be passing mentions in reliable sources (trade magazines, newspapers, etc), in-depth reliable sources (of course), and primary sources such as the publisher's website. I do think that for the final one it should be the publisher's website or something that is just as solid (like a Google Books link) so we can avoid people posting blogs to claim that someone published under this or that major publisher. I also want to note that this would specifically make it easier for us to have pages on foreign language authors where finding specific coverage may be difficult due to a language barrier. Many publishers tend to have English language portions of their website, so it would be easier to prove publication that way. This would result in a lot of bare bones articles, but in my experience people are more likely to expand an article if there is one to expand. The list of requested articles in any given WikiProject space will show that there are many who do not prefer to create their own articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This also has the potential to be somewhat far reaching, so I would say that for now this should only pertain to novels or book-length non-fiction works. If this is successful in driving up editor numbers then we could see about expanding this to cover other areas like manga and light novel submissions. My idea for that is that author notability would be counted by series as opposed to each release, as it's common for there to be authors who release one multi-volume series through a major publisher/magazine but not really anything else past that point. The series would also have to be published in paperback (ie, like this manga or this light novel series). I'm not lobbying for that, but I did want to include this since it has the potential to allow us to be more inclusionary for authors that are extremely well known but for whatever reason haven't received the amount of coverage necessary to pass on other criteria. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also need to again state that while this would initially seem a little too inclusionary, take into account that this criteria has been in place with NBAND for a fairly long time now and it's still pretty exclusionary. We'd see an initial spike of pages getting created, but I see that as a good thing since it'd probably mean more editors and after the initial spike dies down it'd probably end up settling down. It'd also decrease the amount of pages that would go to AfD, which would also be beneficial for obvious reasons. (Fewer candidates on the list means more time can be spent on other AfDs.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the question is whether you want to use this as an alternative to GNG or an additional requirement. If as an additional requirement, I think it's a very poor idea, because of the authors whose single books are notable, and even the very occasional author whose self-published book or books are notable. If you want to use this as an explicit alternative, then the rule needs to say so specifically, essentially the way WP:PROF does, because there will always be people arguing at afd that the only guideline is GNG, and anything else is only presumed notability, that can be contradicted by not finding GNG quality sources. I agree the way we use GNG for books or authors is absurd: anything can be done by manipulation of the keywords in GNG--in order to get reasonable results, I've always argued that local and even regional newspapers, especially from the author's region, do not show notability, on the basis that publishing them does not show editorial discrimination. In the other direction, it's been argued that SLJ and Booklist and the like are non-selective review sources. There's also an occasional argument that since all books from mainstream academic publishers get eventually reviewed in the special it academic journals in the fields academic publishers eventually get reviews in academic journals, these too are indiscriminate. I've always argued against this, again, in order to get reasonable results.
the problem is that all mainstream publishers publish trivial and unsuccessful books, usually in greater number than significant ones. If we include all the authors of two or more of them, it would be getting over-inclusive for even my views. But it might be the simplest, and if you think we can get consensus for it, I'll support it, at either the 2 or 3 level.
One thing is very easy for books in English from the major English speaking countries and should be no concern at all: every one of them will show up in worldcat, so there is no problem at all in verifying the publications. Books in the major European languages usually show up in WorldCat also. Books in any language from Asia can be another matter, unless a US library happens to acquire one. Though there are sources for some of the countries, such as Japan and China, which are usable only by people who know the language and are in libraries in those countries or in one of the very few other libraries that get those databases (Princeton gets them for Japanese, but that does me no good at all--there's not even an English interface). For the near East and India, the situation is hopeless. So we're going to have immense cultural bias. Perhaps it won't be worse than we do already.
On the other hand, I do wish to deprecate the GNG, because tBhe results from it are totally inconsistent.
  • @DGG: It'd be an alternative to GNG and not an additional requirement- NAUTHOR is strict enough as it is and mostly I want to find a way to allow more of the "common sense" authors to have pages. (IE, authors that publish via notable publishers, sell extremely well, are extremely well known, but have never garnered enough coverage to pass GNG.) I'm open to raising the number of required books to a larger number (3-4+) if you think that it would keep it from being too inclusive. We could also probably restrict this further by saying that the author has to have released 2-3 books in hardback through notable publishers. I know that this isn't always the rule, but I know that publishers are more likely to release something in hardback if the author has routinely sold well enough to warrant that additional expense. It'd unfortunately exclude some of the authors I'd like to add (mostly old 80s horror fiction and young adult authors), but it would keep it from being too inclusionary while still allowing for more authors to have articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other words, it would still technically be part of NAUTHOR (since it'd be lumped in with that) but it would be one of the criteria that articles had to fulfill for notability purposes. Authors only have to meet one of the criteria and it would make it easier for these borderline cases if there was a criteria that allowed for authors to pass if they've published multiple book-length works through a notable publisher. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I didn't understand at first. I think it's a basically good idea, but I need to think about the details. Some of the restrictions, such as hardback , don't really apply in many genres (like sf, but there's no problem getting sf authors declared notable here because there are many fans) YA are sold in HB if they expect libraries to buy them. Some countries, e.g France, publish almost nothing in hb. Perhaps it should be limited to notable publishers with WP articles, which will help a little. I';d really like to use a list -- this is familiar to me, for it is similar to the way libraries buy books--they typically tell the dealers from what publishers they want to see books for approval. The problem with setting it at relatively restrictive at first and then opening it up is that each time thats done, there will be opposition. (There will be anyway, but let's look at some recent declines at afd. My idea & I think yours, is that it should not really be more inclusive, but should make it easier to decide. and more consistent. We got WP:PROF accepted because absolutely everything who worked in the field accepted it. I;'m not sure that will be the case here. DGG ( talk ) 09:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the idea of requiring that the publishers have articles and making a list- I've never really seen one of those, but I've heard of them. What you've written is pretty much what I want- I'd like it to be easier to decide at AfDs, although an added bonus would be that it'd take a lot of frustration out of creating and keeping articles. When compiling a list, is there anything that I should do when discarding a publisher as unusable for the purposes of the list? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If authoring two books and having those two books by a major publisher is sufficient to pass WP:NAUTHOR, one could argue, being an Ambassador is sufficient to be notable. How is it that notability can be seen as writing two books, while it takes someone being a recipient for their nation's highest medal for valor to be notable? Something more stringent please. Perhaps being the author of a book that has received a major significant award (thus clarifying the notable award criteria of WP:ANYBIO), is something to be looked at. But just being a published author doesn't make one notable, otherwise, every major journalist is a published author of notability after publishing two long form articles, based on one way to interpret above suggested addition to the guideline.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going back to the original proposal here, what qualifies as "a major publisher?" What makes WP:NBAND work is that there is some agreement on what constitutes a major record label. The other question about this change is that it would likely change the approach WP:PROF, since many professors may meet a more open criteria of WP:NAUTHOR. Enos733 (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that one of the best ways to describe a major publisher is that it'd be one that has received substantial coverage in reliable sources, enough to where they'd warrant an article themselves. They'd also be a publisher that has routinely published works that have received enough coverage to where either the authors or their works would pass notability guidelines as well. As far as the concern over the journalists go, this criteria would only pertain to people who have published book-length works through a major publisher, meaning that the works would typically be 300+ pages on average. This would not cover newspaper articles regardless of the length, as it is extremely unlikely that the average newspaper (or even a journal article) would have a submission that is of book length. This can be changed to specify that this does not cover journalists or academic journal articles, a change I've made above. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With WP:PROF, the effect may be still substantial, since many of the major academic presses, i.e. Harvard University Press, Yale University Press and the University of California Press, all have their own Wikipedia pages. The consensus on WP:PROF was "simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient." In addition, changing the standard for published books (with a major publisher) (and especially to two), would unintentionally provide notability to academics in certain fields where research is traditionally published in book form (versus journal articles).--Enos733 (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the number of minimum works can always be raised, so to address those concerns I've changed this to four books instead of two, although three is probably better. This could very easily be further changed to raise this bar. The thing is, publishing isn't easy. It is cheaper and easier for major publishers to put out works, but this hasn't really turned it into a free-for-all where anyone can submit a book to Berkley (or even Zondervan and they're fairly liberal) and get accepted. There's still a very rigorous screening process and most will not get published at all, let alone in print. Even if the person gets a contract for this or that number of books (usually about 2-3), there's still no guarantee that this contract will be honored and it's entirely possible that a poorly performing author will be dropped before they've published the promised amount of books. There can also be a coda added in that if the author has only worked on one book series (ie, an ongoing series with one character) and the series is notable enough to have an article, then it would be better for the author's name to serve as a redirect to that series page. The thing about all of this is that books are pretty niche and unless something really grabs the public eye, you can have extremely successful authors that solidly fly under the radar despite having large followings and selling large amounts of books. This can be extremely offputting for incoming editors because for them it just won't make sense. Now I'm not talking about someone who has published a few books under an obscure publisher, but people who have published multiple books in known publishers that have published extremely notable authors (that are not in the public domain). This would enable people like the ones I've listed above to have an article, as well as people who have received some limited coverage for their work, but just barely fall shy of fulfilling notability criteria. It would revolutionize notability guidelines to a degree, but in a good way since it'd give us a way to keep most of the "common sense" articles that get nominated for deletion or get turned down at AfC. It'd also help give us a way to have articles on authors that published during a point in time where publishing was extremely difficult and any truly in-depth coverage has not been put on the Internet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's an idea: how about we include the book amount but also require that the books be held in a certain number of institutions on WorldCat? For example, what if it was as follows:
Has released four or more book length works that have been published via a major publisher or through one of the more important indie publishers, and are held in a minimum of 200 libraries throughout the world. Book-length works are defined as works of fiction, non-fiction, and/or anthologies/collections where they are the only author that are over 250 pages long. Qualifying publishers, including indie publishers, are defined as publishers with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of authors, many of whom are independently notable. Works that have been self-published (ie, CreateSpace, Lulu) or released via a vanity publisher do not apply, nor do works by authors that are contracted to ghost write for another author (ex, Andrew Neiderman) unless they are the sole ghost writer and the author passes notability guidelines. Journalists and academics who have only published journal articles do not qualify for this criteria.
This will need to be whittled down more and it'd be best if we could make up a list of publishers, but this would still be fairly exclusive. For example, a WorldCat search shows that the aforementioned author Gerry Bartlett would probably fail this criteria. She'd pass on the amount of books published, but so far only two of her books are substantially carried in libraries throughout the world. Eli Cantor would also fail this criteria, as likely would a number of authors, but at the same time there would be a lot of authors that would that have otherwise failed notability criteria. Sunny would pass this criteria as four of her books are held in over 200 libraries, so she's an example of an author that would benefit from the version I've posted above. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is still too inclusive. I think something about clarifying what "notable awards" means in WP:ANYBIO when it comes to authors means (as I suggested above). If the author's work(s) (say three or more) have received significant coverage in non-primary (and non-publisher related) reliable sources (and have not won a major award), it should be fair to say that is sufficient to say that the author themselves have received significant coverage for more than one book release, and thus are notable beyond WP:BLP1E (where the event is the book release), than that should be considered notable. Just cause someone has X number of books published might not make the author notable, especially if the books being published aren't notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I'm trying to accomplish with this is to help show notability for books and authors that haven't received enough coverage to pass the current guidelines but for all practical purposes should pass notability guidelines. The thing about publishing in print is that it's not entirely a free for all- for someone to publish a certain amount of books through a notable or major publisher isn't a small feat. However I can see where this may seem too inclusive, which is why I added the information about the author having to have 4 of their book-length works held in over 200 libraries on WorldCat. Now where publishing alone may be too inclusive for some, publishing and having your book in over 200 libraries is not an easy feat. Publishing doesn't guarantee that libraries will purchase the books for their shelves, especially nowadays when many libraries are downsizing their collections and trying to only include the books that they know that patrons want. Some libraries are able to afford more books than others, but by large libraries have to be exclusive in what they choose. DGG could probably back me up on this since he works in a library. Now this isn't 200 libraries for all four books, but 200 libraries per book. That's where it'd be a little more exclusive since this addition would exclude a lot of authors unless they achieved notability via other criteria. For example, Sunny's Mona Lisa Awakening is held in over 200 libraries and she has three other books that have similar holdings above 200. Gerry Bartlett (I've had a chance to look a little closer at her books) also passes this criteria with several of her books ([1], [2], [3], [4]). However at the same time this would exclude a lot of authors who publish but don't have enough of a demand to warrant libraries purchasing their work. For example, Lucy Arlington has three books that are in many libraries but her fourth book is only held in 139 libraries. This means that unless she has coverage that would otherwise allow her to pass notability guidelines, she would fail this criteria, as would many other authors who would say, have a series that is popular and successful enough that their publisher would continue to honor their contract but not to the point where libraries would carry that author. The issue I've run into is that we've frequently had articles for people that for all practical purposes should have articles but fall just shy of notability guidelines. A great example of this would be authors like Jamie McGuire. She has an article now (although the article's sourcing is exceedingly shaky right now), but I know that for the longest time she would continually fall shy of the notability guidelines despite having an overwhelmingly large fandom that managed to catch the eye of Atria Publishing, who contracted her for multiple books. Basically this is a way of proving that the authors have a large enough following to warrant an article. This is one case where we really do need to be more inclusive because there are a lot of authors that continually fly under the radar of reliable sources to where they don't gain in-depth coverage to satisfy notability guidelines but do get repeatedly published and have a fairly substantial number of libraries that carry their work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the books of the author don't achieve GNG, than why should the author? If any of the books of the author don't receive a notable award, why should the author be notable? GNG is the general guideline. POLITICIAN works, as it is shown that there is a presumption that there are sufficient offline sources that any sub-national legislator has sufficient non-primary reliable sources to pass GNG. I don't think the same can be said about the authors which this attempted advised guideline would bring into the fold. The WorldCat based guideline is subjective, as far as I can understand.
Again, if the authors books are sufficiently notable per GNG, than it is safe to assume that the author themselves will have received sufficient significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to pass GNG. Again, if an author has written a book that has received a notable award, than it is safe to assume that the author meets criteria #1 of WP:ANYBIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same thing could be argued of musicians, which actually has a similar policy in place. Under that same argument the notability criteria for musicians/bands to pass if they have two or more albums via a notable indie/mainstream company should fail. However at the same time that criteria takes into consideration how incredibly difficult it actually is to release multiple things through a notable publisher. The same thing applies to notable publishers of written work. While yes, this would allow more people to have books it is not as inclusive as you're implying. It's still very, very difficult to pass because many libraries will not purchase books unless they are sure that there will be enough circulation to warrant adding them, so it's not as subjective as you may think. This is not as simple as someone walking up to a library and handing them their book for free- it still costs money to add and circulate even one book so it's actually fairly difficult to get a book added to a library nowadays, let alone to get one added for 200+ libraries. The same thing can be said about publishers to an extent: they will not publish multiple works in print if there is not at least some degree of success with the author. If they don't sell well and have a good fanbase that purchases the works, they won't publish future books and they certainly won't put the works in print since that costs money. The problem with the criteria for NAUTHOR is that it's just simply too exclusive and the literary world as a whole is not one that tends to get gobs of coverage unless it's something very mainstream. This usually means that the authors that would really benefit from this are the ones who has been mentioned in one or two RS and trivial coverage in passing, but has not received enough to pass notability guidelines. While no, we're not here to make up the difference, I do think that it's a bit overkill to say that someone who has published multiple books through a notable publisher and has their work contained in a substantial number of libraries does not pass notability guidelines because they haven't received X number of reviews or articles. Why should NAUTHOR not adopt a policy that is similar to one that is already successfully followed on at least one other guideline? It's not like we're short on storage space and it's not like this would open the doors for truly non-notable authors to gain an article. Authors like the guy for America Deceived will still be non-notable, as this would only include the notable publishers and it would help to push for a more comfortable keep for authors like Rebecca Donovan whom I still believe would fail the current guidelines on Wikipedia because most of her coverage is/was trivial. I also hate to pull the "this is why people stay away from Wikipedia" card but this would also make it more inviting for newer editors to come on, edit, and remain. It's sort of what users like E.M.Gregory were arguing about at the Donovan AfD: stuff like this can really drive users away and to be honest, numbers on editor retainment on Wikipedia stink. This isn't a reason to include this per se, but it would make it more inviting.
Ideally what this policy would do is enable us to keep articles on authors who have yet to actually receive those in-depth reviews in reliable sources but have received one or two articles and multiple trivial sources (NOT just routine notifications of book announcement dates). It'd enable us to finally push for notability for authors that are extremely well known in their field and even hit the specialized bestseller lists for the NYT, but for all practical purposes fail notability guidelines due to a lack of coverage. Most of the times it's for the reason I said above: the mainstream publications that typically give reviews overlook them because they're not mainstream type titles (romance, sci-fi, etc). Believe it or not, despite romance and sci-fi being extremely well known genres, they are very rarely reviewed by many sources unless they are by someone who is already known or the person has an extremely good marketing company to drum them up as the Next Big Thing. Basically what I'm asking for here is to add a policy that would add a little WP:COMMONSENSE to the equation like the policy for NBAND does. This would still imply that there would be some sort of coverage in reliable sources, but it would allow us to include more common sense authors that have extremely large bibliographies through notable publishers and are held in multiple libraries but still fail notability guidelines. Believe it or not, there are actually authors out there who have works that are held in over a thousand libraries a piece yet they don't cleanly fit notability guidelines. I'm all for proving notability but I don't think that this policy really takes all aspects of publishing into consideration like other notability guidelines have and there's nothing out there to show that the world will end if we make it easier to take these common sense cases into consideration. We wouldn't really lose anything in the process. I think that you're seeing this as a way to add in some Joe Schmoe that's published off the wall books through some no-name publishing company, but that's not the case here. It would allow us to have niche authors who have published 10+ books through Simon & Schuster (one of the top publishers in North America) to have articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The counter argument of course being that then WP:NBANDS is too inclusive.
I can see being notable for making certain highly notable and well read lists (such as NYT best sellers charts) though. That is fitting with WP:NSONG, that a song is notable if it makes notable charts.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another criteria that could be said to meet WP:GNG is if the author has multiple books that meet WP:BKCRIT, than the subject could be said to have met #3 of the current wording of WP:CREATIVE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd really rather have something that would recognize authors that have successfully published multiple works carried in a large amount of libraries, but if this can end with us recognizing the NYT bestseller lists as a sign of notability that would still be awesome. I think that it would be best to only recognize the ones that hit the top ten of the lists, though. There's still somewhat of an issue with people buying their way onto the lists, but I've noticed that the worst and most easily identifiable offenders of this usually do not crack the top 10. Real Marriage is probably the most visible exception, but otherwise the books appear to get on there by their own merit (or at least they're far sneakier about their campaigns). However I still maintain that if an author can continue to successfully publish works through a notable publisher and the works are held in a large amount of libraries, that this can show notability. I don't really think that NBAND is too inclusive because it's still incredibly hard to meet notability guidelines for an article and hundreds of band/music related articles are deleted at AfD each month for failing notability criteria. I can't tell you how many get deleted via speedy and declined at AfC, but I'd wager that it's probably at least triple whatever the number is at AfD. This would open the floodgates, but I do not think that it would irreparably harm Wikipedia and it would allow us to be more thorough but without turning into a hot mess. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, changes to a guideline, need more consensus than two or three editors. This is why WP:SOLDIER remains an essay.
WP:NSONG doesn't limit it to one specific chart, but perhaps one way to avoid those sources that buy their way into the chart, is requiring that the book be on the chart for a sufficient period of time, and that the author is notable only after several books make that criteria.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 3

The most obvious way to improve AUTHOR would be to remove the word "multiple" from criteria 3. I can see no reason for the present restriction. I can see no significant difference between having one book review and having the two book reviews presently required. The present restriction appears to be merely sorting the sheep from the goats. (There is an strong case for ripping the word "multiple" out of the notability guidelines wherever it occurs in relation to sources). James500 (talk) 06:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Having multiple reliable sources provide significant coverage of a subject meets WP:GNG, bullet point sources:

"Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3]

The viewpoint of removing multiple from notability guidelines is a minority view, and one that I do not support.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Minority" is being generous. I'm yet to see said "strong case" made in any of the many AFDs in which I have participated. St★lwart111 06:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The strong case is that there is no valid reason whatsoever for GNG itself to require multiple sources either (apart from the fact that this is not an absolute requirement). The only reason that WHYN manages to offer is some nonsense about neutrality. And of course it is obvious that neutrality does not depend on the number of sources. The truth of the matter is that the average (reliable) book review is significant coverage, and if it is the only one, it is certainly due weight to cite it. There are no reliable statistics on how widely this viewpoint is held; certainly nothing to justify calling it a minority position. As for AfD, I suspect that participation at AfD is primarily by a small minority of the community who are not a representative sample. James500 (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether AFD participants are a representative sample or not, it and DRV are the "coal face" of the notability debate and the extent to which AFD impacts on policy and guideline discussions here and elsewhere is evident in the number of discussions that result from AFDs, cite AFDs, are based on common outcomes at AFD or relate to queries first raised in the context of AFD. Isn't the simple answer that we require multiple sources to ensure that articles aren't written based on one person's interest in one thing one day - that subjects given coverage here are of interest to the "world at large" (at least, more than one person)? That's WP:N in a nutshell. In fact that's exactly what the "in a nutshell" section says at WP:N. The "world at large" is bigger than one person, so we reflect that by requiring that more than one person has been interested in something enough to give it coverage. St★lwart111 13:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also have to disagree with the idea of only requiring one review to establish notability. It doesn't really show a depth of coverage, to be honest. Most articles cannot be kept on a single source unless that source asserts something so strong notability-wise that it'd merit a keep on that basis alone. This would set the threshold a little too low, far lower than what my suggestion would have. However... it may be a good idea to combine the two together somehow, like so: the author has released a set amount of books released through a notable major or indie publisher, that this set amount of books are in a specific number of libraries, and the author has received at least one review in a reliable source, that this author would be considered notable enough to pass notability guidelines. This would be somewhat in keeping with what I had in mind with the above guideline. My rationale for my proposed criteria is that the author would have received some limited coverage but would still fall shy of notability criteria as it's currently set. As for the minority viewpoint at AfD, the issue there is that we're kind of limited to how the notability criteria reads and how it is most commonly interpreted. It's kind of unfortunate but a lot of criteria in general (not just NAUTHOR) are usually created after a specific AfD where someone tried to manipulate a loophole in the criteria and as such the guidelines may be a little too strict with some of the more borderline cases that probably should be kept but still fail notability guidelines. (These specific AfD cases were for topics that really weren't notable in the slightest like the infamous America Deceived AfD, where rules had to be changed to make sure that this specific book/author/topic couldn't be re-added and exploit the loophole.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether AfD is representative is enormously important because we have an editor retention problem, and deletion is said to be the cause. A single periodical review probably doesn't reflect one person's interests alone. That review will or could be read by everyone who reads the periodical (whether by subscription or other purchase or at a library). In other words, it is likely to be read by a large number of people, since we are talking about the readership of newspapers, magazines and scholarly journals, which is generally very large. Moreover, the choice of which book is reviewed will almost certainly be based on what the readers of that periodical want to read, or at least, what the reviewer thinks they want to read (which will normally be the same thing). In any event, multiple sources doesn't significantly improve on one person's opinion. If the "world at large" isn't one person's opinion, it isn't two people's opinion's either. In fact, by that logic, ten or even a hundred reviewers wouldn't come close to being enough, because that is still a tiny group of people. I have no doubt that isn't what "world at large" means. I think it is clear that it is referring to the independence of sources, not the number of sources. Turning to depth of coverage, I don't think there is a significant difference between one review and two. It isn't a significant increase in volume (which I would equate with a factor of ten rather than a factor of two). Moreover, since novel reviews are generally favourable (P N Furbank, "Twentieth Century Best Seller" in Boris Ford (ed), Pelican Guide to English Literature, Volume 7: The Modern Age, Penguin Books, 1961), even if we have multiple reviews they will probably all say more or less the same thing, no matter how many there are, so there is little point in requiring two of them. (Furbank goes on to say that reviewers "do tell the public what it wants to know", and that reviews do influence public opinion and sales. I don't think the fact that reviews tend to be favourable is unsurprising because reviewers are not likely to review something no one wants to read.) Even if we did want multiple sources, the guideline is worded in such a way that the other source could be supplied by something that isn't a periodical article, such as an entry in an annotated bibliography. So requiring one periodical article doesn't necessary mean there will only be one source. That said, I support any relaxation of this guideline that allows a single periodical review to be considered. James500 (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, why don't we model of of existing accepted guidelines, as I suggested with WP:NSONG. I dislike WP:NBAND myself, but WP:NSONGs requirement of chart standing is decent, and perhaps can be improved upon.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to shelve my recommendation for the time being if it means that we can start using the bestselling lists as a sign of notability. So... I guess we could model it as such:
Has been ranked on significant bestseller charts such as The New York Times Best Seller list, USA Today Bestseller list, or (other lists here). Bestselling lists created by merchant sites such as Amazon, Barnes & Nobles, and iTunes do not qualify for this criteria.
I think that the question here is which bestseller lists should be used? Obviously the NYT and USA Today lists should be used, but lists hosted by merchant sites like Amazon should not since those aren't entirely impossible to alter and besides, the website doesn't have a set published list like NYT and USA Today does. It also changes extremely frequently, so that makes it harder to verify. It's not inconceivable that an author could try to sway sales for their book and get on one of the bestseller lists for a tiny subsection and then claim that they pass that way. It's just easier to say merchant sites are unusable and leave it at that. I think that Publisher Weekly's bestseller list would be usable enough since they base their numbers on Nielsen rankings, although I've never seen them as a really visible bestseller list. The LA Times and the WSJ's lists would be usable as well, although this opens up the possibility that someone could claim that any newspaper's rankings are usable, so we need to say which are or aren't usable. I think that saying that the list has to be done on the national level for the country may help this out. I'd also like to get some examples of bestseller lists from other countries since most of my bestseller list knowledge is very US centric. I did a quick search and found that Oricon publishes a list that's considered to be the NYT equivalent, but we need ones for countries like India and so on. I know that this will really help a lot of India related authors since some will hit the bestseller lists for a long period of time but not really gain much coverage. Indian authors tend to get the short end of the stick when it comes to publishing, unfortunately. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the list is notable itself, than it should be acceptable for use, IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got a little sidetracked and forgot to come back here. I'm going to open up a small subsection of this for "votes" on whether or not we can use bestseller lists for notability if the list is notable and the book hit the top 10-20 of the list. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bestseller list as notability

I'm officially proposing that we consider bestseller lists as a sign of notability akin to how we will see a review as a sign of notability. By this I mean that holding one of the top 10-20 spots on a notable bestseller list for any number of time will count the same as say, a review for one of the author's works. A notable bestseller list would be considered a list that has achieved standalone notability enough to warrant its own article on Wikipedia (ie, The New York Times Best Seller list), merit a subsection in its parent article (ie, requires sourcing), and/or has been republished in places that are independent of the original paper and would be considered a reliable source. Lists reprinted by publishers whose books appear on the list would not count for the third criteria. Right now the only one I can point to that would fulfill the first criteria is the NYT list, but the USA Today list would probably pass on the third criteria since this list is republished on various RS websites. If this ends with this only having the first two criteria then it'd still be wildly helpful with NAUTHOR. I'm pinging @RightCowLeftCoast:, @DGG:, @James500: for this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds OK to me, but without a large consensus, this is more of an essay level proposal. For guideline level proposal it takes a lot of consensus. A reason why SOLDIER is an essay and not a guideline.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. AfD has a presumption against deletion. A topic is notable unless there is positive consensus that it is not. SOLDIER cannot be marked as a guideline for purely technical reasons because it is a WikiProject subpage. Move it to the mainspace, drop the references to the WikiProject, and it could very rapidly become a guideline. James500 (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it. Is there a wikiproject we can work with to develop a book chart essay like WP:CHART?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Literature maybe? St★lwart111 03:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that is what the Template:Please see is for ;-) .--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, while only a few have commented, nobody has rushed to shout it down. I suppose the thinking is that the devil might be in the detail. But if you can get the mechanics right, having a literary equivalent to WP:MUSICBIO seems eminently sensible. Arguably you should be just as notable for writing a novel that makes it onto the NYT best seller list as for writing a pop song that makes it onto the Billboard 100, if for no other reason than the NYT best seller list is a smaller list. If you're sensible about which lists are included, it will be very hard to argue against, I think. If you're unsure, start with the really obvious ones and suggest that anything else would need to be argued out at AFD until such time as there is consensus for adding them to the list. St★lwart111 04:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being on the bestsellers list doesn't make a book notable, so why would it make an author? Its been argued many times before that a book should be considered notable if it sells well, but always some people argued that even if you have proof it has sold millions of copies, it doesn't matter, those are just WP:BIGNUMBERs. How many people buy a book doesn't matter, only whether or not any random person in the media felt like reviewing it. Accomplishments of anyone, writer or scientists or whatnot, are judged by media coverage, winning notable awards, or being used in textbooks. I support making the author and the book considered notable if they are on a bestsellers list, but from past long winded never ending discussions had elsewhere, I doubt either will be made to happen. Still, never hurts to try. Rules change all the time based on whoever is around to comment at the time and argue long enough to get what they want. Dream Focus 12:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's important to remember that specific notability criteria are intended to support a presumption of notability, rather than demonstrate notability. It's reasonable to assume that a book which has been at the top of the New York Times best seller list has probably been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm not as confident that notability should extend to the books' authors. But I could support a change like this as long as it's sufficiently conservative: the more specialized or obscure the best seller list the less likely it is that independent secondary sources exist. Pburka (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTABILITY clearly states "it meets either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." It doesn't have to meet the GNG of having been the "subject of significant coverage in reliable sources" so you don't have to presume it does to prove its notable. Scientists are notable for their accomplishments, measured by if their work is used in textbooks and awards they have won, even if no information about them is available, some not doing interviews or having people writing about them at all. And many bestselling novels are never reviewed in any reliable sources at all, such as most of the Star Wars novels, and other such things. A musician who no one knew anything about because they kept their life private, can still be notable if nothing was written about them as a person, if their music is successful enough. Dream Focus 22:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is where I drew parallels. Our guidelines allow obscure writers of one-hit-wonders to be considered notable because their song made it onto a major chart. We likewise consider athletes notable for competing in the first heat of any Olympic competition. This is based on the presumption of notability under the circumstances. It might be the case that someone could write a book that makes it onto the NYT best seller list while remaining completely unknown, but the argument would be made that their impact on their field is sufficient enough to make them notable, even if they might not pass GNG (like Edan Lepucki before her book was subsequently reviewed). I'm not suggesting that we must have a guideline like this because we already have WP:MUSICBIO but it does make sense. St★lwart111 00:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion the consensus of the last RfC at WT:NBOOK was that bestsellers are notable, and that the community will formulate a criteria for them ASAP. The only problem is that there seems to be a rough consensus that some lists that purport to be "bestseller lists" are unreliable in that they are not credible indicators of bestseller status. There is, however, a simple solution if we don't want to compile a list of acceptable lists: omit the explicit reference to lists. Then you have criteria that read something like "a book is notable if it is a bestseller" and "the author of a bestselling book is notable". That will allow the community to decide which lists, and which academic definitions of the word "bestseller", it is prepared to accept as credible on a case by case basis at AfD. I don't think that would be a problem since it is fairly obvious that a "bestseller" is, roughly speaking, a book that achieves exceptionally large sales, and therefore one need only look at the number of sales. If anyone says this criteria is vague, I think it will be a sufficient answer that most of our existing criteria are at least equally vague. I think it more important to get some kind of criteria in place ASAP. James500 (talk) 06:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Some arguments years ago when I brought this up, was that the bestseller's list only list the highest sales for that time period. That a book that is at the bottom of the bestseller's list that week, can have another book at another time sell more copies than theirs and not get on the list at all. I suggested setting a number of confirmed sales necessary to prove notability, but couldn't get a consensus. The New York Times bestseller's list is considered a reliable source. No one can fake their way onto it these days, and haven't been able to for many years now. They did have problems decades ago when they only took a sample of numbers from certain stores, and people started buying books from those stores to drive up their numbers, but they don't do it that way anymore. Dream Focus 11:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say that these should be usable: New York Times Bestseller List, USA Today Weekly Top 150 Best Sellers, Wall Street Journal Best Sellers. I know that there's a weekly bestseller list in Japan that would qualify, but I can't remember its name. I'll ask over at WP:ANIME for the list name since I know that there's a manga and light novel specific list that is considered to be wildly influential. Lists that may be debatable would be Publisher’s Weekly Best Seller Lists and The Book Standard Bestsellers. They're fairly major and I don't see where their lists are really messed with all that much, so they'd probably be usable enough. I think that we can agree on most of the English language bestseller lists, it's the foreign language ones that would be a bit of a stickler. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Books are not considered notable for being on a best seller list, so why should an author be considered notable for it? —Farix (t | c) 10:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking to modify WP:NBOOK, or create an essay to replace WP:NAUTHOR?
If it is the former, perhaps this entire discussion needs to be moved to Wikipedia talk:Notability (books). IMHO, if a Bestseller list is independently notable, than it should be able to qualify as a reliable source, and therefore, it weeds out non-notable non-reliable source lists.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • RightCowLeftCoast: A bit of both, probably. It might be a good idea to bring this up at NBOOK as well, since this could help a lot of books achieve notability as well. Basically, if a notable bestseller list could show notability for a book then it should show notability for an author as well, the same way that a review about a book could show notability for an author. In other words, we have authors whose books are not independently notable, however the combined coverage for their work helps them pass NAUTHOR. Adding the bestseller list to NBOOK would/should make it a criteria to help establish notability for authors. I'll bring it up at NBOOK as well as an option. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is best to start a draft for the new language, get a consensus, and open an RfC to see if there is community consensus to support a new guideline.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's what I've whipped up:
  • The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles, notable bestseller lists, or reviews.
This would of course require a footnote for the bestseller lists remark, which could be something like this:
  • "Notable bestseller lists" are bestseller lists where the list passes notability guidelines on Wikipedia or is published by a notable media outlet and is republished or covered by other reliable sources. Bestseller lists on merchant sources like Amazon or self-published sources like personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, wikis, and similar media are not considered to be reliable. Social media review sites like Goodreads and LibraryThing do not qualify for this criteria.
I don't intend for people to achieve notability on bestseller lists alone, so we could probably insert something like "Achieving bestseller status without other forms of coverage (reviews, articles, etc) will not be enough to satisfy notability." if people have a particularly big problem with this, but like I said at NBOOK, getting on the big lists like the NYT is pretty much the book equivalent of getting on Billboard's top 50 list. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a bad idea. I think that the general rule of thumb for me is that they must have an article in Wikipedia or they need to be held in especially high regard, which can be proven through the list being republished in several independent, reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • James500 came up with a really, really great way to phrase this at WP:NBOOK as far as the notability via bestsellers goes: "A bestseller list is non-trivial if it is notable or it is published by a notable media outlet and is republished or covered by other reliable sources". I figured I'd repost this here and credit him with this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Notability of politicians

I withdraw this proposal due to overwhelming opposition. The status quo will be maintained. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)i've made a huge mess 14:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC) I propose the notability criteria of politicians be changed to:[reply]

  1. Members of national governments or legislatures are notable.
  2. The above also applies to components of federal states (US states, Canadian provinces, Australian states etc.)
  3. Local government or members of local councils are not inherently notable. ——Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)i've made a huge mess 04:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Far too broad. There needs to be a better definition of what "members" are to avoid anyone that happens to just for the govt', and on point 2 I would argue that not every state-level congressperson is notable to start. --MASEM (t) 05:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this revisitation is unnecessary: it just says functionally the same thing as the current wording but is a lot less clear about the details while not being much more brief for it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what does this change? Broadly what groups would this shift from notable to non-notable? The United Kingdom, for instance, is not a federal state so would this mean members of the Welsh Assembly, London Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly and Scottish Parliament are no longer considered notable? If so I could not support this proposal as I cannot see them being less notable than the 400 members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. Davewild (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought they would have been ok due to the "above also applies to components of federal states" as the US is a federal state, but my point was I did not see why the different treatment to countries like the UK that are not federal states. At the moment I don't see how this improves upon the current guideline. Davewild (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current wording explicitly excludes local government. I confess I am completely baffled by this proposal. "To tighten the criteria for inherent notability" is not a rationale. Is there a previous discussion somewhere that should be linked to? I just cannot see what problem we are trying to address here. Please explain in detail exactly the purpose of this proposal and why you have proposed it (specifically the problems that exist with the current wording and exactly the kind of people you feel are getting through unjustly). I can see from the above I'm not the only person having this difficulty. Frickeg (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guidelines should reflect demonstrated consensus, not dictate it, and we certainly don't alter guidelines just to redraw lines to exclude articles we don't like. Further, WP:POLOUTCOMES shows that city council members from cities as major as London have tended to be kept at AFD. postdlf (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't see the issue. The current wording defines subnational as "statewide/provincewide", i.e. not local government in any sense. All it says about local government is that they are not inherently notable, which seems to be what you are trying to argue. While I am inclined to think members of the London Assembly are probably inherently notable, I do not see that they are covered by WP:POLITICIAN as it currently stands. I cannot see any actual change between what the guideline currently says and this proposal, except that I think the current wording is clearer. Frickeg (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Inherently notable" means "there will probably be a lot of coverage in independent sources, because the person is a member of a national legislature or state legislature", and therefore it should not be deleted. What I am doing is simply arguing that members of the London Assembly should get a lot of coverage in reliable sources before they have an article created on them. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)i've made a huge mess 11:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was not a response to Frickeg: the London Assembly is not subnational as per its definition in the current wording. This seems to amount to trying to very badly reword a clear and accepted longstanding guideline because you have lots of feels that members of one legislature shouldn't be included, all of whom realistically pass GNG anyway, as they would even if were your ordinary megacity city council. This does not seem to be a particularly sensible use of our time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was only using the London Assembly as an example. If all members of the London Assembly pass GNG, that means they qualified separately, not because they were members of the London Assembly alone. Clearly there is a line between the London Assembly and the council of an average American suburb that is still legally a "city". Where do we put this line? Mexico City? Sydney? Dallas? Bayonne? That is what we are trying to answer in this discussion. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)i've made a huge mess 13:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the current guideline or your suggested alternative have any particular bearing on that line, since neither extends inherent notability to local government. That said, I could definitely write articles on every member of the Sydney city council and probably on the Dallas one, and would only be limited for Mexico City by the fact I don't speak Spanish. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I am trying to say here is that each member of the Council must qualify in his own right, not because they are inherently notable. Election to the aforementioned councils would undoubtedly grant a lot of coverage in independent, reliable sources. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)i've made a huge mess 22:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what you're trying to say, you're in agreement with the current guideline, so why are we having this discussion? The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However, the definition of "local government" would extend to certain first-order divisions under my proposal.Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)i've made a huge mess 12:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not any differently from the current wording. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this revisitation is unnecessary, While there is always a discussion on the notabilty of mayors and councilmembers (and other local elected officials), there exists only rough consensus (see WP:POLOUTCOMES and the AFD debates work to improve many articles. In addition, the differences in governments across the globe requires us to develop policies that do not just fit conditions in the US/UK. Enos733 (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed addition to WP:Notability (people)#Politicians

I would propose the following language be added to WP:Notability (people)#Politicians, following this discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Don R. Sommerfeldt. My proposal is inspired in part by the very throrough criteria at WP:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability.

  • Judges of national appellate or trial courts, including specialty trial courts, are inherently notable. Judges of sub-national supreme courts, such as state or provincial supreme courts, are inherently notable. Magistrates of national courts and judges of other sub-national trial courts are not inherently notable, but may still meet other criteria for notability.

Thanks for taking a look at this. North of Eden (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The role of supreme courts seems fairly different between common (e.g. US, UK, Canada) and civil law (Most of mainland Europe) and tends to be much less important in the latter. Supreme courts under civil law tend to have many members that are hardly involved in the public debate on personal title. Also many such supreme courts have many members (e.g. the Supreme Court of the Netherlands has 41 members. None of those have an entry at en.wikipedia, and only 4 have an entry in nl.wikipedia (twice at start, twice at stub level). The addition of this line would, in my view, impose a singular view on the importance of supreme courts across different types of legal system. Even in the case of common law, do we really believe that all members of the Supreme Court of Nauru (pop 10,000)are by definition notable. All in all, I do not agree that in each and any country of the world, and in each and any of its subdivisions the mere membership of a supreme court is a sufficient claim to notability. In most cases there should be more than enough additional published evidence of the notability of the judge based on his individual achievement beyond mere membership. Arnoutf (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You make a very valid point about civil law supreme courts, and one that crossed my mind when drafting the proposal. At the same time, members of any provincial legislature in the world are suitable for inclusion, and are likely just as notable as, for example, Dutch Supreme Court justices. North of Eden (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is more an argument for tightening NPOL rather than adding yet another class of inherently notable people. JbhTalk 21:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Understood as well, but there are no decent, sitewide guidelines on notability for judges. I think it's worth clarifying to some degree, and the class of people in question (federal judges) is generally agreed to be inherently notable. Federal trial judges in the US and Canada, for example, are not technically covered by notability policies and often are only sourced by a federal biographical directory. Nevertheless, they are agreed, perhaps by tacit understanding, to be notable. I think it would be worthwhile to codify this within the notability policy. North of Eden (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I tend to have the opposite view. If there is currently only a 'tacit understanding' then it is not something that should be/needs to be enshrined in guidelines. As long as it is consensus at AfD then if things go overboard and people start creating lots of perma-stubs there is some recourse to and consensus can swing the other way. Once they are 'declared' notable someone will start creating non-sustainable articles about every judge of whatever type(s) with inherent notability using poor/no sources. Inherent notability is a truly terrible thing when dealing with people. What is notable in one country is often not in others and sources are what allow us to make that determination. If there is not enough coverage to pass GNG there is not enough coverage to write a useful article. Often it is not even possible to know if they are BLPs or not. JbhTalk 23:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Oppose per my comments above. JbhTalk 23:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I am generally opposed to the idea of inherent notablity for anyone. But my real opposition is that there is no need for it ... It's all covered under General Notability (WP:GNG)... if a Judge is notable, there will be coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If there is no coverage in independent sources then the judge simply isn't notable enough. It really is that simple. Blueboar (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will defer on voting on this particular proposal just yet. However, I would like to state my position as to Judges in the United States. I generally agree with the guidelines published by WikiProject United States courts and judges. As we well know by recent events, Article III Judges of the United States hold a very high degree of power. I thus believe in the "inherent notability" standard for Article III Judges. I would extend that to certain Article I Judges as well as State Supreme Court Justices. Other Federal Judges and most State Judges should be required to meet WP:GNG. For example, Florida Judge Belvin Perry got his article by way of WP:GNG in regards to the Casey Anthony and other high profile cases. Safiel (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with that point, magistrate and bankruptcy judges are not inherently notable and VERY rarely pass WP:GNG, the exceptions generally being those magistrates who are nominated to be District Judges. Safiel (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Too general. Higher court judges are notable. Lower court judges generally are not. For instance, in England and Wales High Court Judges are notable but County Court Judges and District Judges are not. All, however, are judges of national courts, as the UK does not have state or provincial courts and all judges are nationally appointed. The same is true throughout most of Europe and many other countries, where even the most junior judges are national-level officials. Unfortunately this proposal, like many other similar proposals (and indeed WP:POLITICIAN itself, which assumes most judges are politicians), seems to have been formulated with the assumption that all countries function like the United States. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For the reasons given by Necrothesp. However, for judges in the United States, I would like to see a reference on the page to WP:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability. Outside the United States, judicial structures and concepts vary too much to allow for a uniform policy. Safiel (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with The Drover's Wife in the first comment above: this may be valid, but WP:Politician is not the place. Although in the USA some judges identify with political parties and run for election, or are appointed through party machines, in most countries judges are definitely not politicians. Stanning (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's clear that a comprehensive approach isn't really workable, given the major difference between North American and (for lack of a better term) other judicial systems. Thanks to all for your engagement on this; it's been a very educational discussion. User:Necrothesp in particular raises an argument which is hard to oppose. I would still like clearer notability standards, but I think any wording would likely cause complications due to the intricacies of each nation's judicial system. North of Eden (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, lest I seem like an Americentrist dweeb ;) -- I do understand the structure (both historical and contemporary) of the English judiciary, but it's something I didn't consider when drafting this proposal. It would be interesting to, at some point, have a fairly comprehensive notability guideline that would discuss the English/Wales courts along with those of the US. Thanks again to all for your engagement on this subject. North of Eden (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court of Appeals

I'm having a bit of a derp moment, so I thought it best to check in here before I start setting my hat on adding this to the ever growing pile of "to create" articles in my sandbox. If someone was appointed to the Supreme Court of Virginia, would they pass notability guidelines on Wikipedia? I'm looking at the article on Horace Blois Burnham and it looks like he'd pass notability guidelines on that alone, but I wanted to make sure before I really started looking for other sources and added him to my "to do" list. I seem to remember hearing that being on the Supreme Court was enough, but I didn't know if it was the Supreme Court of the United States or if the Justices for the individual states would be enough. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Players

What about cricket/football/wrestling etc players? is there any notability rules for them?--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for anything that is not covered by general notability guidelines (WP:GNG)? Arnoutf (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ATHLETE JbhTalk 18:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of my name from nbastreet

As a individual I have faced a lot of hatred, racism, discrimination. I have been greatly discreatited for others personal gains. When I post to wiki it's because it should be noted. I did make one mistake when I added my name to Simeon and it was focused on religious figures.

Personally I fit your guidelines , I just don't fit in as notable based on popularity or celeb status. I fit into each of the following categories as ME. Regardless of weather you've heard or not.

Additional criteria Edit 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.




Failure to explain the subject's notability Edit If an article does not explain the notability of its subject,[15] try to improve it by:

Adding the

template, which requests birthdate, historical significance, etc.

Rewriting it yourself Asking the article's editor(s) for advice. Insufficient sources Edit If an article fails to cite sufficient sources:

Look for sources yourself Ask the article's editor(s) for advice on where to look for sources.

Put the

tag on the article to notify other editors. If the article is about a specialized field, use the

tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.


Entertainers Edit Shortcuts: WP:ENT WP:ENTERTAINER WP:NACTOR WP:NMODEL Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc.


Edit "WP:AUTHOR" redirects here. For information about the authorship of Wikipedia articles, see WP:OWN. Shortcuts: WP:ARTIST WP:AUTHOR WP:CREATIVE WP:ECONOMIST WP:FILMMAKER WP:DIRECTOR WP:JOURNALIST Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. 

Kaoszulu (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)&oldid=677901808"