Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

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

Suitability of WP:INVALIDBIO[edit]

Recently, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Lawrence, I was surprised to find the community has resoundly rejected WP:INVALIDBIO as a guideline and suggests this does not meet established practice. (Compare and contrast with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Electras from 2008). Therefore, perhaps this section should be reworded or removed - I'm not going to run off and do that as everybody would assume I was disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, but perhaps the discussion does need to be thrashed out. Your thoughts please. Paging AfD participants reddogsix, Johnpacklambert, Agricola44, Winged Blades of Godric, A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver, Rogermx Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything wrong with WP:INVALIDBIO. We seem to lack any clear guidelines on when redirects are worth having, "Redirects are cheap" doesn’t really cut it in this case. In general I will not argue for a redirect unless the article is at least vaguely notable, but is effectively being merged due to lack of scope. I think we need to have a discussion about whether a subject needs to be notable to have a redirect. (if it helps any, I would have supported Ritchie's redirect idea had he made it first or if I had the AfD on my watchlist). Dysklyver 09:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Just for the record, this is far from the only example where I have seen a split between redirect and delete at an AfD - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elisa Jordana (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Johnson, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Ribeca. The concept "whether a subject needs to be notable to have a redirect" doesn't really make sense, because if a subject is notable, by definition they have their own article, and redirects only come into play when a topic is not notable. Certainly having a guideline that says you shouldn't keep redirects on celebrity's children per WP:BLP does make sense, but the two examples in WP:INVALIDBIO go directly against that. Someone like Paris Jackson (actress) or Frances Bean Cobain might be redirects now if they hadn't established their own notability. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Authors of reviewed books (Creative professionals)[edit]

"Common outcomes" include [1] the following:

Published authors are kept as notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work

Should not this also be included in the section "Creative professionals" [2] of the official gudeline? That would help to add some clarity in AfD discussions. It appears this criterion has been actively used in a number of AfDs. I also asked question here. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Are law clerks to the US Supreme Court inherently notable?[edit]

An unresolved conflict, that might fall under the notability of political figures, is: Are law clerks to the US Supreme court inherently notable?

One deletion discussion said, "it's not clear under present Wikipedia notability policy that SCOTUS clerks are notable."

There have been a number of pages that have been started, on people who are only notable as Supreme Court clerks. I've nominated some of them for deletion. See, for instance, Frederick J. Haig, Clarence M. York, Thomas H. Fitnam, Frederick Emmons Chapin, and Everett Riley York.

It's true that, in the present day, a Supreme Court clerkship is one of the most prestigious jobs for a recent law school graduate. However, this wasn't always the case, as books like "Sorcerer's Apprentices" and "Courtiers of the Marble Palace" demonstrate.

Do we delete all these pages? 2600:1700:7822:6190:98AD:B7CE:DD3C:B031 (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason for immediately presuming notability for law clerks. A sitting SCOTUS judge by the very nature of the position will be, but not those that serve them. But that doesn't mean they can't be notable but that notability should be judged by the GNG. -MASEM (t) 20:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Two points. First, in my view a Supreme Court clerkship is sufficient to make one notable. If the early clerks are not notable (is the very first clerk notable?), at what year would you suggest sufficient importance attaches to start making them notable? 1930? 1940? Second, there is an issue of citation. We don't link to citations from the clerks list because with 2,250 names listed the number of cites would overwhelm the page. We rely on each clerk's Wiki page to hold the citations (currently, there are just over 500 Wiki pages for the 2,250 approx clerks). So if you count the clerks as not notable, or not notable prior to 1940, there is the problem of where to place the citations confirming their details. Open to suggestions on how to balance considerations.Bjhillis (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
As the books, "Sorcerer's Apprentices" and "Courtiers of the Marble Palace" document, in the early days of the Supreme Court clerkships, many Supreme Court clerks were more like stenographers or secretaries. The job did not carry the glory that it does now. So, making a page about a clerk in those days, would almost be like making a page about a secretary.
You ask the question: "at what year would you suggest sufficient importance attaches to start making them notable?" In my view, the job of Supreme Court clerk (by itself) is still not of sufficient importance to make a person notable. It's true that there are over 500 Wiki pages for the 2,250 approx clerks. That is because many clerks (at least in more recent times) have gone on to very notable careers after they clerked. If you look at those 500 Wiki pages, you will find that the subjects of almost all of those pages, meet the notability guidelines for reasons other than their clerkship alone.
I think that even today, the best that can be said about a Supreme Court clerkship is that it is often a predictor of future success. Many of this year's clerks will likely go on to very successful careers. But, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and staring pages about this year's clerks would be almost like making Wikipedia a crystal ball.
There is an even stronger reason, against starting a page on someone who clerked for the Supreme Court, and then did not go on to a future career that made them notable. In their case, their clerkship was not an accurate predictor of future notability. 2600:1700:7822:6190:98AD:B7CE:DD3C:B031 (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Here's an example to consider: Eileen Mary Mullen, clerked JP Stevens 1995-96, top of her class at Stanford Law School. Can't find anything about her after the Supreme Court, so not notable on this standard? Quite a brilliant mind.Bjhillis (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that would be the case, that we would not consider her non-notable if all she had in her career was a top of the class at Stanford and was a clerk to the Supreme Court. We are not a Who's Who here - we're looking for what they contributed towards society. If all we can say about her from RSes are her schooling and her clerk term, that's fine for a list article but fails WP:N for a standalone article. We need in-depth coverage which clerks do no get (since they are appointed positions, not likely the actual Judges which have to go through a complex process and thus are going to be publically scrutinized). --MASEM (t) 00:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Just to put numbers on it, of the 2,250 or so law clerks, roughly 1,700 would pass notability (either in big law, big govt or law school professors), so we're weighing the status of roughly 550 clerks who have a small post-clerk footprint in this discussion.Bjhillis (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
By your own admission that these 550 have a "small" post-clerk footprint, you are stating that these clerks aren't really notable for anything other than their clerkship. So no, they shouldn't have their own WP articles. 2600:1700:7822:6190:98AD:B7CE:DD3C:B031 (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Got it, you feel strongly. Per above, any suggestions on handling citations for those deemed not to warrant their own page? The issue of clerk notability is made more complex by the effect on the law clerks list, which is one of the largest lists on Wikipedia.Bjhillis (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
You are missing the point we're telling you. Being a law clerk to a SCOTUS justice does not infer any type of notability. They have to be notable for other things. Just because there may be sources that list their biographical info (birthplace/date,schooling, etc.) doesn't mean we need to include it per WP:NOT#WHOSWHO. Some who were/are professors and had notable careers there can have their page, but its not because they were made a clerk. --MASEM (t) 03:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Your point is in your opinion a clerkship is not notable. Am I missing a nuance or subtlety? In my view, a SCOTUS clerk participated in a historically significant event and is notable. For example, Lucy Lomen was the first women SCOTUS clerk and afterwards worked in house for GE. Notable? The clerks who worked on Brown vs. Board of Education and did nothing afterward...Notable? Let the majority rule on that point. Totally apart from that notability discussion, in managing very long lists on Wiki, pages for individual entries serves the purpose of better organizing citations; in such instances, Wiki pages for the individuals, in this case, or any entries in a long list (e.g., butterflies in the Amazon), is one method of list management. This is not a matter of the existence of sources justifies an individual page. What you are saying is "I'd rather not address how to manage citations to non-notable people in a long Wiki list." Well, one approach is to have pages for each entry to serve as sub-pages to the list. And another approach is to break up long lists to enable hanging citations on each entry. And another approach is add 1000 footnotes to already long pages. Additional suggestions on this point? Ideas welcome.Bjhillis (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
We judge notability not by opinion, but on how much significant coverage from independent, secondary sources there are for a person per WP:N. What is shown is that simply being named a SCOTUS clerk does not bring about any significant coverage. Some happen to be notable, but because of events outside of being a SCOTUS clerk. If you want to make a subpage for any clerk, you need to show that this type of secondary coverage exists, otherwise the article will be deleted or merged back to the list. In terms of sourcing the long list of clerks on that table, if all that it is is name, whom they served, and their school, a ref or two for each is sufficient - and yes, this might mean a 1000+ ref list. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
A bit of a tangent, but 1000+ entries ≠ 1000+ individual refs. We often find that one source will verify much or even all of a given list (and likely there are single sources that cover all of the clerks for a given Justice, or for a period in the Court's history), yet some editors feel compelled to still make individual ref tags for each entry. It's almost like some editors think there's something magic about ref tags, as if nothing is sourced or even verifiable unless that particular formatting is used all over the place. There are many, many ways to make it clear what sources support which entries in a list without that kind of redundant clutter. postdlf (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this is what is done currently at the Law Clerks of the U.S. Supreme Court page, and it works pretty well. There is no central reference for all data points for clerks, but we assert the Wiki editors have checked it all. The thought was in the future more granular cites would improve the page and Wiki pages of the individual entries was the efficient approach.Bjhillis (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I’d support that all recent SOCUS clerks are deemed notable. They author (in the background) the Supreme Court decisions and generally go on to other notable things. I suppose there are exceptions but on balance I’d at least say being named a clerk is a strong indicator of notability. It’s a strong claim that say participating in the Olympics or one professional cricket game shich are both autopasses. Legacypac (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Just a question. Where are US supreme court clerks different from supreme court clerks of other countries. The notability of judges (see e.g. WP:NPOL) is not limited to a single nation, and any deemed notability of any group of officials should in my opinion not be specified for any single country to avoid systemic bias in Wikipedia on this count. To avoid such, please consider whether clerks of (let's say) the Luxembourg supreme court should be deemed inherently notable. IF not, this would (in my view) count heavily against this proposal. Of course, as said by several editors above, if a SCOTUS or in fact a Luxembourg clerk meets general notability guidelines they should be included, but for that we do not need anything new. Arnoutf (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't have thought so, anymore than justice's associates at the High Court of Australia. I agree with the systemic bias query. Just apply the GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I see no compelling reason for a SNG here. WP:GNG, read with WP:NBIO, is perfectly adequate. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Masem: "Being a law clerk to a SCOTUS justice does not infer any type of notability." While some law clerks later become notable for something else, it would be unwise to assume all SCOTUS law clerks could be presumed to be notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Cut comment per note from Troutman.Bjhillis (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bjhillis: More to the point, you've authored a few articles about these clerks turned attorneys, and they're now facing deletion. You seem to want us to presume notability to protect articles you should not have written. I think continuing this discussion when the consensus is clearly against you is without merit. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Emmanuel Weyi deletion discussion[edit]

Emmanuel Weyi was a candidate for President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. A number of news sources (such as the Los Angeles Times, Colorado Public Radio, Africa Agenda, and Black Stars, have interviewed or otherwise covered Weyi's presidential campaign in detail. However, the article on Weyi is up for deletion and it is being claimed that, despite multiple, independent, non-trivial sources having covered the politician, there is a higher, unstated standard beyond GNG and ANYBIO. Can someone explain how this makes sense? To me, given our acknowledged systemic bias against covering people and places outside of the Anglo-European sphere, we should be maintaining articles like Weyi's, not deleting them.--TM 13:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

United States District Judge[edit]

Does serving as a United States District Judge make one notable in the absence of information about specific judgments rendered? The sample case is Donald West VanArtsdalen.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

BBC 100 Women[edit]

There's a show called 100 Women (BBC) where for four years they have picked "100 influential and inspirational women around the world every year." [3] and have them come together to discuss major issues. So the question is whether any of the participants who were selected are now considered notable if they weren't already from other sources. Do they automatically get articles, or do they redirect to the list? They are likely to get some news coverage for being on the list. Are they still WP:LOWPROFILE or WP:BLP1E afterwards? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Got an example? The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Muhabbat Sharapova (was misspelled both name and country; fixed:-( -- Hero of Uzbekistan - an ordinary school teacher of math in a small town. Low on google hits both in Latin and Cyrillic "мухаббат Шарапова" spellings (used in the native country). "Inspirational" -? yes, "influential" yes only in a sense she she influenced her students. (By the way, her story says that her students work in many countries all over the world. Phrased as a boasting point, but in fact a sad story of a country depopulated of well-educated people...) Staszek Lem (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed - they are sometimes inspirational archetypes, rather than people who are individually notable. As always, WP:SIGCOV applies. Edwardx (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divya Sharma is in process right now for example. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)