Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
→Does "with verifiable notability" mean "has an article?": discussion of this very issue underway at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines#Alumni_do_not_have_to_be_independently_notable; please contribute |
||
Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
*'''Comment''': This was a proper removal: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_of_Saint_Elizabeth&curid=295129&diff=860593111&oldid=860570949]. Unsourced; unclear notability. Could have been a hoax or a BLP vio. --[[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|talk]]) 03:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC) |
*'''Comment''': This was a proper removal: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_of_Saint_Elizabeth&curid=295129&diff=860593111&oldid=860570949]. Unsourced; unclear notability. Could have been a hoax or a BLP vio. --[[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|talk]]) 03:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC) |
||
::Please read my comment and focus on the edit summary that was used with removal. [[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] ([[User talk:ElKevbo|talk]]) 03:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC) |
::Please read my comment and focus on the edit summary that was used with removal. [[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] ([[User talk:ElKevbo|talk]]) 03:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC) |
||
Since there seems to be consensus here about what this policy says - inclusion in an in-line list does not require [[WP:N|independent notability]] - I would appreciate other editors joining [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines#Alumni_do_not_have_to_be_independently_notable this discussion] of a Wikiproject essay that contradicts this policy (and [[WP:N]]). Thanks! [[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] ([[User talk:ElKevbo|talk]]) 05:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== Caretaker cabinet members == |
== Caretaker cabinet members == |
Revision as of 05:58, 25 September 2018
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Political activists
What's the general view on political activists? For example Laura Bates. Now she has a British Empire Medal etc. but early on she had significant media coverage but - on a technical note - I'm not sure how her blp passes notability for a person diff. Is it a case of:
- a WP:TOOSOON AfD that was missed
- WP:ANYBIO –
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
- with her "field" being political activism[1] - something else? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 06:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ A political activist who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists.
On a technical note
: - The diff you are showing us demonstrate laziness of Wikipedians, rather than deficiency of our policies. I do not see why political activists need preferential treatment: by the very occupation a political activist is supposed to make noise to affect people. If none, let them try harder. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)- So your opinion is its a case of
1. a WP:TOOSOON AfD that was missed
. Okay. I don't see anything in my original post that suggested adeficiency of [Wikipedia's] policies
or asked forpreferential treatment
. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)- @The Vintage Feminist: I do not see anything in my post accusing you of anything. I was saying that "the general view" on them is ..er.. general and see no reason for otherwise. And no, not WP:TOOSOON. I checked the dates; there was enough sources at that moment, therefore I wrote it was the case of WP:TOOLAZY. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Staszek Lem:
I do not see anything in my post accusing you of anything
, and I do not see anything in my post saying you accused me of anything. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Staszek Lem:
- @The Vintage Feminist: I do not see anything in my post accusing you of anything. I was saying that "the general view" on them is ..er.. general and see no reason for otherwise. And no, not WP:TOOSOON. I checked the dates; there was enough sources at that moment, therefore I wrote it was the case of WP:TOOLAZY. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- So your opinion is its a case of
- ONEEVENT is a subclass of a broader principle which might be termed separable notability. If her notability were only in the context of the Everyday Sexism Project then redirection and coverage there might suffice per WP:NOPAGE, etc. Bates's second book Girl Up also appears to pass WP:NBOOK, however ([1][2][3][4]). There are various combinations of article(s) and redirect(s) that might work with ESP and her two books, but any of them are likely to need an article at LB. In the general case, agree that no explicit SNG criterion is needed for political activists. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 19:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- In general, if there's no SNG in place, the fallback is WP:N, meaning: is there significant coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources? Laura Bates seems to pass. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hi K.e.coffman & Hydronium Hydroxide going on from what you've both said, if LB had been up for AfD for notability back in August 2014, the basis on which to decide is she notable enough to have her own article would be:
Has LB received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, i.e. is there "Significant coverage", coverage that addresses the topic (LB) directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material?
(As per WP:GNG because there is no SNG for political activists in place)
- rather than:
Has LB made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in political activism i.e. A political activist who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists.
(As per WP:ANYBIO).
- so in the first example LB wouldn't have to be the main topic of the source material (the fallback in absence of SNG) but in the second example she would have to be the main topic of the source material and it would have to be in depth (a tougher test to pass). --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hi K.e.coffman & Hydronium Hydroxide going on from what you've both said, if LB had been up for AfD for notability back in August 2014, the basis on which to decide is she notable enough to have her own article would be:
- I'm not sure I understand the distinction. In LB's case, the coverage of her exists. In any case, an AfD is a judgement call. I would !vote "Keep" if the article ended up at AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- What I'm really trying to figure out is - in the event of their being no SNG on a bio of a political activist does GNG apply as though the person is a topic, or does ANYBIO apply taking the term "field" to mean political activism. In LB's case the main topic is her creation of the Everyday Sexism Project so I see how she satisfies GNG but I would say ANYBIO is much thinner. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- Wouldn't the end result be the same? I.e. the in-depth coverage either exists or not. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- What I'm really trying to figure out is - in the event of their being no SNG on a bio of a political activist does GNG apply as though the person is a topic, or does ANYBIO apply taking the term "field" to mean political activism. In LB's case the main topic is her creation of the Everyday Sexism Project so I see how she satisfies GNG but I would say ANYBIO is much thinner. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- I suspect there might have been enough additional sources at the time to have voted some sort of Keep, but in a hypothetical situation where that 2014 version of the article basically contains the only reliably sourceable material with no prospects at that time for significant expansion, then I'd probably have argued for merge/redirect with the following logic:
- The Everyday Sexism Project meets GNG
- She does not meet ANYBIO#3 (Dictionary of National Biography level) and the British Empire Medal has thousands awarded annually so that doesn't meet ANYBIO#1.
- Nor does she appear to meet ANYBIO#2, which has two key components. The first is that she "has made a widely recognized contribution" — the ESP can have had coverage sufficient to meet the GNG but it's less clear that this has been widely recognised if RS coverage is limited. The second is that the ESP be "part of the enduring historical record" — which is hard to justify after a limited period unless (say) it's covered in multiple books, journals, full documentaries, whatever.
- Nor does she appear to meet NAUTHOR, NBOOK, or other SNGs (but even if she did her book is a byproduct of the ESP)
- The coverage of Bates outside of ESP-related activities does not clearly meet GNG. She had no notability prior to the ESP, her subsequent noteworthy activities are limited to her work with the ESP, and her bio without the ESP has little substance so it is likely that expansion is going to be very duplicative.
- If somebody's work meets GNG, then at least one article (work and/or bio) is justified. (By analogy) If someone writes one book, and that work gets a level of critical appraisal that meets NBOOK, but not to the level where the author meets WP:AUTHOR then coverage for the book either at its own article, or as a section of a bio article is warranted but probably not both. Which way the merge/redirect should go is a judgment call.
- Covering Bates at ESP's article in the context of the ESP -- rather than ESP at Bates's article in the context of Bates appears far cleaner.
- Hope that helps — and sufficiently covers your question (though disclaimer: my mental model tends to "err" towards mergism :). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 00:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- More examples of types of people where WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply but the concept of separable notability does... It is quite possible for an entrepreneur to have founded a company that meets NCORP and warrants an article, to have ranked in power lists, to have won a BEM-equivalent award, to have achieved limited personal coverage outside of that company, and to be thus deemed as only warranting coverage at that company's article. Similarly treated would be inventors of one significant invention, musicians who appear in only one band of sufficient but limited notability, founders of towns, someone who builds and operates a notable theatre, etc... ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 01:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the detailed answer. It's just lately in AfD debates I seem to have been saying things like, "yes, they're an academic but their notability doesn't come from being an academic it comes from being an activist." but not been sure how to pin that down. I just thought there might be some clear cut way of doing it. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- AfD is often a judgement call, but generelly, a BLP, if not meeting an SNG, would have to be notable for several things, in order to be kept. For example, entrepreneurs who started at least two notable (i.e. blue-linked) companies tend to be kept, vs just one - which often edn up in a "delete" outcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes AfD is a judgment call, but care must be exercised not to take WP:ONEEVENT too broadly. Yes, an inventor may have invented a single best mousetrap, but if there is enough sources which detail some other
less famous endeavors, elements of notability, not necessarily deserving a separate article, then WP:GNG trumps. By "elements of notability" I mean non-mundane, somewhat outstanding achievements of life ("born, raised, studied, worked, dined, died" do not count). and IMO that makes a general sense: if ONEEVENT is of interest, then there is a natural interest in person who is blamed for it. And if there is something interesting to say about that person, then why not have a separate page, rather than squeezing their bio into the ONEEVENT page in a WP:COATRACKish fashion. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)- A clearer way to put it is ONEEVENT ≠ ONETHINGOFANYKIND. It specifies "event" for a reason and it has no applicability outside of that context, and instead other guidelines or policies are relevant. Founding a company is not an "event". postdlf (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Postdlf: Can you suggest a text to this end to add to ONEEVENT? Better is a separate section, for prominence and focused discussion. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- A clearer way to put it is ONEEVENT ≠ ONETHINGOFANYKIND. It specifies "event" for a reason and it has no applicability outside of that context, and instead other guidelines or policies are relevant. Founding a company is not an "event". postdlf (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes AfD is a judgment call, but care must be exercised not to take WP:ONEEVENT too broadly. Yes, an inventor may have invented a single best mousetrap, but if there is enough sources which detail some other
- AfD is often a judgement call, but generelly, a BLP, if not meeting an SNG, would have to be notable for several things, in order to be kept. For example, entrepreneurs who started at least two notable (i.e. blue-linked) companies tend to be kept, vs just one - which often edn up in a "delete" outcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the detailed answer. It's just lately in AfD debates I seem to have been saying things like, "yes, they're an academic but their notability doesn't come from being an academic it comes from being an activist." but not been sure how to pin that down. I just thought there might be some clear cut way of doing it. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- More examples of types of people where WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply but the concept of separable notability does... It is quite possible for an entrepreneur to have founded a company that meets NCORP and warrants an article, to have ranked in power lists, to have won a BEM-equivalent award, to have achieved limited personal coverage outside of that company, and to be thus deemed as only warranting coverage at that company's article. Similarly treated would be inventors of one significant invention, musicians who appear in only one band of sufficient but limited notability, founders of towns, someone who builds and operates a notable theatre, etc... ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 01:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
A resource for political activists and candidates?
WP:NPOL is causing grief to some newcomers. Unfortunately for them, running news commentary and promotional interviews do not make suitable sources for basing new article biographies. The unencultured Wikipedia newcomer should be forgiven for not understanding this. Can we send them somewhere more useful for attempting to document candidate and activists activities? Something like https://www.imdb.com/ which is good for upcoming actors and films not (yet) sufficiently notable for Wikipedia? Is there a user-editable repository of information on political candidates and activists? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ballotpedia. --Enos733 (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ballotpedia. They are not user-editable. They claim to use professionals, they have submission forms that required verified identities, if you want to help you can donate. It's not a place to send Wikipedian wannabes to. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- Agree on not advising to go to Ballotpedia. Candidates would be advised to work on their campaign websites and social media presence, instead of trying to place articles on Wikipedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that is good advice for candidates, and also for their staffers, consultants and enthusiastic volunteers, K.e.coffman. Their main focus should be on winning the damned election to high office. If they do so, then there will be a Wikipedia biography and nobody will try to delete it, as long as it complies with NPOV and verifiability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- Agree on not advising to go to Ballotpedia. Candidates would be advised to work on their campaign websites and social media presence, instead of trying to place articles on Wikipedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ballotpedia. They are not user-editable. They claim to use professionals, they have submission forms that required verified identities, if you want to help you can donate. It's not a place to send Wikipedian wannabes to. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ballotpedia. --Enos733 (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Does "with verifiable notability" mean "has an article?"
In the section of this guideline that addresses "Lists of people", it says: "For instance, articles about schools often include (or link to) a list of notable alumni/alumnae, but such lists are not intended to contain everyone who attended the school — only those with verifiable notability." Does this mean that only people with articles should be included in those lists? If so, why does the sentence say "verifiable notability" instead of simply stating "notable" or "an article?" And how does this square with WP:N which clearly says that notability is not applied to the content of articles? ElKevbo (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- It depends on the list and what editors decide is appropriate for it. Editors may decide that there already must be an article for an entry to be included in a particular list, or they may decide that a redlink is permissible so long as a secondary source supporting notability is also provided. postdlf (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- That is not what this guideline says or implies. If your answer accurately reflects Wikipedia practice, please consider editing the guideline so it's clear and accurate. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- @ElKevbo: I think that the guideline is relatively clear. Either the list should contain blue links to biographies (presumably they are verifiably notable or their biography wouldn't be on Wikipedia (assuming that new page patrol did their job properly), or they can be verifiably notable via at least two reliable sources that are independent of the subject and provide significant coverage (added to the list, especially if someone contests inclusion). These people may be notable but not have an article because either someone hasn't written it yet, or because of some other reason, but as long as verifiable notability can be established via sources, there is no reason they cannot be included in the list (although if you are going to that much trouble, starting a stub might be worth a little extra time). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think that "verifiable notability" is pretty clear, meaning either a blue link (existing article) or a red link (for a subject who is notable but for whom an article does not yet exist). That said, I believe the best (better) practice is to limit such entries to those alumni already with articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- A little more specifically, I interpret it as meaning "has an article or is obviously qualified for one" It is appropriate to leave red links for people such as members of a legislature, or holders of a named chair,or winners of an unquestionably major prize. I usually also leave links to such people as presidents of a famous company. Such links are a good way of suggesting to people that they write the articles. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think that "verifiable notability" is pretty clear, meaning either a blue link (existing article) or a red link (for a subject who is notable but for whom an article does not yet exist). That said, I believe the best (better) practice is to limit such entries to those alumni already with articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- @ElKevbo: I think that the guideline is relatively clear. Either the list should contain blue links to biographies (presumably they are verifiably notable or their biography wouldn't be on Wikipedia (assuming that new page patrol did their job properly), or they can be verifiably notable via at least two reliable sources that are independent of the subject and provide significant coverage (added to the list, especially if someone contests inclusion). These people may be notable but not have an article because either someone hasn't written it yet, or because of some other reason, but as long as verifiable notability can be established via sources, there is no reason they cannot be included in the list (although if you are going to that much trouble, starting a stub might be worth a little extra time). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- That is not what this guideline says or implies. If your answer accurately reflects Wikipedia practice, please consider editing the guideline so it's clear and accurate. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I am raising this issue again because I continue to see many editors who explicitly reference this policy when they remove people included in embedded lists because those people don't have articles already created for them. Here is the most recent such edit that popped onto my watchlist a few hours ago: remove individual from list of notables, who needs both a Wikipedia article **AND** independent reliable and verifiable sources establishing connection here, as specified by WP:NLIST. (Sorry, Alansohn - I'm not trying to pick on you!) I know that specific example doesn't have a reference but the explicit reasoning used by the editor clearly does not reflect the understanding of this policy as many of you have described it. And that - the apparent difference between how some editors read and understand this policy and how others read and understand it - is the problem I am raising. ElKevbo (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- ElKevbo, no offense taken. When this edit popped up on my watchlist equivalent, I searched for Patricia Puglise King and found nothing, including no Wikipedia articles with that name mentioned. I did the same for Annamaria Alfieri and found no article and no mention in an article. Similar to what DGG stated above, I looked at the description and saw that this wasn't someone who is presumed notable, say an elected official, professional athlete or prize-winner, among other possibilities. With no article, no meaningful claim of notability and no reliable and verifiable source, I deleted the entry. The catchphrase I use for deletion was verified at some point against policy and represents my understanding. In many other cases where an unlinked or unsourced entry has been added to a list of notables, I have found the article and identified a source connecting them to the place or school. I have added thousands upon thousands of notables to lists and I've added sources for 99.99% of them. There are limited circumstances where an entry should be retained without an existing article, but those are rare exceptions. If we insisted on articles existing for lists of notables *AND* required reliable and verifiable sources establishing a connection to the place / school, we'd solve the vast majority of problems with unsourced lists. I've tried to do cleanups and mass additions of sources, but this is a painstaking task that should be the responsibility of those adding the material to the article. If there needs to be a better bolierplate explanation to explain why entries without articles and sources have been removed, I'll be happy to add it to my edit summary repertoire. Alansohn (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- For someone who does have an article, I consider it sufficient if the reliable information connecting them to the category is found in the article on the individual; I do not think the reference needs to be copied to the list: WP is hypertext, and articles relate to each other. That said, it is still advisable to check., and check not just that there is a reference but that the reference says what is claimed. Yesterday I removed several "notable faculty" from a category who in fact were only teaching assistants during their PhD. In all of them, the information was also wrongly claimed in the infobox on the person. For all of them, I consider for independent reasons that it is very likely that the articles & categories had been written by PR staff from that university. (I am now proceeding to check every individual listed there.) This level of analysis of sources is not practical for us as a general rule. It's only really practical when there is good reason to challenge the information, and whoever is checking knows how sources in that area and aspect work. DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- I generally view having an article as sufficient for inclusion, assuming the verifying material exists in that article. If it's there, anyone who has a problem with a lack of refs in the list can just copy it over. But yeah, typically an article should exist. I treat that as the default, and in some cases local consensus determines that citations to sources that demonstrate sufficient notability for an article could be sufficient (but really, at that point, just create an article). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- To respond to DGG and Rhododendrites - The problem, to coin a phrase, is that sourcing is not inherited. If someone has been added to a list of notables in some article, the fact that that person has a Wikipedia article doesn't prove that they're from that place or attended that school. This edit is typical, with an edit summary stating "remove Chris Wylde as notable; no source here, none in his article and no reliable and verifiable source found in a Google search to connect him to Hackettstown" This is a frequent situation, where someone takes an unsourced statement in Article A and uses that to spread the virus to Article B.Then there's this edit, with the edit summary "remove Joseph Perella as notable; no source here, no mention in his article and no reliable and verifiable source found in a Google search to connect him to the school". This type of unsourced notable often leads me on a wild goose chase trying to figure out why the entry was added; surely there must be a source somewhere, but often there isn't and I have no idea why the entry was added.If an entry is added to a list of notables and it has a source, then I don't need to check the article and I don't need to care if the fact is mentioned. If there is no source added, then the burden is on me and every other responsible editor to go to the article to see if there is a source there. Why should we accept entries without sources on blind faith?ElKevbo, I stand behinf the original edit summary, because there is absolutely nothing to hang a hat on, either in terms of an article or a source. If we have nothing about the person to demonstrate notability, why are we keeping the entry in a list of notables? Alansohn (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
If there is no source added, then the burden is on me and every other responsible editor to go to the article to see if there is a source there.
-- Well, yeah, like so much else on Wikipedia sometimes the choice is whether to take 5 seconds to revert or take 10 seconds to fix. Ideally, yes, there's a source in every instance, for every claim all across Wikipedia. In the case of a list, it doesn't take much more effort to click over to the article and see if it has a source than it does to revert. If there isn't a source in the article, I don't think anyone would have a problem with removing it per WP:BURDEN. Invoking WP:BURDEN without taking a few seconds to check the article, however, seems like a WP:PRESERVE, WP:SOFIXIT, etc. etc. matter. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)- Alansohn, your edit summary was "remove individual from list of notables, who needs both a Wikipedia article **AND** independent reliable and verifiable sources establishing connection here, as specified by WP:NLIST" and my point is that this policy does NOT specify that people included in inline lists must have an article. Your edit summary reflects a common misunderstanding of this policy AND of [[WP:|our core policy about notability]] that explicitly rejects the idea that material included in articles must be notable. Your specific edit appears to have been fine in this instance but your edit summary reflects a common misunderstanding of important policies. My original question confirmed that my understanding of this policy is shared by many editors but your edit summary illustrates that other editors do not agree with this understanding. So we need to modify this policy to make it more clear, we modify if to match your understanding (i.e., the idea that some editors expound that policies should be descriptive of editors' practices and not prescriptive), or we accept that different editors have diametrically opposed interpretations of this specific bit of policy. ElKevbo (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- To respond to DGG and Rhododendrites - The problem, to coin a phrase, is that sourcing is not inherited. If someone has been added to a list of notables in some article, the fact that that person has a Wikipedia article doesn't prove that they're from that place or attended that school. This edit is typical, with an edit summary stating "remove Chris Wylde as notable; no source here, none in his article and no reliable and verifiable source found in a Google search to connect him to Hackettstown" This is a frequent situation, where someone takes an unsourced statement in Article A and uses that to spread the virus to Article B.Then there's this edit, with the edit summary "remove Joseph Perella as notable; no source here, no mention in his article and no reliable and verifiable source found in a Google search to connect him to the school". This type of unsourced notable often leads me on a wild goose chase trying to figure out why the entry was added; surely there must be a source somewhere, but often there isn't and I have no idea why the entry was added.If an entry is added to a list of notables and it has a source, then I don't need to check the article and I don't need to care if the fact is mentioned. If there is no source added, then the burden is on me and every other responsible editor to go to the article to see if there is a source there. Why should we accept entries without sources on blind faith?ElKevbo, I stand behinf the original edit summary, because there is absolutely nothing to hang a hat on, either in terms of an article or a source. If we have nothing about the person to demonstrate notability, why are we keeping the entry in a list of notables? Alansohn (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: This was a proper removal: [5]. Unsourced; unclear notability. Could have been a hoax or a BLP vio. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Since there seems to be consensus here about what this policy says - inclusion in an in-line list does not require independent notability - I would appreciate other editors joining this discussion of a Wikiproject essay that contradicts this policy (and WP:N). Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 05:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Caretaker cabinet members
In Pakistan, we've a unique system of caretaker government - both at the centre and in the four provinces. The cabinets of the caretaker interim governments are composed of non-elected individuals so I'm just curious whether the caretaker members (ministers only) of the cabinets automatically passes WP:NPOL? I'm pinging some editors who have worked in this area: @Kautilya3, DGG, DBigXray, SheriffIsInTown, and Capitals00: --Saqib (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, going by the wording of the policy, holding "office" qualifies people to have pages by WP:NPOL. But, I would say, let us not go overboard with this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- No, I would say that only the Head of the Caretaker cabinet (i.e. the temporary PM or the CM) can be considered Notable. Basically it is a very short term duration and these people (members of the cabinet, both ministers and head) are not expected to do something that can have a lasting impact in that short period. But if they do something that gets significant coverage and passes WP:GNG then these minister can have a WP:BIO, but that will be on a case by case basis. IF you are looking for a General statement. I would suggest to only consider the Head of the care taker cabinet as notable. Ministers of the care taker government are not inherently notable and would need to satisfy the WP:SIGCOV criteria as well. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
- I don't think they pass. They are not exactly notable. There would be many such similar articles like some have been already noted in the list if this kind of criteria was justified for creating the article. I don't see a solid reason to ignore criteria of achieving general notability which is clearly not limited with being in a office either and that's why each individual may differ from other when it concerns the notability. AfD nomination is justified when there are issues with GNG and NPOL. Capitals00 (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- I consider that our consistent practice has been that all cabinet member in the US = ministers (or equivalent) elsewhere are notable. There should always be sources, though they may be difficult to locate. It is not our role to make judgements on the expected length or survival or relative importance of a caretaker government, and the few AfD discussions I recall on even temporary or acting heads of departments have usually found them notable. The only way of deciding this, of course is AfD, but i first want to remind people of cultural bias, and the need for those with the necessary acccess and abilities to help find sources. As I see it, part of the reason for presumed notability in such cases, is precisely this factor. DGG ( talk ) 14:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Cultural bias is sometimes an overstated point used, not necessarily by DGG, as a means to retain anything and everything. Yes, I would agree that it can always be an issue - most basically in terms of non-English language sources - but it seems to me to be used as a sledgehammer at times. If they're notable then, sooner or later, something will appear and until then they are not notable. Our role is to reflect, not to anticipate or speculate. - Sitush (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- I consider that our consistent practice has been that all cabinet member in the US = ministers (or equivalent) elsewhere are notable. There should always be sources, though they may be difficult to locate. It is not our role to make judgements on the expected length or survival or relative importance of a caretaker government, and the few AfD discussions I recall on even temporary or acting heads of departments have usually found them notable. The only way of deciding this, of course is AfD, but i first want to remind people of cultural bias, and the need for those with the necessary acccess and abilities to help find sources. As I see it, part of the reason for presumed notability in such cases, is precisely this factor. DGG ( talk ) 14:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Local sources, again
This comes back every few years, but to summarize, Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) has a short and useful section WP:AUD. How about we move it here? While there is no consensus to apply this to GNG in general, I think that discussion does show more consensus for using this with biographies, particularly of modern individuals. With the caveat that this may could be limited to individuals primarily active from 2nd half of the 20th century onward, I think this would be a good rule to deal with some spam (i.e. people who receive in-depth write ups in very obscure sources, like city-wide or parish-wide magazines). To be clear: if one makes it to Foo Town Encyclopedia, that's ok. But if you get covered by Foo Town Newspaper that is not circulated outside Foo Town, I don't think that's a good source. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- I would strongly oppose this - precisely because "local" is so hard to define. I've seen serious Wikipedia editors argue that every single major newspaper in Australia bar one is a "local" newspaper. It gives no guidance to users and ensures ugly and pointless deletion discussions. The attempt to actually define "local" in the context of the companies rewrite a few months ago was a mess that wound up with no useful consensus on what that was, and the interpretation mess at AfD that followed in relation to other vague language in that rewrite (because I and others hoped it would generally be interpreted sensibly, and wasn't) tells me that redoing it in relation to biographies would be a very bad idea. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support, conditionally upon it always being very clear that it only applies to recent cases. It should probably apply to all BLPs. It should not apply to anyone who died more than 60-70 years ago. The wish to add the clause here I think is motivated by biographies with associated promotion, and I think that should probably be mentioned, I think company founders and CEOs should be treated as stringently as their companies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- But we know that it would be used to try and delete many, many biographies that are not promotion, wasting editorial time and ensuring that more notable subjects of BLPs (and those who know them) get to see charming comments made about their notability - on subjects that have absolutely nothing to do with companies. Spam-hunters who've decided that it's easier to just kill everything in sight are becoming almost as much of a problem as spammers in my book. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Do we know? I am open to be persuaded. Can you give some examples? "Local" need not be hard to define, for this purpose. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Well, the last time the discussion was had, it was long, fruitless, and involved people seriously trying to invalidate every newspaper in the country bar one, and experience at AfD has shown deletionists frequently applying absurdly wide readings of any vague language that was inserted in that rewrite more broadly. This does not make one want to repeat the process. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- I can't speak for what some other people argued (and from what you say it doesn't seem like they made a particularly good argument). But I agree with Joe this shouldn't be to hard. A source that we should treat carefully, i.e. local, can be defined as having circulation no greater than one city or metropolitan area, or equivalent unit of administration (county, etc.). Provincial/state publications, i.e. regional, would be fine. And as noted before, limiting this to let's say 21st century sources or such would be ok too. The goal is to eliminate vanity spam, when someone gets an in-depth piece in their local city or parish or such newspaper, 'local boy/girl gets a career in the big city! look at that, folks!'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Well, the last time the discussion was had, it was long, fruitless, and involved people seriously trying to invalidate every newspaper in the country bar one, and experience at AfD has shown deletionists frequently applying absurdly wide readings of any vague language that was inserted in that rewrite more broadly. This does not make one want to repeat the process. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Do we know? I am open to be persuaded. Can you give some examples? "Local" need not be hard to define, for this purpose. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- But we know that it would be used to try and delete many, many biographies that are not promotion, wasting editorial time and ensuring that more notable subjects of BLPs (and those who know them) get to see charming comments made about their notability - on subjects that have absolutely nothing to do with companies. Spam-hunters who've decided that it's easier to just kill everything in sight are becoming almost as much of a problem as spammers in my book. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. GNG works fine as is. WP:AUD was adopted as a narrow exception to address unique promotional concerns with companies and should not be extended to biographies. Moreover, the proposed change is grossly overbroad. While it may be appropriate to give discounted weight to small town newspapers, significant coverage in major metropolitan newspapers is entirely valid. Cbl62 (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support. I think this is actually fine. I was a bit hesitant about the potential for overreach but I think the proposed text is pretty careful to exclude anything that could not be considered a small-town paper (i.e. it specifically mentions regional and statewide media which eliminates several of the concerns discussed above). It is definitely a problem that needs solving, because with regards to WP:POLITICIAN for example, there is nothing in the guideline that says local sources aren't fine, which would mean that every single local mayor or councillor could be (and has been) argued as notable under current guidelines, and the only counter-argument at the moment is "oh, no, we don't read it that way", which is a hell of a way to introduce newbies with an interest in local politics to Wikipedia. Frickeg (talk) 09:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- GNG and multiple sources I generally find that WP:GNG stating that "
multiple sources are generally expected
" is sufficient. This rules out the subject that gets coverage in only one or two "local" sources. Note that muliple articles from the same publisher still counts as one source.—Bagumba (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)- "muliple articles from the same publisher still counts as one source". I like that a lot, but where is it written down? I echo Frickeg as I am pretty sure there are bios of local politicians which are argued notable because the subject has received several articles in the local town gazette (or website). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: It's in WP:GNG at "Sources": "
Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
"—Bagumba (talk) 06:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)- Who put the "usually" in? For the purpose of demonstrating notability, the independent sources have to be independent from the subject as well as from each other. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: The quote was regarding the number of sources (e.g. same newspaper with 10 different articles on the subject still counts as one "source" for notability purposes). It was not referring to "same author or organization" being the same as subject of the page.—Bagumba (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- Who put the "usually" in? For the purpose of demonstrating notability, the independent sources have to be independent from the subject as well as from each other. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: It's in WP:GNG at "Sources": "
- "muliple articles from the same publisher still counts as one source". I like that a lot, but where is it written down? I echo Frickeg as I am pretty sure there are bios of local politicians which are argued notable because the subject has received several articles in the local town gazette (or website). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose To me, the reason that local (however it might be defined) sources are suspect is that they may not be reliable or independent of the subject. Saying all local sources should be discounted is an easy out, but not a good one. Many local sources are of acceptable quality, I don't see how being local equates to being dubious. If a source is of dubious quality or is too closely related to an article's subject it probably should be improved upon. If an article is at AfD due to poor sourcing or if a fact in an article is in dispute, the source should be analyzed on its own merits, regardless of whether or not it is local. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- I agree the quality of the source matters the most, but I know of many local papers (or online newspapers), which are just a repository of press releases (which may or may not be easy to spot). --Enos733 (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Local sources are fine to support a topic once shown notable, the issue is that topics that only have local sourcing may likely not be notable for our purposes. We're likely to be able to document the history of a multi-generation family-owned small town restauarant via local sources over time, but that doesn't make the restaurant notable for a global work. --Masem (t) 17:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:CREEP. Notability is a guideline, not policy, which means that it is quite imprecise and fuzzy. Adding more vague concepts like "local" would make matters worse, generating vexatious and opionated arguments which would essentially boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Andrew D. (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support
for BLPs: this would be a good addition, for two reasons. First, many SNGs already do a good job at indicating significant (i.e. WP:NPOL, WP:CREATIVE, WP:PROF), but in the areas without SNGs, it's more difficult to arrive at a consensus. This would apply to businesspeople, beauty pageant winners, motivational speakers, YouTube personalities, etc, which are prone to promotionalism and fancruft -- the second reason to tighten the requirements. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Changed to general "support". K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per The Drover's Wife. We have no agreed upon metric to differentiate between a "local" newspaper or a "regional" newspaper or a "major metropolitan" newspaper or a "national" newspaper. For example, I have heard editors argue that the San Francisco Chronicle is a local paper despite the fact that has been circulated widely throughout Northern California since at least 1880 and has won many Pulitzer Prizes going back at least to 1941. Although I recognize the inherent issues of promotionalism regarding BLPs, especially of younger people in the early stages of their career, I think that it is a mistake to accept certain sources for establishing the notability of a person who is dead, but reject equivalent sources from the same publications for a person who is alive. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose largely per TDW. The main issue for me is determining what constitutes a "local" source, and the significant likelihood that deletionists will try to expand the definition of it. I also don't think we should be going down that path where we have one rule for dead people and another for BLPs regarding whether undefined "local" sources are useable to determine notability. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose – This would set a poor precedent, particularly regarding people based in or from third-world, less developed and rural areas of the world, where a lesser degree of new coverage and a lesser amount of news agencies and publishers exist. Seems that this could also lead to a greater degree of WP:SYSTEMIC bias on Wikipedia as well, whereby people covered in first world countries would receive favoritism for inclusion in the encyclopedia per a greater amount of overall said coverage, news agencies and publishers in first world countries. North America1000 04:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Massive oppose. AUD is bizarre nonsense that has nothing whatsoever to do with real scholarship. The very idea is simply wrong in principle per se. Circulation is simply not relevant. If the sources are reliable and independent, or the topic is objectively important and reliably sourced, there is nothing to discuss. Real historians use local newspapers: I really should not have to say anything else. ORG as a whole contains so much nonsense now that it is probably broken beyond repair and should probably be demoted to an essay. James500 (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Inherited notability and architects
Would an architect be deemed to be notable because one or more of the structures that they designed are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (US), are listed buildings (UK), or similar national heritage etc directories? It is an issue that has bugged me for some time, bearing in mind WP:NOTINHERITED, but I know that there are a fair few people whose primary interest lies mainly in dealing with NRHP/LB etc articles. Perhaps this applies further afield also, eg: if an artist has a work exhibited/catalogued by a major gallery then is notability presumed? - Sitush (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- WP:NARTIST is more relevant and authoritative here than NOTINHERITED possibly could be. postdlf (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Good point. But if little is known or written about them despite their creative work then where do we stand? The various notability criteria do sometimes appear to work at cross-purposes. I'm guessing the argument would be that, sooner or later, someone will find something that enables an article to progress but, hey, that is more or less the same argument I have just responded to in another thread on this talk page: when it happens then that is great but until it happens ... - Sitush (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- For me, I'd be ok with keeping them if they had 2+ structures in such registers. Multiple of something always help. Being notable for just one structure is a bit like WP:ONEEVENT stuff. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Good point. But if little is known or written about them despite their creative work then where do we stand? The various notability criteria do sometimes appear to work at cross-purposes. I'm guessing the argument would be that, sooner or later, someone will find something that enables an article to progress but, hey, that is more or less the same argument I have just responded to in another thread on this talk page: when it happens then that is great but until it happens ... - Sitush (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Listed buildings can be listed for many reasons besides their architecture--in fact, the reason for most of them is the historical associations, and although the architect if known will be given in the description, that doesn't make him notable, any more than it does the builder or the original owner. Being listed as an example of the architectural work specifically would certainly contribute to notability . DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
an example of the architectural work specifically
meaning the architectural style, such as Gothic or Neo-whatever etc? I think pretty much all listings would refer to the style? Sorry, but I am a tad confused here - it may be the meds. Also confused about "historical associations": I can see that, for example, a building might be listed because person A or B lived there or because it was connected to a battle, a treaty signing etc but I'm pretty sure that, at least in the UK, most listed buildings do not fall into that type of category. I am not even sure that pretty much anything designed by, say, Charles Barry, Augustus Pugin or Christopher Wren would necessarily qualify for a listing (although the likelihood is quite high). Those three people are extremely well documented and would qualify regardless of listings but there are others whose bio articles seem to rely more on the fact of association with a listing than on the available biographical information. - Sitush (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)- The more I think about it, the more I think this discussion may need a wider audience. There are certainly some people, such as Doncram and FloridaArmy, who will have significant opinions because of their connection to the NRHP project and I am fairly sure that there will be equivalent contributors involved with similar national projects. - Sitush (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for pinging me. Yes, I created a good number and have contributed to the majority of the current 1,052 articles in administrative category Category:NRHP architects. A while back I systematically started articles for all architects having 5 or more NRHP listed works. If someone wants to contest such articles, go through that category and try to find the weakest ones. Please notify wt:NRHP if you open an AFD. And/or open a big negative ANI proceeding about me personally. :} Any architect who has an article by dint of other notability and has any NRHP work, even just one, should be put in the category (though perhaps not all are so categorized); it is an admin category and that is not controversial.
- About whether designing one work that is NRHP-listed automatically makes an architect notable, the answer is no. Sometimes a house is NRHP-listed because of some notable person living there, and it may randomly be known that a local architect designed it; no one is creating an article for such an architect. But far more often, a building is notable architecturally as a good example of its type in a wide area, and/or it may be especially notable because it is a good example by a certain architect. For example I just created James Murdoch (architect) article, upon coming across him while developing NRHP article All Saints Episcopal Church (Denver). Its NRHP nomination document states the building "has added significance since it is the work of James Murdoch, an important architect in Denver in the late 19th and early 20th centuries." And I was able to find, elsewhere, a bio that gives birth and death dates and quite a bit more, though I only wrote out a fraction of the info available. And I list a few NRHP-listed works and a few others. I can think of a few cases where the reason a place is listed is because it is the only surviving known good example of work by a certain architect who is deemed to be notable, worth recognizing in American history, and their importance is noted by the listing itself. This is fine and good.
- You might ask, what if very little info about the person is available, and if they are not generally otherwise deemed significant? If there are only one or very few known works by a person, and nothing much factual about the person, then probably an article isn't needed. If there are numerous works by the person, then even if little is known about the person biography-wise, then it is still worth having an article, essentially as a list of works by the person, covering the notable topic of the significant works of this person. If someone designs 50 schools that get NRHP-listed for their architecture, then they were doing something right, and it seems silly to deny an article. Also it is a matter of convenience: we want to state the list of works by this person in one place and link to that, rather than including mention of all 50 works in each of 50 separate articles. The title is better as the person's name, even if the article is essentially a list-article, IMO.
- I don't think there is any widespread problem with the NRHP architect articles. Some which were created a while ago using little more than the NRHP's NRIS database info may now be considerably improved, since individual NRHP documents have become available over time, and these documents often convey interesting bio detail about an architect. If you do come across weak articles, I would be happy to be notified of them and I would be glad to put some effort in on them myself or try to coordinate others' involvement too. Cheers, --Doncram (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- P.S. Hey, the question of NRHP architect notability has been tested already in numerous AFDs around 2012, all of which closed Keep as I recall. I joked above, but do not welcome any new round of AFDs. This is settled stuff.
- In case it makes someone feel better, basically the reasoning in developing NRHP architect articles has been essentially that they meet some version of wp:ARTIST. My reasoning is not at all about notability being inherited. wp:ARTIST includes statement that "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 primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The NRHP architects are more or less notable for having created a significant body of work, e.g. the slave who built covered bridges all over the state of Georgia, or the future governor of Kentucky who built numerous early stone houses, each of which is itself the primary subject of an NRHP listing and its review/nomination document representing systematic collective judgment of local, state, national level reviewers. Perhaps that wp:ARTIST statement could be modified to clarify that an NRHP listing is equivalent to a book, file or television series. --Doncram (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)