Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2024

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

However, that section has as subsections:
 * WP:ARTIST, which states when a person is notable;
 * The footnote to WP:POLITICIAN, which states when certain politicians are inherently notable; and
 * A summary of WP:NACADEMIC.

To eliminate confusion, I propose moving, ARTIST, the part of POLITICIAN that states which politicians in particular are always notable, and NACADEMIC to a new section called "Secondary crtieria", with an introductory paragraph explaining that these criteria establish notability conclusively. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to this. First, both NPOL and NACADEMIC only says that subjects are presumed to be notable; it does not declare that they are (only NARTIST does this). Second, Subject-specific Notability Guides (SNGs) are not the only criteria, so a subject does not have to pass any one of these and arguably, the article might still be sent to deletion if the subject is not generally notable, regardless of picayune SNGs like these or others like NRODEO. Wikipedia is already too inclusionist and this reads like a solution in search of a problem.  Chris Troutman  ( talk )  23:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this is a solution in search of a problem; the introductory paragraph directly contradicts some of the inherent notability guidelines listed here and could be confusing to new editors. Additionally, the footnote to NPOL says that national and state or province-wide elected politicians should always have articles and NACADEMIC says: "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." NACADEMIC also says "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH, etc., and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline." voorts (talk/contributions) 23:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the solution is to change the language at WP:ARTIST and WP:POLITICIAN. I am aware of at least a few cases were very obscure mideval MPs lost their standalone articles, so clearly the community doesn't think the latter SNG is immutable. Mach61 (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that would require an RfC, and I'm fairly certain that would end with a no consensus outcome. That said, I'm agnostic about changing NARTIST and NPOL at this point. My current proposal is just to make clear that, as currently written, some guidelines actually do establish an irrebuttable presumption of notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

For clarification
&#126;AntanO4task (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I.R.H. Gnanadason - Here, what are the notability criteria met? A title ''bishop' could be a notability?
 * Kamal Gupta - Is it notable as the article about a member the Legislative Assembly?


 * I'd presume it's under WP:GNG, I'm not aware of any for clergy guidelines so I think it's relying on the books for it. I can't say how good the first one is since I can't read Tamil, and the Geni source is unreliable.
 * Yes I think thats what its going for, it could use a lot more information but Indian State legislators are on the list of presumed notable subational politicians, so it's likely there are sources to expand it with.
 * Shaws username .  talk  . 16:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Notability for commercial directors
There's an article up for AfD at present (Paul Street (director)). Long story short, the guy seems to be generally best known for his commercials and therein lies the problem.

The central question here is basically this: can RS coverage of commercials establish notability for the director?

I'm coming at this from two perspectives. One is from somewhat of a NFILM vantage point, the other is from a NBUSINESS one.

The NFILM viewpoint basically has me arguing this: a director can be considered notable if their films have gained substantial coverage in the media (reviews, articles). There are times when notability can be argued for a director even if the films aren't independently notable. For example, a director created fifteen films. The article has ten reviews and ten in-depth articles (not interviews) about their work, which could establish notability even if there aren't enough reviews and articles per film to justify creating individual articles for each movie. In that situation we could argue that the director is notable due to the amount of coverage and save people trying to create several small articles by having coverage of the films in the director article.

At the same time, commercials are not the same thing as films or short films. From a NBUSINESS standpoint, businesses and advertising related articles are prone to having lots of routine coverage. They're also prone to having tons of non-notable awards and honors. It's part of the reason why NBUSINESS has very, very specific criteria as far as what coverage does or doesn't count. A commercial director would likely experience the exact same issue.

To be fair, I don't know really think that this guy is particularly noteworthy but I do think that we need to have some type of discussion as far as what coverage could be considered usable and what would be expected in an article of this type. From what I can see we've never discussed commercial directors - commercial actors yes, but not the directors.

As far as coverage goes, I do think that something like this article could be usable. It's an article in The Independent about an Easy Rider themed commercial. The director is briefly mentioned, which is why someone argued that it can't establish notability - however at the same time he's the director of said commercial so that would give him more weight as far as that goes. Admittedly I'm not super familiar with the creative process with commercials but I would imagine that he would have some sway over how things play out.

What's everyone's thoughts on this? I'm not looking to have any actual guidelines written out here but I did think it was worth discussing in a place that isn't AfD. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  16:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm a deletionist and it seems the consensus over the past twenty years is going that direction, so I cannot see any reason to argue that we widen the span of acceptable sources. For the example you mention now facing deletion, that article is a vanity project by the subject. We don't need to fill our encyclopedia with such dreck. The point you make is that if there's coverage of the commercial, isn't that worth something? I didn't posit that the commercial itself was or was not notable. Maybe if the vain editors had read WP:N, they would realize the correct strategy is to make articles of the notable commercials, films, books, sculptures, etc. and then write about the artist involved. That never happens because the promotional editors, in their selfishness, are also too impatient for their own good. For them, it's always their first (and last) venture onto a wiki. For us regulars, it's just Tuesday. I don't lose sleep over which content isn't included in Wikipedia.  Chris Troutman  ( talk )  19:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that we should keep that article - I actually voted to delete it. My concern is basically that a commercial director isn't exactly the same thing as an advertising executive or businessman. They occupy a weird area between said businessman and a feature film director. Should any of the NFILM or NCREATIVE type guidelines apply to them? Should their commercial work only be considered under NBUSINESS? I don't think that commercial directors have exactly the same freedom as say, a feature film director, but I also don't think they're just another piece on a factory assembly line creating a commercial. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  13:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Another point I questioned at the AfD. Again, not arguing notability for Street. Just asking because commercial directors kind of straddle both NCREATIVE and NBUSINESS.
 * Let's say we have a commercial director who directed 2-3 commercials notable enough to have their own articles. Let's say something along the lines of Christmas Bells (advertisement) and 1984 (advertisement) type notable. By NFILM and NCREATIVE guidelines that would make them notable enough for their own article, even if the sourcing that focused on them in specific is very sparse or nearly nonexistent. At the same time, I think that this would probably fail NBUSINESS. Should we only consider NBUSINESS for something like this or should NFILM/NCREATIVE come into consideration? ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  13:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm also not even asking for a change or anything like that. I just think that we need to at least somewhat discuss this because well, as the gaps in coverage start to narrow (which they have been over time) there's a higher chance that someone will come back and try to cover stuff like this. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  13:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Military Officers Notability
Hello, I believe that the rules of notability should be edited to include automatically notability of certain military officers. Military generals and commanders should automatically be notable on Wikipedia, because they are a high ranking and command many people. As per POLITICIAN, politicians that hold high rankings are automatically presumed as notable, so it does not make any sense as to why high-ranking military officers should not be automatically presumed notable. An example of an article falling into this scenario is an article I created, Oskar von dem Hagen. He was a military general during World War II who received the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, yet he is being deleted for "not having notability". Military generals and any military officers, especially ones with major awards, should be automatically presumed notable on Wikipedia. Please let me know what you think. Antny08 (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That rule (WP:SOLDIER) had its time and has since been eliminated. If you cannot find sufficient sources on a subject, then we cannot write a decent article about them.  Chris Troutman  ( talk )  21:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That is talking about the Military history project guidelines, not the guidelines for Wikipedia itself, just the guidelines to be included in that project. Antny08 (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Antny08, you might be interested in reading the discussion that resulted in the removal of WP:SOLDIER. Schazjmd   (talk)  21:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That is talking about the Military history project guidelines, not the guidelines for Wikipedia itself, just the guidelines to be included in that project. Antny08 (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree with you. Unfortunately, some time ago certain other editors took pride in getting WP:SOLDIER removed, so here we are. It's sadly not likely to change. Wikipedia notability standards get more proscriptive by the day. I'm frankly amazed WP:POLITICIAN has been allowed to stand for so long. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it really doesn’t make any sense. Wikipedia is a place for information, and I believe that people who command entire army groups should be able to be notable enough for Wikipedia. I really do hope they do eventually change it one day. Antny08 (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The only thing that makes a subject notable is significant coverage in independent sources, if the subject doesn't get that they aren't notable. "Presumed notable" means that we can presume that such coverage exists, it won't for the vast majority of officers. Therefore we can neither presume or grant automatic notability to military officers. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

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


 * I haven't looked over the AfD, but I'm not a fan of the argument being presented here. Wikipedia articles can be created and edited by anyone, and as such I don't think they are part of the "historical record in a specific field" in the same way we presumably wouldn't really put any significant weight on someone being "cited" by a plethora of random blog posts. Ljleppan (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems you have less of a question and more of an effort to canvass support at an AfD. For what it's worth, I think you're stretching the guideline well beyond reasonable limits. As always, I caution editors to wait until a subject had died before we try to assess things like "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record".  Chris Troutman  ( talk )  16:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As someone who voted delete, I don't think Cl3phact0 is trying to canvass. Mach61 (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you,.
 * , that's not my intention (also see my comment re: WP:APPNOTE on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red – the possibility of such mispercption being a thought which occurred to me only after posting my note here, if you're interested). I do apologise if I've left you with that impression. Again, I'm not particularly interested in the subject of the article itself (though she seems to be someone who's building quite a reputable body of work in her field), but I do think there is merit in the notability discussion that has resulted from the AfD.
 * I've actually been thinking quite a lot about both the interpretation of WP:ANYBIO (especially point 2), as well as the point about the very high number of internal Wikipedia citations that makes in the AfD discussion (as well as the other points I've raised in that same discussion and here). Essentially, might we be underestimating the potential value of Wikipedia itself as a reference (in some very specific cases). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Any wiki is going to change with time, so at one point an author's work might be cited a lot but those citations might be replaced with others in five or ten years' time. Let's also remember that Wikipedia fails WP:SPS and WP:CIRCULAR. We can't have editors citing particular works to make the works and their authors de facto notable.  Chris Troutman  ( talk )  22:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with the worry that it creates additional incentive for puffery. But that incentive is unfortunately there anyway, and we already have to cope with it. Dsp13 (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can we accept that there are instances where death as a prerequisite for assessment of the impact of an individual's contribution to the historical record might be overly cautious? In my view, the example of Draft:Brittany Spanos is clear-cut case of a living person, relatively early-on in their career, making what is an enduring contribution to a field. (Again, she is quoted and/or cited over 1,200 times in this encyclopaedia alone – fully accepting that this in itself does not confer notability, and notwithstanding the fact that this evolutive encyclopaedia is far from complete). In much the same way as with ANYBIO#1 or NPOL (i.e., SIGCOV or not), I would argue that the contribution to the historical record clause of ANYBIO#2 applies to Spanos. Common sense would argue that her work isn't going to just suddenly vanish; it is abundantly probable that it will remain in the public record (and in our pages); and unless she meets an untimely demise, will only increase over time. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We require thousands of citations in published academic papers for most academics to pass NPROF C1. We do not need the much lower bar of being cited on wikipedia, by anonymous editors whose motivations and affiliation with the subject are unknown, in a format that is inherently temporary and impossible to verify reliably (AFAIK we can't search all of the revision history for every article). It's hard enough figuring out a regex to search through references just for the purpose of adding author-links, no way should we be basing notability off it. How would that work at all for people with very common names? JoelleJay (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree that common names mean you can't use a text search to tell you automatically. In the case of Brittany Spanos, after creating the page (before it was deleted at AfD) I manually checked each mention and added the wikilink. For an individual to have over 1,000 mentions on WP is highly unusual - a different bar, and one less measurable for the reasons you give, but not I think a lower bar than NPROF C1. (There are some interesting structural similarities between citation and WP linking. In both cases there is systemic bias. E.g., with respect to gender, see User:Dsp13/Gendered link bias. Dsp13 (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely a lower bar than NPROF C1, because it is not recognition by independent reliable published sources. I agree it can be an informal indicator that the person might be notable (I even include potential wikilink #s in the STEM bio list on my userpage), but it cannot be considered a valid argument for notability at AfD or elsewhere. JoelleJay (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think I may have have misunderstood you! Clearly, 'NPROF C1 or over 1000 WP mentions' is a lower bar than 'NRPF C1'. (I am certainly not suggesting that NPROF C1 should be replaced by over 1000 WP mentions. But I understood you to be directly comparing the two criteria, and saying that over 1000 mentions would be a lower bar than NPROF C1. This confused me, since if anything the size of the sets involved would be the other way round.) Dsp13 (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 1000 mentions on WP is a much lower bar than 1000 mentions in IRS, and even 1000 mentions in academic sources isn't enough to meet NPROF C1. JoelleJay (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is never a reliable source for itself. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC).
 * It'd be so much better if we simply aligned NPROF with GNG... SportingFlyer  T · C  11:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The place where notability of a particular subject is decided is WP:AFD. That process decided that her article should be deleted. If you think that that process was flawed then go to WP:DRV, or if you think that she has gained notability in the last few weeks put the evidence into the draft and move it to mainspace. If it has no new evidence then it may be WP:G4ed and anyway it may be AfDed again. Whatever you do stop talking as if cites on Wikipedia mean anything - anyone, including you or me, could have added them, and there is nothing special about the field in which Spanos operates to justify any exception to our normal rules. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with your summary of process in your first four sentences. I don't fully agree with your final sentence. First, cites on Wikipedia certainly mean something to someone. For example, automated systems (e.g. those used to guide web search and implement NLP solutions) use them as a signal of relative importance. And while anyone can edit Wikipedia, by-and-large bad edits get reverted. So someone having an extraordinary level of wiki-citation is a genuine achievement, even if one not reflected in notability guidelines. Second, by the way, an additional argument against using number of inlinks as a notability criterion would be that inlinks are seriously gender skewed: links to women are only about 6% of those to men. So such a criterion would in general disadvantage women. Thirdly, I do think that journalists with prolific bylines, who end up for that reason being repeatedly cited en passant in books and wikipedia, are not well served by the current general notability guidelines. Dsp13 (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You are still not getting that Wikipedia is an unreliable, user-generated source. Appearing in it in any form will always count for nothing in establishing notability. JoelleJay (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I get it: Cites on WP are meaningless; WP is unreliable; Appearing in WP counts for nothing – my word, why do we bother with this thankless task? In any case, my point (above and elsewhere) is that ANYBIO#2 (like ANYBIO#1, ANYBIO#3, NPOL, and a number of the other "Additional criteria" and/or WP:BIOSPECIAL cases) seems to exist in an intentionally ambiguous zone where we arrive at acceptable, common sense criteria for article existence/creation – sometimes in lieu of SIGCOV and without necessarily ticking all of the GNG boxes. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ANYBIO does not consider recognition by unreliable sources, and the amount an author produces does not count toward ANYBIO at all either. Per ANYBIO: Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer. WP:N also requires IRS SIGCOV be possible for all articles, not just ones that presume notability through GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Recognition by unreliable sources was not suggested (at least not by me). I'm simply reiterating that as written, the guidelines seem to allow for multiple paths to notability (with some that don't necessarily include SIGCOV). Sorry if that wasn't clear.
 * As for the statement that "WP:N also requires IRS SIGCOV be possible for all articles", please point me to where that is unequivocally defined. Thank you.
 * Also, thanks for the copy of the ANYBIO#2 footnote, which adds nuance. [NB: I've seen it written elsewhere in this thread that footnotes aren't technically part of the policy or guideline. Is this indeed accepted practice?] -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * See the first and penultimate sentences of WP:WHYN. JoelleJay (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. I've tried – as much as possible – to read what's been written about the matter (which is how I ended up joining you in this particular forum). I suppose the most glaring inconsistency (or ambiguity, if you prefer) is this: Why do we have WP:SNG at all? Why not just say "Wikipedia excludes any subject that has not received SIGCOV" and leave it there (if that is indeed what we want)? As soon as one strays from the main WP:N (of which the very first point states that a worthy article: meets either the general notability guideline [...] or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline – creating a fork in the road from the outset, for what it's worth), the number of potential alternative paths multiplies. Nearly everything that's being discussed here supposes that the numerous caveats and carveouts defined by various clauses of WP:SNG guidance (as well as "additional criteria" and "special cases" and footnotes or whatever) create situations whereby there is at least a possibility that certain articles could (and should) exist regardless of SIGCOV or other generally accepted GNG N guidelines. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of "rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty" :), I would offer the following as a list of notability-related questions on which the community does not in fact agree:
 * • is a specified depth of coverage in each RS required of all potential article topics?
 * • is a specified depth of coverage in at least two (or three) RS required of all potential article topics?
 * • if a specified depth of coverage per source is required, is it based on what can be used to construct an encyclopaedic article, or the threshold higher?
 * • are certain subjects inherently more relevant to an encyclopaedia than others, so that they should have a stronger presumption against deletion than other topics?
 * • for subjects believed to be inherently more encyclopaedic, is verifiability the minimum threshold required to activiate a presumption against deletion? If not, what (higher) level of RS coverage is required for the presumption to apply?
 * • for subjects believed to be inherently more encyclopaedic, at what point does the presumption against deletion cease to apply, e.g., is there a point at which a lack of sources can be "proven"? If the RS only support a stub article, does that stub still have a presumption against deletion?
 * These aren't the only such questions, of course, but these are some notability-related issues where the community doesn't agree in principle - different policies and guidelines imply different answers (or a different range of answers) to these various questions and sub-questions. While the community may agree on a few edge cases - we should not retain unverifiable articles, and BLPs and organizational articles should meet certain norms not required for other articles - in my experience, editors disagree about notabiliy issues far more than they agree. The relationship between GNG and SNGs and the interpretation of SIGCOV requirements represent, in my view, wave crests on this stormy sea of non-consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The biggest thing to understand is that there is a difference between presumption of notability and demonstrable establishment of notability, and how that ties into NEXIST and our policies. Articles are permitted on subjects if there is a presumption, through meeting either GNG or SNGs, that enough IRS SIGCOV sources exist to fill out a comprehensive article, even if those sources aren't currently cited. That's why, e.g., stubs are allowed to stay in mainspace indefinitely if they merely assert a sourced presumption of notability (such as being a historical president of some country, cited to some non-SIGCOV governmental list of presidents), and why even an unsourced assertion that presumes notability is generally enough to avoid speedy deletion. We have a policy that all articles be based primarily on secondary independent sources, so even though a primary source may be sufficient to show a subject meets some SNG, that doesn't mean the page is automatically and inherently compliant with policy as-is--it merely presumes that the subject has the coverage for such a page to become compliant. JoelleJay (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * While agreeing with almost all of this comment by JoelleJay, I have one reservation - I would underline that the question, whether permastubs (ones that satisfy WP:V and at least one notability criterion) should be retained in article space indefinitely, is one of the issues about which the community does not agree. In other words, is it necessary that all topics have the potential to fill out a comprehensive article to be retained? For some of us, factors such as navigability and the category system come into play here as user-oriented reasons to retain stub articles that play well with other articles, lists and categories. But as the debate around biological species shows, other editors would rather favor consistent depth of treatment over user accessibility and navigation to the topics they seek. Newimpartial (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is all very interesting, but is getting away from the topic under discussion. There are areas of disagreement, but I think there is a strong consensus that Wikipedia cannot be a source for notability of any subject. The OP seems to be arguing against that consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you all. This discussion is very instructive – unanimous consensus or not, there's a great deal of valuable information and nuanced opinion here. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thinking.

Having absorbed much new information and gained deeper understanding: I (the OP) concede that per the guidance as written, Wikipedia, in and unto itself, is not a reliable source for the purpose of establishing notability. [NB: I do maintain that in the case of someone who is cited or quoted hundreds or thousands of times, it's a red-flag and we ought to pay careful attention; we might want to have some sort of switch that trips a buffer that protects nascent stubs from premature demise; or a special knob to tweak that eases something somewhere along the sometimes arduous path to notability (standby for more specific details about what this might actually entail).]

That said, the topic under discussion has also expanded somewhat since my original post. Others may have it all sussed. Not me. Not yet, anyhow. I'll need time to ponder the above, as well as the meaning of that non-trivial "either/or" fork at the top of WP:N (and how, if one takes the "or" branch, it implicitly impacts the clauses that follow). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

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

This issue recently came up at at two AfDs that I was involved in: Articles for deletion/Tarn Willers and Articles for deletion/Lena Townsend. I'm indifferent regarding whether meeting ANYBIO #1 should establish inherent notability, but I think this is something that the community needs to decide one way or the other, rather than being decided ad hoc at individual AfD discussions. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that ANYBIO does not confer notability, and would also point to the WP:WHYN section at N that requires multiple pieces of secondary, independent, significant coverage in RS exist for all subjects regardless of whether their presumption of notability is through GNG or an SNG: Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also the Lena Townsend one seemed to hinge on an entry in UK Who's Who, which is GUNREL on RSP. I've removed that source from the bio. JoelleJay (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, WHYN does not require multiple pieces of secondary, independent, significant coverage in RS. It requires secondary coverage, and independent coverage, and significant coverage, but it pretty clearly does not require multiple sources that feature all of the above. For example, if multiple secondary sources were required, the current language specifying the existence of at least one secondary source would be more than a little bit misleading. I assume that WHYN means what it actually says. Newimpartial (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also related is WP:BIOSPECIAL, which expands on the "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" but is rather inconveniently hidden at the bottom of the page where I doubt most people have even seen it. Ljleppan (talk) 07:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ...this is something that the community needs to decide one way or the other, rather than being decided ad hoc at individual AfD discussions. This just looks like another attempt to undermine AfD by imposing additional, unnecessary "rules". Discussion is what AfD is (or should be) about. WP:CONSENSUS has generally been that meeting WP:ANYBIO #1 is sufficient for an article to exist, as illustrated here for British honours. We very much need to stop the drift into a divide between Wikiworld and the real world, as some editors seem to desire. There is a very good reason that people receive high honours. It's not receiving the honour that makes them notable; they receive the honour because they are already notable. That doesn't just mean that lots of people have namechecked them on the internet or social media; it means they are notable for their achievements, even if they are relatively low-key. I have found that some editors really do not get this. If Wikiworld does not consider someone to be notable (usually largely because the individual does not have heavy internet coverage) but the real world does, then I'm afraid there is something severely wrong with Wikiworld and all we do is drift further towards the concept of Wikipedia being a pop culture site rather than an encyclopaedia. That's not what I want to see, and I sincerely hope it's not what most other editors want to see. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS has generally been that meeting WP:ANYBIO #1 is sufficient for an article to exist, as illustrated here for British honours. WP:CCC. Tarn Willers (an Oscar winner with no independent SIGCOV) closed as no consensus, and myself and several other editors have questioned the idea that ANYBIO, as written, confers inherent notabilify.
 * Discussion is what AfD is (or should be) about. I agree that AfD is about discussion, but it should be discussion about whether a particular article meets notability guidelines, not what the notability guidlines mean.
 * This just looks like another attempt to undermine AfD by imposing additional, unnecessary "rules". I'm not proposing to impose new rules; ANYBIO already exists and I'm proposing we clarify what it means. I don't see the benefit of keeping this guideline ambiguous. If it means what you say it means, it should state that clearly.
 * voorts (talk/contributions) 15:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Inherent reliability (vs for example presumed reliability) has never been endorsed by the community in any context. It doesn't exist in either policy or guideline so I'm not sure that people are actually making that argument per-say (and if they are they need to stop participating in AfD). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * When people use the word "inherent", I assume they're using it as shorthand for unrebuttable presumption, for example, NACADEMIC, which creates an unrebuttable presumption that certain academics are notable (e.g., professors with named chairs), notwithstanding how much SIGCOV they have. People make the same argument under ANYBIO, which I think is incorrect under the current wording of the guideline. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Its not an unrebuttable presumption because it exists in the context of the higher WP:N "Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with your reading. My point is that there's a large group of people who regularly argue at AfD that the opposite is true. For example, see Necrothesp's list of AfD honours outcomes. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you have a basic misunderstanding about notability... They aren't notable because they got the honor, they're notable because they got coverage and that coverage can be presumed to exist because of the honor. The honor doesn't actually contribute to notability at all, it just indicates that significant coverage in reliable sources is likely to exist. Nothing besides coverage influences notability, everything else we talk about is just a proxy for the likelihood of coverage existing there is no other notability criteria. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It looks like WP:ANYBIO #1 is one of those guidelines which exists because it presumes you will have received coverage for winning a prestigious award and probably needs some more explanatory text in that regard. In terms of the BAFTA guy, I'm concerned we've just no consensused an undersourced BLP. SportingFlyer  T · C  15:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My view: The same text is used for both the sub-criteria such as ANYBIO and the main GNG: "presumed notable..." IMO, we should measure the degree of how encyclopedic something is and acknowledge that there are some topics that are inherently encyclopedic / that we should and should want to have. A little different scenario than the examples above, but e.g., in my opinion, it should work like this: we have a minor failed politician from last year, whom, although he passes GNG with some local campaign coverage in a number of newspapers, we decide to delete because we do not want to be a database of failed politicians; meanwhile, we've got the king of an entire nation from 3,000 years ago who has some passing coverage in a few Google search results - not enough to pass GNG on the face of it, but we should keep because (i) being the leader of a whole nation is notable (i.e. someone of note; a topic that reasonably an encyclopedia like this should cover), and (ii) we do not have access to many of the old sources which could be used to further develop said king's article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I get your reasoning, and it can work for the really obvious cases -- but the problem is that "what is obviously notable and encyclopedic" will very quickly diverge among editors when you go beyond things like "won a Nobel Prize as an individual". The only way to demonstrate empirically that receiving a particular ANYBIO honor actually does make someone "obviously notable and encyclopedic" is to assess the attention a person gets for it in IRS sources; if they don't receive that attention, then how can it really be that prestigious? Also, per N, ANYBIO still presumes IRS SIGCOV exists on the subject; so if it doesn't exist, we should not have a standalone article just because some editors consider some aspect of the subject to be "obviously notable". JoelleJay (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe our notability guidelines are only for the edge cases. This is why there is so much passion. - Enos733 (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that they should only come into play in edge cases, because people shouldn't be nominating obviously notable topics for deletion and they should PROD obviously non-notable topics. That's why it would be nice to have some clarity on what exactly ANYBIO means. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think footnote 13 of WP:NPOL would cover a king, and I didn't intend to call that consensus into question when I started this discussion. That said, I think there's a distinction between a king and person who got a nice medal to pin on their chest because they were politically connected to Liz Truss. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just noting, I've seen the same argument regarding ANYBIO (that it alone is not enough) also applied to NPOL to try to delete articles on kings before. Though, I do agree that getting a medal for being related to Liz Truss doesn't sound like the greatest claim to notability. However, I believe that there are some "sets" which should be complete (i.e. everyone having an article). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Those involved in this discussion might also be interested in a discussion above on clarifying the guidelines more broadly. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * NBIO1 is just kinda crap and not consistent with what is otherwise normal practice and policy. We don't AFAIK have an NDOG. Congrats, you won a major dog show and so you're presumed notable even if there's not really much else we can say about you. This is how we ended up with things like boat loads of porn articles (and the formerly NPORN) where someone won "best boobs" or something at industry awards and editors rushed to make an article and defend it on pain of death.
 * But good luck getting rid of it. Folks love having their own pet SNG and insisting that it's the special one that gets an exception to GNG. Probably others who just get a special tingle when they can cite WP:ABCDEFG and feel super smarty pants at AfD. Trust me, it's not a battle you're gonna win.  G M G  talk  17:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * All notability guidelines (GNG and SNGs) establish a form of presumptive rebuttable for notability, that even if the criteria is met, it can still be challenged later if there is a lack of further sourcing or that the reason the criteria is met is weak. Meeting something like NBIO1 and claiming it during a first AFD process is fine, but after that, the presumption rebuttals allow for that to be challenged in future AFDs, particularly if no new major sources have been offered. No SNG establishes a criteria that can never be challenged. --M asem (t) 17:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think NPOL and NACADEMIC do. My reading is that if someone has served in a state legislature or received a named university chair, their articles get to stay forever, because those SNGs expressly state as such. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "their articles get to stay forever, because those SNGs expressly state as such" they say no such thing... That assertion is directly contradicted by the text of NACADEMIC, for example "Note that this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may exist." Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I get what you're saying, but I don't think it works out that way in practice. First, NPROF actually does explicitly say "screw GNG, we're special". Beside that, I fully expect that if someone went around nominating NSPORT permastubs for deletion, they'd quickly get dragged in front of the court and topic banned from AfD as disruptive. People argue these standards as if they're gospel, and people close the discussions the same way.  G M G  talk  18:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Except with the recent change in NSPORT from a few years ago, previously "protected" permastubs have now been properly questioned for their inclusion. Yes, there are still those that insist that having stepped on the field once is enough to make an athlete notable, that attitude is no longer accepted by consensus. — M asem (t) 19:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that seems to be what's happening with some articles about people who meet ANYBIO #1. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What discussions still have editors claiming that "having stepped on the field once" is automatic notability? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Starting an RfC?

 * Given the lack of consensus here, I am thinking of starting an RfC. Do others have thoughts? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see a major problem that needs to be solved. - Enos733 (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What I'm reading is essentially that there is a deletionist interpretation and an inclusionist interpretation of: If we agree that it is possible that a person could meet ANYBIO criteria 1, 2, or 3 without necessarily generating SIGCOV, then this leaves some cases open to interpretation.
 * There are small ambiguities throughout the NBIO guidelines (e.g., someone could have work ; or have without necessarily generating SIGCOV). These ambiguities seem as though they are designed to allow for a bit of adaptability. If we don't want this, then the guidelines ought to be worded more rigidly (with proscriptions and exclusions defined – rather than implicitly allowed by caveats and carveouts).
 * My own (inclusionist) belief is that we should allow multiple paths to notability and be capable of applying a modicum of common sense to the edge cases – which is how I interpret the current wording. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to note, I don't consider myself a deletionist or an inclusionist; I try to apply the deletion guidelines as written and think that they should be clear so that the average editor doesn't need to be aware of a local consensus regarding one of the particular guidelines. I'm also limiting discussion to ANYBIO #1 right now.conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. As myself and others have argued above, an interpretation of ANYBIO #1 that means that articles about persons who earn certain awards should never be deleted, notwithstanding the existence of SIGCOV, is incorrect. If there's a consensus that it should say that, then it should actually say that, which is why I'm proposing an RfC. If there's consensus that we should allow multiple paths to notability and be capable of applying a modicum of common sense to the edge cases, that's fine with me, but I disagree with that as a current plausible reading of the guidelines.If we agree that it is possible that a person could meet ANYBIO criteria 1, 2, or 3 without necessarily generating SIGCOV, then this leaves some cases open to interpretation. I also disagree with this point. Per Necrothesp's list, what usually happens is there is a flood of !votes from a small group of editors who insist that certain awards make a person per se notable, notwithstanding whether there is any SIGCOV. There's usually no "interpretation" or nuance in those cases. (See for example the Tarn Willers AfD, where my interpretation of NBIO was met with a circular argument.)There are small ambiguities throughout the NBIO guidelines (e.g., someone could have work "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums"; or have "an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary" without necessarily generating SIGCOV). I don't see how these are particularly ambiguous; "notable galleries or museums" means galleries or museums that are notablethat is, they meet NCORP or GNGand a "standard national biographical dictionary" is clearly defined. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this whole discussion presumes a consensus about what WP:SIGCOV means that does not, in fact, exist. Previous discussions at WT:N and elsewhere have established that editors interptet SIGCOV in very different - some, for example, believe that extensive coverage in one impeccably independent, secondary RS can be accompanied by shallower RS coverage to meet the GNG threshold; others believe that the GNG ought to be read in the same way as WP:NCORP, which establishes minimum thresholds that must be met by all sources before they count towards the notability of corporate topics. For those who interpret SIGCOV more flexibly, it is likely that anyone meeting ANYBIO will generatee coverage that meets SIGCOV as well - particularly because independent and reliable sourcing must be provided for the claim made to satisfy ANYBIO. On the other hand, for editors who read GNG as following the same logic as NCORP, there will be many more cases where ANYBIO is satisfied but GNG is not.
 * Given surrounding environment of uncertainty and non-consensus - clearly illustrated in the discussion under this subject heading - I don't see how an RfC about ANYBIO's relationship to GNG could produce a meaningful result, since the interpretation of each and every !vote would depend on that editor's specific interpretation of GNG/SIGCOV. Newimpartial (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There are sometimes cases where there is literally no SIGCOV in a reliable source to be found. For example, the Lena Townsend example I cited. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oftentimes, that could be due to not enough effort being put into finding sources (especially with older topics). I haven't looked at Townsend though. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * At AfD, the burden is on the keep !votes to present SIGCOV because the nom is presumed to have done a BEFORE search. Nobody in that discussion turned anything up (as was noted in this discussion, the Who's Who source is apparently depracated); all of the keep !votes relied solely on the fact of obtaining an honour. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And there are some times when it is simply impossible for editors to find sources even when we know they are 99.9%+ likely to exist; e.g. someone who received the highest honor available in, say, Uzbekistan 100 years ago, is basically certain to have received coverage, but it would require an outrageous amount of effort and editors learning new languages, paying massive fees, etc. to find said sources. That is where ANYBIO should come in to play – "Keep. This person was recognized as the most impactful person in Uzbekistan in 1924, but we don't have any 1924 Uzbekistani sources available." BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That seems like a poor example... We know that there were no reliable 1924 Uzbekistani sources. Its not a question of availability, we know for sure that as a class they do not exist. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a major problem to completely disqualify anything from a country or time period due to media availability factors. It goes against WP:BIAS. Essentially asking people to spend money, learn foreigners languages or travel to get articles up is also a form of WP:BIAS as it turns this into a pay for play scheme. Obviously, there should be some kind of guidelines in place to prevent people from putting up anybody, but people winning various important awards, being heads of the country or other things are in general safe bets on being notable. KatoKungLee (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So we should just delete any and all historic Uzbekistani figures because we somehow know that they had no media or writing of any kind (which is quite the startling and extreme claim)? That doesn't sound like a great idea. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You appear to be conflating sources in general with reliable sources. Note that by 1924 Bolshevik control was complete and there was no functioning independent media or formally published writing of any kind. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So we should just delete any and all historic Uzbekistani figures? You could also replace Uzbekistan with over a hundred other countries – what about Myanmar, Guyana, Madagascar, Mauritius, Senegal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Romania, etc. etc.? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course not, only the ones which lack significant coverage in reliable sources should be merged or deleted. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ...which brings us back to the original question – how do we "know" they "lack significant coverage" if we cannot in any way access sources from that nation without outrageous and extremely cost and time-consuming efforts? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That is where the concept of presumed notability comes in, unless a reasonable effort has been made (which for a non-english speaking origin subject would mean a fluent speaker has conducted a search) they are to be presumed notable. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And if we have no fluent speakers? And if the nation's media is 100% and wholly offline? And does the same presumed notability apply to those from Uzbekistan in 1924? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, the problem is with sources from 1924 not with subjects from 1924. I am not aware of a nation whose media is 100% and wholly offline, its actually more common now for outlets in less developed countries to be fully online with a print edition being something of a luxury. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of coverage of a notable person is going to be when they had their most notable accomplishments. For most less developed nations, the vast majority of historic sources prior to the past few years are offline. Do you know of any Tuvaluan – or Uzbekistani – or Nigerien newspapers prior to the 2000s that is available online? Besides Uzbekistan, what about the people from other non-Soviet countries in 1924 whom we have no access to sources from that year? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The whataboutism is getting tiring but presumably all of those archives will be digitized at some point and if they are genuinely lost or destroyed then they're of no use in building an encyclopedia either until found and republished. You have to also keep in mind that the vast vast majority of truly historical sources (everywhere, including the US and UK) are not reliable sources. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * the vast vast majority of truly historical sources (everywhere, including the US and UK) are not reliable sources BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, show me a source that would count towards notability from before 1800. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Erm... one of the many prominent newspapers published around that time, e.g. The Charlotte Observer or Hartford Courant? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with the Charlotte Observer of that era but the Hartford Courant was a shitshow by modern standards... You could literally pay to have an article changed. Modern standards of journalistic ethics and fact checking hadn't even been invented yet. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But that still doesn't very that the vast vast majority of truly historical sources (everywhere, including the US and UK) are not reliable sources – a claim I have heard only once ever, from you. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That older sources are in general less reliable and useful than newer sources is not I assure you just my opinion, it is in fact one of the basis tenants of modern academics. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Still not seeing a source for that, but, I'm taking a break from this discussion as we don't appear to be going very far. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think lack of any available sources runs into a major issue: How do we know the person isn't a hoax? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My sense is that BeanieFan11's proposed scenario implies having a reliable or authoritative source about this person receiving the honor, whatever it may be (award, office, etc.), but lacking the range of sources that would constitute multiple published secondary sources. In the scenario, presumably the award, or the office, went to a real person and not a hoax, even if the usual Wikipedian research tools (online research, not going to a physical repository of newspapers) makes it hard to know much more about the person beside their honor/office/etc. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 20:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The example I've been citing in this discussion, Lena Townsend, is that type of case. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think BeanieFan11 has very persuasively laid out the reason we have guidelines like WP:ANYBIO. The statement that We know there were no reliable 1924 Uzbekistani sources is indeed a startling and extreme claim. What is that implying; that people from Central Asia in the early twentieth century weren't capable of good journalism or reliable coverage? The implication is shockingly chauvinistic (in the national rather than gendered sense). Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 19:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you follow me here to harass me or something? This seems like a personal attack and you have no history of commenting here that I can see. The implication is that people in the Soviet Union weren't capable of good journalism or reliable coverage because it was literally the Soviet Union. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * BeanieFan11 and I have been describing the content of a post, not the character of a user. I'm sorry if it seemed as if either BeanieFan11 or I were talking describing you personally; that wasn't my intent, and I don't think it was theirs either.
 * I've participated in multiple AfD discussions involving questions of notability, so this discussion is of interest. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 19:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel harassed, not by BeanieFan11 but by you. I would really appreciate it if you would stop following me around and aggressively taking positions against mine. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way; I didn't mean for my participation in this publicized thread to make you feel so troubled. As a gesture of good faith, I'll leave this subthread aside for the remainder of any of my participation in this discussion about ANYBIO. I don't think we (BeanieFan11, myself, you, and voorts) are about to persuade each other anyway.
 * I would remind you that [m]aking accusations of harassment can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 20:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You didn't get here because it was publicized, you got here from my edit history. Clear evidence: now stop, please. You don't need to stop participating and I wouldn't even mind it if you just added a comment on the end, what I mind is you jumping onto pages you wouldn't normally be on and attacking me. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * See revised proposal below. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC) Pinging thoughts on an RfC?My working proposal follows and I am open to workshopping this. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, what is the problem that you are attempting to solve here? Is it that editors could flood AFD with their own sense of which awards are "well-known"? There are always disagreements of interpretation, whether it is about whether an award is "well-known" or whether a source meets the expectations of significant, independent coverage.
 * My view of notability is that we operate in a "fuzzy ecosystem" and the guidelines generally work. Yes, there are edge cases, but there will always be edge cases. There will always be disagreements in interpretation.
 * But my sense of ANYBIO #1 is that the point is to allow people to start an article once an individual wins a major award - perhaps a (non-acting) Academy Award, a local reporter winning a Pulitzer Prize, or being honored with a National Humanities Medal, if there is not already an article. - Enos733 (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Responding to your questions and points:
 * what is the problem that you are attempting to solve here? The problem is that people use ANYBIO #1 to !vote to keep articles at AfD where other editors have conducted WP:BEFORE searches and found no significant coverage of the article subject in reliable sources, and per the above discussion, there is a broader dispute about whether ANYBIO #1 confers so-called "inherent" notability or whether we still need to meet the core rule of signfiicant coverage in reliable sources. See, e.g., the two deletion discussions that I linked in my initial comment, Articles for deletion/Tarn Willers and Articles for deletion/Lena Townsend.
 * Is it that editors could flood AFD with their own sense of which awards are "well-known"? No. For example, in the Tarn Willers AfD, there was no question that an Academy Award is major.
 * There are always disagreements of interpretation, whether it is about whether an award is "well-known" or whether a source meets the expectations of significant, independent coverage. In the Lena Townsend AfD, it was basically conceded that no reliable sources with significant coverage could be found, and all of the keep !votes were effectively "has a CBE; meets ANYBIO #1".
 * My view of notability is that we operate in a "fuzzy ecosystem" and the guidelines generally work. Yes, there are edge cases, but there will always be edge cases. There will always be disagreements in interpretation. There can't be edge cases if one group of people thinks you need significant coverage in reliable sources, and the other group thinks you don't need that. That's just straight up polarization, and the solution to that shouldn't be to have random outcomes based on who happens to participate in an AfD discussion. For example, Tarn Willers closed as no consensus, whereas Lena Townsend closed as keep.
 * But my sense of ANYBIO #1 is that the point is to allow people to start an article once an individual wins a major award - perhaps a (non-acting) Academy Award, a local reporter winning a Pulitzer Prize, or being honored with a National Humanities Medal, if there is not already an article. I agree that we often forget that the notability guidelines aren't just about deletion, but also about creation. That said, they are our de facto deletion guidelines (and Lena Townsend has been like this since 2005), and in my view, we need clarity.
 * voorts (talk/contributions) 16:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Since the deletion discussion, Willers would easily pass GNG - (https://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/people/from-kimberworth-to-hollywood-bafta-winner-tarn-is-off-to-the-oscars-4546123). - Enos733 (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but I'm not sure that changes the analysis. At the time of the deletion discussion, it didn't meet GNG, and it could've been refunded and that source added to a draft. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I'm still not sure that Willers meets GNG with that one piece of SIGCOV, given that the rest of the sourcing at the time of the deletion discussion were interviews or trivial mentions. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Since everything needs to meet WP:V, all your proposal does is push editors to have discussions about what meets SIGCOV. Editors have disagreements (or polarized thoughts) about the nature of interviews (especially if there is context provided before the interview), and editors vary on how much weight to give to a primary source.
 * Our notability standards have inconsistencies. And that is OK, because the purpose of this project is to have factual articles on topics people care about. WP:AUTHOR is is a good example - multiple notable reviews are sufficient for a stand-alone page of the author of the book(s), even if the reviews do not focus on the individual author.
 * Finally, while we hope that editors do a thorough BEFORE search before nominating an article for deletion, there can be great variations on how well the search was performed, whether sources use an alternative name (or spelling of a name), or whether there is even online sources. Enos733 (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing for a particular outcome to this RfC. See my reply to Horse Eye's Back below. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I guess we could do an RFC. Though, option 3 in my opinion is equivalent to abolishing it entirely as it then has no weight in determining notability (from how I've seen similar used with NSPORT). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have a fourth option that is a middle ground? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Set some sort of moderately-strict list of what exactly constitutes a "significant" honor? Anything that makes ANYBIO not a direct giver of notability (i.e. something that makes saying at AFD "Keep - passes ANYBIO" invalid) is effectively making it entirely useless. (NSPORT was changed this way and I don't think I've used it once to help me create things since.) BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the number of awards in the world, that list would be exceedingly long I think. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, to note, option 3 is what I read the current guideline to be saying, so this footnote would confirm that reading; as I've stated above, I'm indifferent to how this RfC turns out, and if the community wants to infer "inherent" notability on people who win major awards, that's fine with me. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In order to add option 2 you would have to strip significant chunks out of other sections which directly contradict it. At the very least a rewrite of both WP:N and WP:V would be required and we would need to strip WP:NPOV of its non-negotiable status. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 2 is just mirroring NPOL, so I'm not sure what the issue is regarding N, V, and NPOV. In any event, I think as this discussion shows, others would disagree with you, and this would be a fine !vote during an RfC if we start one. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 2 is rather different from NPOL, it escalates it significantly. Are similar and mirroring synonyms as far as you are concerned or do you mean to make a significantly different point here than above? I would also note that footnotes aren't technically part of the policy or guideline, they're more like mini essays. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If by escalate you mean expands "inherent" notability to a larger group of people, then I would agree with you. As I have said, I am not arguing for this point of view, but it is one won held by several editors (see, e.g., Necrothesp's argument above that anyone who wins a certain British title should have an article about them). You and I can say "they're wrong" all we like, but at some point, I think we need to resolve this issue. Even if an RfC ends in a no consensus close, at least that would show we're unlikely to settle this issue, but at least we tried. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the proposition. NPOL doesn't give anyone inherent notability. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NSUBPOL, "The Wikipedia guideline WP:POLITICIAN has been consistently interpreted to accord presumed notability to members of subnational parliaments (legislatures) in federal nation-states." Their articles always marked patrolled at NPP, regardless of SIGCOV or lack thereof, and I can't think of a case where one wouldn't be kept at AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, presumed notability... Not inherent notability. Those are completely different concepts. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that presumed notability is different, but in practice, they're accorded inherent notability. See also the footnote, which describes it as a "secondary criterion" and explains that the SNG ensures that we have complete encyclopedic coverage of politicians meeting the SNG. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So the argument is now that NPOL doesn't at all say that... But in practice something happens. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. How would you word the proposal for option 2? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * How about: A person who meets ANYBIO #1 is notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Same issues, you'd have to rewrite a half dozen pages (many of them much more prominent than this one) to enact that consensus. Its the equivalent of a ballot initiative which you know is unconstitutional, even if it passes it won't happen without changes to the constitution which require a completely different process. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said before, that seems like a good !vote for an RfC. The issue is that several people hold this point of view and they keep applying it at AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Including it would be the definition of disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Like making one of the options "ignore NPOV" Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Horse Eye's Back: How about this revised proposal:There is currently a dispute amongst editors as to whether meeting WP:ANYBIO #1 ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times") establishes inherent notability, notwithstanding whether there is significant coverage of the article subject in reliable sources, or whether it establishes presumptive notability, requiring significant coverage in reliable sources. The question presented is does ANYBIO #1 establish inherent notability or presumptive notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * inherent notability is an essay. First you would need to figure out a way to bring inherent notability into official existence and then you could ask that question. Its begging the question because it presumes that inherent notability is a viable option but inherent notability has never been established as a viable option. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think NPOL pretty much establishes inherent notability, and NPROF pretty explicitly says that significant coverage isn't required so long as an academic meets one of the criteria. Additionally, several editors would disagree and have indeed argued that ANYBIO #1 establishes per se notability (see some of the AfD's listed on Necrothesp's honours list). I also agree with @GreenMeansGo's comment above. That's why we need an RfC in my opinion. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't need an RfC, because it's not going to work. I've argued this for years and you're not going to get a consensus except in the most bleedingly edge cases.  G M G  talk  18:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:CCC, and it appears that there are a lot of strong arguments against inherent notability. I don't think there's ever been an RfC on this topic, the issue has been percolating for years, and I don't see the harm of an RfC. If it ends in no consensus, that's the status quote and so be it. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It says that "this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may exist." so no it does not establish inherent notability explicitly or otherwise. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The GNG is also a guideline. In practice, NPROF and NPOL are treated as rules and I doubt you'd get traction at an AfD arguing that an article on an academic meeting one of the criteria or a state-level legislator should be deleted for lack of SIGCOV. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes... Hence my earlier point that you would need to change other policies and guidelines in order to get a guideline to establish something as "inherent" (as in there are no exceptions). In practice competent editors do not treat them as rules, because they are not rules. If someone is doing otherwise that is a behavioral issue not a policy or guideline one. You can speculate all you want about what would or wouldn't happen at AfD, but it won't become relevant no matter how much you do it. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't have time to read all the comments that just appeared since I last checked, but ultimately, in my opinion, there should be criteria separate from GNG which give "automatic" or "inherent" notability – at least if we want to keep any potential new contributors and provide the best experience to our readers. E.g. I surely would not have lasted if the current sports criterion (meets GNG or else TNT) was in place when I first started (Of course, the vast majority of my early creations – which I created due to a now-deprecated SNG – do satisfy GNG, but I wouldn't have been able to prove it back then and likely would have left the site after a few AFC rejections, etc.) And aside from that, I do believe that there are certain topics that are simply encylopedic to have, e.g. the king of a nation example I gave above – and I don't see what benefit deleting those topics would bring. (Whether getting a badge for working with Liz Truss is automatic ANYBIO notability...that should be a different debate) Just my thoughts. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time to read everything above, but I would again highlight WP:BIOSPECIAL, which states "Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria: If neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article, but the person meets one or more of the additional criteria [then merge the article]". Note that "fails basic" is practically the same as "fails GNG", so e.g. the case of "meets ANYBIO#1 but fails GNG" would fall under this by my reading. That said, I do think there could be some value in identifying whatever is meant by "a satisfying explanation" and whether this should be highlighted more prominently in the page by e.g. directly incorporating it into the preamble of § Additional criteria. -Ljleppan (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "" could be defined as "common sense" in this context. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cl3phact0 - Correct. KatoKungLee (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you rephrase the sentence in whatever way you would incorporate "common sense" to it? I'm having some trouble following what you mean. Ljleppan (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @, Per your request, I would rephrase WP:BIOSPECIAL Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria like this:
 * [NB: I would also reorganise the section putting Failure to explain the subject's notability first; Insufficient sources second; and Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria third.]
 * For what it's worth, this entire section seems to lean towards trying to keep the articles in question – of the 10 bullet points, not one mentions deletion. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, this entire section seems to lean towards trying to keep the articles in question – of the 10 bullet points, not one mentions deletion. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC proposal
Since the above attempt resulted in more general discussion, I am starting a new subsection to discuss how an RfC should be phrased. Please avoid general discussion or arguments about the merits of either side. Here is my current proposal based on the discussion above:

Pinging. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose RfC, would be a fruitless exercise. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn't GNG already required anyway? ANYBIO is just a guide. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * GNG technically has guide in its name as well... BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's what the above conversation has been about; some people think meeting ANYBIO #1 is sufficient to keep an article, notwithstanding whether it meets GNG. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Per above comparison to NPOL, yes, as written ANYBIO #1 seems sufficient to keep an article, regardless of SIGCOV (resulting in stubs like these: w:Category:Ontario politician stubs – which may or may not be to one's taste, but we've got 'em aplenty). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But we can at least be almost assured a provincial politician will have been written about. ANYBIO #1 is subjective. SportingFlyer  T · C  11:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the Canadian provinces, but I can say as a Delaware editor that I'm not so sure about all the legislators meeting GNG (even though they have the second-smallest legislature!). A number of their old politicians I've done extensive searches for (including in a number of books I have access to) and could barely find anything but a mention in a list that they served. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Can we please keep this section to discussing the potential RfC? voorts (talk/contributions) 14:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support RFC or any kind of action on this - There's just been too many AFD discussions where it's clear that various people or topics had no path to ever getting on here due to being from smaller countries, poorer countries or highly censored countries which goes against WP:BIAS. It has lead to hundreds of articles being deleted in batches and lead to people like myself contributing less. KatoKungLee (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:N. Let&#39;srun (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said above, N says The first and last sentences would have to be removed for the "inherent notability" interpretation to be valid when it relies on a criterion that has zero expectation of SIGCOV IRS coverage existing. JoelleJay (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have any issues with the way the RfC is framed? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Being new in this corner of the wiki-verse, I'm cautious not to speak out of turn. My view, based on what's already been said in this thread (as well as above in Question re: WP:ANYBIO), is that it seems unlikely that the RfC will achieve consensus as worded. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Question re WP:ENT
I have raised a question about the application of WP:ENT based on WP:NYOUTUBE, which states that Subscriber count helps meet the second criteria of WP:ENT. Obviously, this is only based on what that specific WikiProject deems, however, as noted in the table there, this has been applied in some AfDs. It seems that the point of a YouTuber is primarily to entertain. What are the thoughts on adding "Social media influencer" or "YouTuber" to WP:ENT? TLA tlak 14:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @I'm tla I think whoever wrote that part of the essay is pretty clearly wrong, subscriber counts obviously do not mean that a person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Hell, the keep/delete table on that page shows minimal correlation with subscriber counts past 1M and AfD outcomes.
 * I'm talking out of my ass a bit, since I don't participate in this field much, but generally coverage as a YouTuber is more likely for those who can be analyzed with a "serious" angle. For example, I know that Korea Grandma, who has been covered in the context of age and gender in South Korea, is notable, and that Dolan Dark, a meme channel with more subscribers, is not. Mach61 17:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mach61 Sorry, let me rephrase. I don't think subscriber count should contribute to notability, however, if the person has indeed made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment, as reported by reliable and independent sources, should it qualify? What I'm saying is would a YouTuber classify alongside actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors, models, and celebrities? TLA  tlak 13:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Why would you do that? NYOUTUBE is a WP:ESSAY, WP:ENT is part of a WP:GUIDELINE. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)