Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

---

"Creative professionals" and "Entertainers"

I don't find these two categories very helpful. I would fold them into one category, with significant subcategories further articulated. I was trying to glean what the notability threshold is for authors, which I'd always assumed was simply publication by a major publisher. Pretty much everything that is published by a reputable house gets several legitimate reviews. I propose we simplify the standard.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You can be considered one without being considered another. Dream Focus 11:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

If the publisher is major enough, then the publisher has done the selection, for it has become a major publisher by skill in selecting books to publish that will be good enough to get reviews and be read and where the authors will consequently be notable. But for almost all publishers, most books are failures. Very few people who try to become authors become notable. I don't know how the proportions compare with entertainers, but I think they might be comparable. But creative covers much more than authors, and for visual artists we have a particularly good criterion, that of having works in a major museum. Like eveerywhere else, we depend on the outside world to set the criteria. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe contemporary American literature works this way (major publisher & "legitimate" reviews) anymore, and hasn't for the last ten years or so. Lots of reasons: internet literary magazines, growing numbers of writers with MFA's, the reduction of funding at historically major publishing houses, which has led them to publish less literary fiction. And almost no poetry. We have a situation now where the more influential poets are being published by small independent presses and often less influential poets are published by large publishers. Recently, small independent literary presses like Sarabande Books, Gray Wolf, and Copper Canyon Press have published influential, award-winning books and regularly receive NEA funding. So how do we parse who is influential among living writers? I don't think that's Wikipedia's job. I'd like to see (and am willing to make the effort) more living writers have wikipedia pages. Lavenderly (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Lavenderly

Creative professionals

Was the "significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications" from December 2012 ever discussed? How is notability inherent from being a prolific contributor to news agencies? Or being an expert (so says the talk show host or news anchor)? At any rate, the actual topic of coverage is almost never the expert per se. Talking about something isn't the same as being notable.

I haven't been able to find the discussion. I can't find anywhere the basis for the addition might have come from. When someone speaks about a topic on which they have some expertise, they broadcaster or publisher has an interest in hamming up that expertise as a basis of content. I'd like to see point 2 go unless it can be better justified. If a discussion actually occurred, please point me to it. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 20:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Editprotected

Please add a hatnote for the redirect WP:CRIME

{{redirect|WP:CRIME|the Crime WikiProject|WP:WikiProject Crime}}

"WP:CRIME" redirects here. For the Crime WikiProject, see WP:WikiProject Crime.

-- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done: Benign, borderline minor edit. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Diplomats – no comment

Given the discussion above, #RfC: A proposal to see if consensus has changed regarding notability of certain diplomats, possibly modifying the guideline WP:DIPLOMAT, I am surprised that no one has commented on the Afd for Abdulmajid Dostiev, the Ambassador of Tajikistan to the Russian Federation. --Bejnar (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Like most ambassadors, Abdulmajid Dostiev had a notable career both before and after his appointment to that plenipotentiary position. I've expanded his article based on reliable sources which were, in this case, easily found. Pburka (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposing rule amendment to Creative Professionals

Here is the current rule:

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

Author Hayford Peirce has written many books but does not have "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". The author is listed in a sci-fi encyclopedia. But the community by a strong consensus is deciding to keep the Peirce article. Accordingly, I propose changing the rule, so that if an author publishes a sufficient number of books or articles, the existence of multiple books, in itself, is sufficient to justify notability. Or, an author who appears in another encyclopedia listing, is sufficient to justify waiving the "multiple independent reviews" test.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

His appearance in another encyclopedia supports a claim to notability under WP:GNG and WP:BIO. There is a relatively common misunderstanding that subjects which fail a specific notability test (e.g. WP:CREATIVE) are not notable. However, a subject need only pass one notability test to achieve notability. I don't think that there's any need to amend WP:CREATIVE since the existing guidelines are sufficient. Pburka (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Another encyclopedia is a tertiary source. Generally what Wikipedia wants are secondary sources, so it continues to be unclear in my mind what the rules are. Perhaps the "Creative Professionals" rule should be amended so that one tertiary source is all that is required to establish notability. The idea is to avoid misunderstandings in the future.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion.

— Wikipedia rule

Try approaching them as guidelines, which they are, instead of rules, which they aren't. postdlf (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Point noted. Wondering about the following: have these guidelines become more relaxed over the past few years? That is, the guidelines may suggest multiple independent reviews while in practice, in some cases, one tertiary source would suffice. If so then perhaps the guidlines should be rewritten to reflect the new state of affairs. Or maybe in this case it is just an exception.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It is an interesting point that GNG calls for secondary sources, but, in my experience, tertiary sources are generally sufficient to establish notability and may, in fact, be superior. For example, there seems to be consensus that inclusion in a dictionary of national biography is de facto evidence of notability. While secondary sources are clearly preferable as references, I think that tertiary sources should be sufficient to demonstrate notability. Pburka (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that tertiary sources are superior to secondary sources, in a general way, but like everything, it is a judgment call. In this particular instance, it may have been the case of a publisher or the author filling in a directory form for the encyclopedia with a listing of books, and it was added by a clerk, that author X published A, B, C, D, E. There might not have been any thinking involved, no reflection, no judgment of importance or impact. I still think independent once-removed voices saying that X is noteworthy should be the general test. Still, if the community thinks, generally, that only one tertiary source is sufficient to establish notability, which is what appears to be in this case, then there should be further discussion about this, and if the community wants to amend the guidelines here, then they should be amended to reflect this general understanding.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

In my view tertiary sources are usually largely superior to secondary sources in identifying notable subjects, I could not imagine our encyclopedia deleting a subject or a topic which has an entry in an established printed encyclopedia. At any rate your point is not wrong, as sometimes these sources are not sufficient to provide enough material for a decent article, but in these cases WP:DEADLINE applies and it is reasonable to assume that more sources surely exist, even if currently offline or not easily detectable. Cavarrone 17:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you in most instances of respectable tertiary sources. If a subject is mentioned in the Encyclopedia Brittanica as being noteworthy, then that makes sense to me -- I'm assuming such a project would check for notability first before including an entry. On the other hand, there are encyclopedias which do not do much checking, but are really more like directories. Remember, too, Wikipedia is a tertiary source; suppose a self-published author got an article floated in Wikipedia, then another encyclopedia came along and cited the author as notable because of being in Wikipedia -- that would be a problem for the other encyclopedia. But I don't know what to make of it in this particular case. It is likely that this particular case is highly unusual, that is all. Thank you for your viewpoint.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why the particular example here requires more than WP:GNG, which has been amply demonstrated by David Eppstein in that AfD. Pburka correctly describes the relationship between WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE here. I wouldn't support an expansion of the precise wording described, either--any idiot can self-publish multiple books. (Ask me, I've self-published three books, and it's very unlikely that I"m notable.) The author in question is notable in part because she's been published by reputable publishers--but that's more effectively demonstrated, I feel, by the reliably-sourced reviews. Importantly, those external reviews give us some context to verify the information in the article, and to show its significance, and to allow us to establish appropriate weight. I'd hate to see us move farther away from cleanly sourced biographies. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Pierce has ""multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", as document under the entries for his books at isfdb.org. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for looking in to this. It has been a learning experience, as always. If this is not an exception, then it makes sense to keep the wording as it is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)