Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tomwsulcer (talk | contribs) at 21:53, 26 June 2013 (→‎Proposing rule amendment to Creative Professionals: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RfC: A proposal to see if consensus has changed regarding notability of certain diplomats, possibly modifying the guideline WP:DIPLOMAT

NO ACTION
Although voting is not a replacement for discussion, there does not appear to be a clear consensus (NO CONSENSUS) for changing or outright keeping of the discussion. Thirteen people supported not changing WP:DIPLOMAT, and ten people supported changing the content. Both sides had reasonable reasons for their positions, and are equally adamant for supporting their positions. As there is no clear consensus for changing the content, it appears that previously established consensus has standing.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Survey/discussion

To mostly repeat from my comments above:

  • No There are lots of ambassadors who have completely unremarkable civil service careers (or, worse, are people who buy the positions, whether via campaign donations, or more direct means). Of these ambassadors, no reliable secondary sources independent of the subject will ever say much beyond "so and so was present" in an appendix; for some of them, it's hard to even verify elementary biographical details (failing WP:V). It's a waste of relatively scarce editorial resources to verify and maintain such biographies, and the sourcing can be problematic as well with respect to WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Wikipedia already has problems with people of little note or their publicists posting resumes and highly slanted, favorable articles. We don't need to compound that and other problems for little, if any benefit. I would remark that certain diplomatic postings do tend to automatically attract the level of press needed to rise to notability. I think any ambassador from one major nation-state to another is usually notable; for instance, a lot of countries tend to send their best to Washington DC. An ambassador to the United States is, in many countries, a very serious contender for foreign minister or even head of state, depending on how that country is configured. Ditto with, say, the US Ambassador to the UN. However, getting into the business of deciding that certain countries are more important than others is politically touchy and it's probably best to leave the guideline ambiguous. RayTalk 21:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some statistics: The United States has, at the moment, 188 ambassadorial positions, of which 120 are currently filled by career foreign service officers [1]. The foreign service has about 15000 personnel. Most government personnel take 25-35 year careers. This means that about 1 in 5 foreign service officers will become an ambassador in the course of their careers. Even accounting for the relatively selective nature of the foreign service exam, that's pretty extraordinary. By comparison, less than 1% of career officers will ever make flag rank in the US military. Do you know of any other profession where we automatically take the top 1/5th of people to be notable, despite an absence of serious coverage in signficant sources? I think this is perilously tending towards a violation of WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory. RayTalk 18:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you clarify where that "1 in 5" is coming from? I don't see how to derive it from the other numbers you provide. -- Visviva (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, I'm basically just dividing the workforce by the number of years in service, which gives you about 500. It's an order of magnitude estimate, not meant to be incredibly precise. For precise numbers, I suppose we can go look at one of the innumerable reports the government puts out on its workforce. RayTalk 04:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a silly argument because it assumes that you only get to be an ambassador once when the likelihood is that once you reach Ambassadorial status you go from post to post as Ambassador. Spartaz Humbug! 16:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not that silly, it's an order of magnitude estimate. It's not that different in style from, say, the way we note the ratio of tenured professors to new PhDs when evaluating the job market for an academic field. If you prefer another measure, the list notes 45 appointments to career ambassadorships in 2012, while there are about 500 general foreign service officer openings a year. In any case, the process seems much less selective than the passage from PhD to tenure, which is a set of statistics that any new PhD is depressingly familiar with. RayTalk 16:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. In my opinion, all permanent heads of mission are notable and should have a presumption of notability in exactly the same way that members of national and sub-national legislatures do. Ambassadors are very senior officials who represent their country and its interests at the highest level. The arguments Ray makes above for not giving ambassadors a presumption of notability could apply equally, if not much more so, to said politicians that we do effectively consider inherently notable, and their numbers dwarf those of ambassadors. We also have to consider the systemic bias here - ambassadors of the UK, USA and other major English-speaking nations are likely to have far more English-language media and especially internet coverage than those of other countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Permanent ambassadors are the top rank of diplomats. Their appointments, speeches, and actions will be reported in newspapers and diplomatic journals. They typically appear in Who's Who directories and often appear in dictionaries or encyclopedias of national biography. Although it may be difficult to find English sources on-line for ambassadors between certain countries, such sources are likely to exist. We should, therefore, presume that all permanent ambassadors pass WP:GNG. At the risk of being accused of WP:OTHERSTUFF, I think that an ambassador, as the official representative of his or country, ought to be considered at least as notable as a footballer on a national squad or a regional politician. WP:V still applies (as it does to all articles), but we should presume notability. Pburka (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. It's the highest rank in the profession, and we normally regard such as notable in any field. We don't require congressmen to have done work "of particular importance" - -we add the article as soon as they are elected. We don't require entering a hall of fame for professional athletes--they just have to play at the top level. We don't require the Nobel prize from scientists, or the Tony or Academy award from actors. For those whose actual work we have difficulty in documenting, Necrothesp is correct that this is generally due to systematic bias. As with some other topics, such as athletes in the olympics, it is much more practical to simply include them all, than debate them individually. It does not harm the WP to have such coverage if it follows logical criteria. The want of editorial resources does not prevent us from writing an article if people want to work on it; maintenance is usually fairly automatic when the next person takes the position, and if we ever miss one, it's very easy to catch up; there are always basic sources. If these bios were exceptionally subject to unsourced negative material or vandalism, I might say otherwise, but they are almost always safe except for ones who would have articles in any case. What we need to do is, as in most other subjects, expand our coverage to earlier holders of the positions. People don't usually just buy the positions, btw, they go either to the most senior civil servants or people of noteworthy influence in politics. That last occasionally does correlate with having lots of money, but many forms of notability correlate that way. DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The GNG - verifiability, for all intents and purposes - is the baseline standard. Failing to meet it is not something we should accept. To Pburka: if such sources exist, such sources are includable. We have access to newspapers, Who's Who, dictionaries of national biography and diplomatic journals. To DGG: the failure of the community to maintain a bright-line rule is not an invitation for more violations of it. It demonstrates a need to reinforce it. Ironholds (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GNG is unrelated to WP:V - you're confusing two different policies. This change would have no effect on verifiability. The only change is that it would relax the requirement to prove significant coverage, just like we do for several other classes of biographies. Pburka (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC) (edited to replace "substantial" with "significant")[reply]
    Er. No. Question for you: why do we have notability policies? Ironholds (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Answer: We don't. We have notability guidelines. The difference? Guidelines are even less set in stone than policies! Nothing on Wikipedia is immutable, contrary to what some seem to believe. And WP:IAR is a policy! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the informative discussion of things I wasn't talking about. The correct answer is: we have notability guidelines - guidelines that ultimately boil down to "multiple, reliable sources" - because articles must be about subjects that can be verified, and sourcing being a requisite for existence is a good proxy for ensuring that, at least in theory, content is likely to be verifiable. The GNG is fundamentally related to the verifiability policy, and this change would have a tremendous effect on verifiability by essentially stating that we can have articles of any level of dubious veracity as long as the subject had a funny enough hat at some point during his career. Don't get me wrong, of course - I think that GNG should be the only guideline here. I'm not singling out diplomats. Ironholds (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, 1. This is precisely the type of case that these individual guidelines were made for: significant figures, most of whom are notable in their own right, but for whom it is desirable for Wikipedia to have the complete set, and undesirable to impose artificial roadblocks on those who might care to donate their time to the cause. To test my preconceptions, I took a look at a couple of currently redlinked US ambassadors (Frankie Reed and Robert A. Mandell) and also the current Malaysian ambassador to Mexico (Jamaiyah Mohamed Yusof). The US ones would be absolutely trivial to cite; the Malaysian ambassador is more difficult, but a reasonable stub could be composed based on the information available in online reliable sources in English, French and Spanish. Career diplomats who rise to ambassadorial rank often seem to become "serial ambassadors," hopping from one country to another; thus their absolute number is lower, and the information per ambassador greater, than a casual fixed-point-in-time snapshot would suggest. It seems unlikely to me that this would open the floodgates to any sort of unmaintainable mess; on the other hand, the harm imposed on the project by the cart-before-horse approach embodied by the GNG is obvious. -- Visviva (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No (1) Per RayTalk who has explained about distinguishing between notable and non-notable diplomats. (2) The notability guidelines are essential to WP. They setting a standard for inclusion, thereby guaranteeing the quality of the encyclopedia. Without notability criteria, Wikipedia would become a depository of trivia, originating from self-published sources, including those under government control. I am against the presumption of notability (without reliable sources) for any group of people, regardless of occupation — there should be no exceptions, no exemptions from the ‘rules’. Biographies of artists, doctors, politicians, scientists, sportsmen, writers — and diplomats — should only be on Wikipedia if notability can be demonstrated. Notability should not be assumed for someone who writes a symphony, builds a cathedral, bakes an original kind of cake, discovers ten new species of tropical fish or whatever— or for a typical, modern, paperclip-pushing diplomat with an evidently uneventful appointment. (3) One of the basic concepts is that 'notability' can’t be transferred or inherited. So the notability of, say, the country of Belgium, shouldn't be transferable to the Belgian Ambassador to Moldova. Kleinzach 09:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Wikipedia should not include directories of government appointees, and certainly not if it involves starting with current appointees. This project is contained by requiring third party secondary source coverage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen any one saying that this proposed change to the guideline would sidestep verification requirements.
What those who are supporting individuals being considered presumably notable just as national and sub-national legislators are considered presumably notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to third party secondary source coverage is not fearing a sidestep of WP:V. WP:V is a very low threshold. Writing articles just on WP:V leads to directories of data. WP:V should not be read without co-reading WP:NOR (among other things). I recommend WP:A for better clarity. If you want to push the "presumed" angle, I think the evidence would be the percentage of ambassadors who already have decent articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Heads of Mission/Ambassadors are frequently at only middle ranking civil service grades - many at G6 or G7 - i.e. not in the senior civil service, less senior than the officer who runs Heathrow Immigration and ranking less then a counselor at a larger mission. I can predict the average press coverage for a junior ambassador now, officer gets agrement, the FCO releases a press release (all primary/non independant) and this gets reprinted by the press. Then, during their posting, the officer gives interviews (primary), writes articles in the paper (isn't the subject of), gets mentioned when he goes to a black tie event (trivia/non-detailed) and then when they leave, if they never get another HoM post, they are never heard of again. Who's Who is by no way independant - participants provide their own details. SNGs are supposed to be short cuts to the type of person/thing that has enduring notability through multiple detailed secondary reliable sources. Absent clear evidence that all HoM get that kind of coverage I can't see how we can possibly accept that they should have inherent notability against the genuine tightening of expectations for BLPs across the whole project. Spartaz Humbug! 15:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
G6 or G7? British civil service rating?
In the United States the position is a direct appointment from the President of the United States, and a Career Ambassador are considered the equivalent of a four star general. As such, flag and general officers, and their historical equivalents, are considered presumed notable if they can be verified to exist and hold the rank through the use of reliable source(s).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are being very parochial if you think we should set a general SNG by the way the US runs its missions. Last I looked there were more than one or two extra countries with their own sets of missions. If you can't apply your standard to an ally as close to the states as the UK then seriously, how can you expect to run it against smaller less resourced countries? Bottom line, you cannot presume a particular notability from holding an appointment as Ambassador because the grading and general contributions don't read across. *shakes head*. Spartaz Humbug! 16:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please kindly see WP:AVOIDYOU. I am not saying that we should judge notability of ambassadors based entirely by how the United States structures its foreign service. I never said that.
I am just giving examples.
Furthermore, although I have created the RfC, I have not taken a position on the RfC question.
So please, assume good faith, and not make this about myself.
I can understand that some nations do not consider certain positions at the same level of seniority as others, but others do hold the position at a high level. How do we as an editing community sync that to our notability guidelines?
As others have said, notability is presumed of some certain catagories just by an individual playing at a major league, why is that the case? If we are to apply the same consensus to the field of diplomacy, how would that work?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RightCowLeftCoast; Can you please give WP references for these examples of presumed notability? So far you have mentioned "flag officers and general officers" and "major league" players — all of these apparently American. Kleinzach 16:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to WP:ATHLETE, such as WP:NFOOTY and WP:BASE/N; for flag and general officers there is the essay WP:SOLDIER. These are not specific to the United States.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my goodness me, you made an argument, I debunked it with a reasoned argument based on facts and you'd rather address the way I framed the issue rather then deal with the concern I raised. That's just not good enough for your argument to be given weight. Do you have any policies to back up your argument? Spartaz Humbug! 16:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see above. There are notability guidelines that presume notability based on verification of an individual reaching a certain status. I will ignore the arguments against myself, but I advise that arguments against myself stop.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RCLC: there is an unsubtle distinction between protocol rank and actual power or influence. No ambassador has a budget in the dozens of billions of dollars and over 10,000 subordinates, but that's relatively standard for a combatant commander. Ambassadors seem to slide in and out of "Deputy Assistant Secretary" and "Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary" positions on the low end, and Undersecretary/Assistant Secretary positions on the high end. That's probably a better measure of how much influence they wield within the arcane ranking of the federal service. RayTalk 16:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do see the argument that a Brigadier or Brigadier general will be in charge of an organization comprised of multiple battalions (three plus) capable of independent combat operations, and that ambassadors do not have nearly the number of individuals whom the have a leadership function for. At the same time, historically, had plenipotentiary power, and thus (historically) had significantly more influence/power than any brigadier/brigadier general/rear admiral/commodore. The ability to act in the name of the head of state and or head of government to create international agreements is not something we should overlook.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually would contest the brigadier general part (Saddam Hussein had over 3000 of them! Quick, I dare any military history buff to name 1!), but yes, I think plenipotentiary power and using it to negotiate on behalf of your country with respect to a major treaty or conference falls under WP:DIPLOMAT as it currently stands. People who simply have "plenipotentiary" in their title but are never instructed to use it to deliver anything greater than birthday greetings to the local President for Life should not get notability for that alone. RayTalk 21:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was actually that debate when SOLDIER was created at MILHIST, but the majority felt (IMHO) that being promoted to flag or general officer (NATO code O-6 to O-10) was seen as being similar to the bright line given to individuals who play in a major league of their given sport. Also their role would lead them to command a substantial body of troops in combat that is capable of significant, or independent, military operations.
I tried to elevate SOLDIER to a guideline, but that attempt failed; but the essay is normally pretty well respected at AfDs.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We already have pages of lists of diplomats from a nation to another nation (e.g. List of diplomats of the United Kingdom to Albania, List of diplomats of the United Kingdom to other German States, List of diplomats of the United Kingdom to the Ottoman Empire, List of diplomats of the United Kingdom to Iran). Second, it is possible for an ambassador to be involved in a major international incident to not meet WP:GNG but should be considered notable (examples could include an ambassador is deeply engaged in important treaty negotiations (but not the subject of multiple secondary sources), accused of a minor crime [I am thinking about the Indian and Mongolian diplomats involved in Permanent Mission of India v. City of New York ] or those ambassadors involved in Diplomatic incidents) generally. Enos733 (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While this (proposal Yes (2)) may seem plausible — obviously some positions will be more notable than their occupants — this confuses two different kinds of notability. IMO it is easier if we simply consider biographical notability for biographies. I have been through several hundred articles in Category:Diplomat stubs and its subcats and not found the kind of anomalies described by Enos733. I am sure they exist — they just aren't very significant. In any case, I wouldn't accept that the position of ambassador from Vanuatu to Andorra (assuming it exists) is necessarily notable. It clearly isn't. Kleinzach 01:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes-2 would mean that the position would be notable, and not necessarily the office holder. This would create a list of possible biography articles, which would themselves need to meet WP:GNG requirements, thus a lot of the stub articles whose subject have not yet been shown to meet GNG (or other notability guideleines and essays that maybe applicable), would be redirected to the position article/list. This maybe a compromise that allows for creation of redirects, yet doesn't delete the search terms outright.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as has been pointed out by others, without specifically pointing towards the essay, we need to look at WP:BIAS. Certain countries diplomats will receive more coverage from web accessible reliable sources, and thus the ability to verify notability of a diplomat for say a 1st world nation maybe far more difficult than say for a very minor nation (such as Kiribati or San Marino). Yet all nations who are members, or observers, of the United Nations have Permanent Representatives/Ambassadors to the IGO and maybe highly notable within the context of that country (would that be a WP:LOCAL argument?) and whose position is no lesser than that of a larger nation (protocol wise).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The IGO" — which one? --Kleinzach 05:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I was referring to the United Nations, which was the IGO which I had referred to earlier in that sentence, and using as an example.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes (1). I think that ambassadors or other heads of diplomatic missions are important. Think about it, they are a country's official, and sole in most cases, representative to another country. Therefore, they should be considered notable. DGG makes a good point when he states that when only require pro athletes to be just that, pro athletes. We don't require them to have "participated in a significant way" as far as their sport is concerned. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:SPORTCRIT. The criteria are actually much stricter than you think. Kleinzach 01:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? A curler is presumed to be notable if he or she has "participated in a World Curling Tour sanctioned event." That's more strict than having represented your country as a permanent and plenipotentiary ambassador? Pburka (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The archived discussions about WP:ATHLETE is fascinating. In them, there is some discussion about why there is a presumption of notability - and perhaps the best rationale was "What you need to remember is that in order to play one game in the top level league you had to have been a star in the 2nd level league and would have likely been written about from that aspect, probably quite a bit." The one game standard was a clear bright line, since many athletes, all the way to the high school level, could, by virtue of the sheer amount of coverage of sport, receive a fair amount of coverage from local papers, school papers, and even sport specific sources. The question here is not, is the subject important, but rather whether, by virtue of their position as an ambassador, there is a presumption of notability and we would expect that subject to meet WP:GNG if we worked hard enough to find sources. My take is that the position and role of the ambassador has changed over the last 50-100 years to a point where ambassadors do not exercise independent authority in conducting foreign affairs (i.e. it does not matter if John Doe or Jane Gomez is the ambassador to Canada) and that there is little independent coverage of the subject (unless they already meet WP:GNG or receive an honor for their service). Enos733 (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/stats. So far this Rfc has only attracted 11 opinions — few given the importance of this issue. We have 1,813 articles in Category:Diplomat stubs and its subcats. Having looked through a few hundred of these articles, I think about half of these are minimal stubs, written from government lists (often ephemeral government websites), with little or no independent referencing.
Breaking down Category:Diplomat stubs we see: Asian (124), African (202), Canadian (123), American (348, though many of these are actually mature articles that need destubbing.), South American: (69), European (279), British (300), French (64), Norwegian (73) Russian (102). I haven't been through all the cats, but I note a concentration of these minimal, poorly-referenced texts in Category:Canadian diplomat stubs and Category:Norwegian diplomat stubs.
I have sent a number of test cases to Afd, currently Brendon Browne and Barbara Richardson, and previously Roy William Blake, Jostein Helge Bernhardsen, Olav Berstad, Miyoko Akashi, Khalnazar Agakhanov. (Users Pburka and Necrothesp were of course very active in these discussions which led to 'no consensus' or 'keep' results. No articles have so far been deleted.)
There is also the issue of the copying or close paraphrasing of government sources. These minimal stubs usually just copy the listings. An example is Marilyn P. Johnson. Kleinzach 07:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Users Pburka and Necrothesp were of course very active in these discussions which led to 'no consensus' or 'keep' results. No articles have so far been deleted." What an odd comment. Is that not how AfD works? We certainly weren't the only editors who thought these articles should be kept and we didn't make the final decision. Wikipedia is about discussion and consensus and that's what happened. The fact that all your "test cases" have failed to reach the result you wanted suggests that it's time to end the "test", does it not? Otherwise we'll end up getting into another perennial debate like that over secondary schools, where a small handful of editors continue to send articles to AfD to prove a point but never achieve their goal of deletion.
Your last point isn't an issue. If it's a copyvio we delete it. If it isn't we leave it. No greater issue than with any other possible copyvio. You can't cite possible copyvio as a reason not to have articles - that could equally apply to any other category of article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • YES. The position was perhaps more important in the past, when it was much less easy for one foreign minister to get on the phone to another. This meant that serious negotiations between countries had to be carried out between the ambassador and the government to which he was accredited. The fact that an article so far only contains minimal information is no reason for not having it. Some articles that I have worked on were little more than a list of the appointments held, a fat stub, but that means that another editor, who locates further information has something to work on. It needs to be pointed out that in the past the heads of mission were not always called "ambassador", sometimes Envoy Extraordinary, Minister Plenipotentiary, or just Resident. These titles are now sometimes now used for more junior diplomats. The key test should be that the diplomat was head of mission. I will add that I am responsible for having filled out many of the lists of British diplomats and creating some that were missing. A high proportion of the people listed had biographies in Dictionary of National Biography, which is generally accepted as an indication of notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually foresaw that issue, and thus included the "or their historic equivalents," statement in the proposed rewordings.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a general comment — The Dictionary of National Biography would indeed be a reliable source, so I see no problems with biographies based on that. It's also worth noting that I have yet to find a pre-WW II diplomat biography that was not notable. The problem, as I have explained above, is the notability or otherwise of heads of small and medium-sized missions, often of small or medium-sized countries, that have little or no interaction with the press, especially when they are not involved in any major newsworthy events. Kleinzach 12:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, presently it is my opinion that there is no consensus to change DIPLOMAT; and at the same time there is no consensus to keep DIPLOMAT in its present form either. Opinions appear to be pretty evenly split. So is there a middle ground compromise that we can work towards?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Participation has been too limited IMO. Was this Rfc announced in all the usual places? I note that it is not listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law despite the information on the Rfc notice above. Can we re-list/re-notify so that it gets the attention it deserves? Kleinzach 14:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let it run. We have 30 days; all the initial commenters have already weighed in. It's been posted at all the usual places, maybe other editors will have useful suggestions. If not, well, we'll have to weigh how to go forward then - this may be an inevitable artifact of Wikipedia's declining editor base, that we have small groups of people without dynamism to forge a way forward, but let's not borrow trouble before we have it. I would suggest that, while things remain unresolved pending the closure of the RFC, that participants refrain from bringing more AfDs of ambassadors and other "heads of mission," as that would just tire people out from the need to monitor more fora. RayTalk 15:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It use to be listed there from what I can recall, I wonder when it was delisted. It was listed ion the 25th of April on the Politics list, and the same date on the policies list.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bot removed it from the politics list on the 3rd of May, and did removed it on the policy list the same day, is this normal for the bot?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's certainly not supposed to do that. it's supposed to de-list us after the default 30 days. You should probably ask whoever maintains the bot what's going on. RayTalk 19:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I left a notice at the bot owners page regarding our discussion regarding the bot.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Rfc is still not listed. I tried to add it manually, but it seems you are not allowed to do that. (Ordinary edits will apparently be 'overwritten'. Kleinzach 12:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No.' Assuming that 150 countries each send ambassadors to 150 other countries, and each position has been held by ten people, that's 225,000 ambassadors. While that may not necessarily be meaningful, there is absolutly no inherent notability. Articles on individuals naturally must have multiple independent substantial RSs; a government listing about who holds the post does not satisfy GNG. I do believe that the current guideline is perhaps a little too strict, but notability is not automatic. If ambassadors are equivalent to whatever other position, an assumption whose accuracy I would doubt, then there ought to be several sources backing up the person's notability with further information; I expect a biography of any notable person, not a sentence or two stating the positions held. You can't just create articles claiming the subjects to be notable when it simply states that ABC was ambassador of X to Y from 1 to 2; that's worthless and does not exhibit notability. The comparison to pro athletes is irrelevant, and I find the idea of automatic notability for being paid to play a sport even more absurd than that for an ambassador, and the same goes for subnational legislators. Reywas92Talk 04:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Ambassadors are paid to be visible at state functions and the like, and that lends them superficial media presence which in no way adds up to notability. The diplomatic work of intelligence and negotation, of course, is mostly done outside the media glare. But when something really important happens, that receives plenty of attention. So, a high level of general and event-specific notability should be required, not just an ambassadorial posting. Secondarily, especially (but not only...) for some small countries, ambassadorships are fibs among friends; and, trivial though that is, throwing automatic WP listing on top of a non-merit appointment only instrumentalizes WP and the Wikimedia Foundation. From philosophers to porn stars, people have to earn their WP listings through deed and merit. All ambassadors do not, though of course some do.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong No ambassadors should meet WP:BIO as a minimum. a lot of coverage is simply talking on behalf of their government in effect being a spokesperson, this is being passed off in AfDs as "significant coverage" which it is not. there needs to be coverage about their career or advancement they have made in foreign relations. also sometimes they hold the post for one or 3 months, and make zero public statements. as Reywas92 said, we'd be probably making at least 10,000 new articles, and most of these would be people that make no ripple in foreign affairs let alone worthy of inclusion in WP. Ambassadors of small island nations often do very little (compared to say being an ambassador to China or USA), yet are we proposing an automatic WP article? heads of large national government departments or chiefs of staff to world leaders are often more influential in government than ambassadors. yet have no automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - No one should ever be considered "automatically notable" by virtue of their job. They should meet WP:BIO and GNG. Sure, most ambassadors will be notable... but not all. I would certainly expect that most people who are appointed as an ambassador would have the necessary RS coverage... you just need to dig deep enough to find it. However having a likelihood of notability is not the same as actually being notable. Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about WP:NFOOTY & WP:MLB/N? Those notability guidelines specifically state that due to the individuals job, playing in a single major league game, that the individual is considered automatically notable. There are other notability guidelines like that, and I need not list them all here, but there is precedence that someone's job, if holding significant enough stature within their field, makes someone presumed to be notable. Of course verification is still required to show that someone held that position, or played that game, or whatever that notability guideline states, but there it is.
If the above argument is reasonable, than all single subject notability guidelines should be withdrawn.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a hard-to-reach achievement standard built into making it into the leagues which qualify under these criteria. The issue in discussion here is that ambassadors can be named despite no merit. The same fallacy as RightCowLeftCoast brings up would be to argue that since some elite professional players are considered automatically noteworthy by virtue of playing in certain leagues, all footy/bb/whatever players should be eligible. Ambassadorship does not have a coherent threshold, far from it. Hence, making it an automatic "in" does not work.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet that is the case, for all persons who play in X league all those players are considered notable. That is exactly how it works.
And who is to say that someone who becomes an ambassador has no merit? There are a handful of career diplomats who started off as beginning level foreign service officers, who diligently rose through the ranks to the point where a head of state has nominated the individual, and they individual received confirmation to the position from the nation's legislature. This process, often produces a number of reliable sources which can verify notability; and as others have argued, for those nations where such records are not as readily available in English sources it may create a systematic bias against the ambassadors from those nations.
Therefore I would say that it is fallacious to say that just because someone plays on game on a field of grass that someone has designated to be a special field of grass makes someone automatically notable.
So if someone's level of occupation can grant presumed notability, when verified, then who block it for the field of diplomacy?
As has been stated by others, and myself, the historic role of the ambassador carried significant weight in international relations, and this significance far outweighed that of a sub-national legislature (who are presumed notable).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RightCowLeftCoast: "There are a handful of career diplomats . . . for those nations where such records are not as readily available in English sources it may create a systematic bias against the ambassadors from those nations.' In other words, United States diplomats are notable — by virtue of the process they go through — and this notability should be extended to the other 200 countries in the world to avoid bias. Right? This is an odd argument. As noted before, the American diplomat stubs don't contain many problem articles because US diplomats tend to be involved in events and are reported by the media. As RCLC says, they are publicly confirmed — something that is very unusual elsewhere. Most diplomats are not like American ones at all, so basing notability guidelines on them is not helpful. (The "historic role of the ambassador" is of course something else. In practice only major countries had ambassadors.) Kleinzach 23:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the thing, as I think we can agree, due to the differences between the process by which a nation gives an individual credentials to be an ambassador to another nation, the amount of reliable sources will differ. Furthermore, based on that, this will create a systematic bias, that due to the availability of resources some nation's appointed ambassadors will be verifiable per reliable sources to meet the requirements of GNG than others.
I am not saying that any individual is automatically notable for being any diplomat, as I am more debating more on the basis of the position carrying a level of notability (as consensus in other subjects have shown exists (and thus why I point at NFOOTY and MLB/N and such guidelines) and thus set a precedence of reasoning). While I do agree that based on the systematic bias which I stated above, not all ambassadors are going to have the reliable sources readily available to us on the internet to verify notability, that does not mean that the positions themselves do not carry a certain level of weight. This is after all (as I am aware) why there is a presumption of notability for those individuals who are elected (or appointed to) national and sub-national legislative bodies.
If it is the position, and not the individual that holds the weight, then it can be argued that it is not the person who holds that position (at that time) who is notable, but the position itself that is notable. Thus why there are the three outcomes for this RfC. No, Yes (1), and Yes (2).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the 'systematic bias' argument is that you can stand it on its head. You may think you are privileging Vanuatu, but actually the predisposition is towards the USA. Kleinzach 23:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RightCowLeftCoast: The "field of grass" argument is just a continuation of the earlier fallacy. It is NOT just any field of grass. Note also that the number of divisions that establish notability varies across countries in the criteria. As it should. But, if you want a comparison: Should any league of American football played in, say, South Africa qualify? No. Any rugby league in the US? Not either. The rules are reasonably coherent at the level of sports, and even among sports. If such a coherent rule could be created for diplomats, why not? My problem with yes (2) is that it does not amount to such a rule. The presumption of notability is wrong in that case. Also, in the sports criteria, note that one expectation is that the subject must have played on a professional team against another professional team. Where the stakes are high enough, to perhaps put it another way. So, that may be a direction to go for ambassadors too. But, Ambassador of Seychelles to Monaco? Not to be presumed WP-worthy as such, thank you.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, Ambassadors have historically been the representative of one head of state to another, so it can be said that Ambassadors are playing at a "professional level". As historically Ambassadors had/have plenipotentiary authority when it comes to international relations, one could say that the position carries far greater significant than say a professional sportsperson, and more significance than a sub-national legislator.
Thus to say a professional sportsperson is more notable than a very high ranking diplomat is incorrect on its face.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The media may decide to give prominence to a story about Tiger Woods over one about Susan Rice, or vice versa. That shouldn't concern us. We are not building value judgements into the encyclopaedia. Notability should not be determined by arbitrary rules, only by coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources (per WP:GNG). --Kleinzach 03:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But notability on Wikipedia is determined by arbitrary rules for athletes, politicians, actors and professors. If we were arguing for striking down all of the career-specific notability guidelines I might agree with you, but if we're going to recognize curlers as presumptively notable, then I don't see why we shouldn't extend the same privilege to ambassadors. A typical ambassador is more influential and receives more press coverage than a typical curler. Pburka (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote (above) on 27 April: "I am against the presumption of notability (without reliable sources) for any group of people, regardless of occupation . . . " I hope that's clear now. Kleinzach 05:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of our presumptive reliability guidelines require reliable sources, per WP:V. This proposed guideline is no different. Would you support a modification to the proposed guideline which clarified that the person's position as ambassador must be supported by reliable sources? Pburka (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I too am against any presumption of notability based on status, especially ascribed status. And I think there are too many sports and entertainment personalities. But that reflects the basis for notability skewing in practice towards news media rather than historical and academic works, and that's a bigger issue than this RfC. Now, if the exercise of plenipotentiary power could be documented, that could be considered, notwithstanding that there may be objections such as Ray's (21:26, 2 May, above). But again that does not figure among the options so far.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why have we not seen RfCs to downgrade single subject notability guidelines then?
This is the second time in attempting to modify of elevate a notability guideline, where the opposing editor's main argument is GNG is enough. If that is the case where is the RfC? Where are the test AfDs, as is occurring against Diplomat articles (would that be WP:POINTY?), to see if there is consensus against those notability guidelines?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I deem creating an RfC beyond my experience level, but that would be relevant indeed. That said, I see plenty of AfD debates about sportspeople, so presumably the material is there for your second point.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 09:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I don't think so. I'll first note that nobody should have "automatic notability" if they can't meet WP:GNG. The idea of specific guidelines should not be to confer "automatic notability" - it should be to create a presumption of notability - basically a tool to highlight categories where most of the members are going to turn out to be notable. I'm not convinced that anyone has demonstrated that this is really the case for diplomats (although I'm pretty dubious of WP:POLITICIAN, too. Are we really saying that all of the thousands of people who have served in the Supreme People's Assembly are "automatically" notable, or even should have a presumption of notability?). My position has always been that the GNG should be interpreted as broadly as possible, and that specific notability guidelines should be removed as much as possible. I think that most heads of mission from important countries and/or to important countries (especially when both, and especially pre-World War II or so) probably end up being notable, but that's because they pass GNG, not because they're "inherently notable." john k (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The failure of the GNG is to a considerable extent the failure of WPedians to use printed sources, combined the the still very erratic coverage of GNews, especially outside the US. When we have verifiable information about someone for whom additional sources will probably become available, and the person is demonstrably someone about whom a reader is likely to want to know, we should keep it. Successive holders of political office are eminently in that class--anyone interested in the region and period will want to see the information on the successive office-holders--and, possibly, be in a position to add to it. I need to emphasise that the failure of GNG isn't often a failure of information--it's a perceived failure to be significant coverage, or coverage outside the election. This is a matter of interpretation, where those who want less coverage of a topic are arguing that whatever coverage we do have, is insufficient. By such arguments and distinctions anyone less than famous can be rejected if it is thought they should not be covered. I myself have used such an argument for people whom I think do not have notable accomplishments, because I want to reach what I think the correct decision where there is possible ambiguity. In other words, if we want to cover them we can find reasons why the sources are sufficient, if we do not, we can avoid finding the sources sufficient. I tend to think the GNG is used here to reach pre-determined conclusions. (For example, if I think--as in fact I do , that we cover too many porn actors and professional wrestlers, I could plausibly argue that essentially all the sources for them are non-independent coverage because based on PR; the reason I do not so argue is I see no reason to exclude other people's interests that I do not share: I am not making an encyclopedia for my personal use only.
We would do better by assigning notability in all verifiable cases based on fixed levels related to the sort of notability involved--and if we couldn't agree on that, reach a compromise. The effect would be no worse than the present rather random results, and we'd save time in arguing notability and could use it in writing articles. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per Blueboar: "No one should ever be considered "automatically notable" by virtue of their job. They should meet WP:BIO and GNG". -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per DGG, Pburka and others. There is something as "automatic notability" -subjects that are indeed notable by virtue of their own position and that as such deserve coverage- and this is one case where GNG is not enough. Specific notability guidelines exist precisely for this reason, to extend the GNG, which is just the default setting for cases where other guidelines do not exist/apply. --Cyclopiatalk 16:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment pretty clear to me after weeks of discussion, there is no clear consensus to grant automatic notability to ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 (I am confused whether this is a "yes" or a "no"). The GNG is a minimum, and specific guidelines should not be more lenient than that. Verifiability is all that is required for a list entry, but without coverage in reliable secondary sources there is nothing we can use to write a verifiable article about. Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, 2, we have articles such as Governor-General of the Philippines and List of Ambassadors of the United Kingdom to the United States, so I do not see why all Ambassadorial offices should not have a list, as long as it meets venerability verifiability requirements. If individual Ambassadors (or their historical predecessors) are found to be individually notable per WP:ANYBIO or some other notability guidelines, they can have a standalone article which is wikilinked to the list. This IMHO is a good compromise between deleting all ambassador articles, and retaining the information on Wikipedia, and serves as a good starting point for those interested in this field to search for individuals who may meet ANYBIO in order to create new articles.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Venerability? Bede-style? --Kleinzach 21:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability; oops! Thanks for catching that.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, Wikipedia is a work in progress, and just because an article is a small size doesn't mean that it should not be on Wikipedia.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surely an article must be potentially expandable? Kleinzach 23:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why? That there is little to say on a topic does not mean that little isn't precious. Take this I created yesterday. It is not really expandable unless you want to include a lot of very technical detail (or new sources appear), but so what? It may be not the best article, but it explains the topic, and I believe the encyclopedia is better by having it. Size doesn't matter. --Cyclopiatalk 15:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are not talking about short articles on simple subjects — these obviously have their place. We are talking about inconsequential one or two sentence entries. For example Brendon Browne, which even after a confused Afd here (when he was originally wrongly assumed to be Canadian), still only has two sentences and zero references. Kleinzach 10:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Its obvious from this discussion that consensus has not changed, and with good reason. I agree with Ironholds, John K, and Blueboar's points above. Make no mistake, this is the infamous "inherent notability" fallacy rearing its ugly head once again! A diplomat truly worthy of inclusion in an encylopedia should have no problem meeting the already lax standards of WP:BIO. These standards are easy to meet for a person working in international relations. If an individual can't meet these basic standards we shouldn't have an article on him. ThemFromSpace 21:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Q regarding WP:POLITICIAN

The current kerfluffle over WP:DIPLOMAT makes me want to revisit the "sub-national" portion of WP:POLITICIAN. In some countries, states/provinces are large, have ample coverage, and the governing officials are relatively prominent. In other countries, first-tier subdivisions may be tiny (Liechtenstein, for example, is administratively divided into 11 communes, the largest of which has a population under 6000 - declaring the mayor and town councillors, and sheriff if they have one, of such a community notable by default is absurd). On the other end, there are extremely poorly documented highly populous areas, such as the states of India, where the thousands of members of the sub-national legislatures are usually elected on party slates. (Or for greater amusement, one can consider the 687 elected members of the Supreme People's Assembly of North Korea). Often, for these people we have nothing beyond a name and a party affiliation, nor are we likely to get one. Since WP:POLITICIAN is supposed to be a secondary criterion, it's justified by the idea that for almost all people in these categories, substantial coverage sufficient to pass WP:GNG is basically certain to exist. I really doubt that is the case here. Thoughts? RayTalk 17:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POLITICIAN, SOLDIER, NFOOTY, and such secondary notability guidelines and essays that come after GNG and ANYBIO are still required to meet verifiability. The alternative is that the rather than the individual being automatically being notable, the position can be considered notable, with individuals holding the position requiring significant coverage and/or in-depth coverage to be considered individually notable. Therefore the result is you'd have a list of individuals who were elected to X seat representing Y, and if one of those individuals receive in-depth significant coverage then they would have a standalone article that has a wikilink in that list.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would indeed be absurd to give such people inherent notability, but the guideline says "national, state or provincial". It doesn't say "first-tier sub-divisions". This clearly doesn't cover communes in Liechtenstein or anywhere else! It doesn't even cover counties. It covers states and provinces in countries where state and provincial legislatures have real power. That is, I think, quite clear from the wording of the guideline. For the legislatures of places like India and North Korea, yes, I think the guideline should stand. No change is needed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Each member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives only represents about 3,300 constituents. While this is quite an extreme in the US, there are likely some with fewer in other countries. I'm appalled by some of the contents of Category:Members of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. This and this sure as hell don't count as "significant coverage" toward the GNG, and I do not believe we can assume all state legislators are notable. Reywas92Talk

I don't see any reason to assume that all members of even national legislatures are going to meet GNG. I think that a full historical list even of members of the Supreme People's Assembly would be worthwhile, but I don't see why we would need to have articles about all these obscure people of whom virtually nothing is known. john k (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
nothing is known because of our own cultural bias, and present limitations on the flow of information. the purpose of WP is to improve the state of information about the world, not limit it.
Like Reywas92, I find Category:Members of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives staggering. Would someone like to bundle the lot of them? Editors who work on political articles may not realise how strictly defined arts-related ones are for notability. In the case of musicians, we expect articles to be referenced by reviews in major newspapers, not local ones. Artists who are only known in their own country are often regarded as non-notable. Unfortunately it seems that some editors get hold of (primary source) government lists and then produce huge numbers of minimal articles that are a discredit to the encyclopedia. (See also the problem with minimal diplomat stubs, above).Kleinzach 00:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
experience shows that with sufficient work in print sources we can in fact document all of them to meet the GNG reasonably, and do not insist that local coverage is irrelevant, and an election is oneevent. Is it more important to work on the articles, or to debate them? You're going by personal preferences--myself, I think its a disgrace to the encyclopedia that we don't have historical coverage of these people back far enough, and one of the hopes of the educational program is that this might be remedied, for they're ideal topics for beginners.The only way we can work together is if we accommodate each others views on what fields of human endeavor is important. The two alternatives are that 1/ we include only those everyone' thinks important, in which case we have a very abridged encyclopedia indeed (there are probably only a few dozen athletes I know about or care to know about, and zero professional wrestlers, and no popular musicians I didn't know about in my youth a few decades ago; some people care about no scientists unless they won a Nobel) or 2/ we go by which interest block predominates here, in which case we are making an encyclopedia for ourselves, not our prospective readers.
There are some things that damage an encyclopedia: promotionalism, copyvio, unverifiable material, POV editing; there are some things that don't , such as borderline notability. Of our 4 million articles, we probably have a few hundred thousand undetected copyvios and several times that many that are essentially promotionalism, and a good ideal or unfair or inaccurate blp. At a lesser scale we have incoherent writing, irrelevant illustrations, inaccurate coverage, unreadable formatting. unclear referencing, unacknowledged plagiarism, missing sections, bias, purely national viewpoints on universal topics. In a different dimension, we have personal attacks, polite POV pushing, poor advice to newcomers; pointy argumentation, pure obstinacy in making or rejecting changes. All things worth being concerned about and worth fixing. But mere disagreements about the borderlines of notability where the borderline could be set almost anywhere? We are developing into agroup of people who spend moretime arguing what is to be written about, than doing writing. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that borderline notability does not harm the encyclopaedia — if the articles are developed beyond one or two sentences. Stacks of minimal stubs are a different matter however. If readers search and constantly find one-sentence articles they will stop using WP. N.B. Category:Members of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives has 1263 articles, 652 of which are stubs. Here's a typical one: Barry Alderette, complete text: "Barry L. Alderette is a former Democratic member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for one year." Kleinzach 10:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Barry Alderette also includes an infobox with more details than the sentence you copied. It includes exactly the kind of details that hypothetical user might have been looking for, and it provides references where the user can verify that information. Pburka (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, verification that the guy was an insurance salesman. --Kleinzach 02:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most important pieces of information for a politician is the history of what he has done before (and after) holding the office. From this sort of information the reader will learn about the political, economic, and social basis of the society, but all we need do is give the facts. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, DGG. Properly-sourced stubs about marginally notable people are not a major problem. Rubbish, copyvio, duplicated articles, inaccessible articles which need dab page entries or hatnotes, unsourced material all over the place: those are some of the problems needing our attention. If editors are keen to work on minor politicians or diplomats, and can provide sources and produce a solid little stub like Barry Alderette, then welcome them and let them get on with it. PamD 07:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Though I've now noticed that one of the 2 refs for Alderette gives him as being born and dying on the same day, which doesn't inspire confidence! PamD 07:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm delighted to say I've created hundreds of articles on historical state legislators (mostly Wisconsin, but also Tennessee, Missouri and others), starting in many cases with as little or less than what we had about Alderette. These have included a former Greenback Party Speaker of the Wisconsin House who went on to become a Montana pioneer; a large number of labor activists who became Socialist legislators; a published science fiction poet who served in New Hampshire; a one-time friend of L. Ron Hubbard who is persistently misidentified in Hubbard bios as a U.S. rather than a Washington State Senator; and the first non-white legislator in Wisconsin history, a Brothertown Indian elected before statehood who later died fighting for the Union in the Civil War. Just because nobody's bothered, doesn't mean that the information isn't out there. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also delighted you have found such interesting material. I assume the articles mainly cite secondary sources, per WP:PSTS. Nevertheless the concern here is about (typically contemporary) biographies that only use primary sources.Kleinzach 04:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first step is to get the fundamental official data right, and the official primary sources are ideal for that. The second is to get the fundamental bio about the person, and their official bio is good enough as a starting point. The suggested next step is to get secondary sources about the campaign, which is easy with anyone with access to the local papers--many but not all are online, but most of them require using a library that has a subscription--which is very likely in libraries in the area. After that, articles grow as people work on them--most articles on local politicians will be best expanded after someone writes a local history covering the area and the period--it's easier than assembling the materials oneself. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Done: Benign, borderline minor edit. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)&oldid=561734427"