Talk:List of people from California

What about how people live in the Santa Clarita Valley?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.168.102.111 (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Richard Gage (architect)

In my most recent attempt to clean up list, individual whom this subject is named for was removed because they obviously do not meet the criterea set forth in WP:SALAT, and do not meet WP:N requirements to warrant their own article. Just because the individual is a founder of group X which is based in California does not warrant the person's inclusion in this list.

The wikipedia editor who readded the individual stated that because they don't warrant their own article but are connected to an organization that does meet notability requirements that does warrant its own article does they should be included in this list. If this were the case, and set forth as the standard, the number of individuals that could be added to this list and like list would grow with increased activism event if said activism is one event covered by a reliable source. In my humble opinion, this should not be the new standard, and thus Richard Gage still does not meet the guideline as set forth by WP:SALAT.

I would much rather reach a compromise or consensus rather than getting into an editting war, and look forward to a fruitful discussion from editors on this issue.

A possible compromise is that the group which Richard Gage is associated with, and other groups and businesses who are founded or headquartered in California can be added to the list as is the case with the bands which are now listed in the subsection Groups of people. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it would not be appropriate to include 10 redirects to a single article on an event, just because 10 people are somehow related to that event. The threshold for inclusion should be that the person is of high importance for the event or activity, in the sense that this event or activity would not exist without that person. This may apply to a lead singer of a band, or to a founder or leader of an organization, for example. The section "Groups of people" is probably best for small, closed sets of people, not for organizations. (The "Groups of people" section does not show up in the TOC, so I actually didn't know that it exists. It's probably better to have a separate list "Groups and organizations", and a "see also" link to that list.)  Cs32en  09:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well that begs the questions what groups and organizations then are included and excluded? There have to be hundreds of worthy groups, some larger then the group which Richard Gage is a part of that are based or founded in California.

Furthermore, if he is described as a "9/11 Truth" advocate, what is stopping someone else from labeling another individual a "Jews caused 9/11" advocate, or a "Aztlan Nationalism" advocate, or some other potentially term? Should such descriptions of individuals be as NPOV as possible? Are these terms POV pushing? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say all groups and organizations that have a Wikipedia article can be, or should be, included in such a list. (Don't know if there is such a thing as a "GROUP1E" similar to WP:BLP1E.) "9/11 Truth activist" was not the best description, I've changed that to "9/11 Truth movement activist", as Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is considered part of the 9/11 Truth movement. "«Jews caused 9/11» advocate" is not an acceptable description, as there no such term is being used in reliable sources, nor is there a WP article on such advocacy. (I hope there will never be the need for one.)  Cs32en  19:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would keep it simple and use solely individuals who warrant their own biography. Drop the groups section, and drop individuals who are a redirect, or are only mentioned in an article directly about them. Looking at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of people and through some of the existing Wikipedia:Featured lists I didn't see any about people where it included groups as well. -Optigan13 (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Using that criterea the subject that started this discussion would be removed, as would multiple other individuals. Perhaps we need to get other third opinions to reach a consensus. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• The Monkees 1966.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Is there now a rule that we should delete people without a ref?

That was just done. Is it a new rule? If we do that, we will delete nearly the entire list. User:JohnFromPinckney made an edit, ignored an add without a ref, and then deleted the next add without a ref. I'm confused. Do we just not delete those adds we like, like football players?--2603:7000:2143:8500:1956:8532:BE28:4ED3 (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It's policy (WP:BLP), and it's not new. First mention of a new fact regarding a living person is supposed to have an inline citation. In practice, most editors consider WP:V for the tie to the community to be satisfied if the individual's biography has a reliable source for tie to the community. 174.254.193.220 (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, the individual's biography has a reliable source for that, but the editor deleted it anyway. While not deleting others with the same characteristic. So I'm confused at the difference in approach.2603:7000:2143:8500:1956:8532:BE28:4ED3 (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I can't speak to what all other editors do, but in keeping with WP:V and WP:BLP I try to limit the addition of names without reference citations, when I see them. I don't always see such entries, of course, so I think a lot more get added (yea, even without sources) than I can reject. It's not a new rule, just one that doesn't get enforced as much as I think it should (and I know I'm not the only one who reverts such additions, so it's not just my own neurosis).

And I agree, on this basis, almost the entire list should be deleted, but I know what a huge howling that would produce. Theoretically, I would go and add references to the names currently there, but I've never gotten this activity to the top of my priority list, and do such work only occasionally. I usually only try to keep these lists from getting worse. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Becky G.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

"Benjamin Epicure" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Benjamin Epicure and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 7#Benjamin Epicure until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Whpq (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Move all the CA subpages to use "notable"

Using the word "notable" in titles brings a lot more clarity. If someone would be willing to put in the work to move them all, that would be great... For instance, List of people from Los Angeles -> List of notable people from Los Angeles... Amyipdev (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)