Wikipedia talk:Common claims of significance or importance

Professor

Can we talk about this? (And SoWhy, thanks for promptly responding with an opportunity to discuss this! I see that my entirely unrelated comment at the talk page of your essay is matched by a similar discussion on your user talk page.) You now have:

Is a professor at a notable university or a teacher at an institute of higher learning with an reputation in excellence

In most countries, professorships are only awarded to the most deserving academics,. This is the reason why articles for deletion discussions about such biographies have a 50-50 chance of ending in keep. As such, current consensus[5] is that being a professor at any notable university indicates significance. This does not apply to professors at universities known to have very low standards although the burden of proof is on the tagging user. Similarly, being a non-professor teacher at Harvard, Cambridge etc. usually indicates significance since those institutions are not known for employing sub-par academics.

This is an improvement over the previous "teacher" but I don't think it is entirely accurate. For one thing, I disagree with the suggestion that being any kind of teacher at an "institute of higher learning with an reputation in excellence" (a vague term which could be applied to thousands of universities and colleges) constitutes a "credible claim of significance or importance". This suggests that every Harvard graduate student who has teaching responsibilities is therefore at least plausibly significant. Likewise every community member who teaches a class or two at a major university as a volunteer (for example, private-practice physicians who lecture as "Clinical professors" in the U.S.)

In a scan through the archives it looked to me as if all such previous discussions have been talking about "professors". I didn't find anyone suggesting that being a teacher, instructor, or anything below the rank of professor should be considered a claim of significance. And BTW I suspect the frequently cited claim that 50% of professors get kept at AfD is referring to tenured ("full") professors; in my experience, associate or assistant professors routinely fail at AfD unless they meet the "highly cited" criterion of WP:ACADEMIC.

I suggest that we at least eliminate part-time and adjunct positions as credible claims of significance. Beyond that it gets dodgy. I recognize that not every country attaches the same meaning to "professor" and similar titles. For example, in the UK "Lecturer" is a highly ranked position; in the United States "Lecturer" is pretty much the bottom of the pecking order; there are similar differences in other national systems, so we need a way to generalize that reflects that. How about something like this:

Is a full-time professor or holder of a position of similar rank at a notable university.

Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. User:Drmies pointed out, in a similar discussion at User talk:SoWhy, that "notable university" means nothing since all universities and colleges are considered notable enough for an article. Maybe we should say "major university"? --MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I accept that assistant professors might routinely be non-notable but I don't think A7 should make this distinction. As you mention yourself, even an assistant professor can meet one of the other criteria of WP:PROF and the gist of the discussions I found was that it's hard to judge significance for these subjects because they rarely have received mainstream coverage. The problem with "full-time" is one you mention yourself, in that there are quite a few professors who are significant or even notable without teaching full-time and asking NP patrollers and CSD patrolling admins to determine complicates matters. Plus, it might reasonable to assume that in other countries other standards apply. For example - speaking from my viewpoint (Germany) - there are many judges who hold honorary professorships and of course they are notable but if I created "Wolfgang Büscher is a German judge and honorary professor at the University of Osnabrück", your wording would cover it. I'm open to rephrasing the entry to remove the possibility of covering your run-of-the-mill part time teaching assistant but I'm hesitant of restricting it as much as you propose for these reasons. After all, A7 was not created to have single admins decide notability. Regards SoWhy 21:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

one you mention yourself, in that there are quite a few professors who are significant or even notable without teaching full-time Umm, where did I say that? IMO if they are, it is for other things about them - not their part time professorships. For example, "judge and honorary professor" - don't they derive their significance from being a judge, rather than from being an honorary professor? Likewise a published author who also gives an occasional seminar at a university derives their significance from being an author, not from their university connection. I think what we are talking about here is whether "so and so is a professor" is in itself an adequate claim of significance to rule out A7, and I believe it is. But I am suggesting it be worded so that a position less than full-time professor does not by itself qualify as a claim of significance. --MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: @MelanieN: The national differences in terms used can easily cause confusion and is a trap I fell into recently. See User_talk:Adam9007#Clara_Lieu for full details (I had the wrong sense of adjunct professor). Pinging Acroterion as he may be interested in this discussion. Adam9007 (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Adam. It's very relevant, because that is a case where you took in good faith the original SoWhy definition that "teacher at a notable university" is a claim to significance, and you were (arguably) led astray by it. Definite evidence that that one wording, at least, needs to be changed. --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• I do not believe that merely being a professor is a claim of importance. We're a dime a dozen. Adding "major" doesn't help, really, since it's hard to define what that is, and it is entirely possible that someone gets a job at a major university without passing PROF or GNG; there's just too much variation in what profs do in relation to what we consider notable. We got a guy here who got a swell position but hasn't done anything to pass PROF or GNG (nor anything to warrant a big fat paycheck). Granted, I'm not at anything that could be called "major", but what happens here happens in other places too. To cut a long story short: I do not believe that this essay is correct or that it reflects consensus as I know it. But there's two old guys who know this kind of stuff better than I do: DGG and Randykitty. By "older" I mean "more seasoned", of course. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that I know a bunch of professors who are completely forgettable... The other two criteria are no real claims to significance either: most grad students will have "published something in a notable journal" and basically every academic will claim to be an expert in her/his field. --Randykitty (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• My concern with the current wording is that by virtue of having gone to a top-tier research university, I know a ton of PhDs who got instructor gigs at said university immediately after getting their PhD, because this was the norm at this institution for grad students who couldn't find job offers. These people also tended to have publications in peer-reviewed journals respected in their field, because that's what you try do as a grad student at a Research I university. To me, this seems like the exact kind of biography A7 was designed to prevent. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a claim to significance, that's just claim not evidence. I have always considered a plausible statement of it is sufficient to prevent A7, because whether or not ht person meet WP:PROF is not a snap judgment that any admin can make with no chance of error, but needs to be evaluated at AfD. The level that I think corresponds to our view of notability under WP:PROF is full professor at a US research university or the equivalent elsewhere, but consistent opinion has been we must actually evaluate, not just judge by the level of the position. (Personally, I'd be quite satisfied just to go by position--those universities are a better judge of `academic notability than we are.) DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I would agree on PROF cases in general-- assistant professors are rarely notable, but if its a tenure track person who happens to be a prodigy in her field and is only at the assistant professor level because that is where the school starts you off regardless of your publications, she very well could pass PROF. The case I was referring to was part-time lecturers/instructors/adjuncts depending on what the university calls them. At the same time, I wouldn't consider "Dr. X graduated from UCLA in Spring 2012 and taught a freshmen lecture hall course there for a semester as a lecturer before finding work at a private high school." to be a claim of significance. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

"Has received coverage of any kind in possibly reliable sources."

I've just been poring the archives of WT:CSD searching for discussions about notable awards and such. I couldn't find any, but I did find some discussions about the presence of a reliable source voiding A7:

• Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_44#A7--proposed_clarification.
• Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_45#A7_and_Mention_in_independent_reliable_sources
• Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_38#Sources_and_A7
• Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_52#A7_invalid_if_a_source_is_present.3F

Looking at the last one, it seems there is a general agreement that citing a reliable source is sufficient for significance, but I'm hesitant to cite these discussions without being sure the wording is a good reflexion of consensus. For example, I'm not 100% sure about the "possibly" bit. Should we remove that word, or perhaps reword it to "Cites a reliable source/sources"? Adam9007 (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a good change. Or "cites at least one reliable source." "Possibly reliable source" could mean anything. --MelanieN (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

We have never deleted at CSD for lack of a source. Never. This would be a very major change in deletion policy--there have been proposals to this effect every year or so, and they have all been resoundingly defeated--A plausible claim on the face of it for significance or importance is enough. (One standard for what counts as such a claim is something which might make a good faith newcomer think the person suitable for an encyclopedia . For example, a position as US teaching assistant or high school teacher is not such a plausible claim, if there's nothing further). Even for BLPPROD there doesn't have to be a RS, just a source sufficient to establish the identity of the person and relating to possible significance. And even at AfD we do not delete for the article being unsourced, but for being unsourceable. DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Well, it would seem that despite these discussions, citing a reliable source is not a CCS. Adam9007 (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Connexions with notable people

I'm not sure simply citing the relevant discussions is sufficient. I think we need to add some proper reflexion of consensus (more than just "Per guideline X, this can be..."). We need to say why such connexions are significant. The reason I say this is because discussions such as this one prove the guidelines alone are not sufficient (a similar discussion in an AfD may also be relevant). Maybe we should add a section of CSD's purpose and explain that deletion is not just "keep" and "delete". Or is that not necessary as it's covered in other essays? Just to clarify, is this essay intended to be a simple list of claims and a collection of supporting discussions or a proper explanation of their significance?

pinglist: reddogsix Toddst1 GB fan Appable (see here) Ritchie333 (see here. These are a couple of cases I was referring to) Kudpung TonyBallioni Shawn in Montreal

Adam9007 (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this is one where common sense should be used. Going off of the above professor conversation: being the wife of my notable ethics professor who is a high school principal isn't a claim of significance and probably shouldn't be redirected or merged. Being the ex-wife of the President of Foo is probably a claim of significance, and might contain mergable content if she isn't notable. There are plenty of cases in between those two, and that's where editorial and admin discretion come in. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

DGG sorry if my language was unclear here, I was referencing the wife of a notable professor, not the professor himself. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

and of course you are correct that this is another matter entirely--though there certainly have cases where they wife has been equally or almost equally important, although this may not have bee recognized by formal academic titles.

"Has a notable band member "

This claim has been challenged (I think the challenger Walter Görlitz might now understand but can't be sure...). Does anyone have anything more to support it? I looked through the archives of WT:CSD but couldn't find much. Adam9007 (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure why this is different than WP:MUSICBIO, but it is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Because, as I have already told you, twice, significance is a lower standard than notability. Adam9007 (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Strong connexion?

This just gets more and more complicated!

Apparently, "strong connexion" refers only to permanent connexions, such as founder/creator, not temporary ones, such as heads. Therefore, the following claims are not significant:

• Hosted/presented notable shows
• Is CEO or another high ranking employee of a notable company
• Is a professor at a notable university or a teacher at an institute of higher learning with an reputation in excellence
• Hosted by notable person

Can someone please clarify? I find it very hard to believe that these are not significant. Pings: Amortias Nick Adam9007 (talk) 05:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The RfC you have linked to talks about "a strong association creating a credible claim of significance" but doesn't discuss what would be a strong association. I disagree entirely that simply having a role of the type above automatically generates a strong association, it certainly generates an association, but for it to be a strong association worthy of the creation of a redirect to the notable article which already exists, it needs to be longer lasting, permanent or near permanent. I've said repeatedly, things like a company founder, the person who establishes a school, or someone who becomes strongly associated in the public consciousness with a particular show, company or event. It would be incumbent on the creator of the redirect to demonstrate such an strong association. I really don't think simply being employed as a head teacher, the source of this discussion, can remotely be considered a 'strong' association. Nick (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

To understand why temporary connexion is sufficient, one has to remember the point of A7. It was not created for admins to decide whether a subject is worthy of inclusion but rather to remove articles about subjects that no one (apart from the subject themselves or the creator) would consider worth including and as such, WP:CSD reminds us that speedy deletion should only be applied in clear-cut obvious cases. Now consider the claims Adam mentions above: Any of those subjects will likely be covered in reliable sources and thus potentially be notable. And if they might be notable, they are certainly significant or important enough to pass the low bar of A7. Whether to create a redirect or not is a question to be decided after speedy deletion was declined. In these cases, a redirect would probably be useful since the host of a notable show is definitely a plausible search term. Same goes for the CEO of a notable company. Regards SoWhy 09:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion isn't about A7, it's about the creation and deletion of plausible and implausible redirects, in this case (but not always) after an article has been deleted under the A7 criteria. The approach taken by Adam is that any connection between a person and their employer or place of work is sufficient to create a redirect after an A7 deletion, whilst I and others have suggested redirects need to be plausible. This has led onto a discussion about needing the connection to be significant.
The significance thing is clearly intertwined with plausibility, the host of a notable show, assuming they're the permanent host, would be a plausible redirect given the significance of the connection, a temporary host covering a couple of episodes would have a fairly insignificant connection, and would likely be an implausible redirect. It's the same with the root cause of this discussion - the headteacher of a school was deleted under the A7 criteria (perfectly correctly, and not by me). Adam contested the deletion, and then created a redirect from the name of the headteacher to the article about the school, on the basis that being the headteacher is a significant connection between the person and the existing article, so would create a plausible redirect. I disagree, being a headteacher is a connection, but not a significant connection and the resulting redirect is not plausible. That is, I believe, borne out by the fact that there are no other redirects from the names of past headteachers of the school see here. Nick (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion here is about A7 which is the reason for my comment. If a page's title is a plausible redirect, it should never be deleted, under no speedy deletion criterion, per WP:ATD-R. As for the redirect itself, I disagree with your reasoning, not only because redirects are cheap but because in this case it is a plausible search term since someone looking for information about the head teacher might otherwise not find the page about the school. So I disagree with your reasoning since plausibility is highly subjective. No matter how and why you disagree with someone's assertion of plausibility, you should never use your admin tools to delete a page just because you disagree; we have WP:RFD to discuss this. And I don't think you are setting a good example for any user if you use deletion summaries to call someone else's actions "stupid". Regards SoWhy 13:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I see no evidence, after looking at other schools and the names of other head teachers that such redirects are typical, common or routinely generated, strongly suggesting such redirects are not plausible. I've already pointed out, there are no other redirects from head teacher names for this school. If you think otherwise, then we'll just have to disagree about the validity of the redirect. Nick (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that we create those redirects for the sake of them. That said, just because something is not common practice, doesn't mean it's wrong. Just because something is common practice doesn't mean it's right. The fact here is that someone thought the headmaster is worthy of inclusion, and his connexion with the school made it a plausible redirect. I created the redirect after the A7 because, rather than make a huge fuss,I figured that's probably what I should have done in the first place per WP:BLAR. Adam9007 (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Interviews

Are interviews an indication of significance? If, according to what I've been told, being interviewed by a notable newspaper or magazine is a good starting point in determining notability, or is a clue to the possibility of the subject's notability, doesn't that mean it passes A7? But I was also told that the presence of such a source is not a reason to decline A7, and can only be used if the subject is otherwise notable. I think some clarification is needed as to what types of source are sufficient to pass A7, as these notions seem to contradict each other. Adam9007 (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd say if a notable newspaper or other entity wastes time and money to interview someone, then this means that other coverage is likely in existence as well - which is enough to decline A7. That said, if it's clear that the interview is a one-off thing and it's crystal-clear that no other sources can exist, I'd still think A7 can be applied (see also the discussions cited in ref #1). Regards SoWhy 20:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Software developers

I believe the statement regarding software developers should be refined. The number of people working on a notable software project rises rapidly for even relatively small applications. I don't really see "worked on iOS/VLC/git/etc." as being a credible claim of significance. Are there specific examples where this has been accepted that can be examined? isaacl (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Per the linked RfC, the indication exists, when there is a strong connection to the notable subject. "Has contributed 10 lines of code to VLC" is not a claim of significance, "is one of the most active developers of VLC" is. I'll try to clarify it. Regards SoWhy 08:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; the narrower scope is much better. "Strong connection" is a context-dependent measure; person X might be strongly connected to project Y by virtue of devoting significant effort towards its progress, but may still not be notable in the larger scope of a project with many developers. isaacl (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Tweaks

I added a sentence to the people section here per the outcome of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 10, where the family history was raised explicitly in the DRV challenge, and rejected as a reason to overturn (unanimously endorsed). I've also tweaked footnote 3 to more accurately reflect the outcome of the RfC: it needs to be a strong connection and editors should apply commonsense in determining if a connection implies significance. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Also FWIW, the RfC might be the most poorly attended project space RfC I've seen, so I don't think its that wise to base so much of this essay off of it. I think the idea behind it has some merit, but pointing to it as established consensus is a bit of a stretch here. It was held at an obscure location with minimal participation... I'm hardly suggesting rerunning it, but it isn't as clearcut as it has been held up as. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: The idea that a connection to a notable subject is sufficient is not solely based on the RfC but additionally stems from WP:ATD because in most cases the non-notable member of the family can validly be mentioned in the notable person's article and then redirected there. For example, the son of a notable actor is not per se notable but it makes sense to mention him in a "personal life" section for the actor, which in turn would be a valid redirect. Of course, common sense is - always - required and a connection to a subject in whose article the non-notable subject shouldn't be mentioned is not sufficient. So the DRV does not actually contain new information. As for the RFC, attention or not, it was advertised and open to all members of the community. Poor participation does not invalidate consensus. But again, I think the RFC only reiterated what WP:ATD already says, i.e. that when a strong connection exists, there is most likely an alternative way to handle it. Regards SoWhy 06:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, as always. The DRV actually does vary in practice from what this essay has been held up to mean in the past: the grandchild of a notable actor was determined not to be a reason to invalidate multiple A7 deletions. To my knowledge, this is the first time such a claim has ever came before a deletion review, so I do think it is worth noting.

Re: the RfC, an eight person discussion on an essay rather than an actual policy or guideline talk page isn't much more than a weak local consensus. I actually generally agree with your view re: connection and ATD, but I've always made it clear that I think the blue-link-relative standard is dangerous as a universal standard to be applied without looking at context.

For example: I would disagree with you on the redirect to the parent front (unless the parent was very notable, and the child had received significant coverage in relation to them). Brad Pitt vs. Amy Benedict. The former makes sense, the latter? Not so much. I'd send her (potentially non-existent) children to AfD out of respect for you and Ritchie like I've been doing for any relative of a blue link since January, but I do think that its significant that a DRV that was equally as well attended as the RfC in question did not consider a claim of close relationship to a minor notable actress to be grounds to overturn an A7 when it was mentioned in the article. I think that is an indication of where the community sits on the relative question, and that it should help inform practice.TonyBallioni (talk) 07:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

But that's the point, isn't it? If the parent is notable, the children might have received coverage as well. And in most cases this is sufficient to include a mention in the parent's article. Take Rob Benedict for example. If someone created Calvin Fox Benedict[1], would the project really be best served by deleting the article instead of merging it to Rob_Benedict#Personal_life? Regards SoWhy 09:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it would absolutely be in the best interests of the encyclopedia to delete, and more importantly it would be in Calvin Benedict's best interests. It has unlimited potential for harm with next to zero benefit to the reader: redirects of BLPs to other BLPs are dangerous because they're forgotten and permenately associate a living person with an article where they have no control over the actions that lead to the content of the article. For example, if Mr. Benedict became an notorious murderer overnight, I assume his otherwise unknown son wouldn't want his name pointing towards his father on one of the most popular websites in the world. This is an extreme example, but it shows the real harm this practice could have. AfD would have no hesitance deleting such an article, especially if the nom actively argued against a redirect. I don't mind arguing this at AfD, and I'm normally quite effective at it. The issue is that the blue-link relative standard is not a widely accepted claim of significance, but has been promoted as one. It's much more complex than that and requires context and judgment calls. We have to be careful about dealing in absolutes here. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to disagree here. If a casual reader wants to find information about Calvin Benedict, he does not care about where he finds it but he cares about finding it at all. That's what WP:PRESERVE teaches us. If there really is harm, the redirect and the mention can then be discussed. But removing valid information because how we handle it might harm someone is a reasoning that would justify removing all such "personal life" sections of all BLP articles because who can predict who will become a serial killer tomorrow? And where does this reasoning stop? Some parents might be offended to be associated with their homosexual children. Should we remove mention of them in the children's articles because of that?

Point is, it's a slippery slope to argue that a person's article has to be deleted because they might not want to be seen associated with the person they are verifiably associated. Our job is not to remove verifiable information because of potential harm. In fact, as one can read in Wikipedia:Avoiding harm, "do no harm" was rejected as part of the BLP policy because it contradicts WP:NPOV; it's not Wikipedia's job to judge whether information is "good" or "bad", just whether it's verifiable. In the end, we have to remember that Wikipedia is comprehensive because it is an encyclopedia and if I can find the information in a book about actors, I should find it in Wikipedia.

On a side note: this essay is called "common claims of significance or importance" because in most cases these claims are sufficient to at least warrant some other treatment than speedy deletion, be it redirecting, merging or simply a deletion discussion. Common sense applies everywhere though, so if the article reads "Tony Ballioni is the son of Charles Manson and plans to continue his legacy", that would not stop an A7 deletion despite the claim. Regards SoWhy 12:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

And a slippery slope is a fallacy . There's a real difference between your name automatically going to an article where your actions have zero impact, and briefly mentioning your parents as a wikilink in your own article. The issue with redirects of BLPs to other BLPs is that they are quickly forgotten so they can very easily turn into BLP concerns without anyone realizing it. I consider that actual harm and very much in violation behind the guiding principles of our BLP policy.

To bring this back on topic, there is no consensus that a close relationship to an individual is automatic exemption from A7. The point I'm trying to make is that if an article said Tony Ballioni's mother Tonya was a D-list actress who barely meets NACTOR, acted in some films in the 80s but hasn't been heard from since. He's currently Vice President of marketing at Widgetor's Widget Emporium, a small business in Foo that sells widgets. He has a dog and is not a cat person, that should not be grounds to decline an A7, and it would probably be unanimously endorsed at DRV, which I think means that the essay could make it more clear that relatives are not always claims to significance, even if they are close. They need to be a strong connection, and the individual needs to be very notable, which is the general practice currently applied at most AfDs where the question comes up, and the standard recognized by another editor in the linked DRV. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

A slippery slope argument can be a fallacy but mine was more an argumentum ad absurdum anyway because where would you stop with such associations? What would you do when someone claims them being associated with a murderer is as harmful as them being associated with a gay person? And especially, how is deciding this compatible with WP:NPOV and WP:V when the association is verifiable?

As I said above, the guiding principle should be WP:5P (especially #1 and #2): If someone might expect to find the information in an encyclopedia, we should include it. I don't think we disagree too much here actually. I rephrased and expanded the section based on our conversation. I think this meets both our viewpoints. Regards SoWhy 15:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

We agree that the 5P should be our guiding principles, but I suspect I have a stricter view on how they interact with the principles behind the BLP policy than you: we could probably spend hours debating it in person (and actually likely find a guiding principle we both agree on I suspect.) I'm not trying to dodge your specific questions, I just think anything involving BLP policy is complex, and it'd be difficult to delve into on this talk page.

Thanks for your changes. I think they incorporated both of our views well. I took out the parenthetical re: relatives on bio pages. I think it's better to leave that up to a judgment call on the patrollers part rather than advise it. I also made tweaks to the bit on merging and redirecting: doing so unilaterally without discussion wouldn't take into account of those that might think deletion is preferable in these cases. The idea being that if someone wants to tag something for deletion, they likely have a case to make for it, and a wider community discussion on controversial matters is always preferable to unilateral action. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 4 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 07:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Common claims of significance or importance → User:SoWhy/Common claims of significance or importance – The more I think about this, the more I realise that this is the opinion of a small (if not tiny) minority of editors (of which I am one of), and I cannot escape the conclusion that this contradicts widespread (if informal) consensus. If so, this being in project space would be a violation of WP:POLICIES, which says that such essays belong in userspace. The cited discussions amount to, at best, local minority consensuses, and there's plenty that isn't cited at all (I have tried and failed to find support for it) and that I find hard to believe most would consider claims of significance. This being in project space can also give an impression of some community approval, which this does not seem to have. I'm wondering if this ought to be userfied? Adam9007 (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. This page strives to collect consensus and does so by linking to previous discussions which is how consensus is generated. If entries are not reflecting consensus, change or delete them. We had plenty of discussion about various entries already and there were changes made. I created this page in Wikipedia space explicitly because I did not want it to be my essay but to collaborate on a page that all interested editors can refer to when doing A7 speedy work. Plus, since a number of people did work on it, moving it to my userspace would be incorrect since Wikipedia-space is also the place for minority essays (if one considers this one of those). Regards SoWhy 07:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• linking to previous discussions which is how consensus is generated Not always it seems. It has been (in my experience) that it's not what is written down we go by, it's often what's not. There are many things for which there is clearly consensus, but for which there is no discussion to that effect that I can find. For instance, the notion that WP:NOTINHERITED applies: judging by my experience, the community considers the RfC linked to by this essay (which this essay relies very heavily on. In fact, one could argue that it is based primarily on it, along with a particular interpretation (for which no consensus has been proven to exist) of based on what is arguably incorrectly labelled as policy) to be only a local consensus (and thus invalid) and not reflective of the wider community's view (which certainly differs from that shown at the RfC). I can't find any discussion that outright says that but consensus for it definitely exists. That's why I said informal consensus. It may be a procedurally flawed, sham consensus, but in my experience, it being consensus is all that matters to most people. It would look rather silly of me I I were to change (to what?) or remove the entries that rely on it, especially as I have nothing that can be cited to replace it with (unless you count editors having a go at me and whatnot, which I don't). That's actually my biggest problem with A7: you can't just go and look it up like you can with most other things. It's something whose consensus you can only learn as you go along and as soon as you think you're getting somewhere (like I did with that RfC), nonsense happens and it's back to square one. By the time you are forced to conclude that consensus is not what the policies, guidelines, and discussions available imply, you're on the verge of a topic ban. For what it's worth, I am actually writing an essay comparing what certain policies, guidelines, and essays are in name to what they are in practice, and my findings so far suggest that we should not rely on policies of this area. Of course, this is just my experience and I could be completely wrong about everything I've said (in fact, I hope I am!), but I think I've had more than enough bad experiences to be confident.
• Wikipedia-space is also the place for minority essays Not if they contradict a majority opinion (at least, that's how I'm interpreting our policy on essays). Adam9007 (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a group effort that's trying to document a general consensus. If, heaven forbid, SoWhy joined the Peace Corps tomorrow and quit Wikipedia, other editors would still be able to continue maintaining it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

#Athlete

This page is very useful. Do we have any links for "played for a well-known notable team"? Thanks. Leviv ich 03:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I would think the entirety of WP:NSPORTS. Primefac (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, NSPORTS is about notability, not CSD, right? Notability is a higher standard than the standard applied to CSD? NSPORTS doesn't say anything about the standard to be applied at CSD, does it? NSPORTS seems to be consistent in judging the notability of an individual athlete based upon what league they're in, rather than what team. I don't see "well-known notable team" as a phrase in NSPORTS. Is "well-known notable" redundant? Is "well-known" a measurable standard? Other entries on this list of Common claims of significance or importance link to discussions. I'm asking if there's a discussion, a list of CSD outcomes, a DRV, an RfC, or anything, where the "played for a well-known notable team" is derived from. Is there a list of CSD deletions and declines somewhere? Thanks, Leviv ich 13:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I would argue that if NSPORTS is not met, then the person should not have an article and CSDing the article would be perfectly acceptable. Part of NSPORTS is "played for a notable team" so if that's met then there's a possibility of NSPORTS being met which means CSD isn't applicable. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

What is your opinion about a situation where an article is created for a footballer who does not meet NFOOTY because they played only for teams that are in leagues that are not listed on WP:FPL (and this information is in the article, sourced, at creation)? If the article establishes that the subject would not meet NSPORTS, and the article otherwise has no references, would it be an A7 candidate? Aside from your individual opinion, do you know of anywhere where this has been discussed before? I ask because I notice that about half of footy AfDs are for articles of footballers that don't meet NFOOTY, and almost all that are nominated end up being deleted because it seems to be very rare that a subject who doesn't meet NFOOTY nonetheless has enough coverage to meet BASIC/GNG. (Indeed, I've been trying to show that even subjects that do meet NFOOTY still don't get enough coverage, i.e. fail WP:42.) It seems like a lot of time would be saved if we could A7 articles that are unreferenced for players who plainly don't meet NSPORTS (or any other SNG). I've been asking admin about this and getting a variety of answers, some in favor of A7 and others opposed. So I'm wondering what your opinion is and then also when's the last time the community looked at this–i.e., is it worth bringing up again. Thank you again for taking the time to answer my many questions here :-) Leviv ich 16:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: This page is very useful. I'm glad someone thinks so! To be perfectly honest, for quite some time I've had doubts as to whether this essay accurately reflects consensus (see the RM discussion above, although that barely scratches the surface), and if Primefac's comment is any indication of the wider community's views, I am correct in that assessment. Although there are plenty of citations, most amount only to a local consensus, which many see as invalid. To answer your question, I don't think there's any discussion which 'played for a well-known notable team' (or even most of the other claims on the list) are directly derived from :(. I think most of this essay is merely an interpretation (one that doesn't have nearly as much support as implied) of what little we do have. Adam9007 (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd concur with Adam. This essay is the brainchild of a small group of users who want to make sure that every article gets a fair shake at AFD (for the record, I do not entirely agree with this essay but respect the opinions of those involved and their decision to write/post it); there is (as far as I am aware) no major discussion or even an OUTCOMES-based consensus-like process which says that a non-NFOOTY player must be deleted. I suppose one could make the claim that since Team X has an article, the player is at the very least worth sending through AFD and not the speedy process, but if we're at the point where 99% of said players do get deleted at AFD, it's pretty much a clue that it's a CSD-worthy class of articles. Primefac (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

What brought me here is that I've been tracking footy bio AfDs at User:Levivich/Footy AfDs, and I saw that Fikram Mohammad, Ivan Hakimi and Juzaerul Jasmi were tagged A7 by an editor, the A7 was declined by SoWhy with an edit summary citing WP:CCSI#ATHLETE, and then they were listed at AfD, and it seems they will go the same way as the other AfDs of unreferenced articles for players who don't meet NFOOTY ("fails NFOOTY, fails GNG, delete" is the common refrain). It seems to me that these three should have been A7'd. Pinging Ymblanter and GiantSnowman with whom I've had recent discussions about this in case they may want to chime in. Leviv ich 19:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac, Levivich, and Adam9007: The point of this essay was to create an accurate map of consensus, so if that changes, the essay should too. The main basis for that particular entry is the RFC that's cited to it, i.e. that a strong tie to a notable subject is in most cases a sufficient claim of significance. I won't stand against clarifying that articles about footballers at least should contain a claim of WP:NFOOTY to survive A7 if no other GNG claims exist. Regards SoWhy 20:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The point of A7 is to deal with clearly non-notable articles. It is for for athletes (or others) who might be notable - it is completely appropriate for those articles to go off to AFD, even if it's 99% clear that they will be deleted. GiantSnowman 20:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

If it's 99% clear that they will be deleted, isn't it a waste of our time to put those articles through AfD? Leviv ich 22:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

No, we have processes for a reason. 'X is a top-level footballer' is a claim to notability; for some players (like those in USA or England etc.) that claim, if true, makes them notable. But the same can't be said for players in countries like Guam or Samoa or San Marino. That is why AFDs are useful, to confirm that. And, of course, a player can be non-notable per NFOOTBALL but notable per GNG. The AFD allows editors to try and find sources and improve articles. We'd have nothing if short stubs about possibly notable people were routinely speedy deleted. GiantSnowman 08:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Agree, csd is not appropriate where there is a claim of significance such as playing for a notable club and the existence of reliable sources (not just present in the article) is determined by Prod or AFD, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Out of 68 Footy biography AfDs that have closed so far in 2019, 44 (65%) did not meet NFooty. Of those 44, one resulted in keep and one in no consensus because of GNG coverage. The other 42 (95%) were deleted. Of 25 currently-pending Footy bio AfDs, 19 (76%) do not meet NFooty. What's wrong with insisting that an article creator creating a Footy bio that fails NFooty include at least one source suggesting notability under GNG? Doing so would eliminate most of the NFooty AfDs. Leviv ich 19:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Just, no. GiantSnowman 20:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Use for notability determinations

I have jsut seen this essay cited as a reason to decline a draft at AfC, that is, as a way to determine notability. I am, going to add a comment to the essay that this is not proper. If anyone thinks this is not appropriate, revert me and we can discuss further. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

DESiegel, this is genuinely out of curiosity, but if they don't even meet the "this is the minimum threshold to not be A7'd" standards described in this essay, how would a draft be accepted/acceptable? Primefac (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Your edit answered my question. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Primefac. Note that the AfC comment in question was, in full, Doesn't meet WP:CCSI#BIZBIO, apparently without considering the :"All People" section of the essay. I trust you would agree that that is not a proper use of the essay. The draft in question was Draft:Adeeb Ahamed (businessman). I would decline an A7 on this if it were so tagged in mainspace. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, though from a quick skim of the article at time of decline I won't disagree with the decline itself (just the extra rationale). Primefac (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

This just goes to show that it's time to do away with the significance/importance terminology used by A7, A9, and A11; they're far too easily confused with notability (well, this coupled with the fact I've seen this happen the other way around a gazillion times). Adam9007 (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Then what terminologu should we use, Adam9007? You won't get consensus to abolish A7 and company, and they are needed. We can't use "notability" itself, as that should not be for one or two editors to determine in a speedy deletion process. We need to be able to distinguish those articles that say something about the subject to indicate that there is at least a possibility of notability being found -- say a 1 in 10 chance or better, enough that discussion is needed -- from those that say nothing of the sort. If we don't call such a statement a "claim of significance" then we will have to call it something. What would be less confused with notability and represent that concept at all naturally? I can't think of an improvement. Really this should be discussed at WT:CSD where it has been brought up before, and no one has suggested a term people think better. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we can call it by any single word that doesn't sound too synonymous with notability. The best I can think of is: 'indication of possible suitability for inclusion' (perhaps with emphasis on 'possible'), or something along those lines. However, it is important to note that inclusion does not always mean having a standalone article, as I did at Wikipedia:Field guide to proper speedy deletion. By the way, do you really mean that 1 in 10 is a high enough possibility to avoid speedy? If my experience is any indication (and I must assume it is), that's way too low; common practice seems to be more like 6 in 10. I think this is due to the fact that Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance once said: Any statement which plausibly indicates that additional research (possibly offline, possibly in specialized sources) has a reasonable chance of demonstrating notability is a claim of significance (my bolding). I don't think that's what it was meant to imply, but that certainly seem to be how it was interpreted, even though it's in contradiction to policy, which says practical chance (I removed the word 'reasonable' to reflect that). Adam9007 (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that indication of possible suitability for inclusion is an improvement on claim of significance In fact, I think it is worse. But I am open to suggestions, it is the concept not the term that I care about.

As for 1 in 10, yes, I do think that is about the right standard, perhaps even as high as 1 in 20, and that is what I use when declining A7s, which I do a lot of. I would put it that "Any statement which, if supported by sources, would indicate a non-trivial chance that evidence supporting notability that would persuade some participants at an AfD to favor keeping the article might well be uncovered, is a claim of significance. The statement need not itself be evidence of notability." DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how that's worse? In fact, it seems to me to reflect the concept better, as 'significance' is rather vague. But one thing is sure: for as long as the current terminology is used, notability criteria will continue to be misapplied to A7. Adam9007 (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)