Wikipedia talk:Notability (Septuagenarian female plumbers with red hair and freckles)

Scope of proposal

The most pertinent question in most minds will be whether this guideline covers all red headed women in this age/vocation category or only natural redheads. Further distinctions among strawberry blondes and true carrot tops may be a bit too subject specific, and all efforst should be made to contain unrealistic rule creep. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume that this proposed guideline applies only to septuagenarian female plumbers with natural red hair and freckles. Where can I find the guideline for those with dyed hair? Also, which shade of red? Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Seriously, :)

Which of course begs the question, what of currently grey-haired but formerly natural redheaded septegnarian female plumbers? And at what point does one become a plumber? Does one merely need to be working in the plumbing industry, or does the proposal only cover liscenced and bonded plumbers? What about people with the correct credentials, but are not currently working in the field? There are some major problems we have to work out! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Scope of species included

It is not clear if this proposal is meant to apply to only humans (homo sapien), or also to beavers (castor canadensis, castor fiber), particularly the american beaver, which also has red fur (and builds water control systems). Peet Ern (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Very few beavers are going to reach septuagenarian status, and if they do, then that in and of itself is notable. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find it is more than you might realise. I assume we are counting species years, for example, human years versus dog years versus beaver years. Peet Ern (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. But does this mean expanding this page or adding another more specific guideline re Beavers who plumb in old age? --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It depends. If the old age plumbing beaver is also a horse jockey who formed a pop group and recorded one song then they should have their own guideline. Otherwise they should be included in the generic WP:NF70+PB guideline. Peet Ern (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A pressing question is also whether the hair color of the beaver is different from that of the plumber.--Father Goose (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Careful! We're talking plumbing not anatomy. --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Temporal scope

Will this criterion, ahem, age? Can one be a sfpwrhaf emeritus or just lose standing altogether? Do we now have to have ofpwrhaf's too? Notability creep. Bah! Saintrain (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

ofpwrhaf are probably not notable. Actuarially, it is notable to make it to 70, but once 70 it is more likely to make it to 80, than for a 60 year old. Therefore, a ofpwrhaf is not necessarily as notable as a sfpwrhaf. Peet Ern (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Argh! At 51, it is appealing to make it to the O. --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

White House Plumbers

I have added an additional criteria, based on Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals, and partly on Wikipedia:Notability_(criminal_acts)#Perpetrators. Spookily these diverse inclusion criteria seems to gell quite well, so would you not agree that we should push for an RFC to obtain approval for this proposed guideline? --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)