Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2016

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


Change subsection title at WP:PORNBIO

The subsection is titled "pornographic actors and models" but the text applies to "people involved in pornography" including e.g. directors. Should we change the subsection title to "people involved in pornography" as well, to avoid confusion? --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The most recent change made to the wording referred to above came only as an attempt to be "more concise ... without changing (the) meaning" of the actual wording of PORNBIO, which really only applies to "Pornographic actors and (only) pornographic models". Film directors (from any genre) can also be evaluated under the creative professionals standard. Guy1890 (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Film producers

Is there guidance somewhere about what constitutes notability for producers - of films, TV shows, etc.? I can't find it at this page or at WP:NFILM, but I'm guessing that consensus guidelines do exist - possibly not written down. My specific question is, if a person has been the producer (THE producer, not just one out of several executive producers) of a notable TV series or film, is that considered to make them notable? Or does it require multiple such productions, or a particularly notable production? Or what is required? Thanks for any information. --MelanieN (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that the closest guideline for producers would be the creative professionals guideline. Guy1890 (talk) 05:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC notice: Ethnicity in infoboxes

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Ethnicity in Infoboxes for ongoing RfC to remove |ethnicity= from infoboxes. (Not sure why this page wasn't notified earlier, since the central question of relevance of inclusion is whether it relates to the subject's reasons for notability).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC notice: Religion in biographical infoboxes

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes for new RfC to remove |religion= from {{Infobox person}} (except where consensus determines it is directly relevant to why the subject is notable).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Notability for district attorneys?

I have a bit of a question/concern. I know that politicians at the state level are considered to be notable, meaning that politicians serving in the House of Representatives would be considered notable. However would a U.S. District Attorney for the state of Virginia be considered noteworthy for having served in that role? I would presume so, but I wanted to ask before I threw it onto my huge pile of articles that need to be written. The person in question is this guy. He otherwise doesn't have a ton of coverage outside of reprintings of court documents. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: that guy is not a district attorney but a United States Attorney. I think it's very much a case by case basis in either case though. In that particular one, I think the Encyclopedia of Virginia makes a pretty decent case for notability; assuming that there are other sources besides that one alone, I'd call that notable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clarification! I wasn't entirely sure on that one. In any case, finding sources for Ferguson is surprisingly difficult considering some of the claims to fame in the article. Most of it is primary, as it's accounts of his various interactions with the legal system and government. Part of this is probably because he went by S. Ferguson Beach and somewhat under his full name, depending on the document. S. Ferguson Beach seems to be the common name, though. I'll add it to my pile, since it looks like that one will take some serious digging. He's probably mentioned somewhere in some off-Internet source. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't know what the state of digitised newspapers is in Virginia, but I find it hard to believe that a United States Attorney wouldn't have newspaper coverage from the period: a Google News search for the US Attorney in Virginia's Eastern District today (picking one at random) turns up nearly eight hundred hits.. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Location of sources

If a biography has coverage entirely from a certain geographic region, does that make them less notable? I wrote an article about a former mayor of a 25,000 person city, Linda Cohen, and it is currently up for deletion. There are at least two sources that cover her life in-depth. However, one is from a large but local newspaper and the other from a local weekly. Several editors have argued that because the coverage is from sources based in her region, they should be discounted as routine. However, I found nothing about this in guidelines. Please advise and comment if you see fit.--TM 22:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

vagueness of WP:NACTOR

The guideline WP:NACTOR is very vague. How many "significant roles"? How many notable films etc. is "multiple notable films etc."? How many people make a "large fan base"? Are these requirements all needed or only one of them? --SuperJew (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

  • "How many 'significant roles'?"
See below, but a "significant role" has usually meant a non-bit part or not an uncredited role.
"How many notable films etc. is 'multiple notable films etc.'?"
Multiple has historically just meant more than one on Wikipedia, but the films/television shows/stage performances/etc. in question likely need to have their own Wikipedia pages already in order to be "notable".
"How many people make a 'large fan base'?"
That's a great question...to which I've never seen an answer as of this date.
"Are these requirements all needed or only one of them?"
Only one of the three specific items listed under "Entertainers" is needed to pass NACTOR. Guy1890 (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

PORNBIO and significant or well-known awards

Criterion #1 of WP:PORNBIO is so vague as to be useless. What makes an award significant or well-known enough to prove notability? No one seems to agree. I've read through this talk page's archives trying to find what consensus there might be on this topic and the best I found was back in 2014 (following the last major revamp of the criteria) where someone said that the award or the award-giving group should be in Category:Pornographic film awards, an assertion which was immediately disputed (Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2014#PORNBIO again). Since this is such a contentious area, there should be a clear list (most likely somewhere on WP:PORN) of what awards (and media appearances, for that matter) are considered acceptable under criterion #1. WP:MILHIST and WP:JOURNALS have very clear essays on notability, but WP:PORN doesn't, which leads to contested PRODs and heavily disputed AFDs. clpo13(talk) 20:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The way that I've viewed the PORNBIO standard for quite some time is that an award win has to be from "a well-known" adult industry award ceremony in a "significant industry award" category. Not all award ceremonies or specific award categories are going to meet this kind of standard. In terms of being "featured multiple times in notable mainstream media", a subject must have been featured (not simply made a brief appearance in) more than once (which is merely what multiple means - more than one) in any kind of mainstream media that has a Wkipedia article (which makes it notable) written about it.
My understanding is that (at some date long ago) there was some kind of listing about what specific award ceremonies were considered to be "well-known" enough to be included in this guideline, but that consensus never lasted over the long run. Basically, the PORNBIO standard is molded in large part after the ANYBIO standard, which isn't specific at all either. Guy1890 (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

BIO1E and highly significant events

In the second paragraph at WP:BIO1E, the assassination that led to the start of World War I is given as an example (and the only example) of a "highly significant" event. My instinct is to be guided by that example, to ask the question: "Is the event covered in (or reasonably expected to be covered in) history books?" Others prefer to use a lower bar, especially for more recent events, that requires only extensive RS coverage and a subjective assessment of the event's impact. They would include events that very likely will not be covered in history books. Which approach better reflects the community consensus here?

In my opinion, if the example is to be largely ignored, it should be removed as misleading. Or, more language should be added to clarify this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Zero response after one week, so now at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Clarification of BIO1E. Please participate there. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

People with buildings named after them?

I recently moved a mainspace article to AfC, Draft:Arthur M. Pico. At first glance the man doesn't seem to be outwardly notable, however one of the claims of notability on the talk page was that he had a public school named after him.

Would this count towards notability? Offhand I think that it should since it's fairly rare that schools are named after completely random people that don't impact their community. I don't think that it should count towards complete notability, but maybe it could count towards partial notability? I'm asking this on behalf of Markspico, who is willing to improve the article (hence why I moved it). There's likely a COI and I've already warned him about that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

but wouldn't such a person have enough coverage to meet WP:ANYBIO (as you said above "it's fairly rare that schools are named after completely random people that don't impact their community")? Also, could this become a precedent so that in the future an editor asks that, for example, named hospital wings, gym halls, art galleries also count towards someones notability? Coolabahapple (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
In the United States schools are sometimes named as memorials for people who aren't particularly notable, but have some connection to the community. For example, Craig Williams Elementary School in Los Angeles is named for a former student who died in the Vietnam War at 21 years old; I.S. 72 in New York is named for Police Officer Rocco Laurie who was killed by the Black Liberation Army; and a school in Virginia is named after another police officer who died in a motorcycle crash. Pburka (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Sure it counts toward notability.  Notability is evidence that a topic has received the attention of the world at large over a period of time.  Named buildings have the same property as publications stored in a library, in that they continue to attract attention over time, so it is an uphill battle to claim that such a topic is not notable.  However, notability is just a guideline, and articles require the sources to write a verifiable, NPOV article.  Further, this looks like an issue related to WP:BLP1E, which says that we prefer to cover the event rather than the individual.  Why would we want a biography if the only relevant part of the biography is to say that the school was named after them?  So the notability of the building becomes a factor.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

We really need a sentence/paragraph/section on interviews

Interviews have been discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2013#clarifying_that_interviews_with_people_about_themselves_or_their_creations_counts_towards_their_notability, Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2010#Interviews_as_evidence_of_notability, and Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2014#Okay_-_what.27s_the_official_word_on_interviews.3F. I think that Wikipedia:Interviews summarizes the current consensus. What is particularly useful for us is Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability. Editors who come to WP:NBIO currently get no help at all, no hint, no link to that page, or anything about whether interviews are notable or not. As the linked archival discussions shows, this is a recurring question. Even a short sentence like "Interviews may, but do not have, cont for notability, see Wikipedia:Interviews for details" would help a lot by at least telling those interested that the community has given some thought to it before. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

  • No, this essay confuses WP:N with WP:GNG, and IMO mishandles WP:GNG.  Policy exists at [1].  I don't think that interviews are that hard to understand, but I don't seem to have anything to add to what I said in Archive 2013 linked above:

Overview  An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the topic, and as such, interviews directly contribute to wp:notability.  The material provided to the interview by the interviewer and the publication is secondary.  The material provided by the interviewee may be primary, if the interviewee is speaking about his own life, or may be secondary, if the interviewee is recognized as an expert on the topic being reported.  Back to wp:notability, interviews show a range of attention being given to the topic and should be weighted accordingly.  Elements of interviews include selecting the topic, contacting the topic, preparation of questions, and writing supplemental material such as a bio.  I saw one interview in which a topic approached a niche magazine and succeeded in getting an interview published, which is marginal and only barely more than self published.  At the other end are interviews that show a depth of preparation, such as those that include a bio.

Unscintillating (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't feel prepared to weigh in on whether that essay follows policy, but as someone relatively new (<500 edits), I'll say that I've already seen a lot of conflicting comments at AfD about if and when any part of interviews counts as a secondary source for notability, and I hadn't, prior to this thread, been able to find a clear answer. It'd be great if that were easier to come by (and perhaps something a little more fleshed out than "depending on context"--i.e. what aspects of context should be considered?) Innisfree987 (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:CREATIVE and the "well-known or significant" work clause: clarification request

I came here as a result of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Julie_Hamill, which was an eye-opener for me. I nominated but after discussion I see that either my understanding of the guideline is faulty, or the guideline itself is unclear. The nomination is still ongoing, but it is probable to end up keeping given that I "withdrew" and the delete !votes are not extremely strong arguments.

The question, put bluntly, is the following: if a work of art (broadly construed, including non-fiction books) is notable, does it make its author presumably notable under WP:CREATIVE #3?

In my mind, the answer was "obviously no", but if we go by the current wording in its plain meaning the answer is yes. If a work of art is notable, it is "well-known or significant"; and to be notable, it has to have been "the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews".

Note also that the footnote just behind that line was added by User:Xender Lourdes during the AfD. I think it provides the necessary clarification if their understanding of the policy is correct, but it is not really part of a long history of interpretation of the guideline (so please, don't tell me I should have read the footnote before asking). On the other hand, if the answer is a clear no, or if none really knows, it is probably worth an RfC to see the community consensus on that.

TigraanClick here to contact me 19:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment As I said in the AfD, it seems fairly clear to me that the current guideline makes such a person "likely" notable--but whether that's what the policy should be, I'm not ready to say. Instinctively, I think not everyone who has a noted book becomes a noted author--but when I try to think of examples, I wonder if imposing different strictures about specific author notice, distinct from book notice, might wrongly exclude people who are note-worthy because of their creations, not because of fame. (An allowance we make for researchers, for instance.) Or put differently, I wonder if biographies of authors of important books (even if just one book) is simply something an encyclopedia should have, even if there hasn't been much notice about the author. (Obviously you'd need enough for a verifiable article but typically that's a lower standard than notability.) In any case would be interested to hear others' views. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "If a work of art is notable, it is 'well-known or significant'". I don't know that's actually true always. Well-known or significant is often seen at AfD to be at least a slightly higher standard than just notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I've also personally never seen the reverse be true...something that doesn't have its own Wikipedia article being considered well-known and/or significant. I know that there was recently a footnote of some kind added to "Creative professionals #3" that says otherwise, but I don't agree with that at all & it didn't appear to have been discussed here prior to its recent addition.
"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" is very similar wording to ANYBIO wording: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."
I also personally think that the idea that "notability is not inherited" flies in the face of many of our established notability guidelines ("four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances"), but that's a larger issue for sure. Guy1890 (talk) 03:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
About the footnote addition, well, here is a good opportunity to discuss it. Well-known or significant is often seen at AfD to be at least a slightly higher standard than just notable (...) - precisely my thoughts, but if it is so, it would not hurt to write it down.
About WP:INHERITED, that is kind of a gray area. Of course, not every poem of a notable poet is notable - actually, it is likely that a large part of their younger works are artistically and historically uninteresting. But a poet that made a notable poem does not fall under "inherited" immediately - or else, pretty much no single creative person is notable ever, since they are famous because of their creative contributions. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Still agnostic on what the best solution is but yes I think a clarification is definitely in order, and might help this WP:INHERITED issue as well as the WP:CREATIVE #3 one. "Under certain circumstances" doesn't offer much to go on for when notability is meant to be "inherited".
In terms of what that would look like. If "well-known" and "significant" should be higher standards than "notable", can I ask how folks would envision defining those terms (or the distinction among those terms)? Innisfree987 (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Innisfree987, I think WP:CREATIVE #4c is a good test for that. See below for a proposed wording. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
"If 'well-known' and 'significant' should be higher standards than 'notable', can I ask how folks would envision defining those terms (or the distinction among those terms)?" In the PORNBIO standard ("Has won a well-known and significant industry award"), I've never seen an award ceremony that doesn't already have it's own Wikipedia article satisfy the "well-known and significant" standard. I routinely interpret that standard to mean that a particular award ceremony must be "well-known" enough (at least within the adult film industry) and that the specific award category in question must be "significant" (or basically be a major award) enough to meet the PORNBIO standard. In other words, not all award ceremonies or specific award categories meet the PORNBIO standard at AfD. Again, the PORNBIO standard is modeled off of ANYBIO ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor") standard, but PORNBIO is basically a higher standard than ANYBIO for several reasons.
I would note that the standard under scrutiny here says "significant or well-known" (emphasis mine) though instead of significant and well-known. Guy1890 (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I too share the sense it's worthwhile to have community discussion of the added footnote but I want to emphasize that a book not (yet) having a Wikipedia page is no indication on whether it's significant or well-known. We know there's WP:BIAS in what has and hasn't been written about in Wikipedia so far, plus standards like notability inhere in subjects rather than in their entries WP:ARTN, etc. Maybe all the more reason to clarify the standard, lest we resort to unreliable ones for lack of anything firmer. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list," and "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity..." (I've taken the words from the general notability guideline.)
First the question of what is well known. You have to be clear of the perceptive with which one is considering wp:creative. For example, while you may be a well known youtube video contributor (a piece of work, if you may), you need not be deemed to have made a significant contribution until reliable sources have covered your work. CREATIVE, by demanding coverage in reliable sources, protects us from having such well known youtube stars. Do you think Eva Gutowski is well known? She is a rage amongst a significant majority. Yet, the only way she can claim notability is if her coverage supports her credentials, which it does: Eva Gutowski. So the three questions and answers I put forward for your clarification are as follows:
  1. Is well known a higher requirement than notable? Not necessarily, as shown above, and not in a majority of cases.
  2. Can a work be well known and still not be covered by reliable source? Yes, quite possible.
  3. Can a work covered by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject be considered not well known? I leave the answer to your perspective.
In summary, in my view, notability is a higher achievement than well known. Creative mentions that the well known work has to be the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". But there is no mention of the significance of coverage, allowing much leeway. WP:Creative by its very basis is supposed to be a lower requirement than GNG (thus, to place well known as being a higher requirement than GNG goes against the reason Creative exists). The reason WP:Creative exists is to ensure that in cases where an individual has created work that may be well known (a lower standard generally than notability), and if that work has been the subject of multiple reliable sources, there is a significant probability that the individual in the future may qualify on GNG because they may be covered in the future by multiple reliable sources, or that such in-depth reliable sources may currently exist and have simply not been searched by editors. In my view, in the case of an author, if a book is deemed notable, then there should be encouragement provided to editors to develop the biography of the author – that I believe is why Author exists as a guideline, while inherit, not inherit exist as essays.
In plain reading, Author should perhaps be read as: "If you personally believe the work is well-known or significant, please first ensure the work has been the subject of a few reliable sources before you include the author's biography. Alternatively, if the work is already notable or deemed to be notable by editors as per Wikipedia's guidelines, sure, go ahead!" This sounds tad frivolous but this may perhaps summarise the specific subpoint of the guideline. Lourdes 06:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This strikes me as persuasively argued and, I'm inclined to think, in Wikipedia's best interest. I think the idea WP:CREATIVE is intentionally a lower standard than WP:BASIC is a good principle, and I'm worried that what could be lost in knowledge from discouraging some such entries is more valuable than what would be gained through raising the standard of...shall we call it rigor? Exclusivity? That said I'm still interested to hear someone say more concretely what it would look like to raise the bar, maybe my fears about worthwhile entries being lost would be assuaged. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • When contemplating lowering or relaxing notability standards, particularly where subjects have a financial interest like CREATIVE, please remember that Wikipedia is often used as a vehicle for promotion and SEO. Idealism I'd fine but Wikipedia is free advertising and many, many people target it for such. JbhTalk 16:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
As I understand it, no one's suggesting the standard be lowered; on the contrary the suggestion is that maybe the standard should be raised. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Reflecting on this further. I really don't think we should be taking that into account! To me the question is properly, is an entry worthy of notice for this encyclopedia? and not, what were the motives behind the initial creation of the entry? I understand WP:PROMOTION to be specifically addressed to "content" and WP:NPOV concerns, not WP:NOTABILITY, so and only WP:NOTABILITY so far as rejecting promotional sources as unreliable is concerned, not for discounting a subject if reliable sources also exist. So though there may be bad actors in creating articles, that should not affect judgment of subjects, per WP:ARTN. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC) (Correction!) Innisfree987 (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so none seems to really know what "well-known or significant" means. Maybe someone with more experience will come later? In any case, here is a draft of the two (opposite) options for clarification I can imagine.

  • The "low bar" option:
    3.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. A work that is notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article is presumed to meet this criteria.
  • The "high bar" option, involving a rewrite of WP:CREATIVE #4 as well:
    3.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. In particular, if a person has created or played a major role in co-creating at least two separately notable works, he or she is presumed to be notable.
4.The person's work (or works) The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a work or body of work that either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

The first one looks reasonably clear to me (even though I tend to oppose the idea, as I already wrote), but i am not sure about the second one. The idea is to shift notability resting on a single work to (4) with is a higher threshold than simple notability, but it may just shift the debate about that threshold from (3) to (4c). There is also the option to just go with Lourdes' footnote, which goes somewhat in the same direction as the "low bar" option but leaves more leeway to editors (which is not necessarily a bad thing). TigraanClick here to contact me 17:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Definitly not the "low bar". I am not even all that keen on the high bar tying to wiki-notable works. For instance books with two reviews, often in regional papers or similar publications, are considered wiki-notable. If we are tying to wiki-notable works I would like to see three or more works, that shows a pattern of producing notable works. Those who have produced less than three wiki-notable works but rather a major work noted by many critics will likely be able to pass on GNG alone. JbhTalk 17:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Would the "high bar", with the removal of "in particular..." be OK for you? (FWIW, I think two wiki-notable would solve 99.9% of the problems at AfD, so it is still a huge step.)
This will need a proper RfC anyways, since your opinion is (I suppose) not shared by Lourdes and Innisfree987, but let's put a bit of effort into drafting this. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
To clarify my view at least partly: I'm persuaded by Lourdes' argument for why WP:CREATIVE should be a looser standard than WP:BASIC, and for that reason, I'd opposed JBH's suggestion we essentially insist authors of one or two wiki-notable works pass BASIC. To me though that doesn't necessarily preclude stiffening the CREATIVE test a bit. Still thinking through what I make of other options for doing so (would def welcome more folks weighing in). Innisfree987 (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No SNGs should be looser than GNG they all simply create a "reputable presumption" that there are likely enough sources to pass GNG. Nothing guarentees an article. Until a creative professional has "made a mark" they should, indeed, be judged under BASIC/ANYBIO/GNG. CREATIVE should be identifying those individuals who are exceptional in their field.

    As to the wording, on closer reading I think the struck words including "...multiple independent reviews..." should stay. The part following "in particular..." could be reworded as an example such as "...?2(3)? 'wiki-notable' would be likely to pass...". Not sure how to word it - just changing the wording from prescriptive "will pass" to descriptive "this is an example of something likely to pass". JbhTalk 00:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

  • The idea that any of the SNGs are "a lower standard than WP:BASIC" is, I think, going to come as a surprise to many at AfD and/or DRV, and it will also play right into the hands of those that (wrongly IMO) think that all of the SNGs are a lower standard than GNG. Guy1890 (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Setting aside whose hands this plays into (the point is a good standard, right, not who wins?), it did occur to me that maybe rather than higher or lower, it'd be better to think about what alternative standard this SNG represents. And there I do continue to think there should be a meaningful alternative guideline evaluating creatives as such: I'm not satisfied that requiring a "pattern" of notable works (i.e. three) and then bouncing everyone with only one or two over to WP:BASIC really provides an adequate route in to everyone who's worthy of notice for creative output rather than fame. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • To add to the hopper: I've just noticed that WP:BIO does explicitly equate notable and significant, citing in the first paragraph two dictionary definitions, one of which actually says that "worthy of notice" means "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." That seems like a pretty big applecart to upset--not to mention that brainstorming doesn't seem to have produced a consensus option even among just the five editors who've weighed in here--so I'm pretty inclined to say leaving Lourdes's footnote or something like it is the best solution. My reasons:
  1. I don't believe it loosens the standard, just puts text in on what's said explicitly elsewhere.
  2. It would save time arguing the point at AfD.
  3. It preserves a meaningful alternative to notability on the basis of creative output rather than fame.
All that said, it's not clear to me why it wouldn't be a worthwhile to gather consensus about that, or not as the case may be, but my experience with the RfC process is limited to I suppose I defer to others on that front. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yep, and things like most of NSPORTS esp NCRICKET are best describesd as abominations which resulted when "just making explicit what is already happening at AfD" is then taken to an extreme, people who would have never been considered before the SNG and who will never pass GNG start having articles written "because the SNG says they are notable". This is how we get tens of thousands of cruft articles defended by hordes of editors who think the SNG for their topic should override GNG. There are many of these SNGs but, properly applied an SNG 'describes the characteristics of a subject that is likely to have enough sources to be covered by GNG even if they can not be found online'. The utility of these decrease both subjects become more recent and more archival material is digitized and while they may once have been useful and creation or modification of an SNG needs to look at what type of articles will result from the loosest application of the most literal reading of the SNG. So I would not support changes in wording or even footnotes until there is a solid understanding of how it will open things up at the least notable end particularly for subjects who would be covered in recent Western media (the ones most susceptible to PROMO/PR). In this case not everyone who gets a couple of reviews of their work, i.e. what is required to get the workan article, should get a biography as well. JbhTalk 23:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Jbhunley can you point me to where that quote's drawn from? The one about 'describes the characteristics of a subject..." ? From your phrasing it sounds like you're suggesting that's been set down as policy but I couldn't immediately find where. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
It is not a quote it is a paraphrase, but "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."(emp. mine) From Notability:People or A topic is presumed...if...the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right...This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. (emp. mine) From WP:N and similar things throughout different SNGs make it, very clear - see WP:NRV/WP:NPOSSIBLE also. Including an article is always subject to editorial discretion and consensus. The problem with making "bright lines" for notability is it takes away that discression and 1)leads to perma-stubs becuase there is not actually enough coverage out there to write an article with verifiable information 2) it can be manipulated by PR/PROMO/SEO 3) it encourages cruft becuase can turns into must. JbhTalk 02:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Sticking to that first part: I don't see at all how the two sections you now quote can be paraphrased as "an SNG 'describes the characteristics of a subject that is likely to have enough sources to be covered by GNG even if they can not be found online.'" They really don't say anything of the kind, e.g. no reference at all to availability of online sources. It's one thing to argue that's what SNGs should do, but I'm not seeing anything to support the claim that that's current policy. Perhaps you should bring up the SNG issue for community discussion separately, if you think that analysis ought to be policy. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Then I would be interested in your paraphrase/interpratation of the interaction of GNG/Sourcing and SNGs. Possibly we are talking past each other. There is a lot of policy interaction, unwritten consensus in how things are applied at AfD as well as the interaction of two nearly irreconcilable 'world views' of Wikipedia content exlepified by the extremes of meta:Inclusionism/meta:Deletionism.

My choice of words above is how I understand and apply Wikipidia's PAGs with respect to content to explain my position re any changes to the SNGs without a broad consensus. You may have a different understanding and it may or may not change as you participate in more AfDs, I know mine has and continues to. JbhTalk 12:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification. My personal albeit still-forming view on the relationship of SNGs to GNGs is, as I say above, that some subjects merit an alternative route into Wikipedia owing to say, creative output rather than fame, and thus I wouldn't like to see SNGs articulated in terms of meeting GNG. All the same it does seem very clear there are opposing views on this and yes I am learning, so I was honestly trying to understand which are individual viewpoints and which spelled-out, agreed-upon community consensus (i.e. if it's clearly established somewhere that my view is wrong). I misunderstood your the first comment--because it was marked off with single quotation marks, I thought you were saying it was already written out that way. Thanks for straightening me out. My two cents, I wouldn't be unhappy at all to have a consensus statement clarifying this (whether I am right or wrong!), but I'm sure you know more about where the debate stands at present and if there's any use to taking it to RfC or if it would just yield a sharply divided result. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I set it off with single quotes because it is a paraphrase of something which is often articulated by others in the same or a similar manner. If you take a look at Why we have notability requirements in the Notability policy it may help a bit - it demonstrated how the content policies interact.

You will also note that "presumed" is used a lot in the guidelines and that in its first mention it is wiki-linked to rebuttable presumption. What has happened in a lot of areas (Sports, Roads and Porn start in particular) is a large group of editors have, shall we say fixated, on making pages for everything in the topic area and make it impossible to delete pages regardless of whether. objectively and by policy, they should be handled in other ways - say lists, as sub-sections of a broader topic or not at all. Sort of local consensus gone wild, but as Wikipedia is consensus driven that is how things are.

The problem with "alternate paths" is they end up with pages about topics which we have no sources to base an article on or end up using information from primary, non-independent or self published/PR sources. That ends up violating WP:NPOV, WP:V and if about a living person possibly WP:BLP. It all comes down to having reliable sources to base an article on - no sources, no article.

You may want to look at the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Peddie (author) for an interesting borderline case. In that case there were not many sources and little chance of the article ever growing. It closed keep mainly because of the age of potential sources, a similar author from to late 20th-21st century would almost certainly have been deleted. Really the best thing to do is read through lots of AfD's and vote. Always make sure to articulate a reason and policy basis for your !vote. You can keep track of how well your views line up with consensus using this tool (You are definitly off to a good start!) JbhTalk 22:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

as the nominator of the abovementioned afd, i was tempted to withdraw soon after the second relist but decided to let it finish 'naturally' as it turned into such an interesting discussion.:) Coolabahapple (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't have much to add that wouldn't largely repeat what I've already said but thanks for these links, useful reading! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Leaders in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other religious organizations

This mainly has come about because of the current deletion discussion on Octaviano Tenorio. The article includes sources not at all connected with the subject that cover him in a way that presumes he is notable because of his office in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Church has over 15 million members worldwide. The General Authorities and General Officers of the Church has worldwide leadership responsibility. I think this should create a presumed notability. The facts of the matter is that we have near consensus agreement that Catholic bishops are notable. This is often disputed by the originator of the deletion attempt against Tenorio, who has nominated a very high number of LDS leader articles for deletion. However he has never gone after any article on a Catholic bishop, even though many are sourced to a Catholic site that is no better than Grandpa Bill's GA pages, and maybe not at that level. Catholic bishops lead diocese that range is size greatly, but many have hundreds of thousands and a few have millions of Catholics. LDS area presidency members lead the Church in areas that have hundreds of thousands of members in most cases. However I have come to accept that non-general authorities who were area presidency members are not notable for that. This needs to be addressed in a wide manner. Otherwise we will see a continuation of repeat nominations where the second overturns the first, not because of new evidence, but because of much lower participation at the second discussion. I wish I knew a good way to notify this discussion to generate widespread coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)

  • Oppose: First off, JPL is overly personalizing this discussion. Secondly, he's missing the reason why this shouldn't be adopted: because most general authorities do not have extensive coverage independent of the LDS Church. Most general authority articles are only sourced from articles on LDS-affiliated websites and magazine articles. If we were talking about business execs sourced only with materials affiliated with the companies they work for, they would summarily be deleted. This actually happens in discussions with high participation (JPL's assessment of outcomes is off, as only he and one other user consistently vote "keep" in most of these general authority discussion; most other users accept the rationale that non-LDS sources are required for these articles). Also, the way to get is to slap a request for comment on this and/or mention it at the appropriate pump. pbp 17:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with PBP. If there are sufficient independent and reliable references to sustain an article about this individual, show that, and the discussion is over. If there aren't, we shouldn't have that article. It's really that simple. References from the individual's own organization are not independent, just like if a corporation wrote about its employee. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • If the subject fails WP:GNG due to lack of "significant coverage independent of the subject", then that's what Wikipedia goes by, not the size of the congregation. In a similar manner, not every "regional vice president" in a corporation is notable. The best way to confirm notability is to add RS citations to the article. I've looked at the Octaviano Tenorio article, and this appears to be a non-notable individual for lack of coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Once you start carving out exceptions to WP:GNG then the argument becomes "Since you made an exception for X you now have to make room for Y as well" and, pretty soon, WikiP is just a collection of WP:INDISCRIMINATE info. MarnetteD|Talk 20:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposer Johnpacklambert (JPL) has launched this discussion solely to try to rescue an article which he created from an AFD where he doesn't even have the decency to acknowledge himself as creator. Very shoddy conduct.
JPL confuses the concept of "notability" with the concept of "importance". This isn't complicated, so lemme explain:
Wikipedia is a tertiary publication. That means that it is based on secondary coverage in independent reliable sources. per WP:NOR, we don't do original research of primary sources; we summarise the scholarship of others who have done that research (secondary sources). If those secondary sources do not exist for a topic, then there is no basis for an article which meets Wikipedia's basic criteria for content.
It is troubling that JPL, who has been editing for ten years, still fails to understand this very basic principle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Johnpacklambert needs to realize that religious figures are nothing special when it comes to Wikipedia and are not exempt from the independent coverage clause. I agree with BrownHairedGirl - shoddy conduct. When anyone edits Wikipedia, Wikipedia's goals and policies come first, not their allegiance to outside organizations. --NeilN talk to me 21:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
    • An example showing why JPL's "15 million people" is a red herring: Apple's iPhone, which completely reshaped an entire industry, uses Gorilla Glass. The glass has been used in over a billion mobile devices. So very probably it has a larger worldwide impact than the LDS Church. Now, if Corning puts out a newsletter highlighting one of the engineers who worked on the glass, are we going to have an article on them? I think not. Not even if Apple did the same thing, with a supplier newsletter. --NeilN talk to me 21:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose We require independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability - that is just how it works. There is no difference between a religious figure and a corporate exec and they should be judged accordingly. JbhTalk 23:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Sheesh, while I can see the downsides to this proposal, let's not pile on. It's a perfectly reasonable proposal. Calling it "shoddy conduct" etc. is shameful and un-Wkipedian and you all have my permission to quiet down now before you dig yourselves in any deeper.
For starters, we have many supplements to WP:BIO for many walks of life. Some of those are supposed to be supplemental to WP:GNG/WP:BIO but often aren't treated this way, while some flat-out supersede WP:GNG.
For instance, if you played in four cricket matches in the 18th century you are "entitled" to an article, notwithstanding that absolutely nothing else is known about you and even your first name is lost to history. Per WP:ATHLETE. If you ever served in theNew Hampshire General Court you are "entitled" to an article, even though it's an unpaid part-time job largely filled by retirees, and about 1 of every 3,000 New Hampshirites is serving at any given time. Per WP:POLITICIAN. And so forth.
On the other hand, even if you're a a very accomplished person and major player on the world stage, but behind the scenes, such that even though there's plenty of material for an article but only in non-independent (but reliable and notable) sources and the general-readership press has taken scant notice of your influence and accomplishments, you're out. Unless you fit under certain specified critera. Fellow of the IEEE? You're in. One of the 100 leaders of a major world religion? You're out.
Gee I wonder if that has anything to do with bias and the Wikipedia editor demographic.
But fine. There are valid and cogent reasons for believing that WP:BIO is complete and perfect, I suppose. There are valid and cogent reasons for believing that WP:BIO could benefit from occasional tending and review, is all I'm saying. Let's not attack people who make valid and useful suggestions. That's not who we are. Herostratus (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Reply @Herostratus: calm down. If you read what I actually wrote, my description of JPL's conduct as shoddy referred explicitly to his failure to declare either here or at AFD that he was the creator of the article which prompted him to propose a policy change, and to his failure to understand the basis of WP:GNG. That is not a "pile-on"; it is a rebuke to an editor who has failed both to uphold the transparency we expect of editors, and to study a long-standing policy before proposing an amendment to it. Your words here are over-the-top, but you have gone much further elsewhere in making unfounded charges of bias against me, and I urge you to back off.
As you would know if you had followed other similar discussions over the years, I have repeatedly opposed the creation of exceptions to GNG, and it is shameful of you to try to attribute the opposition here to some sort of bias against religion. Go read WP:AGF, and take it to heart.
I agree that some of of the other topic-specific notability guidelines are problematic, not just in substance but in usage. But that's no reason to create another one; it's a reason to fix the others, and I would happily work with any editor who wants to help build a consensus to roll them back.
One of the issues here is that I see nothing in what Herostatratus writes that conveys to me an understanding of why we have the other topic-specific notability guidelines. The aim of them is not to create some sort of exemption to GNG, but de-clutter AFD by identifying types of article where we can presume with a reasonable degree of reliability that reliable, independent secondary sources will exist, even if an article has been created without them. That presumption noted at WP:GNG to be disprovable; if an editor can show that searches of a suitably wide range of reliable sources draw blanks, then there should not be a standalone article on that topic.
I am not very familiar with sports biographies. Not my area of interest. But what is my area of interest in the political history of Ireland and Britain, where most of my contributions have been made. Most of my early editing consisted of creating stub articles on Irish and British parliamentarians (plus associated lists and categories), using the limited sources I then had. Many of those stubs were short: born, failed election here, elected there, defeated, died. GNG definitely not established, but WP:POLITICIAN applied.
But some years ago I got access to the archives of The Times newspaper. Only one national newspaper out of dozens, but using it I was able to create substantial biogs on many Members of Parliament MPs who would otherwise have been stubs. Then I got access to the History of Parliament and the British Newspaper Archive, whose massive resources have allowed me to create substantive articles which clearly meet GNG on MPs going back to the early 19th century. So I am satisfied that for members of the Parliaments in Britain and Ireland since ~1800, WP:POLITICIAN is well-justified. The sources exist, and GNG will be established whenever an editor has the energy, inclination and access to use them. Before that, newspapers are rarer; but the politicians were invariably men of property of other power, whose public office arose from a prominence which gained them lots of coverage elsewhere.
I have never studied the New Hampshire General Court, but I note that it is in a state which has (like most of New England) a long history of fine local newspapers with dutiful coverage of public office-holders. So I wouldn't rush to the assumption that WP:POLITICIAN is misplaced there.
It may indeed be true that some of the specific notability guidelines are too broad; without specific evidence, I dunno. And I do agree that at AFD, too many editors are inclined to take the specific notability guidelines as some sort of guarantee of notability, rather than a disprovable assumption. Work is needed there.
But to return to these religious leaders, I don't see any of the supporters of this proposal even trying to make a plausible case for a presumption of notability. I don't see JPL or Herostratus or Montanabw offering the slightest shred of evidence that religious leaders are a set of people for whom independent, reliable secondary sources can be reasonably presumed to exist. In fact, the main thrust of their argument appears to be that these independent, reliable secondary sources do not exist. So whatever their intention, the effect of their position is that en.wp should create an inclusion loophole for a class of article which they themselves assert cannot be properly sourced.
I urge them to rethink. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per BrownHairedGirl. Herostratus has a point but I think he's arguing for an SNG to exist outside consensus and the use of the word "entitled" is wrong. Subjects aren't entitled to an article about them as if that's some sort of an award. Wikipedia presumes that there are or will be coverage that would confer general notability. An SNG really just halts the AfD process until such sources are found. Yes, NPOL and NATHLETE are great if you're a fan of those fields whereas LDS members don't have an SNG to use. MILPEOPLE is one of my favorite SNGs but I recognize the consensus doesn't like it specifically or SNGs, generally. I also bristle at the concept that an LDS-specific notability should exist parallel to a similar guide for Catholic clergy. Not only is there no real parallel, I wouldn't even call LDS's leadership clergy. A cursory glance shows that religion-centric WikiProjects (excluding Catholicism) on en-wp don't presume notability so I don't think the LDS church ought to be treated differently than Judaism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Islam, and Christianity in general. Finally, let's face the fact that SNGs are driven by consensus or what Herostratus calls "bias and the Wikipedia editor demographic". Yes, the consensus of editors and the consensus of media have biases and that's what drives the train here. All the efforts to remove bias are, in fact, efforts to constrain consensus. I recommend more LDS members edit Wikipedia so they can act in concerted effort as a vocal minority to protect coverage of their subjects. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Your last sentence could be read as advocating meatpuppetry. Not your intention, I think? --NeilN talk to me 15:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
      • @NeilN: I guess my statement was inelegant. I realize per WP:MEAT "recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited... and that new editors who edit "solely for that purpose" are subject to sanction. Longterm editors not matter how biased can tilt at windmills all day short of WP:NPOV and are not subject to sanction so long as they've "consistently exercised independent judgement". We already have the educated anarcho-libertarian white male technocrat demographic covered. If others would join to further this encyclopedia they could influence consensus just as those populations that become published academics and journalists influence what info gets covered here. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Both @Chris troutman: and @Herostratus: mention bias. I don't think there's a bias against Mormon leaders; as I've noted elsewhere in this discussion, there may actually be more articles about Mormon leaders then there are about other similarly-sized groups (or different-sized groups if adjusted for size). If there's any kind of bias at all, the bias is with the secondary sources, and therefore is out of Wikipedia's hands. pbp 22:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
          • However, we have plenty of well written sources from both the Church News and the Ensign, and passable sources on many from the Deseret News. This is a possible case where the strength of some secondary sources causes a lack of broad sources. One big problem is an unwillingness to recognize how Kellerism clouds and biases religion coverage in much of the press. This has lead to much media coverage of religious figures being coverage of the leftists types that media reporters identify with. If we continue to have uneven guidelines on what are sources, and not consider the actual editorial independence in the production of articles, we will reinforce anti-Mormon biases. In these debates people have taken the issues of ownership too much to heart and ignored the issues of editorial indepedence and oversight.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
            • @Johnpacklambert: with each comment you make, you undermine your own proposal.
  1. As others have pointed out to you, the reasons for the lack of independent coverage are irrelevant, however unjust you feel them to be. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. What matters is that the required substantial independent coverage does not exist. How many times to do other editors have to explain this to you?
  2. the issue here is not the quality of writing; it is independence of the writer. A journalist employed by a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mormon Church is not independent of that church.
Before making a proposal such as this, you really should do some reading on basic Wikipedia policies. Your comments about Kellerism and leftism suggest that you are WP:NOTHERE to build a NPOV encyclopedia, but to push an agenda. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
              • The acceptance of sources tainted by Kellerism, but the refusal to accept sources that have other types of biases, is inherently against Wikipedia being able to be in any way representative of a neutral point of view. The rhetoric of "wholly owned subsidiary" avoids the actual nature of content production. A publication of an institute that is part of a university that is owned by a given denomination should not be automatically disqualified from being considered a reliable source. That is 3 levels of removal from control. It also shows an unwillingess to recognize that publications like the Mormon Studies Review and the BYU Studies Quarterly are written to be academic publications. The mention of Tenorio comes in a book published by Brigham Young University Studies as a publisher in 1995. Due to complicated histories of goals, focus, and naming this should really by thought of as essentially BYU press publishing a book under a different name. This is essentially and academic press publishing a book, and to disqualify it because the school that owns the press is owned by the LDS Church is to disqualify a large number of potential sources because of complex issues. Would you support disqualifying any book published by Andrews University Press or other 7th Day Adventist University Presses from showing the notability of any person who is SDA? Tenorio was a key person in the international expansion of the LDS Church's Family History Program.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
              • @Johnpacklambert: You're totally missing the point that independence of sources aren't something we just drag out for religion. We can't have bands solely sourced by websites created by their members. We can't have a company solely sourced by the institutional history of that company. You're also equating this with a blanket ban on LDS sources. We've never been saying, "ban all LDS sources everywhere", we're saying, "Articles on LDS-related topics must contain both LDS and non-LDS sources". There's a whole lot else wrong with your above comment, but let's stick to that for right now. pbp 13:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, LDS leaders are no more deserving of "presumed notability" than any other religious organisation, a question for the proposer, why haven't you included other large organisations, religious and non-religious, in this proposal? ie. "if an organisation has a membership (defined as ....) of x number than leaders (defined as ...) are presumed notable"? by the way, i would also oppose such a proposal as gng takes precedence. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't support a special notability guideline for the leaders of any religious organization, in general, particularly living people, I feel that WP:BASIC should be a minimum bar. I realize that's not the case right now in several areas outside of religion (e.g,. athletics, actors) but it remains my preference. --joe deckertalk 00:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support and broaden to other faiths per Herostratus, but noting that whatever consensus is gathered should probably apply to other religious-but-not-Catholic denominations. I find some of the discussion here rather odd (—what does gorilla glass have to do with human beings?) and poorly-reasoned. But first off, there is a presumption of notability in WP:GNG, and the standard is "reliable sources independent of the subject," which means, for example, no self-published pieces, no blogs, etc. Here, I think the question is if the top 100 or so leaders of an organization with millions of members are deemed notable for holding the position, if it is verifiable via sources that are to some extent "in-house" such as the Deseret News -- as the mainstream press is not apt to give internal church politics much coverage (this is true of most Catholic bishops as well, most likely; their promotion to the office is apt to only be covered in the Catholic press and maybe the occasional local newpaper when there is turnover in the Diocese). WP:BASIC states, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Here, the comparison of Catholic bishops to LDS General Authorities is apt; I don't know if any Catholic bishop is deemed notable or if the status has to be Archbishop or even Cardinal, but I do know that nearly every Anglican bishop in history gets their own article, primarily due to the efforts of Ealdgyth. So the question really is simple: At what point to denominational religious leaders meet GNG? Montanabw(talk) 07:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Re gorilla glass: You may not agree with what I wrote, but I think my point is clear and spot on. --NeilN talk to me 07:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
    • (coughs) I don't create/curate articles for English bishops past 1500, so they aren't Anglican. Catholic bishops they be. I actually think the 1500 or so pre-1500 bishops I have on my watchlist are quite enough and leave the Anglicans for others to worry about. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- why have WP:GNG if exceptions would be provided for certain groups? In any case, if the notability is presumed (due to certain BIO factors), it still needs to be confirmed through "significant coverage". K.e.coffman (talk) 07:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support' and apply to all religions. WP:GNG explicitly says it is not the only standaard. We have other standards for use in specific circumstances, for which the clearest ones are natural geographic features and WP:PROF. The GNG is the general standard for use if we do not want to make an exception, either for a class of subjects, or for an individual subjects. just a we make the rules, we can make whatever exceptions we please. If you are arguing we should not make a special rule here, there might be good reasons for that, but you can not sensibly argue we cannot make an special rule here, because we can make whatever rules we please. We collectively made the rule GNG; it was not handed down to us by some sort of supreme court or legislature. There is no higher authority in WP for questions of content than the community. We can make any other rules for which there is consensus. And even having made the rules, we can still make exceptions. All guidelines permit exceptions; it's part of the very definition of a guideline that its the usual thing we do, not what we always do. There is a very basic policy about that, IAR, which is one of the foundations of WP.
The advantage of special standards is that they can be exact, and thus reduce controversy and uncertainty. The GNG has some rather subtle phrasing , and the meaning of the words significant coverage in reliable sources that are independentof the subject. is not obvious: there are a great many special considerations in each of them, (the interpretation of "reliable sources" is done at WT:RSN, and consists of a great many many pages of archives.) anda a great many disagreements. In practice, for non-obvious situation where notability is the question, the arguments at AfD are almost always about the interpretation of these phrases. For each of them in many cases, it is easily possible to construct a reasonably good argument in each direction, and people here do exactly that. In many cases we encounter, where we know there is a good argument either way, what people decide to say depends not on some abstract view of their meaning, but on what result one wishes to achieve in that particular situation. Whereas when we have an exact standard, at least those cases which fall under the standard can be deided without dicussion.I very much wish we had many more such standards. It doesn't really matter exactly which articles we include or do not include; it does mater that we have a reasonably consistent separation at a reasonable level. DGG ( talk ) 15:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Whatever DGG's intention, the effect of DGG's proposal is to undermine WP:NPOV and WP:V, which are core policies.
    GNG is an application of NPOV, because it bases inclusion criteria on the objective test of substantial coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject. Sure, it's not a neat binary test, and there are plenty of fuzzy areas and borderline cases ... but it is based on a simple objective principle. GNG is also an extension of WP:V's principle: that our content is based on reliable secondary sources. It's not based on primary sources or on what people write about their colleagues, but on secondary scholarship. This is the core of what Wikipedia does: we summarise the existing independent scholarship.
    Whenever we set aside the the GNG test, we do so because this is a type of topic for which GNG can be established if the right research is done. But in this case, even the proposer of this loophole insists that is needed because the independent sources are not there. So this isn't a time-saving proposal for a rebuttable assumption of presumed notability. It is a demand to suspend our most basic content policies for a whole topic area.
    So what exactly is the case for providing automatic inclusion of a swathe of articles on this topic which are inadequately-referenced (as in lacking independent sources)?
    The only cases I see being made here are forms of POV-pushing. There is the the form of POV-pushing that says that if we have an articles ob X we must have them on Y. Again, that's POV-pushing, because the comparator is a POV choice.
    Another form of POV-pushing is that it is unfair that this type of topic lacks independent coverage. Why assume that it's unfair in this case? Why not apply similar exemptions to other types people who lack independent coverage? Take your pick: Rotarians, steelworkers, KKK members, carpet designers, radical feminists, theosophists, flat-earthers, Maoists, bee-keepers, civil engineers, doulahs, or tax-collectors? Choosing any one of these groups for a get-out-of-GNG card would be a blatantly POV choice ... just as the choice of Mormons for a GNG-bypass is blatantly POV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, GNG is the standard in place and there is no reason to carve out an exception here for it will only lead to a "slippy-slope" and pov-pushing. Confirmation of "significant coverage" as K.e. wrote above, by independent WP:RS sources provides notability. Kierzek (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support  As DGG said above, "The advantage of special standards is that they can be exact, and thus reduce controversy and uncertainty."  I'm not sure that LDS needs a new SNG, though, since their religious leaders are judges and international judges are already covered in an SNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Internal tv network Awards, awarding contracted Actors,and published in same networks publishing arm/news

Several articles of Philippines Celebrities list too many awards, some from dubious or at least new awarding groups or companies, and internal awards from the same tv networks that hire them. what template should I use? user:Raabbustamante (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The WP:SOFIXIT one. When did we come to the point that people spend time figuring out a template to put on an article rather than hitting edit and fixing the problem? Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

MBE

Forgive me for putting this post here, if it happens to be in the wrong place. Is an MBE recipient notable? I am wondering about deceased Scottish football trainer Hugh Allan, who won the award, but did not play or manage in a fully professional league.[1]

No, the MBE (or OBE) does not confer inherent notability. Consensus is, however, that the CBE (and above) does. Any honours do, of course, contribute to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.kilmarnockfc.co.uk/Article?id=691

Beauty pageant RfC

This may be of interest to folks here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants#RFC on creation of consensus standard. Montanabw(talk) 19:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Does a DNB entry prove notability?

This came up in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Henry Lyttelton (1820–1884). I was sure that we accepted everyone in the Dictionary of National Biography as being notable, but I don't know if that has ever been enshrined in policy. I was wondering if it could/should be added to WP:ANYBIO: "3. The person has an entry in Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication." (We currently have a footnote that excludes "biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations", so it would need to be read in the light of that.) StAnselm (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Clearly, the Victorian editors of the DNB (copy here) considered him of at least minor importance because of his publications, which is exactly the part left out by the author of the Wikipedia article. I'm not sure why these publications were significant, but perhaps they were major best-sellers or influential at the time. The Victorians appear to have thought this to be self-evident and saw no reason to waste space in a paper publication on explaining why he was included. --Hegvald (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
No, it's simply that the original Victorian DNB included a comprehensive list of publications as standard. To quote from the 2004 ODNB's principles of inclusion, "The Oxford DNB has followed the twentieth-century supplements, however, in not including a complete list of a person's published works within the account of the life. Now that library catalogues are so abundant and full, the comprehensive booklists valued by the Victorians are no longer required. Instead, contributors have been encouraged to bring out in the text the significance of the person's principal publications." In line with that, His entry (subscription or UK library card required) in the 2004 Oxford Dictionary of National Biography deals with his published work in a single, somewhat dismissive sentence: "Besides contributing a chapter on the physical geography and geology of the Clent district to William Harris's Clentine Rambles (1868), Lyttelton published some minor works of apologetics." It seems likely to me that this is one of the entries included in the revised work because, to quote our article, "Matthew decided that no subjects from the old dictionary would be excluded, however insignificant the subjects appeared to a late twentieth-century eye". Qwfp (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, a DNB entry such as Lyttelton's proves notability because it demonstrates that the subject passes WP:BASIC. Notability is not about the importance of a subject; it's about the existence of sources. A DNB entry is such a source and will typically cite other such sources. Andrew D. (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Certainly it's significant coverage in one independent, reliable source, but WP:BASIC requires multiple such sources. Although DNB does typically cite other reliable sources, surely there's no guarantee that any one of them alone gave the subject significant coverage. Qwfp (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • To quote our article, "The Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) is a standard work of reference on notable figures from British history ..." Is that statement incorrect, or does the word "notable" not mean "notable"?
    It's obvious, surely, that the original DNB contained only people who were considered notable at the time, who must therefore have been covered in significant sources, but most sources of that period exist only in print and are not instantly accessible via Google. William Henry Lyttelton is a case in point: it's not obvious why he's included, either from his DNB entry or from the sources that the DNB cites; yet he's there, so he must have been notable at the time.
    The present ODNB's principles of inclusion state "Both the DNB and the Oxford DNB have sought to reflect the full range of national life, and to include noteworthy people of all kinds. Influence – whether for good or ill – is the principal criterion for admission. Coverage includes many people of achievement, merit, or worth, but is by no means confined to them: it is concerned also with impact, which may sometimes stem from celebrity and even from notoriety." Wikipedia's principles of inclusion might well be stated in those same terms!
    — Stanning (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Right, thanks for all the feedback. So the question is - should it be mentioned on this page? StAnselm (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Adding it explicitly. No, at least, not unless we add a similar reference work for most of the countries in the world. Otherwise we add a British only condition to what should be a globally useable set of conditions. Arnoutf (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the "Template:Policy-discuss" template

Why has this tag been added to the article?

Pornographic actors and models
Shortcuts

People involved in pornography:

  1. Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration.
  2. Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent.
  3. Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.

Unscintillating (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

AUTHOR point 3 and derivative works

AUTHOR point 3 currently says that a creative professional is notable if:

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

This came up at AFD, and some of us (E.M.Gregory —Coolabahapple) thought the wording of the second sentence shouldn't be limited to specific media types: for instance, a television series that's based on a work ought to count for the derivative work. Also, I think the clause should be amended to require that the derivative work must be notable. Accordingly, I propose changing the second sentence to read:

In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

Thoughts? Rebbing 01:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Endorse To eliminate the artificial distinction between "film" and a "television series" or book inspired by a creative work. The qualifier, that such a work must be "independent and notable" in order to validate the notability of the work that inspired it, is the key.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done as unopposed. Rebbing 14:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Suggest the addition of one word: "...but usually not a single episode of a television series". A television episode can be an independent and notable work, for example "Goodbye, Farewell and Amen." Is the intention actually to exclude all television episodes, or is it to indicate that most episodes aren't individually notable? Pburka (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm glad you thought of this! My intention was to make explicit the requirement that derivative works be significant and notable but also to permit consideration of all media types, not just books and films; the examples weren't meant to be limiting. If an individual episode is notable, I think it should count. Anyway, since having multiple independent articles or reviews will satisfy point 3, the bar isn't astronomically high: I suspect it's easier to find multiple reviews of a work than even one notable episode derived from it.

      As I assume this is an uncontroversial change, I went ahead and made it. (Hope you don't mind.) Rebbing 20:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

    • Agree with the need for this clarification and was actually going to mention the very same episode! I'm not 100% certain that "usually" won't be gamed or a source of dispute; it might be better to do this: ... (for example, a book, film, television series, or notable TV series episode) ... and leave it at that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Propose non-binary-inclusive wording

This guideline currently contains the phrase "he or she" in the "nutshell" box: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

This is inaccurate for those on the list of people with non-binary gender identities, who are neither "he"s nor "she"s. The actual guideline pluralizes the subject to take advantage of the English gender-neutral third-person pronoun: People are presumed notable if they have received...

I propose that the nutshell box adopt the same wording. FourViolas (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Support, since the change is natural English, and makes the passage more concise (which not all attempts at gender-agnostic language are or do). Prior discussion is not required for non-controversial minor copyedits, even to central policy pages. So, it's not necessary (and may trigger WP:NOT#ADVOCACY complaints) to post micro-proposals like this; WP is not populated by people who just now awoke from a 50-year slumber and missed out the on last few decades of TG awareness.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Addressing the root of the "minor entertainers drowning out other bios" problem

We also need to more directly address the problem of minor, ephemeral "celebrities" getting articles here, by tightening their notability criteria. The most obvious way to do this is to rule out the entertainment press as independent sourcing. They are not in fact independent; the vast bulk of their income comes from movie, TV, and record company advertising (mostly the same megacorporations across different markets, if you trace the subsidiary relationship, and they often own the publication, too), so these almost-house-organs have a very strong incentive to write in glowing terms about whoever is putting an album out on Warner, appearing in an upcoming Sony Pictures movie, or in an HBO TV series, to scratch the backs of their cash cows. These sources are utterly indiscriminate. If someone is pretty, was seen with someone pretty, or went shopping in ugly clothes, they get full-page spreads. The result of treating them as RS for notability purposes is a firehose of articles like Chipo Chung, which have no reason to exist here, and they do not improve after they narrowly survive AfD. "I found bit-part work, more than one time, as an actor" does not mean "notable" it means "apparently competent or at least well-connected". ("I started a small charity" != notability either.) Similarly, "one-hit wonder" musical acts do not need articles, and should be covered at the article on their one hit. We have tens or hundreds of thousands of celeb-of-the-week fancruft articles like this, because GNG, while a reasonable starting off position, does not really fit all situations. For actors in particular, IMDb already serves the "basic bios of the not-really-famous" purpose to satisfy the curious. In policy terms, this INDY/GNG loophole has led to a WP:NOT#WHOSWHO and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE problem.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It's curious that you've chosen Chipo Chung as an example. A quick Google search shows that she easily passes WP:GNG without invoking the entertainment press at all. She's got extensive coverage in The Evening Standard, The Independent, and BBC. I'm not convinced that there is a "problem of minor, ephemeral celebrities getting articles here," and if there is, I don't think she's a good example. Pburka (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
We have statistics for that (which I could cite if needed, but see here for now), and what they do show is that what are drowning other bios are not entertainment celebrities, but minor sport biographies, which constitute something like HALF of all bios created. If we want to tighten the criteria, we need to do something about that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • There's four other discussions currently on this page — Knight's Cross Holders, Beauty Pageant Winners (linked), Porn Stars, and Businesspeople — that fundamentally deal with all or part of the same three questions:
  1. Where a particular vocation tends to have specialist coverage rather than general/popular coverage, under what circumstances should the subject of an article actually be considered notable? (Is there an SNG or similar?)
  2. For a particular specialist achievement (including awards, levels of attainment, or activities), how do we tell whether that achievement should be considered notable in its own right rather than just providing some minor weight, and what sources can be considered fully and/or sufficiently reliable? (Do SNG items minimise ambiguity to help eliminate the need for editors to repeatedly thrash out the same factors at individual AFDs?)
  3. If an article does not meet notability requirements, under what consistent set of circumstances would it be expected that the article be merged/redirected (and to what) rather than deleted? (Do SNGs provide guidance* for where aggregated inclusion in wikipedia should be applied? * More common for non-BIO guidelines than BIO guidelines)
For partially dealing with Q2, the suggestion by Dream Focus that "The WP:ANYBIO bit at the top shows awards, etc. Should link to a page that list every award that is seen as notable and if its on that list it counts, no matter what field they are in. You can then discuss adding or removing things there." at the PORNBIO discussion above looks like it could be a useful starting point. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 13:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but no, we don't need to stop writing articles about people who are of no interest to you, just because you imagine that that somehow detracts from articles about people who are. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Hydronium Hydroxide, this is a very good summary, through I'd also add problem number four, which is that such individuals often have in-passing coverage in more mainstream media, and I think our guidelines on what kind of coverage is trivial and which is not is solely lacking too, compounding the problem. Anyway, list of awards is something I am and I am sure others suggested repeatedly. It is a big task, but perhaps there is a way to simplify it: an award is significant if it is notable. Then we just have to enforce Wikipedia:Notability (awards). Oh wait, that never passed so... well, just enforce GNG for awards, and that will take care of that. Still, that leaves the first important question - on coverage by niche, specialist sources - for more discussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the "drowning out" thing. Does someone read Wikipedia front-to-back? How does an article on some "less important" person, impact our article on George W Bush? I just feel people are looking for a problem. WP:NOTPAPER is key. Hobit (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Quite. There are reasons for tightening some of the guidelines, in particular where they appear to allow articles about living people to have only unreliable or promotional sources, but "drowning out" is certainly not one of them. No number of articles about minor entertainers or any other type of minor topics can possibly drown out any other article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The entertainment press, as for the press in other fields, is composed of sources of very variable quality. Some of it, such asvVariety are among the more reliable sources in any field. But it is true that quite a lot of it is of very low quality and greatly influenced by publicity agents,and needs to be looked at very skeptically. One way of handling this is to interpret the existing guideliens strictly. A more direct one would be to modify the SNG for entertainers to say that in this field, in addition to the gng, further requirements are required, such as the association in a major capacity with a work that has won a notable award, or winning themselves an award of recognized national significance. WP:N does not limit the possible11notability criteria to the GNG--we may use whatever other guidelines have consensus, and we may use them in such a way as to require them instead of the GNG, as an alternative to the GNG, or in addition to the GNG, whichever criterion has consensus. We make the rules ourselves; nobody makes them for us. No one has prescribed or could prescribe that the GNG applies everywhere. DGG ( talk ) 07:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
    • WP:N does not permit additional requirements above WP:GNG. A topic is "presumed to merit an article if It meets either the general notability guideline, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline." You're right that we can change the rules, but applying stricter rules than GNG to some subjects is a significant change. Pburka (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Actually, SNGs can be more restrictive than the GNG, but this is generally by noting where other policies like WP:NOT or WS:RS apply. WP:NEVENT is a good example of such a case, where while there are many many stories that get widespread coverage, because WP is not a newspaper, there needs to be more than just the GNG. In the area of video games, we apply WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE to topics that often can be easily meet the GNG because they are game guide aspects. The only things SNGs cannot do is set out weaker requirements than the GNG. In the case here, it would definitely be fair for NBIO to consider that much of the entertainment press does not always meet the standards set by WP:RS as well as issues of WP:RECENTISM (related to NOTNEWS), and of course WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E can apply too. --MASEM (t) 13:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The problem with excluding respected "trade press" publications is that this could impact many other areas -- writers, poets, artists, and so on. I agree with Masem that WP:RS weeds out a lot of the cruft. Also, again SNGs do NOT trump GNG -- I would argue that an SNG should neither strengthen nor weaken the guidelines, but rather explain to the non-aficionado who may have to assess notability -- particularly for obscure, historic, or trade press publications -- what sort of things are generally solid and reliable as indicia of notability in a field of endeavor. Montanabw(talk) 21:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the issue here is our collective trust in trade publications and trade awards. Each SNG or WikiProject-specific notability hinges on a set of qualification denizens of that world know. The larger community finds disdain with these SNGs as it opens the door to biographies that are otherwise insufficiently sourced. Most SNGs make reference to the fact bios still have to meet ANYBIO and V requirements so isn't that where this ought to be decided? Would we be better off going to WP:RSN and hashing out which sources are "good enough" to meet sourcing minimums when notability is riding on an SNG? Chris Troutman (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

We need specific notability criteria for businesspeople

We need to list notability guidelines for businesspeople. This seems to be an issue at present. Editors who nominate articles about businesspeople for AFD say there is no guideline for hiring tens of thousands of employees or making hundred million dollar mergers for example. If we want Wikipedia to reflect the reality of our capitalist societies, we need to make sure major economic actors are represented here. A chief executive is often far, far more prominent than a minor entertainer.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm a fan of SNGs but I know large parts of the community are not. It's easier to apply GNG across the board. I'd be glad to see a draft SNG for businesspeople but I'm wondering how you could sell specific criteria like being involved in a merger. Are there cases where we have reliable sources discussing these details about subjects that otherwise can't pass GNG? Do you have any articles in mind that are borderline GNG or have been deleted but should have been (in your opinion) retained? Chris Troutman (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Chris troutman: Yes, there are currently two AFDs on my talkpage, about articles which appear to meet GNG but some disagree. Lots of references and both prominent in their own rights. Have a look there if you need more background information. This has had a chilling effect on my editing as I was working on articles about other businesspeople but I've put them on hold to avoid wasting my time. If I take the time to create referenced articles about prominent businesspeople, I want to make sure I'm not doing it for naught. So I think we need specific guidelines here.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I think also a SNG (Special Notability Guideline, I think) for businesspeople would be great, exactly for the reasons for you describe. One at-bat for the Cubs in 1887 gets you an article, being a major player in the economic history of a whole country doesn't, and that's silly. It's not impossible that an SNG for businesspeople could pass. Herostratus (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Agree with this idea, for the reasons given.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I was the one who directed Zigzig20s here, after I nominated his articles for deletion discussion. I sill think they fail GNG/BIO with the possible exception of meeting "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", through as we know that often leads to impass regarding whether this minor coverage is trivial, reliable, etc. However, what I've noted in those two AfDs is that the majority consensus seem to be not that the sources are particularly good but that those businesspeople are important. Of course, this goes against WP:ITSIMPORTANT, but when the consensus is that they are important, that essay should give room to a consideration of SNG like what we do here. It stands to reason that in a capitalistic world, businesspeople should be no less important then politicians, yet they are awarded no special treatment. We need some kind of criteria here. All I can think of now, from past AfDs, is to suggest one - being a CEO of a top company. Of course, what is a top? Notable? List on stock exchanges? Something else? In either case, being CEO is probably not the only criteria for notability for businesspeople, and I hope we can work out some rules here, to prevent future AfDs on articles like the ones that brought us here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, User:K.e.coffman. Despite being the 345th most active wikipedian, I am currently discouraged from editing, as an investment banker who makes hundred million dollar mergers and has had consistent media coverage since the 1990s and has received awards for his philanthropy, recently got deleted before WikiProject Finance even had a chance to look at it. I think unless we have welcoming guidelines, Wikipedia is going to have a chilling effect on capitalist editors and end up with lots of articles about one-time sportspeople and minor celebrities, and nothing about major economic players. This seems to reflect a misunderstanding (or a repudiation) of how capitalism works.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree Thank you Zigzig20s. And K.e.coffman has identified a good starting point for a business SNG. We can go further, and simplify matters, with something like "any CEO or chairman of a Fortune 500 (US) or a FTSE 100 Index (UK) company is presumed notable". Of course, that only covers two countries, and the methodology for each list is different. Fortune is by total revenue, and includes private companies (if they publicly report revenue). FTSE 100 is by market capitalisation, and is limited to publicly-quoted companies. Perhaps, we could add a provision along the lines of "or any public or private company in any country that would meet the Fortune or FTSE 100 qualifying threshold." As with Wikipedia:Notability (sports), it is probably better if we can come up with some automatic criteria, to avoid spending yet more time on AfDs. Of course, there are other notable businesspeople apart from CEOs and chairmen. It might make sense to have a "net worth" qualifying threshold too, and I would suggest, "anyone with a net worth of US$1 billion is presumed notable". The latest Forbes list has 1,810 billionaires, and Forbes, Bloomberg and the STRL are the main sources in this field. Incidentally, I've started articles on many billionaires, and none have been deleted. Thoughts? Edwardx (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Also possibly making a billion dollar merger? Because that's not exactly your local banker who can do that.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The problem with including such a concept in a SNG is determining which people, and in what proportion, are responsible for such mergers. Even if you have an objective qualifying threshold of say US$1 billion for the merger itself, the people bit is subjective. I'm not against including such a concept, but the form of words is problematic. Edwardx (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, in this specific case, he's the principal and he has other achievements to his name.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, let's ask the same question we always should when we consider a new SNG. The purpose of SNGs is not to end-run or overrule the GNG, only provide guidance on cases where it almost always is met even if the references aren't yet in the article. So, are there cases where businesspeople almost always would be the subject of substantial and reliable coverage in multiple reliable references that aren't already covered in the BIO criteria? Especially in that area, we'd have to be careful of cases where the "coverage" mainly consists of interviews, press releases, etc., and look for cases where there almost always is genuine biographical coverage of the individual (not their business and a mention of them in passing). In my experience, this varies widely, and some companies may have many of their executives extensively covered while leadership of others of similar size (especially "deep background" B2B companies less widely known to the public) get a lot less, so I'm not sure there is a commonality here we could write an SNG about, but I'm open to persuasion otherwise. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
We need to consider prominence. How we define that is the tricky part. Being chairman/ceo/billionaire is a start, but it's not sufficient.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support creation of some kind of Business SNG. As always, GNG is policy and an SNG is a suggestion, but this is an area where I think we have big problems with undisclosed paid editing, disclosed paid editing and self-promotion. A fair number of discussions at AfD contain an "it's a COI so delete" -- which is not policy (COI is editor behavior, not a notability criterion -- deletion of articles is a fairly draconian sanction usually reserved for the worst offenders, most of whom also have major copyvio problems) Having a set of guidelines that summarize the direction that AfDs have gone would help evaluate articles on their merits and not their authorship. Montanabw(talk) 21:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Montanabw: Good point, and actually I was wrongly accused of paid editing earlier (which I have never done), so this seems to be a common tactic for deletionists to instil fear in article creators. Hopefully coming up with better notability guidelines will put an end to this frightening tactic.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: the challenge with such a guideline would be that CEOs and such, unlike politicians and entertainers, are private individuals, so 3rd party coverage would be limited. Furthermore, they are "corporate officers", acting on behalf of the company, so it would be difficult to separate their actions from the actions of the company. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes but that's true of all professions. CEOs and board members are certainly notable, but so are large shareholders. The problem I have at the moment--the reason I've stopped editing about business momentarily--is that some editors are arguing that we need multiple full-length newspaper articles (but not interviews, and not whatever they deem PR) or entire book chapters about businesspeople for them to be "notable", not just multiple mentions in reliable third-party sources. The standards are simply too high. It could be the case that deletionists are misinterpreting GNG, but because of it, we need SNG if we are going to spend our time creating articles about notable businesspeople. Right now there has been a chilling effect.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I personally think WP:NOTINHERITED should be strictly enforced in the case of businesspeople. There are far too many BIOs on CEOs/founders who have started one company. It is very easy to "create" coverage for these people by simply adding a quote or a couple of lines in a news about the company. I have a friend IRL (a freelance journalist) who advertises his services as "providing citations for a Wikipedia page". One important factor which I look for in the coverage is whether the article mentions the "company in context of the individual" or the "individual in context of the company". If it is the former, then I lean toward a keep, otherwise it is usually a delete/redirect/merge. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I think most CEOs of large corporations are notable. Their decisions have huge impacts on the lives of hundreds of thousands of employees. But the same is true of board members and large shareholders. There is a lot of information in the financial press like The Wall Street Journal or the Financial Times. But of course, most of the information is private. It is also the case that many large shareholders, company founders and executives are major philanthropists or art collectors, and thus prominent in several fields. But I think we need to come up with strict SNG to avoid discouraging rich-bashing reactions from some deletionists.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Just for the record, we're not talking about a local store manager.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
CEOs of corporations should be expected to meet the higher standard set at WP:CORP. Excepting CEOs known for being CEO for multiple corporations, a CEO is synonymous with the corporation, and is expected to be constantly promoting, and promoting with skill. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, it's a public role, but they're not just actors. They also make important decisions and help grow the economy.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Suggestion -- it may be a good idea, as a first step, to improve existing articles on notable businesspeople. Here's one such example: John Morgridge; former CEO and chairman of the board of Cisco, major philanthropists, but the article lacks citations and could stand to explore his life and career more fully. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Notability criteria for models?

Hi all, there's a section in the guidelines for pornographic actors and models. Does this mean pornographic actors and pornographic models or is the latter supposed to be regular fashion models like Cindy Crawford and Naomi Campbell and such? There are a lot of articles on beauty pageant contestants and it's unclear to me if the guidelines for porn star notability are supposed to apply to them. The section begins "People involved in pornography:" and then there's no mention of fashion models. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

PORNBIO applies to "People involved in pornography" only, and NMODEL applies to fashion models. PORNBIO is actually a sub-section to ENT. A beauty pageant SNG may be developed over the next few weeks at the talk page that you just posted a similar posting to this OP on. Guy1890 (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Additional criteria section

I'm guessing this section is where Single Notability Guidelines are truly addressed ("single notability guideline" must be a colloquial term because the term is never actually used anywhere on WP:BIO); at any rate, the final part of the introduction has always troubled me:


I mean, if meeting a criterion of an SNG doesn't guarantee notability, then why does the SNG even exist? Basically, if an SNG is questionable, there should probably be a discussion brought up on this very talk page where people can discuss whether it should be retained. But that's also a double-edged sword because when you really stop to think about it, removing an SNG would make way for more articles to be added, not deleted. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

SNG stands for Subject-specific Notability Guideline. See WP:N. Colloquially, the are also called sub Notability Guidelines, as they are subservient to WP:N, specifically the WP:GNG. But still, these are just guidelines, albeit highly enforceable guidelines empowered by deletion policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
The concept of a "sub-guideline" fits equally for an argument to WP:GNG, an argument to a notability essay, an argument to the WP:N nutshell, an argument to WP:5P, and an argument to Common outcomes.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
The term is colloquial because the community can't come to consensus about it. A subject meeting an SNG generally represents the consensus of assumed notability. Where the consensus differs about a particular carve-out for a type of subject (PORNBIO, SOLDIER, NATHLETE, etc.) the discussion then centers around GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I support the existing caution. And, yes, I know it's been costing you dearly regarding PORNBIO this month: Karla Lane (DRV) and Kristina Rose (AFD) explicitly turned on this language. The additional criteria are intended to act as heuristics for notability for average cases with debatable coverage; they should not be used to produce absurd results, like finding notability where it is plainly lacking—hence the caveat.
I also fail to see how removing specific SNGs would open the door to more articles being kept: the SNGs and BIO's additional criteria aren't limiting. A subject isn't required to meet the GNG and any relevant SNGs or additional criteria; if the subject satisfies any notability guideline and there is no reason to discount the result, the subject is notable. I have yet to see an AFD vote argue otherwise for any subject: the SNGs and additional criteria are ignored equally whether they're unsatisfied (a porn star without any awards failing PORNBIO) or simply inapplicable. Rebbing 06:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Beauty pageant notability -- reup

Hi, reupping the notice about the beauty pageant notability RfC as discussion there has a bit of momentum (I've put forward a proposal for closure) but we could really use broader community input, whether to reach quorum, oppose or propose alternatives.

In brief this came up because of a large number of (rather contentious) AfDs that turned on this issue, especially whether subnational pageant wins conferred notability to bios. Currently the question being discussed is whether to try to make a special notability guideline to address this (the contents of that guideline would be decided in a separate RfC).

Discussion starts here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#RFC_on_creation_of_consensus_standard and the proposal for closure from me (the only one so far but of course all welcome to propose alternatives): Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#Proposal_for_closure

Thanks for having a look. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Uebert Angel

Hello everyone I have been trying to write an article about an influential person Uebert Angel. He is a business mogul recognised by the BBC and Forbes Magazine. H e is a founder of The Angel Organisation and The Good News Church. He has a lot of followers and has influenced a lot of people world wide. I need help in writing an article that is neutral and not in contention for deletion. I have tried several times but to no avail. Simon Mugava (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Simon Mugava: This isn't the place to ask. Put your request at Wikipedia:Requested articles or the reward board. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
@Simon Mugava:, or possibly the teahouse. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Change to PORNBIO

This very thorough discussion has been open more than 30 days and has attracted comments from more than 40 editors. In evaluating this RfC for closure I, first, made a numerical calculation of !votes. There were a slim majority that support the proposal. I then read each !vote for strength of argument and both of the two "sides" that have developed (for / against) were roughly equal in the soundness of their reasoning. In doing this, however, I noticed that several 'support' !votes had reservations and caveats attached to their opinions. Based on a combination of these factors, it seems clear that - despite being supported by most editors - there is not a consensus to make the change proposed. Reopening the RfC within 60 days with a more discrete proposal for amendment might produce a consensus and the OP should feel empowered to do so, should he or she choose. Note: While it was suggested in the discussion that a panel of three admins might be ideal to close this, there was no consensus that this condition should be attached to closure and, further, a request for closure has been open for nearly three weeks with no sign of the prophesized three admins revealing themselves; at this point it seems a bit fanciful to suggest such a tribunal might ever convene. I have, therefore, closed it of my own initiative. The closure can be appealed at Closure Review. LavaBaron (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

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.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Discussion has come to an end, it was open for 42 days, now awaiting formal closure

Proposal

Replace whole and replace with:

In the case of subjects who do not pass the GNG the only additional criteria are:

  • winning a significant and well known industry award that is not scene related and where the award category has itself been subject to meaningful discussion in independent reliable secondary sources; or
  • is a member of the AVN or XRCO hall of fame.

The intent of the change is to set clear boundaries on who should be allowed a BLP violating article where they would otherwise fail to meet the GNG. Far too much recent discussion about low level or actually non-notable award cetgories as a reason for NN pornstars to have articles. This has to stop. Discuss... Spartaz Humbug! 14:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

  • No BLP-violating article should be allowed. That is already policy, but it seems to be ignored in the case of pornographic actors, with nearly all of them lacking any reliable sources but with many people in AfD discussions arguing that bios hosted on porn industry web sites are reliable, when they are obviously nothing of the sort, being both made up and promotional. What we need is more closing admins with the confidence to enforce the BLP policy rather than base decisions on vote counting. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose The rationale behind this proposal is spurious. No BLP-violating articles are permitted, and Spartaz, who has been editing for more than ten years, knows that. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Not only is that untrue, but it assumes that Wikipedia administrators can't tell the difference between valid keep arguments and invalid ones. That's not true either. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 23:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • BLP expects us to rigorously source BLPs but Pornbio is used as device to maintain inadequately sourced blps. MShabazz obviously knows this but would rather dismiss the issue rather than address this, the bottom line is why anyone should condone inadequately sourced blps. Spartaz Humbug! 22:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Spartaz, your contempt for articles about pornography -- and the editors who write them -- is legendary. Put up or shut up. Where are these BLP-violating articles that have survived AfD? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 23:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • You just need to look through the list of porn related afds to find examples of inadequately sourced articles kept for ridiculous awards. Superslut of the year or analist of the year comes to mind. We are having stupid discussions about stupid wards for people who clearly do not meet the gng. oh an playing the man already? Contempt is reserved for those that promote shit articles not the articles themself. My stance on sourcing blps has been consistent for years and is not confined to this genre of articles but why let facts get in the way of an ad hom. Spartaz Humbug! 23:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Then just state that while getting a notable award for being in a Hollywood film, for a major scientific breakthrough, etc, makes you notable, this does not apply to pornography, soapbox derbies, biggest Girl Scout cookie sales person of the year award winners, and other such unnotable things. Wouldn't that solve the problem? You want to eliminate something, do it directly, don't try to make wording vague and just dismiss any guideline you disagree with in AFDs. Dream Focus 11:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • So only pornbio articles need good sourcing?  Arguments like this one are a reason to mark WP:N historical.  More practically, we need to reinforce the idea for all articles supported by SNG notability that WP:V#Notability and WP:RS are still required, and that wp:notability does not guarantee that we have the NPOV material to source an article.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
All articles need good sourcing. It just so happens that PORNBIO is a rogue special notability guideline which causes the inclusion of articles that would be deleted if evaluated under standards similar to any other SNG. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
So your response does nothing to support WP:V, WP:RS, or WP:BLP; and falls back on a proof by assertion that this is a problem somehow solved by tinkering with an SNG so that more pornbio articles will be deleted at AfD.  The first step in solving a problem is identifying a problem.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
David did identify the problem, which is that articles about porn actors are routinely kept on the basis of WP:PORNBIO even if they fail WP:V and WP:BLP by being sourced only to web sites that have no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and in fact have a reputation for publishing fantasy rather than fact. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Then your problem is that WP:V and WP:BLP were not considered at the AfD.  This is much more, though, because the basic concept of wp:notability is the evidence that a topic has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time (WP:N nutshell).  How old does one have to be to be aware that this industry involves physiological attraction, and that this attraction is a worldwide phenomenon?  Most of the bios considered at AfD are many orders of magnitude more notable than 15th century kings.  So if you don't like what is happening at Wikipedia, don't look at notability to fix what to you is a problem, because your problem is not wp:notability.  Try WP:NOT, and try pushing back on the pornbio industry to get bios written by reliable sources such as Bloomberg; but attacking notability is merely undermining our policies and guidelines.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm rather taken aback by the concept that 15th century kings who are inevitably going to be the direct subject of numerous scholarly and encyclopaedic papers, books and studies are inherently of less interest then porn performers whose career is inevitably going to be relatively short lived and of passing interest. Can I check that you are aware that this is a project about an online encyclopedia and not a database of random ephemera? Spartaz Humbug! 08:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Sure, some academics track the Kings of Denmark.  How many people in the US have thought even once about a Danish king in the 15th century?  I see five: Margaret I, Eric VII, Christopher III, Christian I, and John.  Your assertion is "numerous scholarly and encyclopaedic papers, books, and studies".  But your assertion is not supported by the state of four of these five articles.  As per the tags on these five articles: Margaret I, "is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's personal feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts"; Eric VII has "insufficient inline citations" and "needs additional citations for verification"; Christopher III has "insufficient inline citations"; and Christian I "needs additional citations for verification".  Penthouse, on the other hand, had monthly circulation of over 100,000 in 2012. 

The only substantive part of your response in two sentences is the words "of less interest".  Why should Wikipedia editors say that we have more or less interest in a King of Denmark than in a pornbio topic with more than 100 film credits?  That is one of the main benefits of our notability guideline, that Wikipedia editors don't tell the world what attracts their attention.  You also indicate unreasonably that films, that do not expire, are "ephemera".  Again, most pornbio topics are orders of magnitude more wp:notable than 15th century kings, and gerrymandering notability to pick winners and losers undermines our policies and guidelines.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Opppose What porn awards get any coverage other than in the porn industry? What is "meaningful discussion in independent reliable secondary sources"? What meaningful discussion could you have about an award like they? I agree we should get rid of number 3 "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" since that just means a brief appearance in a popular music video or whatnot. Just use the same criteria that exists for other actors. "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Was the film popular? Shouldn't matter what type of film it is, be it pornography, mindless blood and gore horror film, horrible but high budget Hollywood film, or whatever. Why not have the rules other Entertainers have work for porn stars as well? This includes entertainers guideline 2 "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following."" The WP:ANYBIO bit at the top shows awards, etc. Should link to a page that list every award that is seen as notable and if its on that list it counts, no matter what field they are in. You can then discuss adding or removing things there. Dream Focus 23:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I would be fine with using the WP:NACTOR criteria. The problem, from your perspective, is that almost no porn films can be considered "notable", because they almost never meet the notability guidelines. It's the same reason we don't have thousands of pages for student actors who played roles in student films, nor would that change if student film producers gave out student film awards to each other. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Pornography-related BLPs have been generally handled pretty well at AfD since the last update to PORNBIO several years ago. I suspect that this change here is mostly-related to trying to get rid of even more pornography-related articles than have already been purged recently from Wikipedia via the AfD/PROD process. The current "Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration." portion of the PORNBIO standard has been intentionally & significantly above the ANYBIO standard for quite some time now. Also, the current "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." portion of PORNBIO is very similar to our GNG standard, and it has not meant "a brief appearance in a popular music video or whatnot" at AfD either now or in the past.
It's also kind of an odd thing to see such a major change to our notability standards coming from someone that currently claims to be "retired"...how would that kind of user even know that there has been "Far too much recent discussion about low level or actually non-notable award categories" at AfD? The facts are that, at AfD (now and in the past), "inadequately sourced blps" routinely get deleted. Also, using trade magazine citations on Wikipedia from a related industry isn't new or controversial at all. Guy1890 (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Whether an editor has forgotten to update a status template on their userpage is not relevant to this discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, he hasn't "forgotten"; see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, so it's a WP:HIGHMAINT game. Still doesn't seem germane to the substance of the discussion.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
What's really "germane to the substance of the discussion" is that the initial claims made by the OP aren't actually true. One only need to look at the recent history of pornography-related deletion discussions (since at least January of this year) to see that there have only been 2 BLP-related AfDs kept, 7 BLP-related AfDs closed as no consensus (which is usually a default to keep), and many, many times those numbers of BLP-related AfDs that were closed as delete to see that the "problem" originally cited here really doesn't exist in the first place. Guy1890 (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Spartaz, this discussion is listed in Centralized Discussion, therefore inviting the entire Wikipedia community to comment on it. However, your proposal does not even list or link to what the existing criteria/text are, so how are editors supposed to know what they are !voting to change or keep? Also, if you are retired as your userpage states, why are you starting a proposal to change a longstanding guideline? Softlavender (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment  The proposer has received a request to provide examples of the problem alleged to be "Far too much recent discussion..." but has refused.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – Wouldn't the amended language of the second criterion exclude all actors outside the American film adult industry from qualifying under that criterion? Graham (talk) 04:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. There isn't much I can say that Mr. Shabazz hasn't already said, but this just seems to be the latest stretch in WP:IJDLI, as the proposer has a history of challenging several articles on pornographic actors, most of whom indeed pass PORNBIO (and whose articles have been kept; for example, Capri Anderson, April O'Neil, Nica Noelle). I also noticed that the only editors who seem to endorse this have also always seemed to !vote "delete" in porn-related AfDs; I'm sorry, people, but no matter how hard you try, Wikipedia is not going to get rid of pornography-related articles. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 09:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with removing scene-specific AVN awards from PORNBIO. The SNG is too expansive when it results in a SNOW keep that should have been delete per BLP1E. I can understand fans of porn want their hobby included just as the folks at MILHIST defend WP:SOLDIER. In this case, I don't think Wikipedia as a project benefits from including this content especially when dealing with BLPs. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose because my concerns above [10] have not been addressed by the OP. Softlavender (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The current guideline under discussion is, obviously, on the project page with which this talk page is associated. Why on Earth should the person starting the discussion be required to state the blindingly obvious before you can give a reasoned opinion? And the presence of a template on one of that editor's pages is, again obviously, utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • If it is so blindingly obvious, why is it not stated?  It is like a verbal contract, which is not enforceable in a court of law because there is no record of what was intended. 

    If it is important enough to add to a centralized discussion, why was it not important enough to proofread the post and remove any sentence fragments?

    When challenged to produce examples of "BLP-violating articles that have survived AfD?", the OP provided one AfD and stated, "This is an example of an article that clearly fails the GNG".  Can we now assume that the claim of a BLP issue in the OP is withdrawn?  Think about it, by your rules, the OP does not have to strike out the claim for us to know that the claim is withdrawn.

    As for the claim that the issue being discussed can be determined from the project page, this claim is flawed as the Project Page at PORNBIO has been edited since the start of this discussion, and the changes have not been discussed.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Don't be silly. Of course a talk page discussion doesn't have to make the explicit statement, "this discussion relates to the project page of which this is the talk page". Have you ever seen any talk page discussion do that? By your logic just about every talk page discussion that's ever been held is invalid. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • An ad hominem based on a straw man built on a straw man does not advance the discussion.  The "explicit statement" quote is the first straw man because it is not the stated objection of the OP.  The words "by your logic" is the second straw man because I said nothing about what makes a talk page proposal valid or invalid.  And as for the premise that undocumented proposals are normal in talk page discussions, I think that what is not normal on talk page discussions is for a participant to ask for clarification of the proposal and to have the request denied.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Here is an extract from Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 53#RFC - Compromise proposal re first sentence to show that a community of editors can aspire to do better than proposals whose changes are not clear.
RFC Proposal re first sentence ipsum lorem
The proposal is in two parts...
  • 1) change the opening paragraph:
  • From: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is ipsum lorem.
  • To:     The initial threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is ipsum lorem.
The other paragraphs in the lede will not change.
  • 2) Insert a new section (as the first section after the lede, following the index box) to deal with the issue of truth/untruth...as follows:
==Assertions of truth and untruth==

An editor's assertion that something is true is not enough ipsum lorem.

Rationale ipsum lorem
====Introduction====

The first sentence of the policy currently reads: ipsum lorem.

Here is another example, where the following is from a proposal to change the WP:N nutshell.  The diff is dated 2011-07-17T19:14:58.
  • from: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant enough attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons. ipsum lorem
  • curr:  Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant-enough attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons. ipsum lorem
  • to:      Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons. ipsum lorem
The curr version has the hyphen, and the to version uses "sufficiently". 
Unscintillating (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It's laughable that you accuse other editors of making ad hominem and "straw man" arguments when the only such arguments have come from you and your fellow special pleaders arguing that articles about porn actors should be immune from the WP:BLP policy, which mandates independent reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In this current discussion the same clear statement of what is intended was given by the first five words, "Replace whole and replace with:...". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • When you used the words "other editors", did you not mean "another editor"?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • As for the assertion that there is anyone in the entire discussion who has advocated for BLP violations, please provide a diff or diffs.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • As for the idea that this current discussion involves BLP, I remind you of what I posted above to you just yesterday, "When challenged to produce examples of 'BLP-violating articles that have survived AfD?', the OP provided one AfD and stated, 'This is an example of an article that clearly fails the GNG'."  Can we now assume that the claim of a BLP issue in the OP is withdrawn?"  Unscintillating (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support in spirit; it's correct that scene-related awards are already excluded. I do think something needs to be done about the profusion of pseudo-sourced adult entertainer bios, much of the source material for which is obviously fictionalized and promotional, but the exact wording proposed probably isn't it. I would be happy to see a tighter proposal (but I don't edit in that area, so I'm not really in a good position to make one).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose. This seems to be an other attempt at narrowing the field by some people with I presume the not so secret agenda of step by step eliminating the subject in its enterity. As I think the current WP:PORNBIO criteria are already applied too stringent, I am in favour of the status quo and definitely not in favour of an other attempt to tighten the criteria. -- fdewaele, 23 August 2016, 15:32 CET.
  • Support - the current criteria is way too low a bar and allows low quality and poorly sourced articles about pornographic actors. I personally would favor removing the subject specific PORNOBIO and just using the GNG, but as a first step this is an improvement. There's really no reason why Wikipedia allows the industry's own promotional tools, which get almost no coverage in mainstream media (unsurprisingly), to decide notability. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Notability is not a content guideline.  The core content policies are WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR.  Notability is defined outside of Wikipedia.  Or are low-quality poorly sourced PORNBIO articles ok as long as the topic meets WP:GNG or any of the other SNGs?  Unscintillating (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The most important point is that articles about porn actors need to comply with WP:BLP and WP:V, and so have sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Porn industry web sites do not have such a reputation, because their whole purpose is to provide fantasies rather than facts. Therefore no article should be allowed that is only sourced to porn industry web sites. Whether this outcome is achieved by changing WP:PORNBIO to reflect those policies, removing it altogether, or by closers of deletion discussions basing their decisions on policy rather than a policy-defying guideline doesn't really matter, as long as it is achieved. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Can I count on both of your support if I propose that we bar articles about sports figures from citing sports websites and journals, which are at least as fantastic as anything related to pornography? And what if we bar the use of the business press in articles about businesses and businesspeople -- their job is to promote business, and the overwhelming majority of what they publish is reprinted press releases. And don't get me started on the Hollywood press corps. Or maybe we should all try to exercise good editorial judgment and not take everything we read at face value, without writing stupid guidelines unless we believe ourselves to be stupid people. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 22:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, no, your statement that "sports websites and journals, which are at least as fantastic as anything related to pornography" is false. The New York Times has a dedicated sports section. It does not have a porn section. FuriouslySerene (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • This isn't quite correct, because the notability guidelines don't apply to page content. For example, a porn article subject can currently be considered notable based on winning an industry porn award but be solely sourced to a DVD information page and other low quality porn websites, because the reliable source guidelines allows those types of sources for certain non-controversial information. FuriouslySerene (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as a step in the right direction, per SMcCandlish and FuriouslySerene. Even better would be to apply the WP:BLP policy to porn actors just the same as we do for everyone else, and require reliable sources rather than source articles to the fantasy biographies on porn industry web sites. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. The current PORNBIO is discredited and out of step with policy. Notability subguidelines are supposed to be indicators of likelihood to meet the GNG. PORNBIO doesn't do that. Continually, biographies meeting PORNBIO are deleted due to lack of independent coverage. If it weren't for the fact that PORNBIO is roundly rejected as meaningful at AfD, it would result in Wikipedia hosting a directory of porn stars, porn stars for whom there is nothing sourceable except directory information. Other websites exist for that purpose. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    Not sure why that lie gets repeated so often. WP:NOTABILITY is quite clear that to be notable you either meet the general notability guidelines or the subject specific guidelines. They aren't "subguidelines" but subject specific ones. You have never had to meet both. When the concept of notability was being determined for Wikipedia, it was decided that winning a notable award, such as the noble prize, etc, or being responsible for a major scientific discovery, or other such things, made you notable, even if you didn't do interviews and get news media coverage. Not sure if anyone at the time thought winning a porn star award would count. Dream Focus 07:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • You are wilfully misreading WP:N. ("wilfully" because this has been explained to you before) The sub-guidelines are quick and easy indicators of notability, and WP-notability is a rebuttable presumption that the topic is worthy of a standalone article. WP:AfD is the final arbiter, and stubby porn biographies that meet the flimsy PORNBIO criteria are routinely deleted. Therefore, PORNBIO is a failure of documentation of practice, exceptions in the backwaters notwithstanding because they (PORNBIO-passing GNG-failing biographies) get deleted whenever wider attention is attracted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Notability "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right;" See that? "Subject-specific" not "sub-guidelines". Quite clear. Dream Focus 07:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • For PORNBIO, the presumption is very frequently in error. It is bad documentation. When AfD discussions are well-attended, the deciding factor is whether the GNG is met.
  • The "sub-guideline" language may have been edited at some point, but its meaning and intent was and is accurate. But this really is not a substantive matter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It very much is a substantive matter, because I think you are arguing to turn WP:N into a content policy.  The spirit of WP:N has nothing to do with having the content to write an article, and there is no need to change it.  There are various non-prose sources of evidence that a topic is notable, at which point we rely (or should rely) on our core content policies which includes WP:V#Notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No, Unscintillating, I do not support turning the relatively high WP:N/WP:GNG bar into a content guideline. I support listification and prosification of GNG-failing pornstars who have won porn industry awards into articles on the award winners. One article covering all the winners of each award. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability is an empty line stating that WP:N is not empowered by WP:V. The core content policy sections limiting content are WP:PSTS and WP:DUE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. As explained at WHYN, the purpose of the notability requirement is to ensure we can, with sufficient effort, write articles that comply with RS, NPOV, and NOTDIRECTORY. The SNGs, including BIO's additional criteria, serve as useful proxies for GNG that let us avoid time-consuming research and debates about whether a given quantity of coverage is "significant." But, averaged out, these heuristics need to approximate GNG; when subjects with almost no qualifying coverage are kept because of an SNG, the purpose of notability (and AFD) is defeated. Rebbing 11:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    • No, WHYN is what is known as a "rationale" in standardization, and does not itself constitute requirements.  WP:N is not a content policy.  Look at the history in 2007 and I think you will see various efforts to elevate what is now WHYN to a requirement level, but this was rejected.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Right—which is why I'm relying on WHYN as an explanation and not a requirement in its own right: it justifies our notability guidelines in light of our content policies, which are requirements. Without significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, it's difficult to write an article that doesn't run afoul of at least one of RS, NPOV, or NOTDIRECTORY, and ensuring that articles can, with sufficient editing, be improved to meet our policies furthers the aims of the Project. Rebbing 12:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
        • So you agree that WHYN is not a requirement, but then you generalize that it means that both GNG and all of the SNGs have a purpose to "ensure we can, with sufficient effort, write articles that comply with RS..."  Why would you even attempt an argument like that?  WP:N has only one requirement, that a topic be "worthy of notice".  Even with GNG sourcing, the material is not necessarily prose.  You've opened the door to the argument, "there is not the material to write a reliable NPOV article so the topic is not notable".  This becomes a new definition of wp:notability, and this is a content definition, which WP:N is not.  That is the work of our content policies and WP:NOT.  So exactly the opposite is the case, that wp:notability does not mean that we have the reliable NPOV material to write an article.  This is fundamental to understanding and preserving wp:notability.  Notable topics are not guaranteed articles on Wikipedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Lends clarity to existing policy. Carrite (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The changes do two things, they explicitly link PORNBIO to being subordinate to the GNG making it clear that theseBLPs require the same level of sourcing as we expect elsewhere. The second thing they do is take the borderline discussions away from ridiculous disputes about whether superslut of the year or analist of the year are qualifying awards by making that discussion about whether the award category has been discussed in indeoendabt secondary sourcing. Essentially this means that discussions will be based on sources not slanging messages between to pro porn keep everything crowd and what Rebecca1990 charmingly refers to as porn deletioners - i.e. those who think BLP sourcing rules and GNG apply. Since the sitewide consensus is that BLPs must have rigorous sourcing that's kind of an attack on the whole basis of article inclusion. What is interesting is that once you take out those with fioxed positions on porn the clear consensus amongst those editors with no skin in the game is that we should make the change. I think that proves my point. Spartaz Humbug! 04:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "Explicitly linking Pornbio to being subordinate to the GNG" is part of what I mean when I talk about undermining our policies and guidelines.  If you look at the WP:N lede (reproduced below at #Alternate paths to define Wikipedia notability), GNG has no status higher or lower than either the SNGs, or other guidelines arguing directly to the WP:N requirement.  In effect, to any extent your proposal does what you claim, it must be ignored to the extent that it contradicts WP:N.  Further, you say, "...making it clear that theseBLPs require the same level of sourcing as we expect elsewhere...", but looking again at #Alternate paths to define Wikipedia notability, all paths to notability end up with articles whose WP:V requirement is to have 100% verifiable material.  Anyone who thinks that notability defines an article sourcing requirement is claiming that WP:N is a content policy, which it is not.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Arguing that the GNG is no more than any SNG is just silly. The GNG routinely trumps SNGs at AfD and DRV. The SNGs, for the most part (WP:PROF and WP:CORP excepted) are indicators for whether the GNG can be met, and the GNG is an indicator for whether the topic as a whole can meet core content policy WP:PSTS.
What are the changes? The change is a step to bring WP:PORNBIO into line with community standards consistently at play at AfD. The changes will remove the disservice to unsuspecting editors who have not yet become aware that the SNG is broadly discredited, and it will mean less futile arguments in support of directory information in the guise a biographies of non-notable performers.
Perhaps more importantly, it will help AfD return to discussing the quality of sourceable content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This is a surprising viewpoint, and one you don't claim to be policy based.  But first note that you've not acknowledged the role the notability essays routinely play at AfD.  The losers in your scenario are the content contributors who cannot look at our notability guideline and predict results, see for example the DRV for Deepin. 

    We are back to the issue that topics can be notable but lack sufficient NPOV material to write an article.  Such cases require WP:DEL7 deletions.  I started a discussion at WT:V a couple of days ago regarding WP:DEL7 deletions, and it has not received a response.  These deletions may be more difficult than is obvious, as each reference to be removed may require a discussion.  However, such discussions keep focused in reality any claims that reliable sources don't exist.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - per SmokeyJoe, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong opposse - There are users who think the current PORNBIO guideline is too inclusive, and there are users, like me, who think the current PORNBIO guideline is too exclusive. If neither side is satisfied, doesn't that suggest the guideline is a reasonable compromise between both sides? And I'm tired of the porn deletioners being given an inch and taking a mile. The last tightening of PORNBIO has already resulted in over a hundred deletions of porn biography articles (so far). How about browsing porn biographies for more articles that fail the CURRENT guideline and delete them all before asking for a tighter guideline? This new suggestion to tighten PORNBIO even more is unreasonable. The new wording is also vague and open to (mis)interpretation, unlike the current PORNBIO guideline, which is more straightforward. Rebecca1990 (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    • That's a very interesting response as clearly none of the articles deleted since the last change passed the GNG (or they wouldn't have been deleted) and therefore were inadequately sourced BLPs. Nevertheless your position is that we need more porn articles and that essentially means you are advocating the position that we should host BLPs that are inadequately sourced. Unfortunately, or is that fortunately, that's not how wikipedia works and we do have quite site wide consensus that if its a BLP we expect high standards of sourcing not lower because they are in porn. Spartaz Humbug! 04:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, per DreamFocus and Guy1890. I think the current guidelines are too exclusive with the bar set too high. Are we seriously going to make it even worse? Also the I find the keep arguments troubling because they seem to suggest that prudishness is a non-issue in main-stream media or in wider society. Since I believe prudishness is an existent problem I do not trust the average-Joe-this-hurts-my-feelings to decide unbiasedly. Instead, I believe that the main way that we can protect ourselves from prudish tendencies in our midst is by having a separate venue where notability can be discussed more explicitly. Pwolit iets (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to find "prudishness" in the notability guidelines - GNG - the SNGs - H-m-m-m-m. Well, I'm still looking - I'll have to get back to you. Wait! maybe it's in common outcomes - well, I still have to get back to you. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong support this is sorely needed. This will help to firmly place porno biographies into alignment and agreement with GNG and BLP along with our other policies and guidelines. It will also help to end the attempts to circumvent policies and guidelines as a tenable position in porno bio AfDs, which I have recently noticed has been occuring. I wish to personally thank User:Spartaz for doing this. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think that we should be making wholesale changes to our notability guidelines just because some Wikipedia editors/administrators don't like the commentary that others have (mostly unsuccessfully) made at certain types of AfDs.
The facts are, again, that our notability guidelines (including the current PORNBIO standard) are cited all the time at AfD to delete pornography-related BLPs and that very few AfDs, since the last change to PORNBIO, have been kept at AfD (mostly due to them meeting the GNG standard). The facts clearly show that our standards are used way, way, way more often to delete pornography-related content than to "routinely" retain that type of content at AfD, even if that content is sourced to "Porn industry web sites".
PORNBIO is not a "low bar"...it's been intentionally set as a higher bar (even higher than it's associated NACTOR standard of which PORNBIO is actually a sub-category to) over the years to prevent the creation of "too many" pornography-related BLPs. No one that I know of on Wikipedia is seriously advocating for "more porn articles" on Wikipedia. It's also not at all true that "PORNBIO is roundly rejected as meaningful at AfD" at all...again, applying those exact, current standards has caused many, many pornography-related BLPs to be deleted from Wikipedia for many months (probablly more like years at this late date) now. Precident set at recently-decided AfDs routinely applies to later AfDs, whether they are "well-attended" or not. I think I can also safely say that there are exactly zero pornography-related BLPs being kept at AfD that are only "sourced to a DVD information page" on Wikipedia.
BTW, even the vaunted The New York Times has reviewed a few adult films over the years. Guy1890 (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Guy, first of all this is not wholesale changes to our notability guidelines. Rather this seems to be only an attempt to explicitly tie PORNBIO to GNG and WP:BIO standards. From what I can see, It is not that the current Pornbio is low or high. It is the arguments I am seeing at AfD that claim the BLP subject is notable because he or she received an award per PORNBIO.
A pattern that I see is awards that lack any kind of acceptable sourcing per WP:V are being touted as significant - when it has not been determined one way or the other per WP:NRV. So, this causes the AfD discussion to be more contentious than it needs to be. With this adjustment to PORNBIO the indications of significance are more explicit.
Also, time and again, I see press releases and promotional materials being used as sources, which are, by far, not independent of the subject. These PR materials are touted as sources indicating significance and noteworthiness of both awards and BLP subjects. This seems to be a misinformed approach. Perhaps the idea is to not create articles based on only promotional materials or industry related materials in the first place. Hopefully this tweak will help with that.
Also, I am not seeing how prior AfDs that ended in keep or no consensus have any bearing on an ongoing AfD discussion. As far as I can tell they carry no weight - especially when the "kept" articles were sourced with only promotional materials - and somehow that was missed - like an oversight. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Again, we shouldn't be changing any of our notability guidelines based on arguments ("contentious" or not) that one sees & disagrees with at AfD. You and I have already been round & round at AfD recently about how your supposed "press releases and promotional materials" argument is completely false on the face ot it. Again, who would know better who won or didn't win a particular award than the awarding organization itself?? This is true for pretty much any awarding organization, including the Academy Awards.
The "subjects" of pornography-related BLPs are the people that the articles are written about, not the industry (or industries) that they might have worked in in the past. The idea that prior AfDs (regardless of how they were ultimately decided...keep, delete, etc.) don't have any relevance to a current AfD is also a plainly silly argument. Setting precedent is exactly one of several things that AfDs are for in the first place. Guy1890 (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Comparing XBIZ Awards, for example, to Academy Awards is a WP:EINSTEIN argument. The latter is an essay, not a guideline, but appears to be relevant here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Both the trade publication XBIZ and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are obviously reliable sources for their own award ceremonies...that's what's really relevant here. Guy1890 (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
That's kind of the issue. Normally notability derives from a source independent to the event and under PORNBIO its coming from non-independent sources as the discussion tends towards ridiculous assertions rather than demonstrating the indepndant sources that discuss the award category. Spartaz Humbug! 07:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
As I've already, clearly pointed out far above in this thread, the only "ridiculous assertion" here is the entire premise of this change in the first place. When the PORNBIO guideline has been used for quite some time to delete content from Wikipedia (sometimes well in excess of 80% of the time via AfD/PROD) than to keep it, there's no underlying problem with the guideline itself. Beyond that, I have no interest in responding to an admitted "BLP zealot" that has recently, actively canvassed off-Wikipedia (on Wikipediocracy of all places) for this kind of guideline change. This user's unfortunate clear motivations have already been plainly discussed at length above in this thread...I need not add anything further. Guy1890 (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • [redact off-wiki content] [H]e doesn't seem to want to get his hands dirty by editing articles that he perceives to have BLP problems.  I checked his contributions and I had to go back to August 2015 [11] to find an edit to an article for being unsourced.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Right, where the record will show that I stood up for you within the past 48 hours.  I also did research on the word "policy", which shows that I have used the word nine times in the discussion, more than anyone else.  Your post here was the first time you've used the word, but later today you added, "Basically the [obscenity deleted] about supersluts pretty much forced my hand to try and straighten the policy out. 08:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)  Pornbio topics, including this "supersluts" I assume, are massively wp:notable, so your remedy does not lie in an SNG.  Get it?  I've made proposals like a guideline at WP:NOT, new standards for biographies of fictional people (meaning where only the trade name is known), pushback on the industry to provide bios by highly reputable sources such as Bloomberg, and support for WP:DEL7 deletions.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Unscintillating: - this is really inappropriate. I request you remove that comment. I agree that it is harassment. And Guy1890 did not explcility point out who they were talkikng about. The link does not work. So to me, this means you are jumping to conclusions. Guy1890 can you please not go on a tangent like that again. This almost caused serious problems as I hope you can see. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree entirely. And, to make things worse, Spartaz's actual statement has been rather grossly distorted in its presentation here. The actual statement was "I'm a bit of a BLP zealot. For barely marginal people they are magnets for any shit someone wants to throw at them and they won't be sufficiently patrolled to protect them from the crap" -- an opinion shared by many responsible editors here, and which really has no bearing on the the policy and guideline issues under discussion here. It's downright creepy to see how many contributors here have such an emotional investment in pornography that they feel free to blithely smear editors who don't share their affection for the subject, and disturbing to note the unwillingness of much of the community here to place appropriate limits on, and sanctions for, that behaviour. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support -- the SNG in question needs to align to GNG; otherwise Wikipedia becomes a WP:WEBHOST for promotional BLPs, which often contain nothing much besides awards and nominations. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. In general, the purpose of the special notability guidelines is to provide a tool for quickly determining when a topic is highly likely to have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Accordingly, we tend to keep articles about Olympic athletes, state and provincial legislators and winners of major prizes like the Nobel, Pulitzer and MacArthur Fellowships because experience tells us that the reliable independent sources are almost certainly out there for these topics with an in-depth search. However, winning an award which is at best iteself marginally notable does not automatically confer notability on all its recipients. Our WP:BLP policy requires very high quality sources. Porn industry sources by their very nature blend fact with fiction with no way to verify the accuracy of any given statement. The typical porn biography sources are twitter, blogs, press releases about a third tier industry insider awards, porn databases and so on. I am not an "anti-porn" editor, I have no moral objection to porn, and I want this encyclopedia to have biographies of actually notable porn performers, with biographical information verified by references to actually reliable sources, as required by policy. PORNBIO in its current form is a failure because it encourages the creation of articles about non-notable porn performers, which are frequently deleted at AfD. Every industry has internal trade publications, trade shows and insider back scratching awards. We do not need biographies of non-notable locksmiths, kitchen remodeling contractors, dentists, financial advisors, plastic surgeons, machine shop owners or porn performers, just because they might have won insignificant industry insider awards, but have not received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support SNGs have several purposes: they provide quick indications of whether a subject is notable without investing substantial time in searching for sources, they indicate when a subject may be notable in topic areas where sources may not be readily available, and they can give guidance on how the GNG should be applied to particular topics. It isn't a good idea for SNGs to be set up so that lots of subjects pass the SNG but not the GNG - if the subject doesn't pass the GNG then we can't write a substantial article on the subject without running into serious problems. The fact that we do seem to be having a number of AfDs in which the subject fails the GNG but not PORNBIO suggests PORNBIO needs to be altered. Hut 8.5 16:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • If the problem is with WP:V and WP:BLP, why is the attention here going to wp:notability, which is defined outside of Wikipedia?  Do Wikipedia editors tell the world the topics to which they should be giving their attention?  Unscintillating (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Notability is closely linked to WP:V and WP:BLP, as you can see from the fact that both of those policies incorporate notability-related material. If a subject genuinely does not have significant coverage in third party reliable sources then it is very difficult to write an article about it without falling foul of a core content policy unless the article remains very short. If the subject doesn't have much coverage in reliable sources then you'll have to use unreliable ones or leave the content unsourced, which poses serious verifiability problems. If the sources are all associated with the subject then the article will run into obvious neutrality concerns. And if the sources don't give much coverage to the subject then you may be forced to use unhealthy amounts of original research to string them together. These issues would all be compounded if the subject is a BLP. Hut 8.5 10:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • If an article fails WP:BLP and subsequently WP:V (which is one of the requirements of WP:BLP) it should be deleted and is generally deleted, these principles are not negotiable and have nothing to do with notability guidelines. Cavarrone 13:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think "meaningful discussion" is very clear in the context of requiring independent sources. This indicates that there be more than a trivial mention or a passing mention and in sources that do not produce the "product", i.e., the said "award". Also, there is no indication this change results in superseding ANYBIO, but is rather in agreement with ANYBIO #1 which states, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Actually, and surprisingly, it is like a hand fitting into a glove. Interesting, I am glad you brought this up. And of course, this change will be useful for creating articles, as well for AfD discussions. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Since we are on the subject of users motivation's being mentioned here lets just record that Morbidthoughts is one of the people who run IAFD and therefore presumably benefits from the click throughs they get from the IAFD posted below evcery porn article. That they are arguing to keep a wider porn inclusion standard against the GNG is not therefore surprising. Spartaz Humbug! 08:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm a volunteer editor there just like I am on wikipedia. I have no access to IAFD's web stats or financial information, and my previous history of pushing to tighten PORNBIO [12][13] would go against your theory that I am editing on behalf of IAFD's interest. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NOTCENSORED. It is not exactly the news of the day that Spartaz has an agenda of opposing pornography and wanting a more conservative and censored Wikipedia (it is sufficient to look at his contributions, which since a couple of years are mainly opposition-to-pornography-related), but this is frankly becoming a bit odd. The proposed wording is vague and ambiguous, and the removal of points 3 and the trimming of point 2 are unexplained and silly (how a person who is described by reliable sources as having made an unique contribution to a specific pornographic genre such as beginning a trend in pornography could be assessed as non-notable is beyond me). Most importantly, I don't remember meaningful discussions about award categories in a bunch of very notable awards, have ever been the Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor – Series, Miniseries or Television Film, the BAFTA Rising Star Award, or the David di Donatello for Best Actor categories ever discussed by some sources? Usually you can find articles about the people who won the awards, or articles which list the wins, but I doubt you will ever find sources discussing the categories themselves (generally the name of the category is clear enough to not require further "meaningful discussion"). I am ready to support this proposal if is part of a more consistent review of other people-related SNGs starting from WP:ANYBIO, otherwise it is just the application of a double standard towards a category of entertainers who is obviously biased by a part of editors (and by a part of the society as well) because of their moral or social or political views. Current guideline wording at best allows the creation of 5-10 articles a year about the major names in this industry who pass WP:ANYBIO by a country mile, which I consider pretty reasonable and strict enough, especially when other SNGs such as WP:ATH allows the daily creation of dozens of permastubs on niche and sometimes borderline-notable sports (in those cases no one cares, as sport does not offend sensibilities). The example below about CRICKET s quite enlighting. Cavarrone 07:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know when Spartaz supposed first exhibited this alleged crusade against porn, apparently out of the blue, but it is my impression that the anti-PORNBIO sentiments arose after all of the following:
  • The PORNBIO section of WP:BIO was shortened;
  • WP:DRV (the only place that Spartaz & I ever hung out together) began to see reviews of particularly absurd cases of an article meeting the shortened PORNBIO subcriteria, but being a woefully inadequate article due to having zero secondary source coverage (not even requiring the secondary source coverage to be independent). What this means is that no source whatsoever contained any sentence that said anything qualitative or subjective about the subject. There was facts, directory information, films acted in, awards (and not even wikipedia-notable awards) nominated for. Clearly failing the last verion of Wikipedia:Notability_(pornographic_actors).
The problem appeared to me to be that PORNSTAR biogrpahies form a Wikipedia:Walled garden. Extremely few but all the porn fans care about them. When nominated at AfD, the porn croud alone might turn up, usually, but when a wider audience participated the article would be deleted despite meeting the then worded PORNBIO section.
For a while, I had a go at participating in pornstar AfDs. Interestingly, I found the out-of-touch PORNBIO criteria to be out of touch both ways. PORNBIO would frequently would support a starlet nominated for some narrow award, but subject to zero real coverage, but in other cases (including some today), someone is nominating a pornstar for failing to have been nominated for an award despite non-trivial coverage in the media.
Others at DRV also noted that the SNG PORNBIO was discredited.
Having reviewed this, I see that it might be better to de-merge Wikipedia:Notability_(pornographic_actors), to go back to the September 2007 guideline text.
User:Cavarrone, it is not at all about censorship. WP:ANYBIO, WP:ATH? I have suspected that WP:ANYBIO was created to obfuscate the extreme leniency with respect to needing coverage under PORNBIO. Only porn fans ever seem to mention ANYBIO. WP:ATH, is actually squarely in the same boat as WP:PORNBIO. Both serve to encourage directly-style coverage by way of biography permastubs of temporarily public people.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Smokey is right, my interest in this area came from the ridiculous cases reaching DRV not from any purile small minded objection to porn. If the usual suspects were not so determined to oppose the clear community consensus on this subject I would have left the area to them to police long since. Since they are determined to stick two fingers to the community and insist on trying to keep every crappy porn article it requires external involvement. Basically the shit about supersluts pretty much forced my hand to try and straighten the policy out. Good work guys. Spartaz Humbug! 08:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Cavarrone you need to do your research. I agree that CRICKET seems absurd but bear in mind that every first class cricketer in the UK is profiled every year of their career in Playfield Cricket Annual and that most broadsheet newspapers in the UK used to cover every country cricket match although the level of coverage has reduced in recent years. Do your research further and you will see me arguing vociferously against the retention of a single match Sri Lankan player (S Pereara I think) where we have no dob or first name and taking this through to DRV so there is plenty of evidence that I am consistent in my position and not on a crusade. Spartaz Humbug! 08:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe:, I don't disagree with most of your analysis, but some editors making so much emphasis about pornography opposite way looser guidelines is a bit suspect. About WP timeline, wasn't WP:ANYBIO created before WP:PORNBIO (I don't really know)? Indeed, I am pretty active at AfD area (even when not commenting there, because I am uncertain or because I consider an additional pile-on vote useless), and I keep on seeing ANYBIO and derivates mentioned with variable results dozens of times (I can eventually provide examples). As I said, sub-guidelines should be consistent with ANYBIO, whatever the field the people belong. I am fine with tighting PORNBIO and even deleting all the award-justified porn-bios as long as we first edit ANYBIO and the other SNGs in a consistent way or align them to GNG (it would not be bad for the overall quality of WP), otherwise we are just applying a double standard with a category of people (who, coincidence, is often blamed if not despised by a consistent part of the society) opposite to all the others (sorry if I am repeating myself). About de-merging pornographic actors from WP:BIO and having a more accurate guideline, I'm absolutely in favour of your proposal, but at the end of the day are you sure the current wording is looser than the former?
@Spartaz:, I can trust your explaination about your interest in pornography, but really, could a couple DRV discussions lead a neutral editor to spend most of their wiki-time battling in this area? I could be wrong, but as a minimum I see some significant emotional involvement about the topic, otherwise if you are concerned by awards-improperly-leading-notability criteria you should ask for a consistent change of ANYBIO and relevant sub-guidelines, not just for tighning a sub-guideline such as PORNBIO. About researches on cricketers, the coverage in newspapers is in most of the cases spectacularly trivial and unusable. Most of our articles about cricketers consist of ONE or two lines, and several of them have unknown place and date of death, a few of them have also unknown date of birth. I could list in minutes a couple hundreds permastubs about cricketers which are worst sourced of the worst sourced pornography-related biography. And what about WP:NFOOTY, which allows articles about footballers who played 10 minutes in third-level leagues such as Lega Pro or 3. Liga and have no chance ever to come close to GNG? What about an article only sourced to a press release which just yesterday was de-salted and recreated on sight after a single game? The hated porn-voters just apply the rule of thumb "weakly passes a SGN while spectacularly failing GNG = notable" as others do with far more success and less examination on other less biased subjects, but the SNGs/GNG detachment question is way broader than saying that PORNBIO is actually a major issue, both in terms of quantity of poorly sourced articles and of AfD outcomes. Cavarrone 13:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment. I have to agree with Cavarrone that clearly there is a double standard applied with regards to porn actresses/actors if compared to other individuals in other fields. A footballer who plays in the third division in Germany (which is quite low) is to be held notable enough according to the second standard applied by WP:NFOOTY, notability which I find doubtful, but a pornactress/actor with an individual award would be barred under this new criteria because that award is not deemed "notable" enough by some purists. -- fdewaele, 29 August 2016, 15:55 CET.
I 100% agree with everything Cavarrone said (well, except for the cricket-related articles, as that's not my field.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Cavarrone, "but at the end of the day are you sure the current wording is looser than the former". Looking again, the difference may be subtle, but I read a devaluation of "well-known award". All the SNGs were more permissive then, PORNBIO remained and became more permissive. I think "well-known award" should mean a "notable award", if the award does not have an article, then being a winner or serious nominee is not good enough. It is bad enough suggesting that notability is inherited from the award, absurd to think that notability is inheritable from a non-notable award. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I always considered the notability of the award some sort of pre-requisite, so I certainly agree with the point and I agree in including the notability requirement in the wording of the SNG (and in ANYBIO too). Also, IMHO I would add a note clarifying that the notability of the award should be explicitly proofed through mainstream sources (not just trade publications). This would be a modification way clearer and reasonable that the proposed "meaningful discussion about the category" which is odd and potentially inapplicable: I just made indepht researches (which included some books I own) about David di Donatello and Nastro d'Argento, the main Italian cinema awards, and I found absolutely nothing coming close to a meaningful (or even passing) discussion for any of their categories, just general listing of award wins/noms and bios/articles about actors which mention the noms/wins. I am a bit worried several usually intelligent editors including you supported the proposal without addressing its contents, i.e. its confused wording and its general inapplicability, just because their generic bad feelings towards porn bios. Cavarrone 06:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • This is sounding like agreement? The original proposal reads to me as effectively saying this, although it could be clarified. I definitely support *something* being done, as PORNBIO is not a creditable SNG at the moment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • fdewaele, User:Erpert, you are arguing WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. But further, PORNBIO is worse than ATHLETE and ANYBIO in encouraging articles on temporarily public people because often with pornstars, unlike the others, the pornstarlets often use pseudonyms with poorly hidden real identities, and the Wikipedia article serves to enshrine their personal information even when they try to become private. If the pornstarlets devoid of real coverage were instead merged to articles covering collective award winners, there would be no encourage to dig into private information so as to completed the stub of a biography. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "PORNBIO shouldn't be tightened while other SNGs aren't" is textbook OCE.
"temporarily public people" is a BLP1E issue. A starlet who features in a few films, has zero coverage otherwise, this brief film career completely disconnected from her previous and subsequent life, this is a BLP1E violation, and BLP1E outranks NOTTEMPORARY. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
OCE refers to articles, not guidelines. And BLP1E outranks NOTTEMPORARY? I'm not sure where that consensus is, but...since you brought it up, the example you mentioned is inaccurate to call a BLP1E violation. For example, Peter Ostrum had a single film role—in Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory. Is he non-notable now? Absolutely not. (And that's even a good article.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose  The consensus should be to support our policies and guidelines, and in turn support our content contributors, which this proposal is not.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support After wading through the mountains. "Notcensored" is irrelevant as an argument. The issues are "what is notability?" using a similar standard for all categories of BLPs across Wikipedia. To the extent that PORNBIO violates that principle, it ought to be deprecated. For instance, suppose there were established "CHEMBIO" stating that any chemist mentioned in any standard text is automatically notable? Or JOURNALISTBIO stating that anyone who has had a byline in any wire service or newspaper is "notable"? Sorry - the GNG sets a standard which should be at least marginally followed by any SNG. Collect (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • COMMENT But then you come back to the double standard issue again because there are BIOs who exactly state that as notability criteria. For instance WP:NFOOTY. Doing this change/tightening only with regards to PORNBIO is then a double standard and bias towards a particular type of bios. You should then only change it as part of a general overhaul of all separate BIO criteria and not just as part of an anti-porn crusade. -- fdewaele, 30 August 2016, 16:22 CET.
  • Comment It seems to me, one of the main reasons for this proposal is because lately most Porno Bios that pass AfD are not actually passing GNG thereby satisfying BLP. When they pass AfD, it is not based on GNG because the sources time and again appear to be much less than adequate - industry promotional materials, and sometimes a twitter account and sometimes audience edited film database and sometimes a personal website, or a passing mention if they're lucky. Here are some examples [14], [15], [16], [17]. Also, there is no reason to mess with the other SNGs just because this one is being adjusted. The other SNGs do not demonstrate a failure to augment GNG. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Typical of those who support this ill-conceived proposal, this comment is untrue. Those articles have not passed AfD, as Steve Quinn asserts. Rather, each is currently at AfD. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Malik Shabazz: True, these are examples of Porn biographies that are in AfD. I wanted to emphasize these have he type of sourcing I have mentioned. Second, this is one of the persons I provided: this is Justine Joli's second nomination - the first was "keep" [18], which is one of the previous links. This is another one that fits the description in my post (but not one of the links orginally provided): [19] which just achieved "no consensus". Here is Gracie Glam (not one of the links originally provided), and K. Lockwood (not one of the links originally provided). Sorry about the misunderstanding, I was tired when I wrote that. Hopefully these four will suffice Steve Quinn (talk)
  • Oppose wording I think that the SNG for porn is still too broad. But I think this is just going to cause less clarity. We should list the specific awards that meet the SNG with the understanding that the list will need to be updated every few years. The principle Spartaz has given (award category being covered) is a fine one, but I don't want to see a re-ligation of each award category on each AfD. And given the very strong feelings people have on both sides of this, that's exactly what's going to happen. So, IMO, the status quo is better than this proposal, but we do need a change. And I'd suggest we form a committee that creates a list of which awards should count for the SNG. It should probably be a list of 15-20 annual (one-person) awards (seems about right looking at the major Academy Awards and that there are probably 2 or 3 sets of awards out there (sorry I don't follow the field)). Hobit (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Hobit I tried to get discussion to refine the wording below and was shouted down by the pro-porn keep everything. I'm aware the wording is not ideal but given the obstruction and unwillingless to cooperate by the subject experts - you know the ones who know a LOT about porn we have no choice but to go with what I roughed out. No doubt the wording will improve with normal editing after it goes live. Spartaz Humbug! 12:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I don't think that was much better. Again, I'd favor coming up with a simple black-and-white SNG. The hall of fame thing is such a black-and-white criteria, and I think we can simply "defer to a committee" and find a reasonable set of awards that we accept. Or maybe just have a list article for each year's awards and then cover each "significant award" winner in a paragraph or two unless they pass the GNG. I'm mellow, I'd just like a bright line rule. And ideally one that's a bit more restrictive than what we have as some of these BLPs are very lightly sourced (at best) even with non-independent sources. Hobit (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, per SmokeyJoe, and I'm concerned to see others say there are porn bios that might be violating BLP. SarahSV (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support up to a point: I would actually propose that the guideline should be: Has been the primary subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Exactly as it is for everything, in fact. Winning a porn industry award or being in a hall of fame still does not mean we can have an article, because so much of what's written about performers on industry websites is fictional. It needs to be sources that are definitely reliable and definitely independent. Because, you know, WP:BLP and WP:NOTDIR and all those other things. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's true that so much of what's written on industry websites is fictional. For example, XBIZ.com not only has press releases, but actual articles as well. Now, those would qualify as reliable sources; however, a message board post from XBIZ.com wouldn't. But the rest of this discussion should probably continue in the subsection below. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support This is sorely needed. The spirit of SNGs is to identify people who have a certain enduring notability as well create a consistent standard. The problem with PORNBIO is that the standard of inclusion is way too low. (Actually SPORTS is too low as well). This essentially results in Wikipedia becoming a directory, which is precisely what we are not supposed to be per WP:NOTDIR. The problem with using just about any industry award is the same problem with using trade magazines for companies: it is easier to be featured in these sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The SNG for porn actors is extremely restrictive by comparison to, for example, almost all the SNGs in WP:Notability (sports), and is routinely used to delete articles that get hundreds or even over a thousand views per day. BLP violating material should be removed, and is, routinely. It is obviously not necessary to restrict the SNG further in order to prevent BLP violations. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Additionally, the wording is clearly designed in a way to eliminate the great majority of pornstar articles, as the OP well knows that the individual categories are never the subject of "meaningful discussion" in mainstream RS, although the award ceremonies as a whole are. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Sammy1339 I did offer an opportunity to improve the wording but your colleagues in the pro-porn keep everything crowed shouted me down. That's a shame because it was a chance to incorporate your side's view - but it takes willingness on both sides to collaborate. Dying in a ditch over something you can't win is not always the best strategy because you effectively get locked out of formulating the change. Spartaz Humbug! 12:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Page views are not part of content policies or notability guidelines, especially when considering the high standards required by BLP. Refering to another SNG is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS because we are only discussing adjustments to PORNBIO, not other SNGs. Attributing motivations such as "the wording is clearly designed in a way to eliminate the great majority of pornstar articles" does not address policy related issues regarding this discussion and are not relevant. And it is true that individual categories are usually not the subject of "meaningful discussion" in mainstream RS, which is an excellent rationale for changing PORNBIO to the proposed wording. This means PORNBIO will be in agreement in with GNG, which is important because these are supposed to be BLPs, not indiscriminate collections of information per WP:NOT or platforms for promotion WP:PROMO. ---Steve Quinn (talk)
OCE doesn't apply here because as I stated above, OCE refers to articles, not guidelines. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 16:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm sorry for not explaining my opinion more thoroughly. I would like to but I'm not a native English speaker and will try to say the most important things. Spartaz' wording is quite vague and doesn't really precise anything. Indeed it's pretty much impossible to be fullfilled. Award categories (from wichever type of an award in the world) are pretty much never "meaningful[ly] discuss[ed] in independent reliable secondary sources". That's why award articles are usually pretty boring to read. Meaning that even the highest honours a pornographic actor could get would be discussed meters long I can't see any effective improvement. Also an AfD should be about the sources of the discussed biography, not about those of an award. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "Award categories (from whichever type of an award in the world) are pretty much never "meaningful[ly] discuss[ed] in independent reliable secondary sources"
This is indeed the heart of the matter. The PORN industry has created many non-notable awards, and PORNBIO references them, and seeks to transfer notability from non-notable awards. And the main point is that we are talking about porn bios for which there aren't sources for the biography except for the reports that the person has been nominated for or won the non-notable award. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
You won't find such dreamed up single-category sources for most national film (I didn't only mean pornography!) awards – just as someone stated above after searching for an Italian film award. I can't find independent sources either, when searching for a list of Best Films from the Deutscher Filmpreis, only five primary sources from Deutscher Filmpreis/Deutsche Filmakademie and two hits from German Wikipedia. That just makes no sense and has nothing to do with pornography. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The Deutscher Filmpreis has these 2000 potential book sources, for a start. Do you claim that any pornography awards are comparable? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Didn't we talk about single categories? I meant the "Bester Film" category, the oldest category given since 1951, and there is nothing substantial for that. Looking at single award categories just makes no sense. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Accordingly, if winning or being nominated for a Deutscher Filmpreis award is the *only* claim to fame, and did't even come with independent coverage of winning or being nominated, then there is insufficient indication that a stand alone biography is warranted. Wikipedia is not a directory of names who won or were nominated for awards. That is not encyclopedic coverage. Wikipedia covers things already covered by others. Time and time again we see that PORNBIO indicates presumed notability for a living person, and is wrong. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
OK then, lets look for news sources covering that specific category. The list of results starts with Die Welt, Vogue, Deutsche Welle, Tagesspiegel and goes on to include many major non-specialist media outlets. Can you give evidence for equivalent coverage of any specific category of a porn award? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose As it stands the proposed new language to me seem more restrictive than ANYBIO. Remember what it states at the start of the Additional Criteria section: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards" (emphasis added mine). That means the requirements of PORNBIO must be in line with the requirements of ANYBIO. The ANYBIO requirement states that the person needs to have won "a well-known and significant award or honor". The PORNBIO language introduces a requirement that the award itself be discussed - that's absent from ANYBIO. And as a side note, I quite agree with a lot of what Cavarrone says about how NFOOTY and NCRICKET allows creation of articles about athletes merely because they appear briefly in one solitary game. Tabercil (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The current guidelines are reasonable and already fairly exclusive. I've read most of this thread. I haven't been convinced that articles that are included in the current criteria which would be disallowed under the new criteria violate the biographies of living persons policy. I'm also unconvinced that Wikipedia is unduly promoting porn actors with the current criteria. I find the not directory arguments even less compelling. I'm not even going to address the less common support rationales above, which is giving them their due weight.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. As a matter of actual fact, SNGs (Special Notability Guidelines) are taken to trump the WP:GNG -- for professional athletes, politicians, etc. -- and PORNBIO, taken this way, has the effect of adding in bios of people who don't meet the GNG. And for what -- for porn actors? Porn actors are peripheral to encyclopedic knowledge. If we must be saying "let's have in some class of people who don't meet the GNG", how about low-visibility regular actors? Businessmen? Patent holders? Church officials? Why are porn actors so special that we say "Well, here is a class of people who really need special consideration. Their artistic merits and personal impact on life on earth is such that we need to make an exception, reach deep below the depths of normal notability to preserve biographies of them for future generations to ponder over". Even the current proposal is to generous IMO. Let porn actors be put under WP:ACTOR. But support the proposal as at least an improvement. Herostratus (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I'd instead suggest proposing special notability guidelines for "[less known] actors, businessmen, patent holders, and church officials", if you feel it is necessary for reasonable coverage of those groups, so we can be more inclusive overall, not less. I'd also argue that it is especially necessary to go outside of the general notability guideline for those in the pornography industry, because what they do is considered taboo, hence their work is less likely to be covered by the majority of mainstream sources than the work of others.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Spartaz I changed the layout of your proposal to include the old text. I thought this would be an improvement to the proposal. Do you mind? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support change The current criteria for "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." seems to suggest that anyone featured in porn media who also is featured in mainstream media would get a lowered bar for judging their notability. This seems strange to me, and I have an example where it plays out in an odd way. At Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lindsay_Mills there is a deletion discussion about a burlesque performer who does dance and acrobatics. If this policy applies to people who are featured in video and photographic erotic, then this policy should apply to circus performers when major media sources comment on their performance being sexual. It is relatively difficult for a porn performer to be featured in mainstream media, but much more common for other workers in erotic performance. While I do think that Mills passes GNG, I also think that pornbio policy should defer to GNG rather than lower the bar for what sorts of reliable sources are expect.
I think "pornbio" policy should somehow be made more inclusive to apply to all sorts of performers, models, and actors when sources present the work as sexualized. The original point of this policy was to reinforce the idea that Wikipedia is a summary of what reliable, reputable, published sources say even if other people find the subject of the material to be distasteful. The proposed changes would be more clear in more cases. I still think that it is problematic that the AVN or XRCO hall of fame are favored as authorities when these organizations have a bias to promote media production with bias for gender, race, ethnicity, country of origin, and other restrictions which Wikipedia seeks to minimize. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Question: I don't get how the revised guideline actually adds any categories above GNG itself. The industry awards or "hall of fame" listings should all imply GNG-grade sources are available to begin with. I honestly don't get the point of having special novelty guidelines for everything ... I'm expecting to see ones for notable show dogs and hot air balloons. And, given some justification for BLP concerns that would militate against extra inclusions, I don't see why some special guideline is needed for porn actors if we can get by without a special guideline for show dogs. Now that said, I nonetheless am very concerned by the blanket rejection of "porn industry sources" as being reliable sources. Provided they have an editorial process - and I'd think they would, as I imagine they have a few legal issues to watch out for - there's no reason to treat them differently than any other. Alternatively, is there no broader specialty guideline on actors or performers that this could be merged into? For example, why not just list porn stars with the other "entertainers" in the section above? It just seems weird that Wikipedia is writing special code for this. Wnt (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Tweaking the PORNBIO proposal

OK, lets get a panel of independent admins to assess the consensus

Its quite clear that there is clear consensus for this change in principle. Some contributors have expressed a desire to tweak the wording. We can do that two ways. Firstly, I can post the change and normal editing can progress, but I would prefer, given the likelihood of contentious editing to quickly review the wording now: The current proposal is something along the lines of:

In the case of subjects who do not pass the GNG the only additional criteria are:
  • winning a significant and well known industry award that is not scene related and where the award category has itself been subject to meaningful discussion in independent reliable secondary sources; or
  • is a member of the AVN or XRCO hall of fame.

Can we have some input into whether we should tweak this please? Spartaz Humbug! 07:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  • No, the principle of garbage in, garbage out applies.  IMO it is irresponsible to undermine our policies and guidelines in this way.

    One remedy is at WP:NOT, perhaps with guidelines, which needs to take over where wp:notability is being improperly and IMO irresponsibly used to define what Wikipedia is not.  Another remedy is to push back on the pornbio industry to get improved-quality bios written by sources such as Bloomberg.  One of the things you could work on is to provide a guideline for fictional bios, where the name of the actress is unknown, or not sourced from a reliable primary source.  You could work at WT:V to improve AfD support for WP:V, which is not generally supported.  Your premise that WP:BLP is not a strongly supported policy is I believe erroneous, as it is one of the few policies that is supported by the external force of law.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Sorry but that statement about consensus is a huge LIE. In fact there clearly is NO CONSENSUS about this. A consensus is a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group. That is clearly not the case here. A large number of editors manifestly opposes the proposed changes, so there is no consensus reached for these changes. -- fdewaele, 28 AZugust 2016, 13:33 CET.
  • Except that I wouldn't use the word "lie".  There is just no way to know what Spartaz thinks, and I can say that after years of interaction with him.  I would request here that you change that word.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Then he's bending/distorting the truth until it breaks. -- -- fdewaele, 28 AZugust 2016, 13:44 CET.
Consensus doesn't necessarily have to reflect the arguments of all the people in a group; just a majority of the people, but...said arguments also need to be backed up by policies and guidelines. But I agree that there is no consensus for this change. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 16:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It is clear from the posts above that no discussion about the exact wording is possible until the overall discussion is closed, because editors who don't support the proposal will continue to hijack this section to reargue the principle. I suggest that, if the discussion is closed in support of the change, we simply make the change to Spartaz's suggested wording and then discuss any further tweaks, hopefully without any disruption. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I do not like many of the SNGs. As it stands PORNBIO is no worse than some other SNGs. CRICKET for example allows one national level appearance even if that appearance was a complete failure. There needs to be complete review of all SNGs to ensure that they are comparable, and in the spirit of GNG. What is wrong with trade or industry publications ? The key point is that the referred to material should have editorial and journalistic independent integrity from the subject matter. This should apply whether it is the entertainment section in a daily, weekly, monthly main stream or niche publication. Some of the articles currently allowed about cricketers will never be any more than the citing of a single appearance noted in a games statistics table (a cricket database), and the only main stream reference will ever be also that single failure statistic in a games score sheet. I suggest that many of the porn bio articles will have more to say about the subject than many of the single paragraph cricket bios ? My view is that we either allow anyone to have a bio as long as we can say (and reference independently of the subject it/themselves) more than two things about them, or we do not allow any of them, unless they all meet a much higher standard. Aoziwe (talk) 12:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Similarly business people and other bios being drowned below . . . Aoziwe (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with much of what your post says, but I think that your post mis-reflects wp:notability, as wp:notability is defined outside of Wikipedia, and does not define what content can or should go into articles.  I think that the idea of the "spirit of GNG" is confusing wp:notability with content policies...IMO, we would be better off to mark WP:N historical, so that we focus on building support for our policies.  We already have a policy at WP:V#Notability that directly addresses some of your post's concerns.  However, primary sources IMO are often better than secondary sources for statistical types of information useful in articles.  There is also the long term and rather large problem that the Wikimedia foundation does not support the English Wikipedia in improving the WP:Verifiability of our articles with software implementation.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, speaking as an admin (with quite a few years of experience editing), & admittedly an inclusionist, I have to say that at the moment I don't see a consensus. This discussion has only been open for a little more than a week. Counting noses, while I find 14 support the proposal & 11 oppose it, the difference is so small that it could change very quickly; it's entirely possible 4 more oppose votes could appear within 24 hours without any possibility of canvassing. I'd give this discussion another week, & maybe a consensus can then be identified. -- llywrch (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Have you looked at how many of these !votes show that they understand the proposal?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
@Unscintillating:, I don't understand your point. Spartaz asked for an opinion whether there is a consensus here. From the timestamp on the comments alone, I see an ongoing discussion; if there was a consensus, people would not be continuing to discuss this proposal. As a further datum, I noted the number of !votes to show that opinions were clearly divided. Now if the number of !votes were to support or oppose this were clearly on one side or the other -- say 25 support to 11 oppose or 14 support to 30 oppose (roughly 2-to-1) -- one could argue that there is a consensus, & that the losing side was simply filibustering the obvious. But to come to that conclusion, one would need more closely at the discussion -- but there is no consensus, so to do so is unnecessary.

And as for "understand the proposal" ... that is a loaded question. The discussion is about what this proposal means, & how it will affect Notability policy, & I see part of the disagreement here about what the proposal means. Some argue it will not change the current policy significantly, some that it will; there isn't even a consensus about that. So the only solution I see is ... more discussion. It may not be the best choice, but it will do the least harm.

And lastly, Wikipedia's coverage of porn is a contentious & controversial issue. Anyone interested in how porn is covered will need to accept that it will be unusual for any change in policy to be accepted in a week's time. I expect this will drag on much longer, with tempers fraying on all sides. Better that everyone interested discuss the matter here, & hope that all parties remain civil & find some common ground, than someone declares a consensus too early, make people resentful & angry, & risk losing volunteers. Especially when we're having problems holding on to veteran editors as it is. -- llywrch (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, users that appear to be wholly anti-pornography are an interesting sort, as they try to tighten the PORNBIO guideline literally every year. Now, I personally am a fan of porn, but I don't think any porn biography (or any other article) should be kept if it isn't notable; in fact, I've actually started a few AfDs on porn stars ([20] [21]). However...when it has been proven that the porn stars indeed pass Wikipedia's notability standards, that's when the antis suddenly want to tighten the guideline. In addition, the "tempers fraying" that you suggested generally come from the antis in the form of insults; and frankly, the insults seem to be more about the people defending the actors rather than the actors themselves. Now, I don't remember ever crossing your path, but that's actually a good thing; neutral users giving their input on the situation is exactly what is needed to keep things balanced.
Finally, I agree with everyone who suggested that PORNBIO shouldn't be tightened while other SNGs aren't. But the one thing I would add to PORNBIO is that a porn actor's notability should mainly come into question if pornography is all s/he is known for. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment We should require all Pornbio article to demonstrate coverage of the subject in depth in reliable 3rd party sources, no exceptions at all. We should instead revise these criteria to emphasize that pornographic works themselves can not be used as such sources, nor can press releases, and we should have a special warning that the nature of the pornographic industry is that it generates lots of the later, but this press release fog should not be confused for actual reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment. No. That would add extra requirements which don't exist in other fields. In effect it would make the WP:PORNBIO requirements even stricter than the general notability guidelines and seems purely designed to literally erase the field. If such tight notability criteria doesn't exist in other fields like sport, then it shouldn't be applied to WP:PORNBIO either. Then they correct way should be the amend the general notability guidelines so it applies to all biography field, instead of targeting a specific biography type. -- fdewaele, 2 September 2016, 10:47 CET.
      • Reply. Those aren't "extra" requirements. The standards just make clear that common strategies used to evade GNG standards in porn performer bios aren't legitimate. In no other field do we accept bios and BLPs based on PR copy, with no other significant evidence of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
        • I agree with fdewaele that those are indeed extra requirements—actually, I agree with everything s/he said. And I'm against the idea of a "special warning", because the notion that most of the porn actors' bios are fueled by press releases is something that has been often stated (usually by "delete" !voters in AfDs), but never actually proven. (And even if it were true, such sources "may be acceptable depending on the context", says WP:NEWSORG.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: GNG aways trumps any SNG, though not all participants at AfD understand that. For example, a person who fails NACTOR might still be notable under WP:BASIC due to widespread coverage of them for other things in addition to their acting. Same here. PORNBIO should not be a mechanism to allow paid-PR articles about people of dubious notability, no different than NPOL or corporate CEO puff pieces, and so on. Montanabw(talk) 20:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I encourage anyone on either side of the issue of awards to take part in this discussion. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 17:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • That discussion is meaningless before this one is resolved, and a clear case of of forum shopping to try to get a decision made in a place where editors who don't share your obsession interest are unlikely to go. Wikiprojects don't get to override decisions made by the general community. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This discussion is about changing PORNBIO in general; that discussion is about determining the notability of certain awards. Not the same topic, so not forum shopping; sorry. (And you need to be careful about how you use the word "obsession".) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 16:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I have replaced the word "obsession". I had thought that you had said somewhere that you were proud of having such an obsession, but maybe I was wrong. That discussion is relevant to this one, because the proposed wording here means that awards themselves must, at a minimum, be notable in order to confer notability on an actor. If any local consensus by the wikiproject concludes that junk awards are notable then it's pretty obvious that people will use them to support BLP-defying articles about actors. Why not just accept that Wikipedia is finally growing up in regard to some of the topics that have previously been awarded immunity from core policies (although not to all)? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • In addition, 86, that discussion may be relevant to this one to an extent, but again, it isn't the same topic. (BTW, the fact that you refer to pornography-related awards as "junk awards" makes me wonder whether you really can be neutral about all this.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I didn't say that all pornography-related awards are junk, but many are, and history has shown that guidelines drawn up by the pornography wikiproject have often been out of kilter with consensus by the wider community, so there is a real danger that any guidelines for porn award notability would be drawn up there to include the junk awards. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Alternate paths to define Wikipedia notability

The text below is extracted from the lede of WP:N and Template:Notability guide.

Notability
Subject-specific guidelines
See also

Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice".

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

  1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
  2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
Analysis.  WP:N has one requirement, that a topic be "worthy of notice".  Paths to define:
  1. Meet the general notability guideline (GNG).
  2. Satisfy one of the criteria in one of the subject-specific guidelines (SNGs).
  3. Satisfy other guidelines that argue directly to the requirement.  Such may come from the subject-specific notability essays, the WP:N nutshell, the fundamental principles WP:5P, and the explanatory supplement "common outcomes".
Unscintillating (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
If these "paths to define" are what you're proposing be added to the guideline, then you should probably post something at WP:CD, as it would affect WP:BIO as a whole rather than just an SNG. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 17:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
This is not a proposal, it is a quote with analysis.  In case of differences between the analysis and the blue, the blue is from the guideline.  We are expecting some closing administrators here who may not have seen WP:N recently, so I wanted to get a direct quote on the record.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I really don't get what you are driving at. Of course notability can be demonstrated by means of secondary notability guidelines, but that doesn't mean that we can't come to a consensus decision to change one of those guidelines. And, whatever secondary notability guidelines might say, articles have to comply with WP:V by sources existing that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and with WP:BLP by having such a source actually cited. There is no point in having any guideline that conflicts with such fundamental policies, because those policies should always prevail in decisions about deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The short answer is that I'm not driving at anything other than that this is how we define "notability", and that beliefs about the relationship between GNG, SNGs, and the other guidelines should conform to what is stated.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • A longer answer is that closing administrators have a duty to discard !votes when not policy based.  From Wikipedia:Closing discussions,
Take your post here, your last sentence uses the word "guideline" which in the context means WP:N.  You say, "There is no point in having any guideline that conflicts with such fundamental policies..."  In the context, by "fundamental policies" you have just cited WP:V and WP:BLP.  So your !vote, or at least what you said in this post, is based on the premise that a conflict exists between our notability guidelines and our content policies.  But Wikipedia notability is defined outside of Wikipedia.  (Reference: The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content...  Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article.)  Content policies apply to the articles, not the evidence used to determine notability.  So IMO a closing administrator should (I say should because I think that they tend to prefer to count !votes and not discuss the taking down of !votes) discount your !vote because your post is confounding notability with a content policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
You are just digging yourself deeper here. The point of guidelines is that they are guide to how to implement policy, so no guideline is valid if it conflicts with policy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
A topic can be Wikipedia notable and not have an article, which is proof that you cannot establish the theoretical possibility of a conflict between WP:N and WP:V.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
An utterly irrelevant statement is not proof of anything. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC
Unscintillating has motivated me to take a closer look at our core content policy Verifiability, and its relationship to other core content policies, namely the requirement for the neutral point of view and the ban on original research. Verifiability requires that we build articles by summarizing what reliable third party (independent) sources say about a topic. I will never recommend deletion of an article about a topic that, in my judgment, meets that standard. Useful notability guidelines are tools for determining whether a given topic is highly likely to comply with those core content policies, with adequate research. Time and time again, biographies of porn performers created in a good faith effort guided by PORNBIO are seen to fail the core content policies, and end up being deleted. This is strong evidence, in my view, that PORNBIO in its current form is a failed SNG which must be tightened up. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • How about a WP:N compliant article on the award? If multiple biographies cite winning the award as a claim to notability, sourcing and writing the award article would be easy. Borderline cases would be where the award is treated as its own level two section. Anything less, no, it is not notable.
AVN Award for Best New Starlet is an example of an attempted claim to notability for an award, although its proseless state is very embarrassing. I think that the proseless states for so many awards and awardees indicates gross WP:NOTDIRECTORY non-compliance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
You'll get the Prose on this article. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good start, but the article is not for a single award. Prosify some of the specific awards and they will get more respect. At the moment, a reader of Wikipedia can only assume no one has ever cared to comment on the individual awards. This should be done before creating stubby BLPs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
It's unclear why alternate ways are needed when WP:GNG already exists. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
An extant article is an excellent prima facie case that the topic meets Wikipedia-notability standards. The WP:GNG is not a trivial test to apply, it generally takes a full AfD discussion to demonstrate agreement one way or the other. If the specific award *is* notable, then Wikipedia *should* have an article on it. An award article should come before BLPs depending on the award. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
The reason is that a body of AfD discussions have demonstrated that certain classes of people are invariably notable. The guidelines are therefore more like summaries of AfD cases. They don't supplant WP:GNG, they merely note the result of previous AfDs. This is to save the hassle of recurring AfDs on the same subjects. It also signals in advance to the article creator as to whether an article subject is likely to be notable, thereby saving effort. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Notability of an award is certainly a necessary condition for recipients to be considered notable on its basis, but it is not a sufficient condition. I received a Blue Peter badge, a very notable award, nearly half a century ago, but that doesn't make me notable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
That's because there is a difference between the notability of an award, and the notability accorded by receiving it. Frequently the most common awards are the most notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
It's because notability isn't inherited, but even if it is (maybe "presumed notability" is inheritable), the inheritance is divided by the number of recipients. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
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.
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.

Dame Daniels

I want to add an biography about an artist name Dame Daniels. He is an American hip hop artist based out of Atlanta. He has done music with notable artists such as K-Rino, Tone Trump, and Princess. Mischuan (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2016&oldid=1178092175"