Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

"WT:BIO" redirects here. For WikiProject Biography, see WT:WPBIO. For WikiProject Biology, see WT:BIOLOGY.

ANYBIO and presumptive notability

Many editors take the position that ANYBIO, particularly ANYBIO #1, conclusively establishes notability. See, for example, @Necrothesp's notability criteria for receipients of honours. In my view, under the guidelines as currently written, this is incorrect and significant coverage is still required. The additional criteria section states:

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.

This issue recently came up at at two AfDs that I was involved in: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarn Willers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lena Townsend.
I'm indifferent regarding whether meeting ANYBIO #1 should establish inherent notability, but I think this is something that the community needs to decide one way or the other, rather than being decided ad hoc at individual AfD discussions. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that ANYBIO does not confer notability, and would also point to the WP:WHYN section at N that requires multiple pieces of secondary, independent, significant coverage in RS exist for all subjects regardless of whether their presumption of notability is through GNG or an SNG: Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Also the Lena Townsend one seemed to hinge on an entry in UK Who's Who, which is GUNREL on RSP. I've removed that source from the bio. JoelleJay (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, WHYN does not require multiple pieces of secondary, independent, significant coverage in RS. It requires secondary coverage, and independent coverage, and significant coverage, but it pretty clearly does not require multiple sources that feature all of the above. For example, if multiple secondary sources were required, the current language specifying the existence of at least one secondary source would be more than a little bit misleading. I assume that WHYN means what it actually says. Newimpartial (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Also related is WP:BIOSPECIAL, which expands on the "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" but is rather inconveniently hidden at the bottom of the page where I doubt most people have even seen it. Ljleppan (talk) 07:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

...this is something that the community needs to decide one way or the other, rather than being decided ad hoc at individual AfD discussions. This just looks like another attempt to undermine AfD by imposing additional, unnecessary "rules". Discussion is what AfD is (or should be) about. WP:CONSENSUS has generally been that meeting WP:ANYBIO #1 is sufficient for an article to exist, as illustrated here for British honours. We very much need to stop the drift into a divide between Wikiworld and the real world, as some editors seem to desire. There is a very good reason that people receive high honours. It's not receiving the honour that makes them notable; they receive the honour because they are already notable. That doesn't just mean that lots of people have namechecked them on the internet or social media; it means they are notable for their achievements, even if they are relatively low-key. I have found that some editors really do not get this. If Wikiworld does not consider someone to be notable (usually largely because the individual does not have heavy internet coverage) but the real world does, then I'm afraid there is something severely wrong with Wikiworld and all we do is drift further towards the concept of Wikipedia being a pop culture site rather than an encyclopaedia. That's not what I want to see, and I sincerely hope it's not what most other editors want to see. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

1. WP:CONSENSUS has generally been that meeting WP:ANYBIO #1 is sufficient for an article to exist, as illustrated here for British honours. WP:CCC. Tarn Willers (an Oscar winner with no independent SIGCOV) closed as no consensus, and myself and several other editors have questioned the idea that ANYBIO, as written, confers inherent notabilify.
2. Discussion is what AfD is (or should be) about. I agree that AfD is about discussion, but it should be discussion about whether a particular article meets notability guidelines, not what the notability guidlines mean.
3. This just looks like another attempt to undermine AfD by imposing additional, unnecessary "rules". I'm not proposing to impose new rules; ANYBIO already exists and I'm proposing we clarify what it means. I don't see the benefit of keeping this guideline ambiguous. If it means what you say it means, it should state that clearly.

voorts (talk/contributions) 15:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Inherent reliability (vs for example presumed reliability) has never been endorsed by the community in any context. It doesn't exist in either policy or guideline so I'm not sure that people are actually making that argument per-say (and if they are they need to stop participating in AfD). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

When people use the word "inherent", I assume they're using it as shorthand for unrebuttable presumption, for example, NACADEMIC, which creates an unrebuttable presumption that certain academics are notable (e.g., professors with named chairs), notwithstanding how much SIGCOV they have. People make the same argument under ANYBIO, which I think is incorrect under the current wording of the guideline. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Its not an unrebuttable presumption because it exists in the context of the higher WP:N "Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your reading. My point is that there's a large group of people who regularly argue at AfD that the opposite is true. For example, see Necrothesp's list of AfD honours outcomes. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you have a basic misunderstanding about notability... They aren't notable because they got the honor, they're notable because they got coverage and that coverage can be presumed to exist because of the honor. The honor doesn't actually contribute to notability at all, it just indicates that significant coverage in reliable sources is likely to exist. Nothing besides coverage influences notability, everything else we talk about is just a proxy for the likelihood of coverage existing there is no other notability criteria. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• It looks like WP:ANYBIO #1 is one of those guidelines which exists because it presumes you will have received coverage for winning a prestigious award and probably needs some more explanatory text in that regard. In terms of the BAFTA guy, I'm concerned we've just no consensused an undersourced BLP. SportingFlyer T·C 15:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• My view: The same text is used for both the sub-criteria such as ANYBIO and the main GNG: "presumed notable..." IMO, we should measure the degree of how encyclopedic something is and acknowledge that there are some topics that are inherently encyclopedic / that we should and should want to have. A little different scenario than the examples above, but e.g., in my opinion, it should work like this: we have a minor failed politician from last year, whom, although he passes GNG with some local campaign coverage in a number of newspapers, we decide to delete because we do not want to be a database of failed politicians; meanwhile, we've got the king of an entire nation from 3,000 years ago who has some passing coverage in a few Google search results - not enough to pass GNG on the face of it, but we should keep because (i) being the leader of a whole nation is notable (i.e. someone of note; a topic that reasonably an encyclopedia like this should cover), and (ii) we do not have access to many of the old sources which could be used to further develop said king's article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  I get your reasoning, and it can work for the really obvious cases -- but the problem is that "what is obviously notable and encyclopedic" will very quickly diverge among editors when you go beyond things like "won a Nobel Prize as an individual". The only way to demonstrate empirically that receiving a particular ANYBIO honor actually does make someone "obviously notable and encyclopedic" is to assess the attention a person gets for it in IRS sources; if they don't receive that attention, then how can it really be that prestigious? Also, per N, ANYBIO still presumes IRS SIGCOV exists on the subject; so if it doesn't exist, we should not have a standalone article just because some editors consider some aspect of the subject to be "obviously notable". JoelleJay (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  I believe our notability guidelines are only for the edge cases. This is why there is so much passion. - Enos733 (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that they should only come into play in edge cases, because people shouldn't be nominating obviously notable topics for deletion and they should PROD obviously non-notable topics. That's why it would be nice to have some clarity on what exactly ANYBIO means. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think footnote 13 of WP:NPOL would cover a king, and I didn't intend to call that consensus into question when I started this discussion. That said, I think there's a distinction between a king and person who got a nice medal to pin on their chest because they were politically connected to Liz Truss. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Voorts: Just noting, I've seen the same argument regarding ANYBIO (that it alone is not enough) also applied to NPOL to try to delete articles on kings before. Though, I do agree that getting a medal for being related to Liz Truss doesn't sound like the greatest claim to notability. However, I believe that there are some "sets" which should be complete (i.e. everyone having an article). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Those involved in this discussion might also be interested in a discussion above on clarifying the guidelines more broadly. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• NBIO1 is just kinda crap and not consistent with what is otherwise normal practice and policy. We don't AFAIK have an NDOG. Congrats, you won a major dog show and so you're presumed notable even if there's not really much else we can say about you. This is how we ended up with things like boat loads of porn articles (and the formerly NPORN) where someone won "best boobs" or something at industry awards and editors rushed to make an article and defend it on pain of death.

But good luck getting rid of it. Folks love having their own pet SNG and insisting that it's the special one that gets an exception to GNG. Probably others who just get a special tingle when they can cite WP:ABCDEFG and feel super smarty pants at AfD. Trust me, it's not a battle you're gonna win. GMG^talk 17:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

All notability guidelines (GNG and SNGs) establish a form of presumptive rebuttable for notability, that even if the criteria is met, it can still be challenged later if there is a lack of further sourcing or that the reason the criteria is met is weak. Meeting something like NBIO1 and claiming it during a first AFD process is fine, but after that, the presumption rebuttals allow for that to be challenged in future AFDs, particularly if no new major sources have been offered. No SNG establishes a criteria that can never be challenged. --Masem (t) 17:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I think NPOL and NACADEMIC do. My reading is that if someone has served in a state legislature or received a named university chair, their articles get to stay forever, because those SNGs expressly state as such. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

"their articles get to stay forever, because those SNGs expressly state as such" they say no such thing... That assertion is directly contradicted by the text of NACADEMIC, for example "Note that this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may exist." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but I don't think it works out that way in practice. First, NPROF actually does explicitly say "screw GNG, we're special". Beside that, I fully expect that if someone went around nominating NSPORT permastubs for deletion, they'd quickly get dragged in front of the court and topic banned from AfD as disruptive. People argue these standards as if they're gospel, and people close the discussions the same way. GMG^talk 18:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Except with the recent change in NSPORT from a few years ago, previously "protected" permastubs have now been properly questioned for their inclusion. Yes, there are still those that insist that having stepped on the field once is enough to make an athlete notable, that attitude is no longer accepted by consensus. — Masem (t) 19:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and that seems to be what's happening with some articles about people who meet ANYBIO #1. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

What discussions still have editors claiming that "having stepped on the field once" is automatic notability? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Starting an RfC?

• Given the lack of consensus here, I am thinking of starting an RfC. Do others have thoughts? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see a major problem that needs to be solved. - Enos733 (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  What I'm reading is essentially that there is a deletionist interpretation and an inclusionist interpretation of: 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. If we agree that it is possible that a person could meet ANYBIO criteria 1, 2, or 3 without necessarily generating SIGCOV, then this leaves some cases open to interpretation.

  There are small ambiguities throughout the NBIO guidelines (e.g., someone could have work represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums; or have an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary without necessarily generating SIGCOV). These ambiguities seem as though they are designed to allow for a bit of adaptability. If we don't want this, then the guidelines ought to be worded more rigidly (with proscriptions and exclusions defined – rather than implicitly allowed by caveats and carveouts).

  My own (inclusionist) belief is that we should allow multiple paths to notability and be capable of applying a modicum of common sense to the edge cases – which is how I interpret the current wording. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Just to note, I don't consider myself a deletionist or an inclusionist; I try to apply the deletion guidelines as written and think that they should be clear so that the average editor doesn't need to be aware of a local consensus regarding one of the particular guidelines. I'm also limiting discussion to ANYBIO #1 right now.

  conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. As myself and others have argued above, an interpretation of ANYBIO #1 that means that articles about persons who earn certain awards should never be deleted, notwithstanding the existence of SIGCOV, is incorrect. If there's a consensus that it should say that, then it should actually say that, which is why I'm proposing an RfC. If there's consensus that we should allow multiple paths to notability and be capable of applying a modicum of common sense to the edge cases, that's fine with me, but I disagree with that as a current plausible reading of the guidelines.

  If we agree that it is possible that a person could meet ANYBIO criteria 1, 2, or 3 without necessarily generating SIGCOV, then this leaves some cases open to interpretation. I also disagree with this point. Per Necrothesp's list, what usually happens is there is a flood of !votes from a small group of editors who insist that certain awards make a person per se notable, notwithstanding whether there is any SIGCOV. There's usually no "interpretation" or nuance in those cases. (See for example the Tarn Willers AfD, where my interpretation of NBIO was met with a circular argument.)

  There are small ambiguities throughout the NBIO guidelines (e.g., someone could have work "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums"; or have "an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary" without necessarily generating SIGCOV). I don't see how these are particularly ambiguous; "notable galleries or museums" means galleries or museums that are notable—that is, they meet NCORP or GNG—and a "standard national biographical dictionary" is clearly defined. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think this whole discussion presumes a consensus about what WP:SIGCOV means that does not, in fact, exist. Previous discussions at WT:N and elsewhere have established that editors interptet SIGCOV in very different - some, for example, believe that extensive coverage in one impeccably independent, secondary RS can be accompanied by shallower RS coverage to meet the GNG threshold; others believe that the GNG ought to be read in the same way as WP:NCORP, which establishes minimum thresholds that must be met by all sources before they count towards the notability of corporate topics. For those who interpret SIGCOV more flexibly, it is likely that anyone meeting ANYBIO will generatee coverage that meets SIGCOV as well - particularly because independent and reliable sourcing must be provided for the claim made to satisfy ANYBIO. On the other hand, for editors who read GNG as following the same logic as NCORP, there will be many more cases where ANYBIO is satisfied but GNG is not.

  Given surrounding environment of uncertainty and non-consensus - clearly illustrated in the discussion under this subject heading - I don't see how an RfC about ANYBIO's relationship to GNG could produce a meaningful result, since the interpretation of each and every !vote would depend on that editor's specific interpretation of GNG/SIGCOV. Newimpartial (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  There are sometimes cases where there is literally no SIGCOV in a reliable source to be found. For example, the Lena Townsend example I cited. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Oftentimes, that could be due to not enough effort being put into finding sources (especially with older topics). I haven't looked at Townsend though. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  At AfD, the burden is on the keep !votes to present SIGCOV because the nom is presumed to have done a BEFORE search. Nobody in that discussion turned anything up (as was noted in this discussion, the Who's Who source is apparently depracated); all of the keep !votes relied solely on the fact of obtaining an honour. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  And there are some times when it is simply impossible for editors to find sources even when we know they are 99.9%+ likely to exist; e.g. someone who received the highest honor available in, say, Uzbekistan 100 years ago, is basically certain to have received coverage, but it would require an outrageous amount of effort and editors learning new languages, paying massive fees, etc. to find said sources. That is where ANYBIO should come in to play – "Keep. This person was recognized as the most impactful person in Uzbekistan in 1924, but we don't have any 1924 Uzbekistani sources available." BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  That seems like a poor example... We know that there were no reliable 1924 Uzbekistani sources. Its not a question of availability, we know for sure that as a class they do not exist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's a major problem to completely disqualify anything from a country or time period due to media availability factors. It goes against WP:BIAS. Essentially asking people to spend money, learn foreigners languages or travel to get articles up is also a form of WP:BIAS as it turns this into a pay for play scheme. Obviously, there should be some kind of guidelines in place to prevent people from putting up anybody, but people winning various important awards, being heads of the country or other things are in general safe bets on being notable. KatoKungLee (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  So we should just delete any and all historic Uzbekistani figures because we somehow know that they had no media or writing of any kind (which is quite the startling and extreme claim)? That doesn't sound like a great idea. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  You appear to be conflating sources in general with reliable sources. Note that by 1924 Bolshevik control was complete and there was no functioning independent media or formally published writing of any kind. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  So we should just delete any and all historic Uzbekistani figures? You could also replace Uzbekistan with over a hundred other countries – what about Myanmar, Guyana, Madagascar, Mauritius, Senegal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Romania, etc. etc.? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Of course not, only the ones which lack significant coverage in reliable sources should be merged or deleted. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  ...which brings us back to the original question – how do we "know" they "lack significant coverage" if we cannot in any way access sources from that nation without outrageous and extremely cost and time-consuming efforts? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  That is where the concept of presumed notability comes in, unless a reasonable effort has been made (which for a non-english speaking origin subject would mean a fluent speaker has conducted a search) they are to be presumed notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  And if we have no fluent speakers? And if the nation's media is 100% and wholly offline? And does the same presumed notability apply to those from Uzbekistan in 1924? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes it does, the problem is with sources from 1924 not with subjects from 1924. I am not aware of a nation whose media is 100% and wholly offline, its actually more common now for outlets in less developed countries to be fully online with a print edition being something of a luxury. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  The vast majority of coverage of a notable person is going to be when they had their most notable accomplishments. For most less developed nations, the vast majority of historic sources prior to the past few years are offline. Do you know of any Tuvaluan – or Uzbekistani – or Nigerien newspapers prior to the 2000s that is available online? Besides Uzbekistan, what about the people from other non-Soviet countries in 1924 whom we have no access to sources from that year? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  The whataboutism is getting tiring but presumably all of those archives will be digitized at some point and if they are genuinely lost or destroyed then they're of no use in building an encyclopedia either until found and republished. You have to also keep in mind that the vast vast majority of truly historical sources (everywhere, including the US and UK) are not reliable sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  the vast vast majority of truly historical sources (everywhere, including the US and UK) are not reliable sources BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, show me a source that would count towards notability from before 1800. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Erm... one of the many prominent newspapers published around that time, e.g. The Charlotte Observer or Hartford Courant? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I am not familiar with the Charlotte Observer of that era but the Hartford Courant was a shitshow by modern standards... You could literally pay to have an article changed. Modern standards of journalistic ethics and fact checking hadn't even been invented yet. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  But that still doesn't very that the vast vast majority of truly historical sources (everywhere, including the US and UK) are not reliable sources – a claim I have heard only once ever, from you. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  That older sources are in general less reliable and useful than newer sources is not I assure you just my opinion, it is in fact one of the basis tenants of modern academics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Still not seeing a source for that, but, I'm taking a break from this discussion as we don't appear to be going very far. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think lack of any available sources runs into a major issue: How do we know the person isn't a hoax? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  My sense is that BeanieFan11's proposed scenario implies having a reliable or authoritative source about this person receiving the honor, whatever it may be (award, office, etc.), but lacking the range of sources that would constitute multiple published secondary sources. In the scenario, presumably the award, or the office, went to a real person and not a hoax, even if the usual Wikipedian research tools (online research, not going to a physical repository of newspapers) makes it hard to know much more about the person beside their honor/office/etc. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  The example I've been citing in this discussion, Lena Townsend, is that type of case. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think BeanieFan11 has very persuasively laid out the reason we have guidelines like WP:ANYBIO. The statement that We know there were no reliable 1924 Uzbekistani sources is indeed a startling and extreme claim. What is that implying; that people from Central Asia in the early twentieth century weren't capable of good journalism or reliable coverage? The implication is shockingly chauvinistic (in the national rather than gendered sense). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Did you follow me here to harass me or something? This seems like a personal attack and you have no history of commenting here that I can see. The implication is that people in the Soviet Union weren't capable of good journalism or reliable coverage because it was literally the Soviet Union. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  BeanieFan11 and I have been describing the content of a post, not the character of a user. I'm sorry if it seemed as if either BeanieFan11 or I were talking describing you personally; that wasn't my intent, and I don't think it was theirs either.

  I've participated in multiple AfD discussions involving questions of notability, so this discussion is of interest. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I feel harassed, not by BeanieFan11 but by you. I would really appreciate it if you would stop following me around and aggressively taking positions against mine. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry you feel that way; I didn't mean for my participation in this publicized thread to make you feel so troubled. As a gesture of good faith, I'll leave this subthread aside for the remainder of any of my participation in this discussion about ANYBIO. I don't think we (BeanieFan11, myself, you, and voorts) are about to persuade each other anyway.

  I would remind you that [m]aking accusations of harassment can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  You didn't get here because it was publicized, you got here from my edit history. Clear evidence: [1][2] now stop, please. You don't need to stop participating and I wouldn't even mind it if you just added a comment on the end, what I mind is you jumping onto pages you wouldn't normally be on and attacking me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  @JoelleJay, Ljleppan, Necrothesp, SportingFlyer, and BeanieFan11: See revised proposal below. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Pinging @JoelleJay, Ljleppan, Necrothesp, Horse Eye's Back, SportingFlyer, and BeanieFan11: thoughts on an RfC?

  My working proposal follows and I am open to workshopping this.

  There is currently a dispute as to whether meeting WP:ANYBIO #1 ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times") establishes notability without significant coverage in reliable sources or whether significant coverage in reliable sources is required to establish notability. Which of the following should be adopted:

  Option 1: Maintain the status quo.
  Option 2: Add a footnote to ANYBIO #1 similar to footnote 13 in WP:NPOL, stating that ANYBIO #1 is a secondary criterion and that meeting ANYBIO #1 is sufficient to establish notability notwithstanding whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources.
  Option 3: Add a footnote to ANYBIO #1 stating that ANYBIO #1 is an indicator of notability, but that significant coverage in reliable sources is still required to establish notability.

  voorts (talk/contributions) 15:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Again, what is the problem that you are attempting to solve here? Is it that editors could flood AFD with their own sense of which awards are "well-known"? There are always disagreements of interpretation, whether it is about whether an award is "well-known" or whether a source meets the expectations of significant, independent coverage.

  My view of notability is that we operate in a "fuzzy ecosystem" and the guidelines generally work. Yes, there are edge cases, but there will always be edge cases. There will always be disagreements in interpretation.

  But my sense of ANYBIO #1 is that the point is to allow people to start an article once an individual wins a major award - perhaps a (non-acting) Academy Award, a local reporter winning a Pulitzer Prize, or being honored with a National Humanities Medal, if there is not already an article. - Enos733 (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Responding to your questions and points:

• what is the problem that you are attempting to solve here? The problem is that people use ANYBIO #1 to !vote to keep articles at AfD where other editors have conducted WP:BEFORE searches and found no significant coverage of the article subject in reliable sources, and per the above discussion, there is a broader dispute about whether ANYBIO #1 confers so-called "inherent" notability or whether we still need to meet the core rule of signfiicant coverage in reliable sources. See, e.g., the two deletion discussions that I linked in my initial comment, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarn Willers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lena Townsend.
• Is it that editors could flood AFD with their own sense of which awards are "well-known"? No. For example, in the Tarn Willers AfD, there was no question that an Academy Award is major.
• There are always disagreements of interpretation, whether it is about whether an award is "well-known" or whether a source meets the expectations of significant, independent coverage. In the Lena Townsend AfD, it was basically conceded that no reliable sources with significant coverage could be found, and all of the keep !votes were effectively "has a CBE; meets ANYBIO #1".
• My view of notability is that we operate in a "fuzzy ecosystem" and the guidelines generally work. Yes, there are edge cases, but there will always be edge cases. There will always be disagreements in interpretation. There can't be edge cases if one group of people thinks you need significant coverage in reliable sources, and the other group thinks you don't need that. That's just straight up polarization, and the solution to that shouldn't be to have random outcomes based on who happens to participate in an AfD discussion. For example, Tarn Willers closed as no consensus, whereas Lena Townsend closed as keep.
• But my sense of ANYBIO #1 is that the point is to allow people to start an article once an individual wins a major award - perhaps a (non-acting) Academy Award, a local reporter winning a Pulitzer Prize, or being honored with a National Humanities Medal, if there is not already an article. I agree that we often forget that the notability guidelines aren't just about deletion, but also about creation. That said, they are our de facto deletion guidelines (and Lena Townsend has been like this since 2005), and in my view, we need clarity.

voorts (talk/contributions) 16:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Since the deletion discussion, Willers would easily pass GNG - (https://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/people/from-kimberworth-to-hollywood-bafta-winner-tarn-is-off-to-the-oscars-4546123). - Enos733 (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I'm not sure that changes the analysis. At the time of the deletion discussion, it didn't meet GNG, and it could've been refunded and that source added to a draft. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm still not sure that Willers meets GNG with that one piece of SIGCOV, given that the rest of the sourcing at the time of the deletion discussion were interviews or trivial mentions. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Since everything needs to meet WP:V, all your proposal does is push editors to have discussions about what meets SIGCOV. Editors have disagreements (or polarized thoughts) about the nature of interviews (especially if there is context provided before the interview), and editors vary on how much weight to give to a primary source.

Our notability standards have inconsistencies. And that is OK, because the purpose of this project is to have factual articles on topics people care about. WP:AUTHOR is is a good example - multiple notable reviews are sufficient for a stand-alone page of the author of the book(s), even if the reviews do not focus on the individual author.

Finally, while we hope that editors do a thorough BEFORE search before nominating an article for deletion, there can be great variations on how well the search was performed, whether sources use an alternative name (or spelling of a name), or whether there is even online sources. Enos733 (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not arguing for a particular outcome to this RfC. See my reply to Horse Eye's Back below. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• I guess we could do an RFC. Though, option 3 in my opinion is equivalent to abolishing it entirely as it then has no weight in determining notability (from how I've seen similar used with NSPORT). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have a fourth option that is a middle ground? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Set some sort of moderately-strict list of what exactly constitutes a "significant" honor? Anything that makes ANYBIO not a direct giver of notability (i.e. something that makes saying at AFD "Keep - passes ANYBIO" invalid) is effectively making it entirely useless. (NSPORT was changed this way and I don't think I've used it once to help me create things since.) BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Given the number of awards in the world, that list would be exceedingly long I think. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Also, to note, option 3 is what I read the current guideline to be saying, so this footnote would confirm that reading; as I've stated above, I'm indifferent to how this RfC turns out, and if the community wants to infer "inherent" notability on people who win major awards, that's fine with me. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• In order to add option 2 you would have to strip significant chunks out of other sections which directly contradict it. At the very least a rewrite of both WP:N and WP:V would be required and we would need to strip WP:NPOV of its non-negotiable status. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Option 2 is just mirroring NPOL, so I'm not sure what the issue is regarding N, V, and NPOV. In any event, I think as this discussion shows, others would disagree with you, and this would be a fine !vote during an RfC if we start one. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Option 2 is rather different from NPOL, it escalates it significantly. Are similar and mirroring synonyms as far as you are concerned or do you mean to make a significantly different point here than above? I would also note that footnotes aren't technically part of the policy or guideline, they're more like mini essays. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  If by escalate you mean expands "inherent" notability to a larger group of people, then I would agree with you. As I have said, I am not arguing for this point of view, but it is onewon held by several editors (see, e.g., Necrothesp's argument above that anyone who wins a certain British title should have an article about them). You and I can say "they're wrong" all we like, but at some point, I think we need to resolve this issue. Even if an RfC ends in a no consensus close, at least that would show we're unlikely to settle this issue, but at least we tried. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't understand the proposition. NPOL doesn't give anyone inherent notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Per WP:NSUBPOL, "The Wikipedia guideline WP:POLITICIAN has been consistently interpreted to accord presumed notability to members of subnational parliaments (legislatures) in federal nation-states." Their articles always marked patrolled at NPP, regardless of SIGCOV or lack thereof, and I can't think of a case where one wouldn't be kept at AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, presumed notability... Not inherent notability. Those are completely different concepts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that presumed notability is different, but in practice, they're accorded inherent notability. See also the footnote, which describes it as a "secondary criterion" and explains that the SNG ensures that we have complete encyclopedic coverage of politicians meeting the SNG. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  So the argument is now that NPOL doesn't at all say that... But in practice something happens. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough. How would you word the proposal for option 2? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  How about: A person who meets ANYBIO #1 is notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Same issues, you'd have to rewrite a half dozen pages (many of them much more prominent than this one) to enact that consensus. Its the equivalent of a ballot initiative which you know is unconstitutional, even if it passes it won't happen without changes to the constitution which require a completely different process. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  As I said before, that seems like a good !vote for an RfC. The issue is that several people hold this point of view and they keep applying it at AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Including it would be the definition of disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Like making one of the options "ignore NPOV" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Horse Eye's Back: How about this revised proposal:
  There is currently a dispute amongst editors as to whether meeting WP:ANYBIO #1 ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times") establishes inherent notability, notwithstanding whether there is significant coverage of the article subject in reliable sources, or whether it establishes presumptive notability, requiring significant coverage in reliable sources.
  The question presented is does ANYBIO #1 establish inherent notability or presumptive notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:inherent notability is an essay. First you would need to figure out a way to bring inherent notability into official existence and then you could ask that question. Its begging the question because it presumes that inherent notability is a viable option but inherent notability has never been established as a viable option. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think NPOL pretty much establishes inherent notability, and NPROF pretty explicitly says that significant coverage isn't required so long as an academic meets one of the criteria. Additionally, several editors would disagree and have indeed argued that ANYBIO #1 establishes per se notability (see some of the AfD's listed on Necrothesp's honours list). I also agree with @GreenMeansGo's comment above. That's why we need an RfC in my opinion. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  We don't need an RfC, because it's not going to work. I've argued this for years and you're not going to get a consensus except in the most bleedingly edge cases. GMG^talk 18:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  WP:CCC, and it appears that there are a lot of strong arguments against inherent notability. I don't think there's ever been an RfC on this topic, the issue has been percolating for years, and I don't see the harm of an RfC. If it ends in no consensus, that's the status quote and so be it. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  It says that "this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may exist." so no it does not establish inherent notability explicitly or otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  The GNG is also a guideline. In practice, NPROF and NPOL are treated as rules and I doubt you'd get traction at an AfD arguing that an article on an academic meeting one of the criteria or a state-level legislator should be deleted for lack of SIGCOV. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes... Hence my earlier point that you would need to change other policies and guidelines in order to get a guideline to establish something as "inherent" (as in there are no exceptions). In practice competent editors do not treat them as rules, because they are not rules. If someone is doing otherwise that is a behavioral issue not a policy or guideline one. You can speculate all you want about what would or wouldn't happen at AfD, but it won't become relevant no matter how much you do it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Don't have time to read all the comments that just appeared since I last checked, but ultimately, in my opinion, there should be criteria separate from GNG which give "automatic" or "inherent" notability – at least if we want to keep any potential new contributors and provide the best experience to our readers. E.g. I surely would not have lasted if the current sports criterion (meets GNG or else TNT) was in place when I first started (Of course, the vast majority of my early creations – which I created due to a now-deprecated SNG – do satisfy GNG, but I wouldn't have been able to prove it back then and likely would have left the site after a few AFC rejections, etc.) And aside from that, I do believe that there are certain topics that are simply encylopedic to have, e.g. the king of a nation example I gave above – and I don't see what benefit deleting those topics would bring. (Whether getting a badge for working with Liz Truss is automatic ANYBIO notability...that should be a different debate) Just my thoughts. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• I don't have the time to read everything above, but I would again highlight WP:BIOSPECIAL, which states "Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria: If neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article, but the person meets one or more of the additional criteria [then merge the article]". Note that "fails basic" is practically the same as "fails GNG", so e.g. the case of "meets ANYBIO#1 but fails GNG" would fall under this by my reading. That said, I do think there could be some value in identifying whatever is meant by "a satisfying explanation" and whether this should be highlighted more prominently in the page by e.g. directly incorporating it into the preamble of § Additional criteria. -Ljleppan (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps "a satisfying explanation" could be defined as "common sense" in this context. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Cl3phact0 - Correct. KatoKungLee (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Could you rephrase the sentence in whatever way you would incorporate "common sense" to it? I'm having some trouble following what you mean. Ljleppan (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Ljleppan, Per your request, I would rephrase WP:BIOSPECIAL Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria like this:

  If the subject meets one or more of the additional criteria, but appropriate sources cannot be found, first apply common sense. If there are no reasonable grounds to keep the standalone article, then:

  [NB: I would also reorganise the section putting Failure to explain the subject's notability first; Insufficient sources second; and Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria third.]

  For what it's worth, this entire section seems to lean towards trying to keep the articles in question – of the 10 bullet points, not one mentions deletion. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC proposal

Since the above attempt resulted in more general discussion, I am starting a new subsection to discuss how an RfC should be phrased. Please avoid general discussion or arguments about the merits of either side. Here is my current proposal based on the discussion above:

There is currently a dispute amongst editors as to whether meeting WP:ANYBIO #1 ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times") conclusively establishes that an article should be kept during a deletion discussion, notwithstanding whether editors have been able to find significant coverage of the article subject in independent, reliable sources, or whether it establishes presumptive notability, and thus requires significant coverage in independent, reliable sources per WP:NBASIC or the WP:GNG.

The question presented is: does meeting ANYBIO #1 conclusively establish that an article should be kept at a deletion discussion, or is the article subject required to meet NBASIC or the GNG.

Note that this RfC does not address what awards or honors qualify under ANYBIO #1.

Pinging @JoelleJay, Ljleppan, Necrothesp, SportingFlyer, BeanieFan11, Horse Eye's Back, and Hydrangeans. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose RfC, would be a fruitless exercise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• Isn't GNG already required anyway? ANYBIO is just a guide. SportingFlyer T·C 20:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  • GNG technically has guide in its name as well... BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  • That's what the above conversation has been about; some people think meeting ANYBIO #1 is sufficient to keep an article, notwithstanding whether it meets GNG. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

    Per above comparison to NPOL, yes, as written ANYBIO #1 seems sufficient to keep an article, regardless of SIGCOV (resulting in stubs like these: w:Category:Ontario politician stubs – which may or may not be to one's taste, but we've got 'em aplenty). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

    But we can at least be almost assured a provincial politician will have been written about. ANYBIO #1 is subjective. SportingFlyer T·C 11:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

    I don't know about the Canadian provinces, but I can say as a Delaware editor that I'm not so sure about all the legislators meeting GNG (even though they have the second-smallest legislature!). A number of their old politicians I've done extensive searches for (including in a number of books I have access to) and could barely find anything but a mention in a list that they served. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Can we please keep this section to discussing the potential RfC? voorts (talk/contributions) 14:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support RFC or any kind of action on this - There's just been too many AFD discussions where it's clear that various people or topics had no path to ever getting on here due to being from smaller countries, poorer countries or highly censored countries which goes against WP:BIAS. It has lead to hundreds of articles being deleted in batches and lead to people like myself contributing less. KatoKungLee (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Oppose per WP:N. Let'srun (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• As I said above, N says

  Editors apply notability standards to all subjects to determine whether the English language Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article on that subject. The primary purpose of these standards is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies.

  • We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. (See the advice below.)
  • We require the existence of "reliable sources" so that we can be confident that we're not passing along random gossip, perpetuating hoaxes, or posting indiscriminate collections of information.
  • We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization. See Wikipedia:Autobiography for discussion of neutrality concerns of self-published sources.
  • We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources.
  • We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view. This is also why multiple publications by the same person or organization are considered to be a single source for the purpose of complying with the "multiple" requirement.
  • We require editors to use their judgment about how to organize subjects so that we have neither long, bloated articles nor articles so narrow that they cannot be properly developed. Editors may decide that it is better for readers to present a narrow subject as part of a broader one. For example, editors normally prefer to merge information about translations of books into the larger subject of the original book, because in their editorial judgment, the merged article is more informative and more balanced for readers and reduces redundant information in the encyclopedia. (For ideas on how to deal with material that may be best handled by placing it in another article, see WP:FAILN.)

  Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria.

  
  The first and last sentences would have to be removed for the "inherent notability" interpretation to be valid when it relies on a criterion that has zero expectation of SIGCOV IRS coverage existing. JoelleJay (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have any issues with the way the RfC is framed? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Being new in this corner of the wiki-verse, I'm cautious not to speak out of turn. My view, based on what's already been said in this thread (as well as above in Question re: WP:ANYBIO), is that it seems unlikely that the RfC will achieve consensus as worded. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Question re WP:ENT

I have raised a question about the application of WP:ENT based on WP:NYOUTUBE, which states that Subscriber count helps meet the second criteria of WP:ENT. Obviously, this is only based on what that specific WikiProject deems, however, as noted in the table there, this has been applied in some AfDs. It seems that the point of a YouTuber is primarily to entertain. What are the thoughts on adding "Social media influencer" or "YouTuber" to WP:ENT? TLA^tlak 14:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@I'm tla I think whoever wrote that part of the essay is pretty clearly wrong, subscriber counts obviously do not mean that a person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Hell, the keep/delete table on that page shows minimal correlation with subscriber counts past 1M and AfD outcomes.

I'm talking out of my ass a bit, since I don't participate in this field much, but generally coverage as a YouTuber is more likely for those who can be analyzed with a "serious" angle. For example, I know that Korea Grandma, who has been covered in the context of age and gender in South Korea, is notable, and that Dolan Dark, a meme channel with more subscribers, is not. Mach61 17:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mach61 Sorry, let me rephrase. I don't think subscriber count should contribute to notability, however, if the person has indeed made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment, as reported by reliable and independent sources, should it qualify? What I'm saying is would a YouTuber classify alongside actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors, models, and celebrities? TLA^tlak 13:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Why would you do that? NYOUTUBE is a WP:ESSAY, WP:ENT is part of a WP:GUIDELINE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Question re WP:NPOL

According to WP:NPOL people who have been elected to national parliaments and state, province or equivalent legislatures are presumed notable but not people in local bodies.

My question is what about the autonomous regions that we have in India? They are parts of a state but these aren't mere districts or municipalities, they are far larger than districts and sometimes cover most of a state. In most countries similar autonomous regions are their own province/state.

Tripura has 8 districts but Tripura TAADC covers 3/4ths of the state; districts and TAADC borders not matching. Meghalaya has 12 districts and is fully covered by 3 autonomous councils: Garo Hills ADC, Khasi Hills ADC and Jaintia Hills ADC composed of 5, 5 and 2 districts respectively. The LAHDC Leh and LAHDC Kargil covers half and half, covering all of Ladakh, etc. There are other states which are smaller and less populous than some of them. Should the people elected to these bodies also be presumed notable similar to state bodies? MrMkG (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I remember this came up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kali Kumar Tongchangya, where the consensus was to delete (with quite a bit of dissent). The community has been growing less and less tolerant of articles that don't meet the GNG in recent years (for good reason, in my view), so I'd recommend not creating an article unless you have in-depth sourcing, especially given that the NPOL argument is an edge case at best. But the situation at AfD is still unsettled; this one closed as keep while this one (and the one I linked above) closed as delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I would say no right now, only because it's not clear whether members of these bodies meet WP:GNG, or only meet WP:GNG through routine coverage. I'd make sure any article passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 09:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:ANYBIO at AfD

Despite what has been said above, a small number of editors continue to assert at AfD that certain honours confer notability irrespective of a lack of in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Butterfield, with a considered deletion rationale was closed as no consensus where the only two editors arguing explicitly for keep cited nothing other than ANYBIO #1. This article was also created by a SPA and appears as a de facto résumé. It seems ANYBIO now effectively overrides any and all other policies and guidelines regarding sourcing and notability. I'm not sure when and where the community endorsed this interpretation. AusLondonder (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

My view is that ANYBIO #3 does override the GNG requirement for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, i.e. a single source is sufficient. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

This AfD was about ANYBIO #1. AusLondonder (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Necrothesp maintains a list at User:Necrothesp/List of AfD discussions for individuals with a CBE or above which lists many instances of where CBE holders have gone through AfD. Though it seems the vast majority are kept, there are a number, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clifford Mayhew Dodkins and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Lewis (Royal Navy officer) (2nd nomination), that have been deleted on the basis that Almost no sources on [them] have been found. Curbon7 (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

There's definitely a WP:LOCALCON situation here, embodued in the Necrothesp list cired by Curbon. I didn't start an RfC after the prior discussion because nobody seemed interested, but at this point, the worst that could happen is a no consensus outcome. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that shows anything resembling local consensus (Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time) at all; that list consists of many dozens of AfDs over the last 19 years. Our notability criteria is constantly evolving, and you are welcome to introduce an RfC whenever (though I would recommend pre-planning at WP:VPIL). Curbon7 (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a group of people who have re-interpreted ANYBIO to mean that it creates inherent notability, and who regularly !vote as such at AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that. Moreover, a handful of editors strenuously insisting some honor confers automatic notability in many AfDs, even when almost all of them are closed as "keep", does not mean this interpretation of ANYBIO reflects global consensus. It only reflects the consensus of the tiny number of people who show up at those particular AfDs. JoelleJay (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• I think the issue is that AfD is supposed to be about good-faith discussion of sourcing, whereas we are instead getting rationales solely based on the assertion that many British honours simply override any and all other policies and guidelines. That's a blatant misrepresentation of what ANYBIO actually says: "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. Many editors above didn't even realise this is an ongoing issue or that anyone is misrepresenting ANYBIO in this way. AusLondonder (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
• My opinion, as should be obvious by now, is that there are not two worlds, wikiworld and the real world, which seems to be the principle on which some editors operate. There is in fact one world, the real world, and in that world high honours granted by legitimate governments should be seen as proof of notability. Wikipedia simply becomes a laughing stock if it does not consider people notable when the real world does. And high honours are not handed out like sweets. In the UK, anyone who has received a CBE or above (that's generally no more than about two hundred people every year in a country of 67 million people) should be seen as notable. It seems to be some sort of misconception that I am claiming that non-notable people are notable simply because they have a high honour (hence the misciting of WP:INHERITED). That is not the case. What I am saying is that being selected for a high honour is proof of notability, which is a completely different situation. These are not given out randomly to nobodies. They are given out to people who are already notable. No, they may not have enormous coverage on the internet (particularly if they lived before the advent of the internet), but it's frankly ludicrous that people who have such distinguished careers that they have been appointed CBE (or, even more, to a knighthood) should be considered non-notable, whereas some 19-year-old Youtuber who has a large internet presence is considered to be notable. This, to me, while it may satisfy the immutable "rules" that some editors appear to adore and completely live by, is in complete opposition to the spirit in which this project was created and makes the whole notability process laughable. So yes, I believe that anyone who meets WP:ANYBIO should be seen as notable per WP:COMMONSENSE (which I appreciate will, of course, immediately be sneered at as being "merely an essay" by the aforementioned editors): Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  What do you think about the part of ANYBIO that says "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included"? Also if an individual has received a substantial honour, proving they are notable, why are we unable to find the source coverage required, particularly with a living person? AusLondonder (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly? Given that clause makes the existence of ANYBIO utterly pointless I tend to think it's utterly extraneous. What's the point of adding a notability guideline and then saying it's not valid? None at all. Also if an individual has received a substantial honour, proving they are notable, why are we unable to find the source coverage required, particularly with a living person? Because not every notable person is endlessly talked about online! A distinguished career equates to notability, but it doesn't have to be a career that interests those who post on the internet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly? Given that clause makes the existence of ANYBIO utterly pointless I tend to think it's utterly extraneous. I'm glad you have officially confirmed you simply ignore the part that clarifies what ANYBIO is because it doesn't suit your agenda. ANYBIO is designed to indicate someone who is likely notable, for whom we should be able to locate sufficient sourcing - not award notability in and of itself. Because not every notable person is endlessly talked about online! A distinguished career equates to notability, but it doesn't have to be a career that interests those who post on the internet What part of Butterfield's career is particularly distinguished? Serving as "Non-exec Director in the recipe box business Mindful Chef"? it doesn't have to be a career that interests those who post on the internet - you know we're not looking for Facebook posts? We're looking for newspaper coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  What part of Butterfield's career is particularly distinguished? That sounds like you think you know more about what makes people's careers distinguished than the committees which award honours. Which I would suggest is just a little bit arrogant. His CBE was awarded "For services to the Advertising Industry". Are you maybe an expert in that industry? I'll quite happily admit that I'm not and defer to those who are to determine who in that industry is deserving of honours. you know we're not looking for Facebook posts? We're looking for newspaper coverage. Most of the many pop culture individuals we have articles on probably have no newspaper coverage whatsoever, so that's simply not true. They might have extensive internet coverage, but not newspaper coverage. The problem, as always, is that if we consider this to be the most important thing then we are in danger of becoming an encyclopaedia of pop culture rather than the all-inclusive encyclopaedia that we aspire to be. We have to acknowledge that some people have highly distinguished careers but barely get a look-in on the internet and not discount them because of it. There are other ways of determing notability and that's what ANYBIO is there for. To catch individuals who are clearly notable by real-world standards but maybe not as high-profile as others. As usual in these debates, I really wonder what the point is. If I was arguing that some nobody who lived down my street was notable then I'd understand the opposition, but why argue that someone with a high honour shouldn't be regarded as notable? What does it actually achieve? We don't have rules on Wikipedia that need to be enforced at all costs. We have guidelines that are meant to be mutable, open to interpretation and have exceptions when not to make an exception is clearly not in the interests of building an encyclopaedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  I respect your position of presuming notability, but I think !voting keep in every discussion without a rationale other than "meets ANYBIO #1" goes beyond presuming. Recently we had an AfD about the headmaster who became a knight and then lost his knighthood (I forget the name), where nobody could uncover any sources about him prior to his knighthood. Additionally, the source about the granting of his knighthood showed that it was a political stunt by Labour to honour headmasters who turned around failing schools. The fact that he became a knight rather than another honour appears to be chance more than anything. At what point would you !vote delete? Do I need to fly to London and tell you that I searched through microfilm of newspapers and turned up nothing about this otherwise unremarkable headmaster who lost his knighthood in scandal? voorts (talk/contributions) 12:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Another question: what's the point of an underscored paragraph stub that has no real chance of being adequately sourced after experienced editors couldn't find sources at AfD, rather than deleting the unsourced info and adding the name to a list with redlinks? voorts (talk/contributions) 13:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Are you questioning the whole validity of stubs then? I have seen many poorly sourced stubs in the past later being adequately sourced, so I don't think this is ever a valid reason for deletion when the stub deals with a topic that is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  No. I think stubs and short articles are fine. I'm questioning the validity of keeping articles based on "ANYBIO #1" when editors have come forward in deletion discussions and said "I made a good faith search, and I couldn't find anything about this person", when said articles consist mainly of un- or poorly-sourced material. If the only verifiable information we could include in a stub is "X person has a CBE", then why not just add that information to a list and redlink it to encourage someone to do more research and turn the red link blue (if they can, which I don't think they can in some cases)? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  I respect your position of presuming notability, but I think !voting keep in every discussion without a rationale other than "meets ANYBIO #1" goes beyond presuming. As I have said, I believe it is convincing proof of notability, so obviously I also think it is a perfectly valid rationale for keeping. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  This statement bears repeating: Wikipedia simply becomes a laughing stock if it does not consider people notable when the real world does. In fact, perhaps it should be enshrined in some guideline or policy or other font of useful information. Personally, I would second the inclusion of the concept in our guidance as a fundamental principle (per WP:COMMONSENSE). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  If the real world considers someone notable, they'll be covered in the real world in a newspaper or magazine, for example. Inherent notability per ANYBIO is doing the reverse: taking people without real-world notability and awarding them permanent notability on Wikipedia based on selective reading of a guideline. AusLondonder (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with you that this is usually true. However, there are exceptions and edge cases that, for what ever reason, don't fit neatly into pigeonholes created by newspapers or magazines. Is this not (at least in part) the reason why we have "additional criteria" in the first place? Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  As I have said, I believe it is convincing proof of notability WP:ANYBIO: "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" if you think that section should be removed, start a RfC. Otherwise, you're plainly wrong to assert it's convincing proof of notability. It's like asserting an apple is an orange. It's simply demonstrably false. AusLondonder (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Wading into this - I think two things can be true at once. 1) Yes, real-world notability/significance is important. As Cl3phact0 states, not every subject fits "neatly into pigeonholes created by newspapers or magazines." Common sense should apply, both in terms of types of verifiable sourcing and the level of significance of a topic. 2) Not every notable topic "will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page" (WP:N). I think it is ok to evaluate the real world significance and reach the conclusion that the subject need not have a stand-alone page even with GNG-passing sourcing. In the case of people with high governmental honors, this is where a mention in a list article might be a viable option. - Enos733 (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia simply becomes a laughing stock if it does not consider people notable when the real world does. (1) People in the real world don't know that the criterion for including an article on Wikipedia falls under the rubric of "notability". (2) "Notability" as used on Wikipedia is not a one-to-one match with the dictionary definition of "notability"; the fact that we have pages and pages of guideline to define the wiki-concept of "notability" is an obvious indication of that. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  My guess is that people in the "real world" don't care about us and our criteria for inclusion. They come here looking for information. If they don't find what they are looking for (say, some influencer with millions of followers) they roll their eyes and write us off as a bunch of out of touch fogies (for example). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, but if the issue is finding what you're looking for, I don't see why a redirect leading to a list entry with the limited information we have doesn't accomplish that. If your argument is that means we need to expand the definition of notability to be more inclusionist, that's fine by me. I just think if we're gonna go through the trouble to have all these guidelines, we should at least apply them consistently and according to their plain meaning. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's obviously tricky interpreting our own rules and guidelines, even for the most seasoned editors with years of experience. My experience in these matters is still pretty thin, and I haven't participated in so many AfDs, but I have picked-up a lot of helpful information since first stumbling into this corner of the wikiverse (thanks).

  I have also seen AfDs that end in a rather expedited manner without much of what might be considered consensus by a rational (real world) person, and where the article seems a perfectly good candidate for inclusion (at the very least as a stub), yet it still gets axed in a summary manner. This can be enormously frustrating for a good faith editor who just wants to help build this encyclopaedia, not get into some sort of contest.

  One of the wisest comments I've seen (from said earlier discussion above about the same topic) is this: The relationship between GNG and SNGs and the interpretation of SIGCOV requirements represent, in my view, wave crests on [the] stormy sea of non-consensus. And so here we are again. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that interpreting some of our guidelines is tricky, but I think ANYBIO #1 and the prefatory two paragraphs directly above it are very clearly written, and none of those paragraphs say that ANYBIO #1 establishes a common sense rule or conclusive notability or such strong notability that an article will rarely be deleted. See my reply to Phil below as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'll also note that if it were up to me, we'd eliminate most of the PAGs on Wikipedia, and operate on a smaller, core ruleset, but that will never happen. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• WP:GNG contains similar language: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article". As with the wording at WP:ANYBIO, this means that a discussion at AfD is more important than any guideline when it comes to deciding the fate of an article. Such a discussion cannot take place properly if people start forum-shopping whenever someone disagrees with them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Nobody is forum shopping; asking a question here will not change the AfD outcome that @AusLondonder cited, and AusLondonder didn't participate in that AfD. The question is forward-facing and one that is clearly coming up pretty often (given that this is the second discussion opened here in as many months about this topic). voorts (talk/contributions) 21:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Don't appreciate the accusation of forum shopping to be honest. The AfD is closed. I think this is an ongoing issue worthy of community discussion. AusLondonder (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• Instead of continuing to debate what ANYBIO #1 means, which is just going in circles, let's just get at the root of the issue and have an RfC on the topic of whether ANYBIO #1 should establish that a person is notable rather than that a person is presumed notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  But every notability guideline, including WP:GNG, only establishes that a thing or a person is presumed notable. Whether an article subject is notable is decided by consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  It seems like a large group of editors disagree with that assessment, given how many people !vote "Keep - meets ANYBIO #1" at AfD. (Also, NACADEMIC establishes conclusive notability of certain academics, such as professors with named chairs.) voorts (talk/contributions) 18:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  NACADEMIC needs to be removed or purged as well, though, to better align with GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 19:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Let's deal with one issue at a time. Reform of WP:NACADEMIC has been regularly discussed (and rejected) at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, it's like the cricketers are running the cricket project. SportingFlyer T·C 19:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  That large group of editors is part of the consensus that decides things. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. I understand that. Let me break down what I'm trying to say for clarity:

1. The "Additional criteria" section of NBIO, as you noted, mirrors GNG, in that it says that "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."
2. ANYBIO #1 is a subsection of "Additional criteria".
3. Thus, ANYBIO #1 does not establish that a person is notable; rather, it establishes that a person is "likely to be notable".
4. Notwithstanding 1-3 above, people at AfD seem to believe either that (a) meeting ANYBIO #1 inherently establishes notability or (b) meeting ANYBIO #1 creates such a strong presumption of notability that an article that meets that standard should never be deleted, notwithstanding what the delete !votes say or how extensive the BEFORE search was.
5. The fact that a large group of editors believe either (a) or (b) is an issue that ought to be resolved, either by clarifying the guideline to either say (a) or (b), or by clarifying that ANYBIO #1 does not say (a) or (b).
6. We should have an RfC to settle this issue. If the outcome is no consensus, then things continue in the confusing, unpredictable, and inconsistent status quo.

voorts (talk/contributions) 21:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• A topic that does not meet N should not exist as a standalone article, even a stub. Establishing N (rather than presuming it) for any topic, whether covered by an SNG or GNG, requires SIGCOV in multiple secondary independent sources: Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria. If good-faith satisfactory searches to establish N do not reveal sufficient sourcing, no amount of presumptive notability afforded by ANYBIO should be able to overcome a delete or ATD rationale barring strong IAR support. JoelleJay (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps, yet WP:N, which, as we all know by now, states that [a] topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG). In my view, this either/or formulation (and the voluminous material to which it ultimately refers) creates many paths that lead to "N".

  If we want a smaller, thinner encyclopaedia that takes up a lot less shelf space, then we need only re-write the rules in a highly proscriptive manner using language that is not open to interpretation or welcoming to differing points of view. Therein lies the solution to this quandary (and the paradox).

  As it is, this is one of the few place left where people of sometimes wildly different worldviews work together constructively to achieve a common goal (yes, sometimes in a confusing, unpredictable, and inconsistent manner, though mostly without rancour or malice). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  GNG and SNGs create a presumption of N, but N is not established without the components at WHYN being satisfied. Which is why someone can meet an SNG and still not actually be notable enough for a standalone article. JoelleJay (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the additional clarification. This is indeed one interpretation, and a perfectly rational one at that. If everyone here shared it, there would be no further debate.

  One flaw with this thinking might be that the either/or fork that takes us down the SNG path (rather than continuing on the GNG path) occurs before WHYN – which arguably renders it moot (or subsidiary, at the very least) to the guidance one finds after leaving WP:N to peruse other criteria and guidance in the sundry SNGs.

  I'm no legal scholar, however the matter seems to take on even greater complexity when one clicks on the link for presumed and begins to read about the two types of presumptions: rebuttable presumptions and irrebuttable (or conclusive) presumptions.

  It just seems that we have no mechanism in place to resolve edge cases (except the sometimes brutal, inquisition like AfD process), and that the rules would need to be rewritten quite significantly if this matter is to be resolved unequivocally. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  PS: [NB: ANYBIO 2 & 3, NPOL, BIOSPECIAL (particularly the "Creative professionals"), and a number of the other "Additional criteria" cases all seem to be as relevant to this discussion as ANYBIO 1 – as of course, does COMMONSENSE.] Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think this involves the first three guidelines you list. The footnote at ANYBIO 2 states that Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field, by historians [...], and ANYBIO 3 applies to people with an entry in a national biographical dictionary; these both are quite closely tied to the sources themselves. NPOL exists for a variety of reasons, but to simplify one reason, such figures tend to literally always have coverage even if it is not easily accessible on Google; thus as long as it surpasses WP:NOPAGE, it is considered sufficient. Curbon7 (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  The page on l"presumed" used to have two sections, one for rebuttable, another for rebuttable, but at some point they were merged. Regardless, the long standing principle behind notability is that it is a rebuttable presumption that initially favors article creation with minimal sourcing hurdles (as to get the article into wiki space for cooperative improvement) but then can be used to re evaluate notability if no extensive coverage can readily be found through thorough searching. — Masem (t) 22:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  WHYN applies to all content covered by WP:N, not just GNG. The SNG/GNG "fork" is simply saying meeting either an SNG or the GNG is sufficient to presume notability. Editors who wish to actually establish N for a topic would need to continue reading N even after following a link to an SNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Didn't we just discuss this like two months ago? I still hold the opinion - no, know the fact that proposing to consider ANYBIO to only establish a "presumption" of notability that can be rebutted by anyone saying "a quick google search brought up no coverage of this person who was the most important person in Uzbekistan in 1924" is essentially a veiled re-phrasing of "make ANYBIO worthless and delete anything that our very limited editor resources can't find in-depth coverage of, even if we know the sources are 99.99999999999% likely to exist (we just didn't have anybody who looked for them)", something that is clearly not the correct option if we want to have, e.g., articles on the most important people in Uzbekistan, something that I'd think encyclopedic... BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Thats just begging the question, if you know enough about them to know that they were the most important person in Uzbekistan in 1924 then there is significant coverage of them. If there is not significant coverage than you do not know that they were the most important person in Uzbekistan in 1924. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Horse Eye's, I guess what I am trying to wonder is this: if we have a reliable source that mentions, e.g. In 1924, Joe Uzbekistan was the most powerful person in Uzbekistan. He won so-and-so honor, the highest in the nation and that's it. Joe Uzbekistan is nominated for deletion. If option 2 is accepted, and we find no other sources except ones whose entirety is one to two sentences briefly mentioning that Joe Uzbekistan was the most powerful and decorated person in the nation in 1924, would he be kept? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Could y'all please move this discussion above; this sub-section is to discuss how to phrase the RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine if this is moved above if you like. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

That is what we are doing... But fine if moved. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that where "alone" would come into play, such a person as you just described would also meet ANYBIO #2 and/or ANYBIO #3. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

So, this change would effectively be: "ANYBIO #1 (significant honor) is thrown out, but ANYBIO 2 and 3 are kept and establish automatic notability"? I'd think there should be some consistency. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

That option appears to contain no change at all, just a clarification of what is already there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

There's clearly debate on whether that would be "no change at all"; not to mention I've seen people argue ANYBIO 2 and 3 as well should be discounted for a lack of coverage that could be found in a limited search. If the requirement for those who meet ANYBIO is to have significant coverage – which is literally zero difference from what those who don't meet ANYBIO have to have – then there is no point in having the thing at all! BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 is clarifying that ANYBIO #1, read in conjunction with the preceding two paragraphs under "Additional criteria", means precisely what it says as currently written. Arguing that ANYBIO #1 establishes near-unrebuttable presumptive notability does not comport with the guideline as written. If, as you believe, it ought to say that, that's fine, which is why option 1 is being included in the RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

ANYBIO #2 clearly requires significant coverage. You can't establish that a person "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field" without significant coverage in reliable sources. People who meet ANYBIO #3 will also likely meet the GNG, since being in a national biographical dictionary usually implies significant coverage in reliable sources. However, if the sole source we have is a national biographical dictionary entry from say, for example, 1852, with no other sources available, I don't think that person would meet GNG. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

But explain to me: what use are these criteria if those meeting it are required to meet GNG? Because those who don't meet ANYBIO also need to meet GNG, which would mean there is literally no difference in meeting it versus not meeting it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Correct. As written, the SNGs don't establish notability. The two prefatory paragraphs in "Additional criteria" literally say that they're indicators of notability, not establishers of notability. In my view, only NPOL and NACADEMIC state explicitly that a subject is notable if they meet particular criteria. Otherwise, as @Masem said above, these SNGs are really about when there might be enough sourcing to create an article; they weren't really written with the intent of being used as a cudgel to keep articles at AfD discussions. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

SNGs don't establish notability – Then why does the lead of WP:Notability state that notability comes from meeting either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a contradiction. N says that meeting an SNG means that [a] topic is presumed to merit an article. Then, when you look at the SNGs, each of which (with, in my view, limited exceptions, such as NPOL and NACADEMIC) make pretty clear that they don't establish inherent notability. Rather, pretty much every SNG states that they merely describe circumstances in which a topic is likely to be notable. For example, NATHLETE states that winning a certain competition makes an athlete likely to be notable – that is, that there is likely to be significant coverage about that athlete – not that an athlete who wins a certain competition is per se notable (although, as the guideline points out, it would be hard to find an athlete meeting those criteria that don't have some form of SIGCOV). voorts (talk/contributions) 02:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we did discuss this two months ago and there's still significant disagreement, hence the proposed RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

N, in that mentioned phrase, equates SNG to GNG; i.e., states that they are of the same value in determining notability. You say that [SNGs] weren't really written with the intent of being used as a cudgel to keep articles at AfD discussions, but that is how they functioned and have functioned for a decade-and-a-half-plus. As a sports editor, I can tell you that NATHLETE is completely worthless at this point (it used to be of value prior to March 2022, but not anymore since the changes you mention) – very few really use it, and those who do so to try to demonstrate notability are chastised (even when its topics where no one has looked at any relevant sources). I don't think ANYBIO should be the same – there must be ways other than GNG for notability when challenged at AFD, as otherwise very important figures who are notable (and even do meet GNG) are deleted because a few users who decide to participate at AFD cannot find the sigcov. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

as otherwise very important figures who are notable (and even do meet GNG) are deleted That's probably the strongest argument I've seen so far for the need to have some SNGs that override the need for SIGCOV at AfD, but that's just not how our notability guidelines are currently written. What harm is there in having an RfC to determine if that position actually has consensus in the community? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

To paraphrase and summarise: as written and currently applied, our guidance is that some SNGs override the need for SIGCOV. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, except for the fact that N requires SIGCOV exists for all articles regardless of path to notability... JoelleJay (talk) 06:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The "fact" is WP:N states that a subject is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)

I get that some editors categorically reject the implication of this either/or fork – which is written right at the top of N, so rather difficult to simply ignore. Unless this wording changes (and without more robust agreement about the meaning of "presumed"), it seems to me that debate regarding many of these other matters will be ongoing. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you have stated that several times, and it's irrelevant because this is not a question of GNG vs SNG. "Presumed" does not mean "established", and the criteria in N are explicitly required for both GNG and SNG topics. JoelleJay (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The part that's missing from that analysis is that each of the SNGs, with the exception of NPOL and NACADEMIC, all repeat what GNG says, which is that SNGs only provide a presumption of notability. So, sure, an SNG can be met in lieu of GNG, but the SNGs still require SIGCOV in RSes. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

How can we claim that someone actually is notable if the only independent coverage that exists is a couple lines in one source? Should someone honored as "the best [ ]" in a country of 13,000 people really be afforded automatic notability even when IRS SIGCOV demonstrably does not exist? JoelleJay (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

In the case of ANYBIO #1, it seems (at least when the guidance was drafted and added) that the consensus was "yes" we can make such a claim if the source is say The London Gazette or Debrett's.

[NB: In the UK, where the honours system has enormous significance and is one element of the complex hierarchy by which a person's rank or social status is determined, this makes a certain kind of sense (regardless of whether one agrees with this system or not – it is a fact). I agree with you that in other places (e.g., Absurdistan, Republic of Parva Domus Magna Quies, Transnistria, et al.), perhaps less so.]

Codifying which honours we recognise (or which we do not) might be another way to resolve the ANYBIO #1 matter, but then who would determine where we draw the cut-off line? In the UK, for instance, what constitutes a well-known and significant award or honour (MBE, OBE, CBE, DBE/KBE, GBE, other)? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

One way to look at it is how many recipients already have articles. If a large majority of recipients do and creating articles for others is just filling in the gaps, then it's likely significant and matches Wikipedia's expectations for notability. If less than half do and there would have to be a mass-production campaign to reach a level of completeness, then clearly it's not so significant and its standards generally do not match ours for notability. Much less than half of CBE recipients in these lists have articles, so I think it's absurd to say the majority are automatically notable as well and are exempt from our near-universal expectation of significant coverage for an article. Reywas92^Talk 21:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Should someone honored as "the best [ ]" in a country of 13,000 people really be afforded automatic notability even when IRS SIGCOV demonstrably does not exist? – I assume you have traveled to Tuvalu and Nauru and looked at all their offline historical archives, then? As otherwise you can assuredly not prove that someone named the most important person in a nation is demonstratably lacking coverage; as assuming that a nation's media would not cover their most impactful figure is patently absurd. Common sense indicates that someone receiving a very high honor will be covered somewhere; the fact that five-or-so editors who happen to do a quick Google search at an AFD can't find it does not prove that it does not exist. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Part of the challenge is that there is a strong discounting (by some editors) of primary sources for verifiability. Now, there are some obvious concerns with a complete reliance on primary sources, but primary sources can contain verifiable facts (and that secondary sources usually rely on those primary sources for their information). - Enos733 (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Verifiability isn't the issue. Primary sources expressly cannot be used to establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed RfC

I am proposing the following RfC. Please use this subsection to discuss the RfC proposal, not to further debate the merits of the issue.

Recently, there have been several discussions (1, 2, 3) about the meaning of WP:ANYBIO #1 with regard to its role at Articles for Deletion. Some editors believe that meeting ANYBIO #1 is sufficient to keep an article at AfD, notwithstanding whether significant coverage in reliable sources have been found, while other editors believe that ANYBIO #1 does not. To resolve those conflicts, the following options are being proposed:

Striking this proposal. See below. 02:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
# Amend ANYBIO #1 to establish that a person who meets that criterion is conclusively or inherently notable, analogous to certain politicians covered by WP:NPOL and certain academics covered by WP:NACADEMIC.

1. Clarify that ANYBIO #1, like most other SNGs, only establishes a rebuttable presumption of notability, and that reference to ANYBIO #1 alone—without evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources—is not a valid rationale to keep an article at AfD.
2. Maintain the status quo.

voorts (talk/contributions) 01:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Clear, although, in my view, it's less likely to generate tangential debate vis-à-vis other SNGs (and likely to get less pushback) if you trim delete the clauses: (1) analogous to certain politicians covered by WP:NPOL and certain academics covered by WP:NACADEMIC; and (2) like most other SNGs – both of which open a world of possibilities for ongoing (and inconclusive) discussion, as well as disagreement with the actual question confusion about the actual proposal (which pertains only to ANYBIO #1). These other SNG clauses may come up in the ensuing (confusing, unpredictable, and inconsistent) discussion anyhow, but they're almost certain to if the RfC mentions them explicitly. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Per WHYN, I don't think any of the SNGs actually establish notability in the absence of IRS SIGCOV, and so claiming that currently NPOL or NPROF directly confer notability is inaccurate and definitely contentious. Just drop the whole "analogous" clause. JoelleJay (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. Pinging @Cl3phact0 as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

If you delete like most other SNGs too, then there will be no confusion about what you are proposing. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, NPROF does directly confer notability. We could write an article on a professor based solely on primary sources (i.e. their publications), so long as those publications are well-cited in secondary sources (i.e. other papers) even if those secondary sources do not provide enough commentary to supply an article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

If there are no further suggestions or amendments by May 1, I intend to proceed with starting the RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 invalidates WP:N and related guidelines that state no topic is inherently notable. It is not viable to ask that in an RFC on this page.

Seriously, the only issue is the lack of the explicit use of "presumed" in other parts of this guideline despite it already being said in the nutshell (eg #2). Masem (t) 00:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a good argument to make at the RfC, but clearly some editors hold the view of option 1 and so I think it ought to be included in the RfC. Per WP:GUIDES, occasional exceptions may apply to guidelines (which WP:N is), and consensus could potentially develop to do so given that we're locked in a stalemate in these discussions. Obviously the RfC would be widely advertised, and hopefully consensus will develop one way or the other. If this ends in option 3 or a no consensus close in the end, at least we'll know where the community stands. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Nope, this approach makes no sense. Editors not reading a guideline page fully and making assumptions at AFD is not a good way to try to change guidelines. "Presumed notability" is on this page applying to ANYBIO #1 and all others. Masem (t) 01:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but editors here have expressed disagreement with application of the prefatory paragraphs to ANYBIO #1. I think @Necrothesp has captured how that group feels about the prefatory paragraphs in his comment above: Honestly? Given that clause makes the existence of ANYBIO utterly pointless I tend to think it's utterly extraneous. What's the point of adding a notability guideline and then saying it's not valid? There's clearly a group of people that would like those paragraphs to not apply to ANYBIO #1, and the point of the RfC is to try to establish whether the community agrees with that position. We can't exclude that option just because we might disagree with it. As an aside, at this point, I could be persuaded with a strong enough argument for option 1, although I haven't seen one yet. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

All of that said @Masem, I'm open to a different way to frame this RfC if you have a suggestion. I just figured that this was the clearest way to stake out the two positions and get to an actual answer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

My issue, on re reading the above carefully, is that there is clear agreement here that ANYBIO #1 is not meant to confer inherent notability and instead presumed notability should be taken. The issue really is how ANYBIO #1 should be used in AFD discussions, with a clear issue that some editors, when they vote by simply defaulting to ANYBIO #1, are not recognizing that multiple guideline pages say this type of vote is inappropriate. That gets into a more complex discussion about the timeline of an article, where the SNGs are intended to allow topics that are likely notable to be given standalone articles at the start until someone can properly demonstrate that no significant coverage will come per BEFORE.
So the RFC should be how to strengthen the wording around ANYBIO #1 to be clear it still is presumed notability without weakening or empowering it. The current choice of #1 shouldn't be an option in this scenario. — Masem (t) 15:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

there is clear agreement here that ANYBIO #1 is not meant to confer inherent notability and instead presumed notability should be taken
I'm not so sure about that. Several editors in this discussion (and at AfDs I've been in) have expressly stated that they believe ANYBIO #1 confers inherent notability, or have ignored arguments to the contrary or tried to advance a reading of the guidelines that gets them to that conclusion. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment - what exactly is being proposed to change (additional language)? It seems that this proposed RFC is attempting to establish a community wide interpretation rather than seek changes to the text. - Enos733 (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd be open to proposed language. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Striking this proposal. See below. 02:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I still like my initial framing: I think it's the cleanest and gets at the crux of the issue, but I'll take a stab at clarifying what changes would be made.

1. Amend ANYBIO #1 as follows:

   −

   The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.

   +

   Notwithstanding the preceding guidance, a person who has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times, is conclusively or inherently notable.

2. Amend ANYBIO #1 as follows:

   −

   The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.

   +

   A person who has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times, is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable sources, but is not inherently notable. Reference to ANYBIO #1 alone, without more, is not a valid rationale for keeping an article at AfD.

3. Maintain the status quo.

I worry, however, that proposing specific language will bog down the RfC in objections to specific wording and result in various counter-proposals, which would make determining consensus difficult. I think the better method is to gain consensus on the broader questions, and then hash out the details through the normal course of non-RfC discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I suggest the following wording as option 4: "A person who has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times, is presumed to merit an article, even if that person does not satisfy the basic criteria, or the general notability guideline." The reason we use the word "presumed" is because two topics that satisfy GNG can still be merged if they overlap to a sufficient degree (for example, if one topic is 99% of the other topic). James500 (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

voorts, I'm not sure either this amended version of 1 or 2 would pass from a language perspective. 2 reads more like it belongs on WP:OUTCOMES. 1 becomes a bit chaotic (specifically Notwithstanding the preceding guidance); while many of our PAGs conflict with each other, they should be consistent within themselves. Curbon7 (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The other issue is what is "well-known"? What is "significant"? I think ANYBIO is far too vague and should simply be deleted. If someone's honors are so well-known and significant, then there ought to be adequate sources about them! I absolutely do not believe CBE is significant enough that all of our long-standing expections of GNG sourcing should be thrown out the window. While this is a nice honor, so many of its hundreds of annual recipients are minor local officials, mid-level bureaucrats, common businesspeople, or other generic community leaders. Unless there are RSes written about them with depth of why they deserved the honor, it's absurd to say this establishes the need for an article alone. Reywas92^Talk 20:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I think "well-known" and "significant" are fine. Those are things that are debatable and can be hashed out in the ordinary course of an AfD discussion. I agree with your analysis of CBEs, and I'll add that many of the recipients are also politically connected and getting the award because they at one point did a favor for the PM. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Having started this discussion, I would welcome an RfC to add further clarification regarding ANYBIO. Many articles of non-notable individuals, some very poorly sourced BLPs have been kept at AfD on the completely false premise that ANYBIO confers inherent notability on recipients of many honours. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lena Townsend was a particularly egregious case: all three keep comments solely cited ANYBIO - in fact two comments were nearly identical. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Cole (architect) was another scandalous AfD. It resulted in a BLP with zero secondary sources being kept, again participants cited ANYBIO as overriding sourcing requirements. AusLondonder (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what this potential RfC seeks to clarify. All notability guidelines, including SNGs and GNG, offer the presumption of notability, which is rebuttable by definition. If more clarification is to be added, I think it should be added elsewhere, best as a sentence preceding WP:ANYBIO (such as The following are presumed to be notable, which appears in other guidelines). Curbon7 (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think adding "The following are presumed to be notable" will fix the problem, since as we've seen from this discussion, several editors are of the view that that language should be ignored. That problem is compounded because AfD closers aren't willing to enforce the language of the guidelines—notwithstanding that they are supposed to evaluate arguments based on their strength—unless editors who make those arguments receive more support than the "Keep: ANYBIO #1" votes. Then, on the back end, DRV regulars appear to endorse closes where a bunch of editors advance reasons that are contrary to PAGS. For example, see the analogous case of Low Pavement, Chesterfield, where editors invented a new SNG, I argued that that was not in fact an SNG, and the decision was endorsed. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Another option for the RfC to address some concerns above. I've adopted @James500's proposal as option 1.

1. Amend ANYBIO #1 as follows:

   −

   The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.

   +

   A person who has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times, is presumed to merit an article, even if that person does not satisfy the basic criteria, or the general notability guideline.

2. Amend ANYBIO #1 as follows:

   −

   The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.

   +

   A person who has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times, is likely to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable sources, but is not inherently notable.

3. Maintain the status quo.

I think that this rephrasing captures the positions on both sides of the debate and would make clear what would and would not be acceptable at AfD. Pinging @James500, @Masem, @AusLondonder, @Curbon7, @King of Hearts, @JoelleJay, @Cl3phact0. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I also question what would be a valid argument at AFD if #2 is adopted. Per N, GNG and SNGs are equivalent, both resulting in the same presumption of notability. #2 is effectively saying "SNGs can't be used at AFD" while still holding SNGs and GNG as equal, which is contradictory. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the fundamental misapprehension here is that SNGs establish notability. They do not. They are rules of thumb so that editors can know, when they're researching a subject, that something is likely to be notable, and so it might be worth conducting some research on that topic and creating an article if one doesn't already exist. For example, a person in the film industry who wins a BAFTA is likely to be notable, so it might be a good idea to begin research to write an article on that person. Winning a BAFTA, however, is not a guarantee that someone is notable (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarn Willers). Option 2 also makes clear what is stated directly above the ANYBIO section: 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. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the fundamental misapprehension here is that SNGs establish notability. They do not. No, that's not what WP:SNG says. SNGs have a range of purposes, but most are there to establish the presumption of notability. Meaning that we should give such topics a standalone article to be expanded on in the wiki/crowd-sourced way. We dont want other editors to rush to delete these before they have the chance to be expanded, but at some point, if an editor follows the steps of BEFORE to seek sourcing that provides significant coverage and fails to produce anything by a good-faith search, then deletion becomes reasonable. That's the challenge of the presumption of notability.
Going to the specific AFD that you included at the start, the nominating editor did not show a BEFORE search result. And being this looks like a person with a career in the 21st century from a first-world country, even discussing how Google failed to bring up any results would have been something to start with than just concerns of the article being promotional (which is an issue! - a better solution for that one would have been to draftify and review once the promotion aspects were removed). So the arguments of ANYBIO #1 applying absolutely apply because we have nothing in the nomination to refute that challenge. On the other hand, the Tarn Willers one above by voorts does show a proper BEFORE step, so any calls to ANYBIO should not be valid and instead those wishing to keep the article must seek sources to justify that. This has been discussed at lenght at WT:N (including the discussion that led to the current wording of WP:SNG) and generally agreed, particularly on stressing that notability is a rebuttable presumption and can be challenged in the future; how that challenge works (eg how exacting a BEFORE action is) is debatable, but that's still how it should be done.
Hence why it comes back to !voters in those AFDs reading things in insolation (eg in the Tarn Willers, the first !keep vote omits the "A topic is presumed to merit an article if:" part of WP:N that is as relevant to the rest). Presumption of notability needs to be repeatedly stressed at the SNGs for this reason so that !voters at AFD aren't missing that key point, rather than trying to judge if consensus has shifted.
There is a wholly separate argument whether things like CBEs are sufficient for meeting ANYBIO #1, but even if they are, presumed notability still is there and can be challenged. — Masem (t) 00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we're on the same page, and I agree with your analysis. To clarify, of course SNGs establish a presumption of notability. What I was saying is that SNGs don't independently establish notability such that the presumption is irrebuttable. The presumption of notability only really kicks in when we're at AfD, someone has conducted a BEFORE search, and the burden shifts to the keep !votes. The problem with Tarn Willers is that that was closed as no consensus, despite the lack of actual valid argumentation from the keep !votes, who can get away with saying that ANYBIO #1 is sufficient because they've established that consensus in a particular AfD.

This RfC seeks to solve the problem, one way or the other. If option 1 gains consensus in the RfC, those voters would have had a valid argument for keeping the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I still have a bad inkling that an RFC here is the wrong way to go. We have the recent stuff (5 years-ish) at WT:N, and the recent change at NSPORT, and several other notability guidelines to point to that all express presumed notability. We do have difficulty in explaining from a procedural standpoint how we apply presumed notability - BEFORE is part of that, and WP:N has some stuff that is also precursory but we really don't have something about the larger approach. Eg: we ofter allow one free AFD pass if the topic meets an SNG but without significant coverage, but when the next AFD comes around showing no sourcing and no improvement in the article, we typically become more scrutinizing. That's a general practice but I can tell you we don't have that written down anywhere and I don't know where'd we put it.
You're not really asking for ANYBIO #1 to be changed, but that we enforce our notability guidelines as a whole consistently, reading all that has been said. I understand changing the wording of ANYBIO #1 can help towards that, but I think starting an RFC on specifically ANYBIO #1 is not in the end going to be as fruitful as making sure the community is aware of how notability should generally work. — Masem (t) 05:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question, under option 2, editors would need to show SIGCOV in RSes, as they must do for every other topic on Wikipedia, without relying on citation to a single guideline without further analysis. If option 1 wins out, then pretty much every person who wins a significant award or honor would be exempt from GNG. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

(sorry if this is more of arguing than addressing the RFC) under option 2, editors would need to show SIGCOV in RSes, as they must do for every other topic on Wikipedia – the thing is, N states that a topic is presumed notable for receiving sigcov, just as a topic is presumed notable for meeting SNGs: presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG). That statement implies that there is no difference between meeting GNG and meeting SNG – that subjects passing one should receive the same treatment as a subject passing the other, which contradicts your statement that SNGs [do not] establish notability – something that they actually have been used to establish notability for over a decade (and some such as NPROF still do without question). If the presumption of notability no longer applies when a subject is brought to AFD, then that is not a presumption at all! A notability criterion is completely and utterly worthless if it cannot be used to demonstrate notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

NPROF is unique because it predates WP:N and any other SNG, so it was left alone (though I know more recent rumblings are pushing for more sigcov aspects, but that should not be considered in this discussion). Masem (t) 01:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is what N says. But, almost every SNG states that some form of secondary coverage (usually SIGCOV) is required:

• NBIO: NBASIC says that SIGCOV is required. The first paragraph above ANYBIO states: 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.
• WP:NASTRO: Astronomical objects are notable if they have received substantial attention and coverage in reliable sources, usually the scientific literature and/or popular media.; Whether an object meets these criteria must be established through independent reliable sources, following WP:NRV.
• WP:NBOOK: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
• WP:NEVENT: NEVENT requires significant coverage, and the rest of the guideline is about how to interpret depth, duration, and diversity of coverage.
• WP:NFILM: The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:
• WP:NGEO: several of the standards require SIGCOV
• WP:NMUSIC: Note that regardless of what notability criterion is being claimed, the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials.
• WP:NSPORT: A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level.
• WP:NWEB: Wikipedia bases its decision about whether web content is notable enough
  to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the web
  content has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the web content, its authors, or its owners.

voorts (talk/contributions) 02:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you have demonstrated that it has been determined in some areas that coverage is the best indicator of notability. My response: so? That does not mean we should be tightly enforcing it for all subjects, because there's some instances where tight GNG proving at AFD needs not be the only option. My Joe Uzbekistan example above, I assume you'd have him deleted, even if no search is conducted in appropriate areas whatsoever? (because that's how this "likely to have sigcov" presumption acts in NSPORT – i.e. it is wholly worthless!) IMO your second (or third?) proposed option #2 makes even less sense: a person with a significant honor is likely (not even presumed!) to be notable ... if sigcov is demonstrated??? Whereas someone who does not receive a significant honor is presumed notable (higher level) just for having sigcov? That implies that winning a very high honor makes one less notable, which is completely farcical. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

But "significant coverage" is the cornerstone of notability, which all SNG should be aiming for, otherwise there is no way to make a useful standalone article about the topic. That's not something one can ignore for certain topic areas. High honors indicate that significant coverage likely exists so by all means we want articles created when such conditions exist but we also expect them to be expanded to show sigcov as required by notability in general (both what GNG and the SNGs work towards). If all we can say a out a person from independent sources is they won a high honor and nothing else, that article would remain forever stubby and that's when merging or deletion makes sense. Masem (t) 16:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not something one can ignore for certain topic areas – yes, for certain topic areas. However, we need to use common sense. There are some subjects where it is simply impossible to find significant coverage, even though we know it is virtually 100% likely to exist, because of the sources being outrageously difficult to find (my hypothetical Joe Uzbekistan). We should not be tightly enforcing GNG requirements on those types of subjects. In all, it should come down to: "does having this improve the encyclopedia?" and "is this encyclopedic?" I'll also disagree that there's "no way to make a useful standalone article" without sigcov – one can absolutely write decent articles without "sigcov", and I've arguably done so several times. And even if something is a stub, that is not the end of the world – something is better for the reader, ultimately, than nothing, in my opinion (and in the opinions of many non-Wikipedians I've talked to). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that in reality we have literally thousands if not tens of thousands of sources for Joe Uzbekistan (the most powerful person in Uzbekistan in 1924), so not sure what this hypothetical really demonstrates besides the fact that coverage of such a person is not going to be hard to find. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't seem to find much coverage of Abdurazak Mavlyanov, the Supreme Soviet of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic (seems to have been one of the top positions?) - albeit in 1938, not 1924 - can't seem to find who was the leader for that year. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thats not the most powerful man in Uzbekistan in either 1924 or 1938. In both years its Joseph Stalin (I thought "Joe" was a pretty clear reference to that but I guess not). Also a Supreme Soviet is a legislative body, not a position. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hmmm... I had just used "Joe" as it was the first name to come into my mind :)... Of course Stalin's notable... I was thinking more the most powerful Uzbekistani from that year... – but my main point is that there are important people for whom the only significant coverage is offline; requiring GNG-compliance immediately would result in the loss of their articles which I don't think to be the best result. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the argument, if the articles (likeAbdurazak Mavlyanov) don't exist how can they be lost? Presumably at some point when an editor has access to those offline sources they will create an article or those sources will be put online. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Feel we're getting a bit off topic with Uzbekistan (my fault) – but while Mavlyanov doesn't have an article, there's plenty of other important figures like him who do have articles but we can't access significant sources for due to them being offline, hard to find, etc. – they would be deleted under this, just as many figures in the sports area who appeared to have had a good chance at notability have been deleted even though no searches in news searches of the time took place (Bouriema Kimba of Niger and Karl Schwegler of Switzerland are two that stood out). BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I would ask why someone would create an article for something without access to sufficient sources. That would seem to be on its own disruptive editing. There is no change here, only a clarification... Nothing is going to happen that wouldn't have otherwise have been able to happen (and nothing is required to happen). Deletion is not permanent, if at some point in the future if someone has access to those sources they can recreate the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would ask why someone would create an article for something without access to sufficient sources. – Because until recently, doing a short stub article on someone appearing notable was completely fine and encouraged. I agree with one of Jfire's points below: When SNG criteria such as ANYBIO are applicable, the burden of proof goes beyond WP:BEFORE, in my view. If the sources are likely to be offline, than an offline search needs to be demonstrated, in the archives that are most likely to contain relevant sources. If they are most likely not in English, than someone who is fluent in the relevant language needs to be involved. The search should extend to specialty publications in the relevant subject area. Viewed in this light, few if any of the AfDs cited above are convincing to me as demonstrations of problems with ANYBIO #1's presumption of notability, because it is rare to see editors rebutting the presumption of notability by describing a failed search for sources of even BEFORE-level rigor, let alone the more thorough search that I think should be required. This change (option #2), from my view, would likely be similar to NSPORT, where people such as Kimba and Schwegler with major accomplishments are deleted even though no search whatsoever was done in relevant archives, which is why I oppose it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Nominating articles for deletion without appropriate BEFORE is also disruptive, completely agree on that... But I also fail to see the true harm of such a page briefly not existing before existing again if the topic is truly notable (we've after all supposed to consider this a thousand year project, the vast majority of notable topics do not have articles and the vast majority of topics that will be notable are not yet... These are fundamental paradoxes of our project). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I would ask why someone would create an article for something without access to sufficient sources. - There's a lot of reasons. People disagree on whether the sources are sufficient enough. Some people have may have had or have seen the sources but don't currently have them (Foreign sources, sources pre-internet, anything that aired on TV and radio). Some may assume more exist. Some may not think it's a problem at all considering there's tens of thousands of articles here with limited sources. Some may also think that this is an an encyclopedia and encyclopedia's generally want information on everything within reason. Information also generally leads to more information because other people are usually mentioned in articles and if no information exists on that person, people like myself might go to find it. It's definitely an important part of topic building. KatoKungLee (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:NEXIST. Curbon7 (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

If these three options were the only options at RFC, I think I would have to vote for (3), because neither (1) nor (2) capture my interpretation of the guidelines and strengths or weaknesses of ANYBIO-based rationales at AfD. My position is:

• The word "presumed" in SNGs (or phrases like "presumption of notability") should be interpreted primarily (though not necessarily exclusively) as a statement about the burden of proof required to demonstrate either that GNG-level coverage exists, or does not exist. Where no SNG criteria that confer a presumption of notability are applicable, the burden lies on editors arguing that a subject is notable to demonstrate that such sources exist. Where SNG criteria such as ANYBIO are applicable, the presumption is that the subject is notable, meaning that the burden is on editors arguing otherwise to demonstrate that thorough searches in the relevant places have failed to locate suitable sources.
• I do not believe that ANYBIO #1 establishes "inherent" or "irrefutable" notability, so could not vote for (1). However, I also do not believe that a reference to ANYBIO #1 alone is an invalid rationale to keep an article at AfD. I interpret it as shorthand for "given what we know about the subject, it is highly likely that significant reliable source coverage exists, and no one has convincingly demonstrated a sufficiently thorough yet unsuccessful search for such coverage". Therefore I could not vote for (2) either.
• When SNG criteria such as ANYBIO are applicable, the burden of proof goes beyond WP:BEFORE, in my view. If the sources are likely to be offline, than an offline search needs to be demonstrated, in the archives that are most likely to contain relevant sources. If they are most likely not in English, than someone who is fluent in the relevant language needs to be involved. The search should extend to specialty publications in the relevant subject area. Viewed in this light, few if any of the AfDs cited above are convincing to me as demonstrations of problems with ANYBIO #1's presumption of notability, because it is rare to see editors rebutting the presumption of notability by describing a failed search for sources of even BEFORE-level rigor, let alone the more thorough search that I think should be required. For example, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lena Townsend, no one demonstrated a search in British newspaper archives of the 1960s-70s, and once someone did, they started to find sources.
• With regret, I'm skeptical about the likelihood of an RFC in this area to find consensus to change anything about the broad-strokes interpretation of ANYBIO, no matter how much it is wordsmithed. For better or worse, the the status quo is in many respects a détente between two poles of an inclusionary-exclusionary spectrum of editors. The outliers on either side of the spectrum are entrenched, and will veto clarifications that disfavor their preferences. Perhaps we can find a more narrow consensus, such as whether we are correctly calibrated on which types of honors really do consistently indicate a high likelihood of reliable source coverage. My personal view is that those arguing for presumptive notability of CBEs, BAFTA, and Oscar winners are correctly calibrated, in the sense that such subjects are highly likely to have received significant coverage in reliable sources, and that rebuttal requires a convincing demonstration otherwise.

Jfire (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

What do you think of the third draft proposal? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The second option there is less objectionable to me than in its original formulation, but overall I think that, given those three options, I would still choose to keep the status quo. I have some quibbles with how (2) in the third draft proposal is worded, but more importantly I think what most needs to be clarified is how the "presumption of notability" functions, and tweaking the wording of ANYBIO #1 specifically, and in isolation, seems far from the best way to do that. Jfire (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough.

Off topic: I've written an essay on the presumption of notability, and would appreciate any input you might have. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

BEFORE needs to be augmented that a source search likely is to require offline sources particularly if before 2000 and a topic from a non western nation. — Masem (t) 17:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Fabrizio De André

Hi guys, would anyone like to help me expand this article? On the it.wiki page there are 203 references (https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabrizio_De_Andr%C3%A9), while on this page there are only 39; this difference is absurd. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)