ANYBIO and presumptive notability[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
...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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. GMGtalk 17:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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. GMGtalk 18:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
What discussions still have editors claiming that "having stepped on the field once" is automatic notability? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting an RfC?

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Question re WP:ENT[edit]

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? TLAtlak 14:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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? TLAtlak 13:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Question re WP:NPOL[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

WP:ANYBIO at AfD[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
This AfD was about ANYBIO #1. AusLondonder (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm fine if this is moved above if you like. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is what we are doing... But fine if moved. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Reywas92Talk 21:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given Wikipedia is (and always will be) a work in progress it is clearly absurd to base notability indicated by an honour on the number of articles on such people that already exist. CBEs and above have generally been considered notable because only relatively few are awarded. At lower levels (OBEs, MBEs, etc), the number of people honoured explodes and the majority of them are only locally notable; people with CBEs and above, on the other hand, generally have a national reputation in their fields. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Where did anyone say anything about Nauru? I'm talking about the hypothetical situation in which we know that SIGCOV does not exist. The example having a low population is adjacent to this but not necessary; I included it because it also raises the problem of why someone honored as "the best" in a country of 13k--with attendant contemporaneous coverage in a single "national" newspaper--is more "deserving" of inherent notability (or presumption thereof) than someone with identical achievements and coverage from a city of 13k people. JoelleJay (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed you were referring to Tuvalu and / or Nauru as they are the only nations near the mentioned population; in situations involving them, how would we know that sigcov does not exist? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Verifiability isn't the issue. Primary sources expressly cannot be used to establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done. Pinging @Cl3phact0 as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes, this is how the guideline is practiced, but I'm saying the wording of WHYN directly contradicts this and does not allow for notability in the absence of the WHYN criteria for any topic regardless of SNG or GNG justification. JoelleJay (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'd be open to proposed language. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Reywas92Talk 20:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This happens pretty regularly in the species and journals delsorts and is absolutely a problem. JoelleJay (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
What we definitely do not want to happen is what was happening before the last major NSPORT revision, before which had an SNG allowance of "any player that played at least one game in a professional sport". This enabled an editor to mass create thousands of articles on cricketers and assc. soccer players based on pulling from a database and then populating a two-three sentence paragraph about them. That's not to say these players weren't likely notable, but the editor did not have any intention of coming back to improve those.
This is not to say ANYBIO #1 is as loose with that, but the intent here as HEB says is that we want editors to start with articles that show significant coverage exists and could be expanded on. We don't need a GA/FA quality article out of the bat for someone that may be knighted, but a decent article should be more than just stating the honor and reiterating data found from tertiary or primary sources. Masem (t) 12:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What we definitely do not want to happen is what was happening before the last major NSPORT revision ... This enabled an editor to mass create thousands of articles on cricketers and assc. soccer players based on pulling from a database and then populating a two-three sentence paragraph about them. – we've blocked that editor, though, and as far as I'm aware we don't have anyone doing that anymore (whether NSPORT, ANYBIO, etc.) BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
WP:NEXIST. Curbon7 (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
What do you think of the third draft proposal? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think that's a bit too broad. For example, for a historical battle, historians will likely have written about it and books or scholarly articles will likely be written about it. I agree that this might make sense for certain groups of people, but this is a discussion we should have at WT:AFD. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrizio De André[edit]

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)[reply]

Category