Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

• See also: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics
• See also: Wikipedia talk:Notability (athletes)

Archives

Proposed modification

I agree with WP:BIO#Family for the most part, as it nicely jives with the essay, WP:NOTINHERITED, however I wish to propose a slight modification.

Currently this section reads:

"Being related to a notable person confers no degree of notability upon that person."

I propose:

"Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person."

My reasoning: Many famous people are in fact famous almost exclusively due to their parentage. There are many examples one could find (e.g. Chelsea Clinton, Julian Lennon, Paris Hilton, Prince Harry, Roger S. Baum, etc., etc.), however what separates the examples that meet WP:BIO from those that do not is the existence of notable factors beyond or in addition to their parentage. People who are famous partially for reasons of parentage may sometimes be conferred additional notability by their parentage. John Lennon's sons, for example, are often appreciated by fans of John Lennon's music due to their musical similarities. L. Frank Baum's descendents similarly have gained a degree of legitimacy in their literary works related to the Oz series arguably due solely to reasons of inheritance (see List of Oz books#Alternate Oz). This proposed modification may sound overly pedantic but it's a simple change and I believe it is more precise. Thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

More support for my proposition is that it would then agree with the following line from this relevant Wikipedia project space essay:

"the fact that [the subject in question] ha[s] famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article" (emphasis added).

Essentially, then, my proposition seeks to gain consensus for this seemingly minor point from a (less official) essay so that it can be included in the (more official) guideline. Does anybody object to this? -Thibbs (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it seems like everyone here supports this so that's good enough for me. I've made the change per WP:SILENCE. -Thibbs (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think something needs to be added to clarify that it means the person isn't notable enough for an article. Otherwise, it could be used as a reason to delete the names of a notable person's non-notable parents, spouse, and children. All articles would then eventually contain almost identical personal life sections: "Born to a mother and father in New York, Famous Person had two siblings. Person later married a woman with whom he had two children." Maybe a sentence could be added that says: Therefore, an article should not be created about someone based merely on their relation to a notable person. Ariadne55 (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability doesn't affect whether a person may be mentioned in an article about someone or something else; it only affects whether that person himself may be the subject of an article. The driver of John F. Kennedy's car in Dallas might merit a mention by name in an article about the assassination, but that doesn't mean he qualifies for an article on his own. Rklear (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is mostly correct, but there are exceptions. For example, various articles about universities have lists of notable alumni, and, similarly, many pages about towns/villages/etc include lists of notable people who were born there. While it is not specifically spelled out anywhere, I think that in those kinds of cases the people mentioned need to be notable themselves in the sense defined by WP:BIO or one of the other notability guidelines. Nsk92 (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Royalty

This came up when the birth of Emma Tallulah Behn was placed in 2008. I removed her birth because a criteria has been established for person to have 10 foreign language articles before a death was appropriate in the article and I applied it to births also. But as I started thinking about it more in became a question to me if she, and the other 3 babies in Category:2008 births, should have articles at all. All 4 of these babies are notable for one thing only, having parents/grandparents who are royalty. In the guide about arguements to avoid in deletion discussions it says that:

Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits - the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child. Ordinarily, the child of a celebrity parent should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have famous parents.

None of these 4 have done anything in their short lives that would make them notable in their own right. So my question is, should these princesses have independent articles or should they be redirects to their parents articles which have established notability? Jons63 (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have also brought this issue up at WikiProject Royalty. __meco (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It depends how far up the pecking order the royal family member is. In my viewpoint: royals are inherently notable if they are a monarch, children of a monarch, and grandchildren of the monarch. In this case, they are senior members of the Swedish royal family (the eldest is 5th in line to he throne I believe), which I believes gives them inherent notability. Though I'm not a fan of pages for certain royals and nobles, the children of a senior royal is grounds enough for an article, and enough suitable information has been provided to establish notability in their own right. I draw your attention to Princess Louise of Wessex as one example, and James, Viscount Severn as another: further back in the line of succession than these Princesses (albeit for different countries). PeterSymonds (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

But Louise and James have royal titles (well, they don't use them, but they have a legal right to them). I'd say that titled royalty almost always is inherently notable. These Norwegian girls are not princesses. Their only merits are that they are grandchildren of a monarch and that they are close to the top of the order of succession. But then again, what's Autumn Phillips's merits, apart from being the wife of a grandchild of a monarch and being the wife of someone close to the top of the order of succession? Granted, there's more to say about a 30-year-old than about an infant, but clearly her marriage is the only thing that makes her notable. (Also, this is somewhat related to the ongoing notability RFC, as all these seem to satisfy the general WP:N requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so it's a matter of whether or not specific guidelines should be able to override that.) -- Jao (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So children of sons of the monarch should have articles, children of daughters should not? That is one place you could draw the line, but it seems an odd one to me. --Tango (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, monarch = yes, grandchild of monarch = no, child of monarch = maybe depending on the title(s) assumed at birth. Position in line to the throne is speculation - it's dependent on too many potentially intervening factors over the years to be evidence of inherent notability (though it would certainly be enough to support a reference in some other article).
News coverage that amounts to 'A was born to B and C' does not establish notability no matter how many newspapers print it. That's not "significant" coverage of the person's accomplishments or life. Rossami (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Position in the line of succession isn't speculation, it can change over time, sure, but how it is at the moment is absolute.--Tango (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not that their position in the succession is speculative - as you say, that's relatively stable. What's speculative is whether or not that position will ever result in the person becoming the notable monarch. Too many things could intervene to move the person up, down or even out of the line of succession. Being in the line of succession could be an interesting fact in an article about a person who is already notable for other reasons and could be appropriate in an article that is about the line of succession but merely being in the line of succession is not sufficient all by itself to make a person inherently notable. At least, not in my opinion. Sorry I wasn't clearer before. Rossami (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No-one that isn't in direct line (or is next in line after someone in direct line with no children yet) is really expected to ascend to the throne. They're still talked about in the press constantly just because they're in the royal family, not because anyone expects them to be monarch. --Tango (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Being a pop star is not a hereditary position, being a member of the royal family is. That's the big difference. The grandchild of a monarch is going to be followed by the press for their entire life and will have plenty said about them - the press clearly think they're notable and that's what we require. If the press think they are worth writing lots of articles about, then they're notable enough for an article here. Just that they haven't had lots of articles written about them yet doesn't matter when we can be pretty certain they will be written over time. --Tango (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

5th in the line of succession was judged sufficient in a well attended AFD earlier this year - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Eléonore of Belgium (it also went to deletion review and was upheld there). Davewild (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's the case where formal by-the-book approach fails; it needs more common sense and less wikilawyering. To continue Tango's point above, if the baby princes are notable (they are now), then wikipedia should extend the same courtesy to children of, say, Brad Pitt (which are not). They will be in the spotlight in the foreseeable future, too. But the practice clearly separates the two classes; keep it as is. NVO (talk) 07:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think grandchildren of a monarch will be in the spotlight more than the children of a celebrity, unless the child of the celebrity decides to become a socialite and intentionally get in the press. It's difficult to say, though - this kind of media interest is fairly new so there isn't much evidence to go on (the press are less likely to follow a grandchild that they haven't been following since birth). --Tango (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus request: "Fully professional league" criteria ought to be limited

WP:ATHLETE states that any "[c]ompetitors who have competed in a fully professional league" are notable. I would like to gather a consensus to limit that to the major professional leagues. MLB, the NBA, the NFL, and the NHL are definitely within notability guidelines. I think that the Canadian Football League and Major League Soccer push the boundary of notability, but would definitely make the second tier. (I find it illuminating that their initials go to a disam page, not to the leagues the way the "big four" do.)

I do not think that players in the NBADL, AFL or MLB's minor league should automatically be included. When it comes to the AFL, are we talking about eligible players from the AFL, the AFL, or the AFL? I just don't see how playing Arena football makes one notable enough to be useful to this encyclopedia. Guys in the Af2 make $200 a game, but it is a "fully professional league," right? There are a ton of historic NFL and MLB players who won't ever have anything other than their name, team, and playing years listed, but I don't see that as a problem, and those articles might even get fleshed out over time. But Arena football? Arena minor-league football?

Look at how many players are eligible from Minor-league baseball: there are players from AAA, AA, and A, even varied rookie leagues. And look at the mess that is minor-league hockey:

The AHL is the most highly-ranked minor league. The ECHL, IHL and CHL are on the next tier below and act as feeders to the AHL, with the ECHL being the greatest of the three "equals" due to its more official ties to the NHL. The IHL would be considered second to the ECHL and slightly above the CHL due to higher allowance of veteran players and a higher salary cap. The SPHL in turn is a feeder to the ECHL, IHL and CHL. This tier is followed by several (emphasis added) lower-grade and semi-pro leagues.

Anyone who ever played on one of these teams is notable? I just don't see it. Shouldn't the line be drawn a little higher than it currently is? Actors don't get in just because they have a Screen Actors Guild card.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 00:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Fully Professional" has generally been accepted as one of the upper echelon leagues such that you are paid enough you don't need a day job. For American football, the only leagues from the last 15 or so years that counted were the NFL, NFL Europe, Arena Football League and I believe Canadian Football League. Baseball and soccer seem to be a bit less stringent for levels in terms of surviving AFD. This is one of those nobody is thrilled, but nobody can suggest anything that would achieve a replacement consensus situations unfortunately. Another issue is avoiding systemic bias, as top two or competitive for signing may be a relatively high threshold for the US, but is basically meaningless if we're talking about say Antigua. If you have a specific alternative to recommend, doing so would probably be the best step you could take.Horrorshowj (talk) 06:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think it's likely that a US league which pays its players $200 per match would be considered "fully professional". The idea is that the league should consist exclusively of clubs that pay players enough so they don't need other employment. That said, the fully professional league is a bit of a problem for some very important clubs such as Standard Liege of Belgium because they play in a league with some semi-pro clubs. However, Standard is a very successful club and its players are likely to be notable simply for playing at the club. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 03:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the arena leagues. I would consider the World Leauge to be "minor leauge NFL" and I would consider the Canadian League to be a fully professional leauge.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Is a Judge a notable by himself? A Judge is technically a titular of the Judicial Power, and if any titular of the Executive Power (and the Local Administrative Power), and any Representative on the Legislative Power (or even any Diplomatic Representative) is a notable alone, so should be anyone at the Judicial Power, since they're all three branches at the same level through the Principle of Separation of Powers and not just for that, for it being an actual power before that separation ever happened. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No. That the parallel you describe exists doesn't bind Wikipedia to treat judges exactly like legislators, and Wikipedia has not yet seen fit to do so. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Not yet!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Nor should it. Notability is a proxy for our probable ability to write a neutral, factual article on the topic. That depends on 1) the critical mass of independent, reliable sources on which cover the subject (since encyclopedias are, by definition, tertiary sources) and 2) a critical mass of informed and interested editors who will permanently monitor and protect the page from subtle forms of vandalism like the "correction" of a date or key fact. So, first I will dispute the starting premise that any representative of the legislative branch is notable. Many are because legislators in many jurisdictions tend to get significant independent coverage of their actions, lives, etc. but that is not an absolute or even a particularly useful rule. But that proxy would not apply to judges. At this point in history, most judges avoid publicity, either intentionally or because the independent press chooses not to cover them. Regardless of reason, there are many judges for whom we would have no sources. Regardless of their alleged political power or of the theoretical balance of powers, merely being a judge would be a poor rule of thumb for "notability" because it does not ensure or even reliably suggest the availability of sources or editors. Rossami (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No. No one is notable "by self", neither judges nor police sergeants. Position of power does not make anyone notable unless it is broadcast to the public through reliable sources. Even then a judge known for a single public case is still a "single-event person". Taking your point to extreme, any parent is "notable" by having power over his/her children - awarded by law and nature itself... so what? NVO (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Creative professionals--film-related

The criterion for creative professionals that states:

• "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or review"

should be clarified to explicitly exclude feature-length films by the professional him/herself (i.e., a screenwriter who writes a film that has been made, but is not itself the subject of "an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or review"). Thoughts? 09:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Amateur sports

"Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports.". I always understood (and seem to recall older discussions confirming this) that this implicitly meant "amateur sports if the sport has no professional level", meaning that e.g. amateur soccer players, amateur cyclists, amateur tennis players, ... are not considered to be notable since there are professional players in this sport. However, in this afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul LaVinn and older discussions as well, some people take the opposite position: everyone competing at the highest amateur level is notable, no matter if there is a professional level or not. If consensus is that my interpretation is the correct one, I would suggest that this is made explicit in the guideline to avoid such confusion in the future. Fram (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)