Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

Active discussions

self-contradiction in WP:POLITICIANEdit

WP:POLITICIAN is under "additional criteria", which provides criteria to help determine when someone is likely to be notable, as it says at the top. WP:POLITICIAN, to the contrary, sets its criteria apart as "presumed notable" if satisfied, without the need for significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Thus, for example, all past and present members of the Wyoming House of Representatives have biographies, mostly with no independent sources at all. Likewise, in lists of people, which require that all entries be notable, anyone who has spent any time as a US state representative is guaranteed inclusion because we "presume" they are notable. (It should be said that this contradiction exists in the sportsperson section as well, but that's a whole other can of worms I'm not looking to open at this time). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

SNGs are meant to include bios of people that wouldn't pass GNG. The assumption is that for those people, there would be coverage in other sources as written accounts naturally follow political leaders under the great man theory. The same is often true for subjects of other SNGs like NATHLETE because there's a market for stick-and-ball antics. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I know a lot of people argue that this is true (that our policies and guidelines support the creation of biographies even if the person hasn't received significant coverage in reliable independent sources), but I'm yet to see anything supporting it other than the language of certain SNGs themselves. Closest I've seen is the line at N about something being notable if it satisfies an SNG or the GNG, but that doesn't mean the SNGs are exempt from what's written at WP:N. We have a central notability guideline at WP:N which summarizes it thusly: "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention." That's also basically the GNG ("significant coverage in reliable independent sources"). The only thing that doesn't make sense is that a couple fiercely protected SNGs are written as if to say "nevermind all that notability stuff you read elsewhere, or the confluence of V/NPOV/NOT that notability is based on". So we wind up with directory listings, biographies based only on primary sources, etc. Eh. I know this is ye olde GNG vs. SNG -- I guess I was just overly optimistic that we had largely moved past that chapter of SNG taking precedent over everything else. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
If you can show me a state or federal elected representative that doesn't pass WP:GNG, I'll be very surprised, then we can delete them. One problem with SNGs is that all too often, a person who would pass GNG is barely sourced in a rush to create the article. The problem with mandating GNG is that means we'd likely not have articles on notable people outside English-speaking areas as these are harder to research. SportingFlyer T·C 02:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Step 1: Don't expect SNGs to actually make sense.
Step 2: Ignore them in their entirety, and work on things that pass GNG instead. GMGtalk 21:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Step 2 only works if you're talking about starting articles. What brought me here was our endless lists of political endorsements. We had a successful RfC recently which resulted in them being limited to notable people, but because every single state-level lawmaker is "presumed notable" we still have lots of endorsements by people who are only technically notable (with no article to speak of until someone creates another database-style entry or alternative version of an official website because that's all that exists)... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Speaking personally, as a general rule, I don't start the articles, I don't improve them, I don't nominate them for deletion and I don't participate in the discussions when they are nominated for deletion. I don't get mired in the quasi-legal framework of SNGs the same way I basically entirely ignore the fact that discretionary sanctions exist. The sources should be the ones deciding who is notable and who isn't, not Wikipedia editors (just like the community is the one that should be writing our blocking and banning policy and not ArbCom). At the end of the day, many SNGs, especially NSPORTS are a fait accompli, and it would take more community effort to delete the articles than it would be worth, when nobody is really going to look at seven-word article on the 1936 underwater thumb wrestling gold medalist anyway.
There is a fundamental feedback look with SNGs in that Wikipedia has a complex set of rules, and so we tend to attract and retain people who like complex sets of rules, and who get some measure of joy out of defending those rules and citing them in quasi-legal arguments at AfD. At the moment, I'm content to hold the line and try to oppose more quasi-legal, "importance" rather than source-based, sets of SNGs from being made. Some day we might sort out the rest, but I don't know that any of us are going to be around when it happens. I don't expect it any time in the next ten years. GMGtalk 22:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Do you have an issue with all the Wyoming House of Representatives having articles? Heck, not all Pennsylvania reps have articles and its a much bigger state. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 19:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:POLITICIAN is one of the more obvious SNG because state legislators do basically all get sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, even if it's not in the article. The only state legislators I've ever had to rely purely (or almost purely) on official sources for are ones where no or very little media from their era in their part of the country is digitised and thus easily accessible. The SNG saves everybody time and stress in avoiding having to waste time on people using the AfD process as enforced cleanup. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
If not everybody in the Pennsylvania state house has an article, that's not because they're not notable — it's because editors aren't doing the work of getting the missing articles started. Keep in mind that notability is based on the existence of suitable sourcing, not necessarily the quality of the article in its present form — state legislators virtually always have enough coverage to clear GNG, and we just don't always do a very thorough job of actually using that coverage to make their articles good. And further to that, articles about historical officeholders are very often even worse than articles about current incumbents are — but again, it's not that they didn't have reliable source coverage, it's that Wikipedians like to just source stuff to whatever they can find in a quick and easy Google search, and don't put nearly enough effort into locating the archived media coverage that would have existed in the person's own time. But either way, it's not that state legislators are being exempted from having to pass GNG, because they do pass GNG — we're just not always on the ball about actually writing substantive articles that include all of the potential sources, which is not the same thing as failing GNG.
I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about: Bud Germa, the provincial MPP (Canadian for "state legislator") for my hometown on the day I was born. From its creation in 2005 until July 2018, his article basically looked like this: a really cursory summary of his electoral record, with no non-primary sources and no substance about his actual career in politics to give the article any kind of context, basically the most generically bad article it's possible to write about every politician. Then I tackled it on July 24 last year, and now it looks like this: solid reliable sourcing, evincing a clear GNG pass, and supporting some genuine political context. I could still have done more, if I'd actually had access to the archives of the Sudbury Star — but I did the best I could with the resources I have access to, and it's certainly a much stronger article now than it was just 24 hours earlier. But the thing is, he's not special somehow: it's always possible to improve every article about a state or provincial legislator in a similar fashion, it just takes somebody actually putting in the time and effort to do it.
And, for that matter, even members of federal legislatures — the Canadian Parliament, the US House of Representatives, etc. — don't always have genuinely good articles that are effectively making maximum use of all the potential sources either. Even at that level, which you clearly haven't questioned the notability of, our articles are still frequently inadequate and minimally sourced. Again, it's not that they don't actually pass GNG — it's that people aren't always doing the work needed to make the articles as good as they could be. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Birthplace, nationality, and citizenship bio infobox parameters with matching valuesEdit

  FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see WT:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC on birthplace, nationality, and citizenship parameters with matching values, an RfC opened after initial discussion fizzled out with too few participants. While not about biographical notability per se, NBIO regulars are apt to have an informed opinion on how to do bio infoboxes.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  13:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Re live draft for prev.-deleted blp whose subject now notableEdit

Before (see e.g Grant Hardy) I'd re-create a blp when it was obvious at least to me that its AfD-!voters hadn't accessed all of what pertinent sourcing had been available, but this may not be the most correct protocol. Might this be to have such an article's most recent AfD itself reviewed?The reason I ask is because there are now a number of sources (e.g see diff) w rgd with concern a book that's going to be released on Feb. 28 that's authored by a writer for whom I'd created a draft blp (Draft:Benjamin E. Park).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

AFD does not impose a permanent ban on a topic ever being allowed to have a Wikipedia article — it's simply a judgement of where things stand at the time of the discussion. Notability can change, as the person's accomplishments and the availability of reliable source coverage about them change, so it is entirely possible for a person who was not notable enough for a Wikipedia article at one point in time to become more notable a year or two later — we have lots of articles about people where a premature early version got deleted, but then they accomplished something that constituted a stronger notability claim and could be supported by improved sourcing and thus were allowed to be recreated.
Politicians who had "campaign brochure" articles posted to Wikipedia at a time when they were just unelected candidates for office do sometimes go on to actually win the election in the end; writers who didn't have a strong or sourceable WP:AUTHOR claim in 2015 do sometimes have one by 2020; musicians who had an article deleted at a time when they were just aspiring wannabes who hadn't even released their first album yet do sometimes go on to actually become pop stars for real; there have been cases where due to inadequate availability of the necessary sources we missed notability claims that the person actually already had and thus recreated the article once the better sources turned up; and on and so forth. So just because an article was deleted previously doesn't mean he can never have an article — if his notability claim and its sourceability have improved over what he had in the past, then an article about him is allowed to be recreated now, and deletion review does not have to overturn the original deletion before you're allowed to try.
So if you think Benjamin Park has a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it than he did at the time of the original discussion, then by all means submit your draft to the WP:AFC queue — it will be evaluated on its own merits, not automatically rejected just because another version of an article about him was deleted before. The only thing you're not allowed to do after an AFD discussion is recreate essentially the same article, with the same weak notability claim and the same weak sources — if he's gone on to amass a stronger notability claim and stronger sourcing for it than he had the first time, so that you can write a better article than the first version, then that can change things. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, user:Bearcat.

I'm unsure of the figures but wouldn't be surprised if Adventists have as many adherents as Latter-day Saints or, say, Judaism,(*) and don't know much bout Adventist studies but will not be surprised should the foregoing text there end up wp:Red linked after my pressing "Publish changes" below. So: years ago I'd typed in Mormon studies, found it red and a few years back & had whipped up a little something about it. Then along the way I'd started a stub for Mr. Park.

Wikipedia was not amused. Park was barely a PhD and untenured. Oops. Sorry. Shortly however his first book was published by Cambridge University Press and his next picked up by New York editor Robert Weil so I resubmitted, seemingly wp:CRYSTAL BALLing that someone published by a major research university and shortly to be by a major publisher of general audience histories will be garnering reliable independent sources with regard his work by way of reviews or mentions. So now we are here. I suppose I'll await publication of his second and re-resubmit. Thanks.

By the way, see this notice board discussion, an incredibly fun read, regarding another blp stub I'd contributed (I'm interested in the seemingly enlarging Venn diagram center between faith & reason within study of the LDS, known as "Mormon studies") with regard the guy brought on as inaugural director of publications for the Joseph Smith Papers, its bearing the question "Ought reviewers within some tiny subfield nominating & granting one or another awards to peer researchers within the same field be thought, for purposes of notability, examples of wp:GNG independent sourcing or of mere promotionalism?"

(You see, with regard that Venn center mentioned, the JSP project currently seemed to figure quite largely.) The initiator of the noticeboard discussion I think was arguing the Mormon studies subdiscipline wasn't much of one. (Which is probably right; within it there's but a couple fully-funded chairs. And inside baseball stuff within a marginally existent area of study will have certain hurdles to clear to prove its interest to average joes and janes perusing a general interest encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, granted. That said, I first became fascinated by new-media logorrhic Mr. Park as really sort of a personified "metonym" for this Venn diagram center of which I've been talking. The secular Salt Lake City Trib's LDS church-beat reporter Peggy Stack became interested in him too, perhaps for similar reasons. Stack had been Sunstone's director, a skeptics-friendly enterprise trying to exist within that selfsame Venn center -- along with Sunstone's competitors within that space, the more thoroughly orthodix FAIR[ Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research ]Mormon & Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, which latter had been founded by Daniel C. Peterson. When editorial reigns of another of Peterson's babies, the journal published by BYU's also-Peterson-founded Maxwell Institute, was wrested away from him by Brigham Young's powers that be & given Spencer Fluhman, Stack's reporting was uber enthusiastic about this prospect of the Institute's trending towards joining ranks with the recently established Mormon studies chars at Utah State, Claremont and U. of Virginia. Fluhman, being of the BYU milieu, is a more circumspect. Mr. Park -- his then doing yoeman's work while a Cambridge graduate student in helping to establish Mormon Studies Review the Maxwell Institute under editor-in-chief Fluhman -- could provide Stack such pithy quotes as she needed, however, his becoming one of her go-to's for quotes about the newly burgeoning field of Mormon studies thereafter. ...
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

_____
(*) Okay I took a moment & googled this. US Adventist adherents number a fraction US LDS or US Jews; also, in not too distant future, Adventists worldwide to number that of worldwide LDS and worldwide Jews combined.

Anyway, here (diff) is an old stub at "Adventist studies" (which material is no longer on Wikipedia; meanwhile, for what it's worth, here is a place discussing the subdiscipline).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Documenting history of WP:PORNBIO deprecation in this policyEdit

Raising the topic here as I've been reverted by User:The Gnome. WP:ENT includes the text: "Previous criteria for pornographic actors and models were superseded by the above and the basic guidelines after a March 2019 request for comment." The linked Request for Comment proposal didn't mention WP:ENT and accordingly, the closer's comments didn't mention WP:ENT: the first version of it was included as temporary placeholder text to deal with the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO by User:SportingFlyer here and the current version by User:Rotideypoc41352 here. There's never been any discussion whatsoever proposing the idea that there is any kind of specific requirement for pornographic actors and models to meet WP:ENT, let alone any kind of consensus for it, and as User:Izno mentioned in a null edit after my initial removal, it's not usual practice to document guideline history in the actual text of guidelines. There's no basis for this text to be there: it needs to go. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Could we combine the two discussions. I suggest you move yours under mine as your suggestion, since I consider my presentation to be more neutral and fair on both sides. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 09:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I documented the history of how the text came to actually be here with diffs. I'm not sure how you "consider your presentation to be more neutral and fair on both sides", considering that you've attempted to misrepresent the RfC outcome in a way that is obvious to anyone who bothers to click through to the RfC and notice that you've been claiming it said things it didn't say. It's not even "revisiting" WP:PORNBIO, except in the sense that it's revisiting WP:BOLD placeholder text someone added later. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I disagree but will not respond. Let this take its course. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @The Drover's Wife: As the person who added it (and subsequently forgot about it), I added the text as a placeholder until the discussion about the redirect had come to a logical conclusion. As fate would have it, it looks as if I was the last person to respond to that discussion. It was never meant to be a permanent addition, but rather a note the tag had been recently deprecated. I think, or at least hope, I added it in the exact same place as WP:PORNBIO?, as discussion about what to do with the redirect appeared to still be ongoing and I think there were a few AfDs which may have linked to it. (WP:PORNBIO should still link to a now-historical page, somewhere? Editing and then checking). My memory on this is also a bit fuzzy (doesn't help that it's late) so feel free to throw facts at me if you need. In theory, it should have been removed only a couple weeks after I added it in. Please remove it. SportingFlyer T·C 12:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I just checked WP:PORNBIO and looking at the history there's at least some confusion as to whether WP:ENT now applies. Common sense would dictate that it does, yes? If it doesn't, then there should probably be a note porn actors must meet WP:GNG directly? It was brought up at the RfC, but the RfC close was short and I don't think you can necessarily read any judgment from the close itself. SportingFlyer T·C 13:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Do we need the note either way? It goes without saying that if there's no SNG subjects need to meet WP:GNG, and if someone wants to argue that a broader SNG applies they're welcome to do so. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@The Drover's Wife: The note I added can most definitely be removed regardless. I shouldn't have been on the page as long as it was per my intent (I don't think it harmed anything by being there, though). SportingFlyer T·C 01:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the sentence as it is. The whole WP:PORNBIO deprecation was about removing a subject-specific notability guideline (aka SNG) about porn related persons. We should keep the above sentence because it actually, accurately reflects the consensus of the RfC, and because editors working on porn-related biographies can be directed to the relevant, past discussiond and decisions. -The Gnome (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Ping to the editors that participated in the relevant RfC: Legacypac; K.e.coffman; GreenMeansGo; Atlantic306; Levivich; DGG; Kaldari; Ealdgyth; Icewhiz; Reywas92; Vanamonde93; MrClog; ToBeFree; ImmortalWizard; Godsy; King of Hearts; Phil Bridger; SashiRolls; Chris troutman; Dolotta; Carrite; Natureium; Guilherme Burn; Kirbanzo; RightCowLeftCoast; Hut 8.5; Dream Focus; Scott; Cullen328; Bagumba; Spartaz; Brainulator9; Britishfinance; Alsee; John B123; MER-C; Future Perfect at Sunrise; power~enwiki; MarnetteD; Masem; Tavix; Xxanthippe; Thryduulf; BD2412;JzG; Peacemaker67; Subtropical-man. Apologies for any omissions. -The Gnome (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Courtesy ping for @Beeblebrox: as closer. Personally, I don't see any problem with documenting the depreciation. But the bit about what supersedes where is going beyond the scope of the RfC, which I intentionally worded to be as simple as possible. Whether pornographic biographies should be considered under ACTOR, or I dunno...whether it's particularly expressive fornication that should be considered under ARTIST...(or if we just decide to apply common sense and use GNG because that's what we should all really be doing anyway)... that's all things that should be decided on a case-by-case basis. The RfC did not directly address what ought to replace PORNBIO, only that PORNBIO should be done away with. GMGtalk 13:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
      Comment: In a recent AFD folks noted the changed status of PORNBIO as a deletion reason, and I tried NARTIST for three quick plausibility tests. PORNBIO was not "replaced" by ENT with its odd large fan base or a significant "cult" following. –84.46.52.152 (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are two types of SNGs, those who might give notability (e.g. support but not guarantee GNG), which is WP:ENT; and those who have a special over-ride/replace other basic GNG critera (like WP:NPROF). My understanding of the history, is PORNBIO started as an over-ride SNG because the concern was that normal RS would not cover the industry (same issue faced by professors, but for obviously different reasons). However, at the RfC, this special over-ride by PORNBIO was depreciated. Thus we are back to WP:ENT (which is not an over-ride SNG – E.g. basic GNG must be met). The wording could be improved to say "Previous criteria for pornographic actors and models, WP:PORNBIO, were depreciated in a march March 2019 request for comment, and therefore such cases now fall under WP:ENT". thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    Except that it wasn't superseded by anything. It was simply removed. GMGtalk 14:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    I didn't say it was superseded by anything? Britishfinance (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    Is there a meaningful difference between "superseded by" and "now fall under"? GMGtalk 15:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    As GreenManGo says, my point is that it was simply removed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    That is what I say as well, however, as actresses/actors, they fall under ENT now – which per my comments below, is an almost irrelevant SNG as it must really meet basic GNG anyway. Britishfinance (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Even if PORNBIO was still active, porn actors could still be considered under BIO/ENT as a relevant subject-specific guideline, if the GNG did not cover them; there is no other subject-specific guideline that a porn actor would have fallen into unless you can find me a reputed athlete or academic that also did porn work (/sarcasm). Since we don't remove old deletion discussions or similar from when PORNBIO was valid, it makes sense to link them to ENT and a brief history of the removal of PORNBIO to make it clear they no longer apply, but other ENT might do that. --Masem (t) 14:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Even that wording (with the emphasis on the might) would be better than what we have. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Er, what problem are we trying to fix here? Guy (help!) 14:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I believe it's something to do with the slow disillusionment that our SNGs are somehow collectively coherent. GMGtalk 15:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The SNGs that can over-ride fails of basic GNG (e.g. NPROF) are important. PORNBIO used to have this status, but now it doesn't, so pornstars must meet basic GNG (whether they also meet ENT is almost irrelevant, as ENT is not an SNG that can unambigiously over-ride a fail of basic GNG). Britishfinance (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • To the extent that that's true, I don't have a problem (requiring that they meet GNG was the obvious and entirely sensible purpose of deprecating PORNBIO), but this text is effectively being used in practice by The Gnome to argue that meeting GNG isn't sufficient, which makes the lack of consensus for ever existing in the first place a problem. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Could you please produce chapter & verse? "Meeting GNG isn't sufficient"?! When exactly did I write these exact words you are putting in my mouth? (My hands, more accurately!) It may be that age is deleting most of my synapses but I do not recall arguing that. -The Gnome (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I have seen people trying to attribute ENT (and other SNGs) with the same quality of an NPROF, but it is not right. As GMG notes above, the SNGs are not coherently written. There are two effective types: SNG type 1 (can over-ride a fail of GNG, per NPROF), and SNG type 2 (does not automatically over-ride a fail of GNG, except by consensus at AfD). Porn actresses/actors enjoyed the over-ride (no pun intended) of PORNBIO, but no more. However, it is obvious that they fall under ENT (never had to be said as PORNBIO was preferred given its greater power), but it is not much of an SNG anyway. Britishfinance (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It was my understanding that, unlike WP:PROF, which is an alternative to the GNG, the intent of the PORNBIO guideline was to further restrict the applicable GNG/ENT guidelines., motivated by the felling that we had altogether too many unimportant people in this field. Where that leaves us now, I'm not certain. As usual, we in practice make adjustments by how strictly we apply the guideline at AfDs. DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, this is a bit of my own personal Carthago delenda est, but in discussing NPROF, let us not forget that the exception to GNG was simply added one day in 2015 with no discussion and no broad community consensus, by an editor who is themselves a professor. So let's not act like that right there is anything other the people repeating something over again until others take it to be true. GMGtalk 16:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete The discussion was to eliminate the subject specific guideline for pornography. I don't see any reason to make a note about it on the entertainment section. The part of WP:Entertainer that reads: Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. might be a problem when it comes to porn stars since then its how many people visit their websites or buy films of them. Also how large is a "large fan base"? Not sure what sort of person other than porn stars would meet that requirement and not pass other inclusion criteria instead. Also the other two things for Entertainer were not meant to apply to porn stars either. Someone gets an award for the first person to do something unusual "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Also some could argue they meet the first requirement of "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." based on how their porn films were reviewed. So best to not have porn mixed in with the Entertainment guideline at all. Dream Focus 18:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't have a problem with it. WP:ENT does clearly cover porn actors, as porn actors are entertainers and WP:ENT specifically covers actors. There is no requirement for porn actors to meet WP:ENT, just as there's no requirement for non-porn actors to meet WP:ENT. Hut 8.5 18:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: The deprecated WP:PORNBIO SNG contained a certain wording; let's call the content 'x' (no pun intended  ). Perhaps what x was could help us to understand more clearly what happens after the SNG is gone. -The Gnome (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
The deprecated text is as follows:

Pornographic actors and models The following criteria are relevant only to people involved in pornography (and should not be raised with regard to actors and models outside the pornography industry):

1.The person has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration.

2.The person has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or being a member of an industry hall of fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent.

3.The person has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.

  • There are two topics mingling here, and I will address both. First I'll address the issue of actual-notability for porn actors. On one hand most Reliable Sources tend to avoid covering anything related to porn, and any such topic will often tend to go de facto un-noted by the world at large. On the other hand it is an unacceptable violation of our Neutrality policy, our Notability policy, and our Not Censored policy, if anyone denies diminishes or disparages the Notability of anyone because of their acting or other work related to porn. When seeking to establish or defend the Notability of a porn actor it is appropriate to appeal to WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:BIO, WP:GNG, or any other relevant guideline just as it would be appropriate to do so for any other actor.
    Regarding the disputed guideline text: The substance of the text is roughly accurate in that porn actors are covered as a subset of actors. However the text is awkward, and I would hope unnecessary. If there is a need to clarify that WP:ENT really does cover all actors and entertainers then we should have text that says so more cleanly. There's no need to refer to the deprecated guideline. Alsee (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete text, there is no need for it. If considered necessary, we could include a sentence saying that WP:ENT applies to all actors, including porn actors. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove as WP:ENT does not include porn performers as for example it was decided at the old WP:PORNBIO that appearing in many films/shows does not qualify as a pass of WP:PORNBIO whereas it does apply to mainstream actors in criteria 3 of WP:ENT so the old pornbio criteria were stricter than the ENT guidelines and so this reference to WP:ENT should be removed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove I concur. I don't think it's necessary. Besides, I use general notability guidelines as a blanket evaluation for all the porn articles I am working on (saying this as probably one of the most active members of the project). Missvain (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • What exactly are we voting on? The single sentence I added as placeholder text?
What probably needs to happen here is WP:PORNBIO should be marked historical and expanded to cover the former text, and whatever we decide with WP:ENT. SportingFlyer T·C 01:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
My understanding is that already happened (the marked historical). This is just about the sentence you added as placeholder text and its guidance about WP:ENT applying instead. (To be clear, not suggesting you did anything wrong on your part whatsoever; it's just probably time to remove it given that it's now causing problems that were probably unintended.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:PORNBIO showed just a sentence blurb as of last night. I'd say there's a reasonable question as to whether WP:ENT applies, but it doesn't really have anything to do with that intended-to-be-a-placeholder sentence. Honestly don't really know how we got to this point, or why the removal would be at all controversial. SportingFlyer T·C 02:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't have a strong view on whether the text stays or goes, but for anyone else who's wondering why past me did this, I was following the example of WP:OCSD in terms of documentation. Ditto for the Wikipedia:PORNBIO redirect at Special:Diff/889642717. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:PORNBIO revisitedEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The text of the WP:ENTERTAINER section of this guideline currently containts the following sentence: "Previous criteria for pornographic actors and models were superseded by the above [i.e. by WP:ENTERTAINER] and the basic guidelines, after a March 2019 request for comment." (Disclaimer: As it happens, I have not been involved in the WP:PORNBIO RfC or in editing the guideline, so far.)

An editor wants it removed on the following grounds, as stated in the relevant edit summary: "[The] addition [of that sentence] was never discussed - RfC didn't propose this, closer didn't mention it, post-RfC discussion had consensus to do something else, and someone randomly added it here anyway."

The whole WP:PORNBIO deprecation was about removing a subject-specific notability guideline (aka SNG) about porn related persons. We should keep the above sentence because it actually, accurately reflects the consensus of the RfC, and because editors working on porn-related biographies can be directed to it. What say you, folks? Keep the sentence or Remove it? -The Gnome (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

  • As you said, it was about "removing a subject-specific notability guideline (aka SNG) about porn related persons". That isn't disputed. It did not go further than that, which the text does (the suggestion that it was superseded by WP:ENT). That doesn't reflect the consensus of the RfC at all: it wasn't proposed, was barely discussed except as a fringe issue, and wasn't mentioned by the closer. I documented the history of how it wound up here at all in the section directly above five minutes ago (essentially it was WP:BOLD placeholder text that stuck around). The Gnome has taken the most overwhelmingly hardline position of any editor in dealing with the post-PORNBIO-abolition cleanup (in which I'm still voting delete most of the time), which is where the enthusiasm for directing users to it comes from. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
So, we should have you down for Remove then, right? -The Gnome (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
There's now two discussions on the same topic. I've replied above. SportingFlyer T·C 13:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • CLOSED: Even though I started working on this question as soon as I reverted The Drover's Wife's edit, I see from the two timelines that the discussion initiated by The Drover's Wife was posted up before mine. The practical course, then, is to close down this discussion and continue in the other one. Take care, everyone. -The Gnome (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Return to the project page "Notability (people)".