Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

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

"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"

Are there any examples of articles of people who are patently notable, to the point any AfD would be laughed at with an avalanche of !keeps, but lacks any WP:SIGCOV at all, surviving by the now 15+ year old authority of WP:BASIC? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Some bishops, perhaps? Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Someone like Paul Loverde do you mean? (I just picked him at random from List of Catholic bishops in the United States) -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Besides not being very productive, WP:BASIC flatly contradicts the basics of notability and the expectation of significant coverage. I'd really like to see this guideline shift toward explanations of when you can expect to find significant coverage of the person rather than listing a bunch of carve-outs for non-notable people to get articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien I would endorse removing it entirely. It is used daily in sportsperson AfDs to support articles based on a multitude of passing mentions in match results, often in an effort to sidestep the SPORTCRIT requirement for citation to a source of IRS SIGCOV. We should have higher thresholds for biographies, not lower. JoelleJay (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm torn still. I just think of the idea of the Local Character, I suppose--that sort of person who does not have a particularly deep SIGCOV thing anywhere, but is a fixture of a community/news coverage for ages. Or maybe like a Malia Obama type figure? It feels like a sorta reasonable safety valve for broad strokes notability a bit? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

There are clearly times when enforcing strict GNG-compliance would not improve the encyclopedia. Take Tuvaluan MP Teleke Lauti. He does not clearly have SIGCOV, yet I was able to write over 600 words on him. Would demanding GNG-compliance and deleting him really benefit Wikipedia? No, it would not. How about a GA on a historic NFL player like Stan Robb? Would being very strict with GNG and deleting be beneficial to Wikipedia? Also no. If one can write a high-quality article with reliable sources on a reasonably encyclopedic topic it should be allowed to stay: that's what I think the point of NBASIC is. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

That it's possible to string together passing mentions in local newspapers and combine them with prosified stats into a seemingly well-written article does not mean the subject is suitable for a biography. There are plenty of non-notable topics with just as much or more coverage for which a page of high quality could be written, e.g. many high school football coaches, almost any ortholog in a model organism (one could easily write 100+ separate pages on the same conserved protein based on IRS SIGCOV discussion in the corpora for individual species). The only difference is that you assert an NFL player must be inherently notable regardless of lack of SIGCOV, and regardless of whether playing "professional" football was even considered remarkable at all in a given time period. JoelleJay (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

There are plenty of non-notable topics with just as much or more coverage for which a page of high quality could be written – which is why I said it should be a reasonably encyclopedic topic. If I can write a high-quality article on a historic parliamentarian for Tuvalu based on minor coverage, why should we strictly enforce GNG and delete the article? What benefit would that have for Wikipedia? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

That's the whole thing: you believe that all NFL players are inherently encyclopedic, others disagree. JoelleJay (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

How about Teleke Lauti? Should we delete him since he fails GNG? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Does he not meet NPOL? JoelleJay (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

He does, NPOL says if you make it into a national legislature, you're notable. Seems like an instant 'notability pass'. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I assumed and why I didn't talk about him. Even if I strongly disagree that all legislators are inherently encyclopedic, I'm not generally going to take up a position against NPOL in an AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Right, there's little chance (I guess) some Pitcairn Islands political elected official is encyclopediac, but it's a simple reasonable standard. Make it to your national legislature, no matter how big or small the nation... you're notable in the context of your nation. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Funny you mention that, since I'm actually responsible for 30% of the article on former Pitcairn Islands mayor Shawn Christian, though he is notable for...other reasons... JoelleJay (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that crowd gets to GNG through several... routes. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

He does meet NPOL, but he does not meet GNG. In the past, e.g. here, you've argued that meeting NPOL is not sufficient when there is not significant coverage. So, should Lauti be deleted since he has no SIGCOV? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.

That is WP:NPOL's basic criteria, which seems very reasonable. If you get elected to the US Congress--or sworn in--there's no rational reason to NOT have a Wikipedia article. Since we have to hold all national assemblies/legislatures to the same standard (I would strongly assume) then if you get into the equivalent of the US Congress for the smallest of nations, you would pass WP:NPOL and thus be AfD-proof. Right? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with that. However, there have been times when editors such as JoelleJay have stated meeting the general notability criteria is necessary even when an SNG such as NPOL is met (see e.g. the linked AFD). My point is that Lauti would be an example of an NBASIC pass if meeting NPOL alone wasn't sufficient like some have argued (but I do agree with you that meeting NPOL should be sufficient for notability). BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Sexred, or Sexræd (d. 626?), and Sæward (Sæward of Essex) are two brothers who jointly served as king of the East Saxons after the death of their father Sæbert.

That kinda feels like a weirdo outlier scenario, looking at the AfD and article. Especially when everyone gets into the "what's a nation?" quibbling. It's like how some countries are assembled out of states/districts/whatever that were hundreds of years ago assembled from kingdoms. Which were in turn assembled from prior kingdoms that were absorbed or conquered. At some point, they're basically what we call neighborhoods today except with someone who had more swords than their neighbors. Are you NPOL compliant if your "nation" is 100 or 300 people? NPOL says yeah. But was it even a country?

It's an interesting one but feels more like a specific to NPOL debate/quandary. I'd guess those brothers would pass BASIC though. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, they didn't end up passing even BASIC individually, which is why the article was merged.

I think treating ancient leaders of what amount to modern neighborhoods as automatically standalone-encyclopedic is a rather breathless over-generalization of what "kingship" and "nationhood" mean/have meant. If even a book titled "Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo Saxon England" has literally nothing to say that is specific to that king then I think that's overwhelming evidence against his biography being encyclopedic. Wikipedia should never be the first source to discuss a topic in detail. JoelleJay (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I have added a topic on this page based on a member of the British Parliament who does not seem notable at all. Comments? Julian in LA (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

A king of a minuscule territory in the 600s whose only attestation is a one-line mention is most certainly not what NPOL was written to cover. In line with the close, that subject was ultimately merged into a larger topic about him and his brother, over your objections, so that's hardly a good example. JoelleJay (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

OK, if Lauti and the king aren't great examples, then let's return to Stan Robb – would deleting that GA be good for the encyclopedia? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I stated my opinion in the AfD and nothing has changed since then. JoelleJay (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

If at AfD, I would !keep on Stan Robb, whatever the extra/bonus speciality notability standards are. That guy passes BASIC it looks like, as BASIC is defined. Did he pass the equalalent athlete standard? Clearing either (right?) is a !keep. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

He did formerly pass the athlete-specific standard, but then we blew up 90% of it and left the remaining 10% in shambles, so at the moment he doesn't (though, no football player does right now). I think Robb is a good example of what NBASIC is for: he doesn't clearly pass GNG, but deleting that wouldn't be an improvement to Wikipedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, per the global consensus in 2022 all biographies of athletes are required to cite a source of IRS SIGCOV (in addition to the existing requirement that the subject meet GNG "in theory"), regardless of whether they meet a sport-specific guideline. As the subject lacks any source meeting that criterion, the page fails the sportsperson notability guideline and GNG, and in many many other AfDs these failures have superseded claims of meeting BASIC. JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Interesting... is there actually any concensus anywhere that is broad and ongoing that BASIC is problematic and maybe shouldn't be some sort of notability safety valve?

My honest understanding was you geto to notability by either basic, GNG+SIGCOV, or some criteria for a sub-thing about a person or topic--so if you hit any of the first two or any of the others, you're good. Like if someone spent 10 years as an athlete, 20 as X profession that has it's own notability option, then 20 as a politician... that gives them the option to clear AfC or AfD under either basic, or GNG+SIGCOV, or athlete, or X profession, OR as a politician--hit any one of them and you're good. Is that not how most people see it? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

If someone is both an athlete and an academic, if they meet NPROF that's good enough. JoelleJay (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Worth noting that the creator of said criterion (all biographies of athletes are required to cite a source of IRS SIGCOV) has noted that "SPORTBASIC #5 was never intended, nor should it be misused, to trump or overrule the more general, overarching rule" / "SPORTBASIC #5 creates a very strong prohibition on sports bios sourced only to databases. However, in limited circumstances where a well-rounded biography can be created using multiple non-database sources, NBASIC provides a very limited saftey valve". BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, 2 featured articles about baseballers were deleted some years ago when they went to AfD, despite still having the FA status. Curbon7 (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

It was only one, and that's because we didn't even know their name. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

What was the AFD? That sounds interesting. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) (2nd nomination). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

"Very limited", with the creator also stating they had only come across one article they believed qualified... JoelleJay (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@JoelleJay for some reason, you have difficulty recognizing that the enwiki community is unwilling to resolve the decision to give a topic its own article based exclusively on a universal measure derived from the WP:GNG. This encyclopaedia uses a different sourcing standard for (legally recognized) inhabited places than it does for landmarks or physical structures; it uses a different standard for politicians than it does for entertainers; it uses a different standard for authors than it does for sportspeople; and it uses a different standard for species than it does for conserved proteins. It uses a different standard for academics than it does for other authors, even.

Everything I've just stated is easily demonstrated as factual, both in our P&Gs and in actual article content and AfD results. Therefore, any argument premised on the assumption that Wikipedia ought to be using a single, GNG-based standard to determine suitability for an encyclopaedia article is basing itself on a counterfactual. It is probably technically possible now for (machine learning) algorithms to build an encyclopaedia with a universal criteria of inclusion based on the amount and quality of RS support for each topic (though I imagine that training it to assess source quality would pose a moderate technical challenge). But the community that builds this encyclopaedia simply does not see "suitability for an encyclopedia" in terms of one, single standard - and I very much doubt it ever will. Newimpartial (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

This is a discussion about NPEOPLE and GNG, not application of some universal GNG measure upon topics covered by non-GNG-based SNGs. NFL players and HS coaches and proteins all require meeting GNG for demonstration of notability. JoelleJay (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

In some abstract sense it is true that high school coaches, NFL players and proteins are all subject to a GNG standard (although I still regard the NSPORTSPERSON mention of GNG, rather than NBASIC, to be a collective error based on mistaken assumptions in the 2017 RfC).

But even given that GNG applies to all three categories, it would be mistaken to conclude that the enwiki community will evaluate the sourcing of topics in these three domains in exactly the same way. If the community regards NFL (or international soccer) players to be of greater encyclopaedic interest than high school coaches (and there is some evidence for this), then it isn't any editor's legitimate role to insist that the two categories of biography be treated identically. So the question, "do we have a universal standard, or does the threshold change depending on the encyclopedic relevance of the domain" is relevant here, too, IMO, even if no formalized subject-specific guideline exists. Newimpartial (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

To raise a meta-question: I dont think there is site-wide consensus exists that multiple independent sources may NOT be combined to demonstrate notability for non-biographical topics, ones out of scope for NBASIC. In other words, if you think this is a difference between GNG and BIO notability, I think only part of the enwiki community agrees with you.

Of course, editors who think NBASIC is an unacceptable infringement on a supposedly "higher" standard in GNG will tend to believe that this distinction exists, but that is a non-representative sample of the community. Newimpartial (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

It is highly representative of AfD participants and established editors. JoelleJay (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the requirement needs to be looked at in the totality. If multiple sources provide the same level of reliably sourced, independent & neutrally sourced information as two decent detailed sources then I see no issue. The issue is whether we routinely conflate multiple chunks of nothing or next to nothing with that totality. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Very Polite Person There's tons of porn stars who are clearly notable but there's no way to source them - the media doesn't cover porn, we can't use adult dvd website lists and so forth. The only coverage we can kind of hope for is if they win an award, do something outside of porn or die. There's very articles for anyone from a non-English speaking foreign country who wasn't a king or an obvious one like Michaelangelo prior to 1900. There's legit probably tens of thousands of people from places like various African/Asian/Pacific Island/Carribean/South American countries who are notable but we don't have any media from there or local sources who can get the info. There's lots of video game characters who are notable but can't get an article because there's not a lot of coverage of video games outside of the companies who make them. The media had no clue about any video game character outside of Mario and Sonic until the 2000's. There's tons of pre-1990 foreign wrestlers (say from Titanes en el ring for example who were probably on the highest rated show on TV in various countries that can't get articles because we have no access to old foreign media. It's also pretty safe to assume players from most foreign soccer clubs prior to 2000, even 2nd-4th division guys probably got a lot of coverage that we don't have access to. There's also a lot of beauty pageant winners who deserve to have articles but we can't make them because we don't have access because they haven't died yet or because we don't have pre-90's foreign media available. There's also lots of social media people who many know, but the media doesn't cover them. KatoKungLee (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Obviously they are not notable then. The community has spent years discussing whether porn performers deserve bespoke treatment and eventually decided that they didn't. The vSt majority are therefore not notable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The media is not the sole judge of notability and often doesn't cover porn due to advertiser concerns, which is a different issue. "The community" has a long history of not being neutral on various topics and changing their mind when they see fit.KatoKungLee (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

How disrespectful to the carefully argued positions that led to this conclusion. And regardless, V is a pillar of wikipedia. If we don’t have coverage we don't have verifiability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

the media doesn't cover porn

There is no industry-specific media? I mean... you can probably source and RS and GNG about every type of fishing lure if you wanted to be hyper-pedantic just through fishing media. There is media just dedicated to space launches. Surely there has got to be porn media, given the sheer amount of money the industry generates...? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Porn has a lot of hurdles that nothing else really faces. Even if the media wants to cover it, their advertisers don't want to be associated with it and for profit media is about profits. Many of the people involved don't want to talk about what they do due to harassment/privacy concerns, and many wish the average person would forget what they did. I'm not even sure if some of the sites could even be linked to on here since they would have adult content and that could create some legal issues on this site and many would be discarded for not being approved sources. KatoKungLee (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Even if the media wants to cover it, their advertisers don't want to be associated with it and for profit media is about profits.

I'm not talking about general media. Industry-specific media is always perfectly fine. You're saying there is literally no "porn news" or "adult industry" news sites? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

There's only a few I know of and those are more about the banning of it or if someone in it does something stupid. But they also have to be "approved sources" which is another hurdle. KatoKungLee (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

There's only a few I know of and those are more about the banning of it or if someone in it does something stupid. But they also have to be "approved sources" which is another hurdle.

I honestly don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying users have tried to ban porn-industry specific media as WP:RS? Those news sites need some extra (unlike other sources) "pre-clearance" as "approved sources"? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Not every source is allowed here, especially non-mainstream ones. I believe the legitimacy or integrity of various porn sources would come into play in an article.KatoKungLee (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

This frankly feels extremely sketchy, as if it's implied that sources are not reliable or disallowed due to proximity to less culturally accepted industries. Social mores and morality like that have no affair or authority (I would sincerely hope) over matters of what is or is not RS. Do you have an example of a discussion where there was consensus that adult industry-specific news industry was deprecated or disallowed? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I've never really done anything with porn here but there's a whole list of sources which are marked as unacceptable - Wikipedia:Deprecated sources. I personally disagree with some of the calls there. You might find some things of interest in [[1]] and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gianna Michaels (4th nomination). Sara Jay's 4 nominations also have some fun stuff in them: [[2]] KatoKungLee (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Possible issue with standard interpretation of NPOL

During the 4th AfD for the article Ryan Binkley, a number of !votes noted that SIGCOV of the subject did not continue following the election. I worry the application of NPOL might be superseding the standards of WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. To continue using the article Ryan Binkley as an example, that article has SIGCOV of the subject from national- or international-level reliable sources from the following months:

• May 2020 (pre-election): 1
• April 2023: 1, 2
• July 2023: 1
• January 2024: 12, 3, 4
• February 2024: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Should we consider formalizing an exception to GNG on subjects like the US presidential elections that GNG or BASIC on political candidates receive almost a year of sustained, national- and international-level coverage in in do not necessarily have notability? If that's the case, what distinguishes subjects like Ryan Binkley from Deez Nuts (satirist)? My preferred solution would be more clearly indicating that sustained national-level RS SIGCOV of failed political candidates is sufficient to meet the notability standards. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I think this is also a failure of WP:ROUTINE to adequately function, per the essay WP:NOTROUTINE's explanation: Medium-sized or longer news articles describing one or more candidates or election-related events. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

This is not an NPOL issue, as he is not an elected parliamentarian and NPOL#2 defers to GNG. As you state, it is a WP:ROUTINE issue. Curbon7 (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• I am not sure what the point of this is given the article was kept and has not been renominated. Has WP:NOTROUTINE been adequately vetted to be incorporated this regularly? It is an older essay, but only two users have ever made substantial edits to it whereas WP:ROUTINE redirects to an established policy. --Mpen320 (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@Mpen320: I think there's a bit of confusion: the AfD was closed over a week after this discussion was opened. The purpose of this discussion was to establish if there was an ambiguity in policy that needed to be addressed. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@Pbritti:. I see that now. My mistake. Thank you for replying. --Mpen320 (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

• I've !voted delete twice. We have a long standing rule that candidates who are only notable for being candidates are not notable unless they have received coverage above and beyond routine coverage, and I consider that coverage pretty cursory for a candidate, especially one in a presidential election. I'm not sure how I'd !vote on Deez Nutz, but that wasn't an actual candidate. The opinions of others differ. SportingFlyer T·C 20:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
• I don't think its an issue with NPOL I think its a general issue with how some people view GNG vs SNG... There is a vocal minority who thinks that a subject must pass GNG *and* any relevant SNG but the longstanding consensus is that its an *or* situation with wide latitude given to editorial discretion (always important to remember that a topic can pass the GNG or SNG and still be deleted, people seem to condense a two step process to a one step process a lot of the time by pretending that there is such a thing as inherent notability and that passing the GNG or SNG automaticaly means a stand alone article is appropriate). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Updating some notes

Note 5 states in part

"Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person may contribute toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not.

1. This is confusing. Although it should be apparent from the preceding part of the sentence, (partial derivations are acceptable could be interpreted to mean that a source that reproduces only part of another source is acceptable. But the bigger problem is the rigidity implied by the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from..., which suggests that a work becomes an independent source on a topic if it includes any content not derived from one non-independent source. So a source reproducing the transcript of a "speech by a politician about a particular person" could be independent coverage of that person if the source also has secondary commentary on parts of the speech not covering that person, or if the source also reproduces the transcript of another speech on that person?
2. This note treats source independence as all-or-nothing, as if the presence of any commentary surrounding a reproduction/quote makes the entirety of the second source independent. This is not true; the commentary may indeed be independent, but anything reproduced from or simply summarizing the original source is still non-independent. This becomes important for SIGCOV-based notability calculus where only significant additional intellectual contribution from the second source should be considered as contributory to GNG.
3. The speech example overall is just poor, as it could refer to both a politician's scheduled address discussing a historical figure and written and edited by speechwriters (which could be secondary and independent) or it could be rambling off-the-cuff remarks on someone the politician has a beef with that were never written or edited anywhere before being spoken (which would be primary and non-independent).

I propose (bolded):

"Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work. For example, a biography written about a person contributes toward establishing their notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not. Likewise, a newspaper article's discussion of a politician's speech about a person may contain sufficient independent commentary to count towards notability of the person, but its reproduction of the transcript of that speech is not intellectually independent of the original speech. Only the portions of a source containing secondary, independent intellectual contribution can be considered for the purposes of significant coverage.

Note 7 states

Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not.

The "trivial" examples in this are very poor as they would already automatically be dismissed for failing other notability requirements. "Mary Jones was hired by My University" looks like something in a press release that would fail independence and secondariness (and carries suggestions of COI). a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot are clearly ineligible as primary and non-independent. "John Smith at Big Company said..." is possibly ok, but the note should include a second example of passing prose mention that doesn't involve quotation.

I propose:

Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones of University also participated in the panel") that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a newspaper including a person's name in a list of marathon competitors is not.

Pinging the last five editors in good standing active on this page, since apparently it gets little traffic: @FOARP @Pbritti @Thebiguglyalien @Jclemens @Very Polite Person JoelleJay (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Those aren't the last five editors here. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

They were when I started writing this. JoelleJay (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Let's just delete the footnotes. Guidelines should be simple. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I think some things warrant clarification that doesn't necessarily belong in the main body. JoelleJay (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

When the clarification starts to become paragraphs-long, I think we've drifted from the point of having guidelines. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Some guidance is complex and benefits from real-world examples. JoelleJay (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Then most of WP:PROF should be deleted. :) S0091 (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• I think I like the addition to note 7, but I still need to think more about note 5. The example seems odd, especially when the larger problem often is multiple outlets carrying a press release (perhaps with minor different emphasis). --Enos733 (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Enos733, this might be better addressed in a separate note repeating parts of Note 4 from WP:N: It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. JoelleJay (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

What is not clear to me is the difference between non-trivial versus SIGCOV as the examples are essentially the same (book vs. a mention). S0091 (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Question/issue about historical figures

I’m regards to proving a person in history is notable I noticed it said this:

Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field, by historians.

What if it’s a historical figure who is famous and notable but information about them is fragmented. The reason I ask is because I am writing a few biographies about some individuals.

These individuals appear a lot in numerous sources and they do have an impact on many events in history. The issue is that information about these people is fragmented or it’s hard to tell what is historical and what is legend. CycoMa2 (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Tagging for BLP1E/BIO1E issues

I recently checked Matteo Paz as part of WP:NPP. I wanted to tag it as I think there are clearly issues of WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E, and I wanted to encourage improvement. I searched and could not find any tagging templates that might be relevant; I just left a talk page comment. I may have missed the relevant template, but if I have not then perhaps we need one. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Are all politicians and judges notable?

WP:POLITICIAN says that all politicians and judges are "presumed notable", but it doesn't say what can overcome the presumption. I am reviewing COE edits for Greg Barker, who was one of 600 members of the British Parliament, was named a life peer and was one of several "Ministers of State" under a Secretary of State. There is nothing else in the independent sources other than speeches he made. There is no indication that anybody listened to him. Is he notable? Julian in LA (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the community does believe that all members of a national legislature are notable, as long as it can be verified that the individual held the office (or was elected to the office). - Enos733 (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Should I edit WP:POLITICIAN to remove the word "presumed"? Julian in LA (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

No. It is a presumption, so it should say so. And although it is highly likely that any member of any national legislature will be notable, an encyclopaedic article cannot be written if there are no sources to do so. Judges, outside of the US or any jurisdiction that elects them, may well have no sources at all, and it is also possible (but less likely) this would be so for members of a national legislature. When was the last RfC on this? It may be time to see if the community still thinks they are presumed notable and not just likely to be notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I know what "presumed" means in law, but I can't imagine the difference between presumed and likely in Wikipedia. If a person has no sources at all, they're not a judge or legislator. Julian in LA (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

People use "presumed" at deletion discussions (or unsourced page creations) to argue that as the presumption is there are sources, a page must be kept, even though unsourced. Once can argue that the presumption is refutable, but plenty will disagree. As for sources: sources must be secondary and independent. A judgement of a court is a primary source, and what they say about themself is not independent. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

If we have a bio article where the subject meets POLITICAN but not the GNG, and someone nominates at AFD, that nominator needs to show that they have done a reasonably thorough BEFORE search to make sure no obvious sources exist; if that BEFORE is not done or not deemed sufficient (for example, just doing a Google search for a 19th century politician), then that's a bad AFD because they haven't really provided a reason to challenge the presumption created by POLITICAN. But if the BEFORE search is sufficient and fails to show significant coverage, then the presumption of notability from POLITICAN appears to have failed, and a !voter cannot wave away that at AFD by saying it meets POLITICAN; instead they must demonstrate that there's actually significant coverage in sources to be able to retain it. Masem (t) 19:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Has a clear NPOL-passing subject ever been deleted? (At least, one where we know the subject's name? I think there was one without a known name we deleted...) BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Besides on WP:NOPAGE grounds (which would ATD as a redirect anyways), never. Curbon7 (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree, except I would say "a !voter should not wave away..." because, in practice, they will. The wording for WP:POLITICIAN uses "presumed" which seems to be stronger than the other headings, and seems at odds with the text under the Additional criteria heading, which reads 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. Notice that additional criteria there uses "likely" but reserves use of presumed for meeting IRS SIGCOV. Some thus argue that these politicians and judges are deemed all to be notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

"Presumed" effectively means what "likely to be" and that last sentence quoted combined imply. Meeting just POLITICAN without showing any further significant coverage is a good reason for deletion but you have to show the work those sources don't exist, but until that's done, we're saying its fine to create the article and have it be kept until it can be shown otherwise. Ideally, the language should use "People are presumed to be notable..." to be more in line throughout the page, but I think that the quoted text is meant to be simpler. Masem (t) 19:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I think two issues are being confused here. At the very beginning of this section, I summarized the subject's career based on research I have done and an online conversation with the COE editor. I would certainly do more before making a deletion proposal. The question is, if I can't find anything more, is this appropriate for deletion? Julian in LA (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting that you want to put up for deletion an article about a sitting Member of the House of Lords, who served for 14 years as a Member of Parliament, was a minister for four years, and where the article has 37 current references? - Enos733 (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

If an editor believes none of those 37 references provide significant coverage (more than just name dropping the person), and can show via a BEFORE that there are no other sources providing significant coverage of the politican, then that's a reason to delete. But in this type of situation with the position and seniority of this example, it is extremely unlikely that none of the existing or available sourcing would fail to provide significant coverage. Masem (t) 22:41, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I did a WP:BEFORE search and there are clearly sources here. SportingFlyer T·C 11:23, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

One of the comments references WP:GNG, which seems to say that the presumption of notability can be overcome based on the things said in What Wikipedia is not. The trouble is, none of the things on that page seem to apply to presumed notable politicians. Julian in LA (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

No, reference to WP:NOT is reason for eclusion under WP:N but GNG is independent of that. GNG is about IRS SIGCOV. A page may meet GNG but be excluded under arm 2 of WP:N (excluded per WP:NOT). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree, and refer to this prior discussion. [3] But we do see people remove notability tags from unsourced articles because someone is a judge or politician and we do see people argue that the page should be kept because they meet the presumption of notability, when the page is at AfD. Whether any further clarification can be provided is not clear to me. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

There are sources! While we do prefer independent sources as a gauge of what is worthy of notice, in the rare occasion, verifiable information may be sufficient for a stand-alone article. Elected officials are one of those rare occasions because of the nature and impact of their roles on our polity. While in some cases, sources may only be official records, such as election results or documents of an appointment to office, there are records of votes taken, records of official speeches, bills introduced, but those records can and do compose a complete (or complete-enough) picture of a national (or state or province-wide) legislator. - Enos733 (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

• I don't actually think judges should be presumed notable, but if you're an elected politician, the assumption that someone had to write about you secondhand somewhere is valid because you have to both convince people to vote for you and represent them once they've voted for you. SportingFlyer T·C 11:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

  The guideline doesn't say the politicians have to be elected. In Belize the National Assembly is appointed by the governor-general. In Afghanistan the legislature is the Leadership Council, appointed by the Amir al-Mu'minin in his role as supreme leader. There are many other examples. There is a disparity in expectation of sourcing between members of the leadership council of Afghanistan and members of America's congress or the British parliament (especially the House of Commons). This SNG seems to make certain assumptions about that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

  It's nevertheless generally assumed at AFD that election is a prerequisite for the subject to be deemed a politician (and thus covered by NPOL) rather than an appointed official (not covered by NPOL but having to meet GNG). Ingratis (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  Then perhaps we should say that. Moreover, as Phil Bridger says, it is certainly not clear why judges are then considered together with politicians. In the majority of cases, judges are unelected. They may well be notable for their position, but they are certainly not notable for being elected officials, except in the US perhaps. Why aren't judges treated like ambassadors (who are not, apparently, presumed notable). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  I was not talking about judges. I agree with Phil Bridger that it makes no sense to lump politicians and judges together, and the reason is indeed doubtless that the SNG was drawn up by someone who had only considered American practice. It's not helpful to talk about "judges" as a single entity, whether elected or not - there are many grades of judge: the senior ones are /can be presumed to be notable by virtue of their positions; others are certainly not. Ingratis (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  Having to convince people to vote for you is true for the U.S. Congress, but not everywhere. In Britain, the party assigns you to a constituency and the voters there vote for your party. In the US, we would call you a party hack. I am told by a British expat that you could interview the Conservative voters of Battle, Sussex and ask who their MP is and what he's ever done; you might not get an answer. In other countries, all candidates for parliament run at-large and voters can vote only for a party. Julian in LA (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

  In Australia, you vote for a person, not a party, but if you vote for a person who is a member of a party they almost always have to do what the party decides. Even in the UK there are generally local newspapers with information from your local MP. SportingFlyer T·C 05:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  That is the way in the UK too, in fact. I don't recognise the description "the party assigns you to a constituency and the voters there vote for your party." Or rather, I see what you are trying to say, but it isn't correct. For the UK parliament candidates must stand for selection in the constituency. The selection process is usually contested and not assigned (exceptions exist, but actually will only apply to clearly notable politicians). Once selected, at a general election, the ballot paper names the candidates and lists their parties beside them. One votes for the candidate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  True, but the "party" is the collective wisdom of its (usually) elected/appointed legislators. So, even if the public may only see the final vote, the deliberations are very important too. Also, even in parliamentary systems, legislators, with some regularity, vote against a party line. - Enos733 (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  ...as the British prime minister has discovered. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• A couple of things. Firstly, I don't know why politicans and judges have been lumped in together. In most of the world they are very different people. And, although WP:GNG fundamentalists might not like it, the situation where members of a national or sub-national assembly are in practice given a free pass on notability has practical benefits. We would see endless arguments from people wanting to keep someone they support or delete someone they oppose if it was changed. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
• Just FYI, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges has developed WP:USCJN specifically to address the notability of judges, in the United States, at least. BD2412 T 03:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  This is very much to the point and an extremely useful piece of work. What's required next is the equivalent for all other countries - individually - taking care to avoid future difficulties by not applying it unthinkingly to the rest of the world which does not operate as the US does. Ingratis (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  It's an interesting and useful page, but I don't think Wikipedia should contain an article on every judge who has been so appointed should be there nor should it get consensus. Judges are likely to be notable, but they are only really notable if someone writes about them in secondary sources, the same as for everyone else. And the reason is that we cannot write BLP articles without secondary sources. Aspirationally we might wish that we have 3,500 pages on US federal judges (plus however many former such judges there are) but in practice, we cannot create a useful encyclopaedia that way which is not indiscriminate and dominated by permastubs. The page does not claim to be an SNG, so I don't criticise it for that - but I would certainly oppose that language strongly in an SNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  Funny that you mentioned the count of Federal judges. You should include the Justices of the Peace of Yavapi County, Arizona. https://courts.yavapaiaz.gov/Departments/Justice-Courts/Justice-of-the-Peace Julian in LA (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think county-level justices pass NPOL. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed - even federally appointed officials of this kind are still not Article III judges. BD2412 T 18:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  This is getting way, way off topic. "Article III judges" is a term meant to exclude administrative judges, such as the ones who issue removal (deportation) orders. Superior Court judges are at county level, but they're the ones who pass death sentences. That's notable. Julian in LA (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  "Article III judges" is not a term "meant to exclude" anyone; it is a constitutional term for a class of judge appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate to a lifetime appointment. BD2412 T 22:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  I belatedly looked at the wiki project on judges. It was like reading the Internal Revenue Code. If we need several thousand words to explain which judges are inherently notable and which aren't, why do we have the rule at all? We can follow the same notability rules for judges as for everybody else. If a US Supreme Court justice has never signed their name to a notable opinion, they're not notable. Julian in LA (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  The task we have is to write about subjects that are worthy of notice. While we all have a different sense of what constitutes being worthy (so we generally substitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as the standard of what other people think is important). But, I would assert there is a community and an encyclopedic interest of providing verifiable information about the individuals who govern societies, in a neutral point of view. So, to the community, this idea means that elected (and appointed) officials of a national, international, and certain subnational offices, could have (and are likely to have) a stand-alone page. We don't try to make a judgment of whether an officeholder is a backbencher or party leader; we don't try to guess which opinions are notable (most modern Supreme Court decisions could be). But, we do exist in a world where there is a difference between a failed US Supreme Court nominee and a failed US district court nominee. We know there is a difference between a losing major party candidate for the president of France and someone who lost an election to the New Hampshire House. No amount of policy and guidelines are going to capture all of the nuance in determining whether a the creation of stand-alone page is correct - the best we can do is our best as a community and recognize that wherever we draw the line, there will be marginal cases. - Enos733 (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

• I think people have gone a little in the weeds when this answered explicitly by Wikipedia:Notability" "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." so all that needs to be done to overcome the presumption is a relatively thorough search for singnficant coverage and a failure to find enough of it. Then the ball is in the court of anyone who disagrees to either find said sources or make an argument about how they can reasonably be presumed to exist (yes there are multiple levels of presumption). At the end of the day an objective lack of sigcov is a convincing argument against a topic meriting a stand-alone article regardless of the topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Julian in LA, I'm not always the best person to emulate but I think that you should here, You have shown with your edits that, like me, you know little about the American legal system. The difference between us is that I don't pretend to know. Please do the same. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  Go to United States federal judge and look at the first paragraph. The fourth paragraph excludes administrative judges, such as immigration judges. It also excludes state judges. Julian in LA (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  It's not the article that excludes those people, it's the Constitution. WP:USCJN covers state court judges. BD2412 T 22:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposal 1

We've had a lot of discussion, more than once. We might explore if there is consensus for some change. This first one is based on parts of this discussion.

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.

---

Politicians and judges should be changed to Elected politicians and judges

• Support on the basis that the original framing anticipates that these are elected offices with the phrasing "This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them." There should indeed be a presumption that such nationally elected positions would have suitable coverage to write an article, but the current framing does not take into account international and historical disparities in approach. It may, of course, impact judges more than politicians, but that would be an argument for unbundling the judges from this part of the guideline. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. This change would just exacerbate our systemic bias in favour of the West, and lead to arguments about whether a particular country holds or held "proper" elections. I would be in favour of separating judges out. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose There are a number of important positions in government, such as members of the Cabinet of the United States or the Secretary-General of the United Nations, that are appointed positions in international or national governments. I also think that there has not been any real concern about the notability of jurists to justify any changes to the guidelines. --Enos733 (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

  You make a good point. No member of the executive branch at the federal level apart from the president and vice-president is elected in the United States. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, this was never meant to only cover elected officials... Many countries don't have elections, or at least not open/honest ones, after all so this just feels like misplaced Eurocentrism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

  References to "the West" and "Eurocentric" are pompous terms for "white race" and do not belong on this page. If elections were only for whites, they wouldn't have them in Japan, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa. Julian in LA (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

  That really takes the biscuit. Haven't you noticed that there are many non-white people in Western countries? And that they play just as big a part in elections? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps this is just my ignorance but out of Japan, India, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa... Besides for Mexico which have elected judges? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - this looks like one of those proposed "solutions" that would make a problem worse. First, it is the holding of certain public offices - not appointment to them by an electoral process - that gives rise to a general presumption of notability for office holders.

Second, this proposal doesn't help editors distinguish between notable and non-notable judges, etc. - notable judges may arise less often in the (majority of) political systems that do not elect judges, but it isn't a direct relationship, and this proposal doesn't help to make the distinction. Rather, following this proposal dog-catchers (in polities that elect dog-catchers) would be presumed notable while national supreme court justices (who are almost never elected in any political system) would not. This isn't fit for purpose IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

following this proposal dog-catchers (in polities that elect dog-catchers) would be presumed notable That is hyperbole. If dog catchers are not presumed notable now, they wouldn't be with the added word. Whatever else we think, let's try to look at the merits of the suggestion on balance and avoid the point scoring. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

The comment deserves more credit and you have given it. I don't know of any jurisdiction that actually elects a dogcatcher, but the County Recorder is generally elected, even though no one other than real estate agents know what they actually do. Julian in LA (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Sirfurboy is right (and well-placed to understand) that the dogcatcher reference is rhetorical; dogcatchers are generally not elected at a national or federal unit (state/provincial) level, so they are not subject to NPOL.

However, I don't think I was "point scoring"; my point was that being elected in itself doesn't make one dog catcher more notable than another, or one judge more notable than another, or one president more notable than another. If the next members of an assembly in Chechnya or Minnesota are not chosen through a democratic election, that shouldn't affect their presumption to notability in any way, IMO. (And please note that the current proposal would apply the restrictions "elected" to all relevant officials, not just to judges - that isn't hyperbole.) Newimpartial (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

The reference to dog catchers piqued my interest. We don't have elected dog catchers but we do have sworn Animal Control Officers, who are appointed. https://animalcare.lacounty.gov/field-services/ Julian in LA (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - the problem is more the opposite, i.e., that non-elected individuals are deemed non-notable simply because they've not been elected. For example, an article on the Bolivian Deputy Minister for Transport, who was killed in a traffic accident while on official business, was deleted fairly recently for exactly that reason (I can't find the link offhand but will add it if/when I do). There's no point fiddling about with the "rules" if they're not being respected in practice. Ingratis (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

  i.e., that non-elected individuals are deemed non-notable. No. Look, it's clear this one is not going to get support, but again, this misunderstands what the guideline is even doing. Removing the presumption of notability is not deeming them non notable. Every BLP is notable because we have secondary sources from which to write an article. A presumption of notability is a presumption such sources exist. Removing the presumption is not a presumption that such sources do not exist. That is the fallacy of the inverse. Removing the presumption of notability allows that they may be notable, but that we need not assume it.

  Now someone suggests the proposal is eurocentric, because in the US the president appoints the cabinet and officials of the executive branch, and these are clearly presumed notable. But... conversely this is equally arguably US centric, because there are many places where such officials are appointed, but if we keep the guideline because the US executive is appointed, then we also allow that the members of the Leadership Council of Afghanistan are equally presumed notable. And then, what about Ambassadors? These are appointed in the US, but not everywhere. How do they differ in substance?

  So again, the point is not that we are saying anyone is not notable. The question is only over where we draw the line for a presumption of notability. Not one person is deemed not notable by a change to the guideline. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose The election is not the part that is significant, it is the office itself. The legislating, the voting, the actions taken in office, is what generates the coverage presumed by NPOL, not just running for office (which is why NPOL specifically excludes mere losing candidates). Curbon7 (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2025 (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.

NACTOR and GNG

I was under the impression that NACTOR also requires the topic to pass GNG.

First off, the plain wording of NACTOR uses the "may" ("such a person may be considered notable if ..." [my italics]). That can be compared to other sections that use stronger language, such as "is notable" (WP:AUTHOR) or "presumed to be notable" (WP:NPOL). "Is notable" contradicts the first paragraph at WP:BIO#Additional criteria, but alright.

Second, that seemed to be the understanding in recent talk page discussions. Perhaps I misread those.

If I'm correct and NACTOR requires GNG, I'd like to add this sentence to make the link clear: "Entertainers must still also meet the general notability guideline". I've seen at least one recent AfD where NACTOR was being misapplied.

If I'm wrong, we should change the word "may" in NACTOR to something stronger. Presumably, we'd use "presumed". (Pinging participants in those linked discussions: CNMall41, Cavarrone, Herostratus, CapnZapp, Newimpartial, Atlantic306, pburka) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

The language should be "presumed notable", in that if someone creates an actor article based only on sourcing to show how NACTOR is met, then we allow that as a standalone article; if someone wants to challenge that presumption that the actor doesn't meet the GNG, they have to do a proper BEFORE search to make sure that no GNG-like sourcing can be met. That said, it is always good to encourage that sourcing that shows how the actor likely will meet the GNG should be included as early as possible, which is similar to the general criteria used at NSPORT. Masem (t) 04:47, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Over the last six months, it was heavily abused by a now blocked sock to sway !keep votes as if NACTOR means someone is inherently notable for having two significant roles. It went as far as claiming that two significant roles that can be verified would means someone is notable. I read the guideline completely different than that interpretation. I would say the guideline basically means that "if" someone has two or more significant roles, they are "likely" (hence the term "may") to have significant coverage. It is a guide, not a defacto approval to create a page for someone. Significant coverage would still be required in my opinion so yes, GNG would be required.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:08, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I like the wording here on athletes which we could possibly adopt in part. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

No one in Wikipedia seems to know what "presumed" means. See discussion in "#Are all politicians and judges notable?" above. Julian in LA (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@The ed17 my understanding is that, to present, NACTOR has been understood as a strong presumption of notability like NAUTHOR, rather than a weak presumption like NSPORT. Changing this would require an RfC with wide participation.

Also note that NACTOR is currently one of the four exceptions to NOTINHERITED listed in that guideline. This suggests that the stronger presumption has been well-established in the community, as it has been written into policy in multiple places. Newimpartial (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

NOTINHERITED is careful to say there is limited exemptions to "notability is not inherited" in NACTOR, not that NACTOR is completely exempted. But it is reasonable that a person involved in a very significant way in a notable film is likely to be notable and thus we can extend the presumption of notability to that person to allow a standalone article to be created based only on that involvement. But like with all presumptions of notability, if no significant coverage comes that all we can write about that person is a stubby artile, that presumption likely failed, but that has to be done via a BEFORE check and an AFD. Masem (t) 12:37, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I do realize that. The issue is that many people commenting in AfD discussions do not. The reading of NACTOR is too ambiguous. I don't care if we change it to say that they are inherently notable. I also don't care if we change it to say they must meet GNG. Either way is fine as participants would just need to argue if the roles are significant (if its inherent) or that significant coverage exists (if its GNG). Right now, I do not believe participants agree on which way to argue if that makes sense. I for one would welcome a RfC so we can get clarification. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@CNMall41 the way I read the SNGs, the difference isn't between "inherent" and "GNG" notability. The difference is between a "strong presumption" of notability, as is offered by NSPECIES, NGEO or NAUTHOR, and a "weak presumption" like NSPORTS. A weak presumption is a presumption that GNG sourcing exists, while a strong presumption is that a topic is notable.

Remember that the concept of notability isn't ever satisfied just by a GNG pass, either - lots of topics that meet GNG aren't suitable for Wikipedia because of NOT and considerations of encyclopaedicity. So a strong presumption from an SNG, like a GNG pass, doesn't equate to "inherent notability" or a guarantee of an article. A strong presumption doesn't circumvent the need for WP:V to be met, for example. What it does (or should) achieve, however, is to overcome GNG-based wikilawyering as a basis for deletion. Newimpartial (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:NCREATIVE (NAUTHOR) does not restrict with a strong presumption of notability. It is instead written as the absolute "is notable", which is fine with respect to its criteria 1, 2 and 4, but not for its criterion 3 where "The person has ... played a major role in co-creating a ... well-known work" is way too permissive for movies, etc. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Which is exactly why the guideline needs clarification. Others have argued that only verifying they have had major roles is enough. I disagree with their assessment. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@CNMall41 verifiable, major roles are certainly sufficient to create a presumption of notability, under the current SNG. Normally, while that presumption can't guarantee an article (no presumption can, including a GNG pass), it should normally be sufficient to achieve a Keep result at AfD, given WP:NODEADLINE. I'm not really sure why this would be controversial, as anyone with multiple major film roles is of encyclopaedic interest IMO. (I also don't think we should understate the use-value for users of being able to navigate between creatives, including actors and musicians, and the works to which they have contributed.) Newimpartial (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I frequently invoke the SNGs when !voting in AfD discussions. They provide guidance on what to look for and what to provide evidence of when I am searching for sources. Producing sourced evidence that a person has had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" has, in several recent AfDs, led to a closure as Keep (examples from this year include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Hiestand (actor), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bown, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Bevan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ram Nagarkar, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizzie Waterworth (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Tennet, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Barker). I have also done this for articles about authors, artists, musicians, dancers, etc. There are many other editors who have participated in those AfDs who have not been pinged here - I agree that changing the wording of this SNG (either to strengthen it or weaken it) would require wide participation.

I'd also like to note that, at the head of Wikipedia:Notability (people) is WP:BASIC, which states that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." For many actors, reviews of performances in which they have appeared include critical descriptions of their performance, which can add substance to an article. The biographical information available through reviews and short articles may not be substantial, but may be sufficient to take an article beyond a stub.

I hope that WP:NACTOR is not weakened, and that actors are not also expected to meet WP:GNG. I think Wikipedia would be poorer for omitting articles about people who have made substantial contributions, but either may not have had significant coverage written about them individually, or such coverage may not currently be accessible online. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

• If we add that GNG is a requirement for any SNG, that SNG becomes entirely worthless, just like we've done for NSPORT. "Yeah, the topic clearly passes the SNG, and its true that the subject is from Saudi Arabia in the offline era, but a quick English Google search didn't bring up anything significant, so it needs to be deleted!" BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  The point of most SNGs are to allow articles on topics likely to be notable due to some merit or achievement to be created and developed without necessarily having a deep dive of significant coverage, but all are based on the presumption that these can be expanded with significant coverage in the future. That's why we have BEFORE, to make sure that an editor that claims a topic has failed that presumption set by an SNG does the necessary work to justify that the AFD nomination is fair; for pre-Internet topics and those in third-world regions, we'd expect some type of print source search to justify the AFD. Masem (t) 20:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  We regularly delete articles on NSPORT-passing subjects in the pre-internet era without checking print sources (I've frequently suggested offline source checks be done and I'm routinely criticized for it. One has said it is "one of the most ludicrous things I have ever heard".), sometimes without even checking in the language of the competitors (i.e. many sports AFD participants think a 30-second English Google search always to be sufficient). BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  Well, the new NSPORTS, which broadly removed the "participation" criteria and also added that at least one GNG-meeting source be included sets a higher bar than what NACTOR sets. Mind you, I think that there should have been a sunsetting period since the new NSPORTS was put in place to give editors time to find such sourcing, but I also recognize that of any SNG topic area, NSPORTS has been abused by mass-article creation in the past such that many of those deletions are still a result of cleaning that mass creation up. Masem (t) 22:18, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  My point is that requiring GNG-compliance (like suggested here) for subjects meeting an SNG makes the SNG entirely worthless, as then anyone can make as many AFDs on SNG-passing subjects as they like on the basis that "fails GNG": would you agree? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  I do see what you're getting at, BeanieFan11, but I might gently suggest that you're thinking too broadly. I started this discussion because this particular SNG uses the word "may". Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 23:12, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

• Well, if you have a person who has had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" Why on earth would you not want an article on her? We can assume that some number of readers, small maybe but not negligible, are going to want to look up someone who has significant roles in several notable films. Why tell these readers "Nah, you don't need to know about this person"? Not seeing the gain here. Sure, most of these people are also going to meet the GNG, but if not, well, what's wrong with having an article with just vital stats and a filmography? And maybe other editors will come along and add to it. But not if it's deleted, mnmh? Same f0r "unique, prolific or innovative contributions". Herostratus (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
  • @Herostratus: I mean. Taking this argument to its logical extreme, you should really be proposing broad changes to Wikipedia's concept of notability. Surely a "small but not negligible" number of readers "are going to want to look up someone" who has held a local political office ... whose book/song sold over X copies ... who is in the Olympics ... etc. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 23:18, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  The reason that the criteria is for "has significant roles" is the presumption that because of having these high profile roles, they will have significant coverage about them as an actor or other production aspect, which seems like a reasonably good presumption based on how such works and the people behind them are typically covered. It is *not* there to simply have articles on every actor, since WP is not a who's who guide, nor a database, which is why if there's no coverage of the actor beyond their appearance in a work, we probably shouldn't have an article about that person. Masem (t) 00:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm against any change of the wording, and agree with those other commenters who state that changing this SNG in the suggested ways would require an RfC with wide participation.

I'll save further commentary for that RfC. —Alalch E. 02:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I mean, if we're going to change it, we may as well just delete NACTOR entirely. It is useless to have an SNG like NSPORTS which effects literally nothing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)