Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

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

NACTOR, significant roles

I have seen some discussion on this but nothing I can find that is helpful to the question I am about to ask. In recent AfD discussions, I have seen keep votes based on "significant roles." It was also the topic of an ANI discussion which I think could have been avoided if there was clarification. So, are actors considered inherently notable if they have had significant roles in notable films? Or, is that only an indication, and significant coverage must still show notability? The disagreement is coming from the wording "such a person may (my emphasis) be considered notable." CNMall41 (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Noone is "inherently notable" on Wikipedia. All our guidelines, including WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, talk about a "presumption" of notability. This wording has been discussed (and explained) to the death (try searching presumed or presumption in the archives). There is not a perfect formula suitable for each and every case. The key point of NACTOR is that it requires reliable secondary coverage to backup the claim of "significant roles" (which could be some reviews, a profile on New York Times, a monograph and so on). Then, depending on the amount of coverage, its significance, the importance of the films/TV or stage works, the number/significance of the roles, plus other factors, a deletion discussion could result in different outcomes. Cavarrone 08:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cavarrone:, "Noone is "inherently notable" on Wikipedia" - BINGO! That is my take as well. The arguments I see are that since an actor has held significant roles, they are notable under NACTOR, but I do not see those votes supporting a statement about the significant coverage. My take is that they still must meet BASIC in where there is significant coverage about the roles, not just mentions or verification that they played the parts. NACTOR guides us with the "significant role" wording to let those know that significant coverage likely exists, but does not guarantee that it does. Is that inline with what you are saying as well?--CNMall41 (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean, are there a lot of cases where a person has significant roles in movies but doesn't have anything written about her? Considering that WP:GNG only requires like a couple sentences in a couple places, not a high bar. (Also, "Noone is inherently notable", not sure about that). Herostratus (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

There are cases. I am not sure how to define "a lot." Looking for clarification on the times when there is only verification of roles and not significant coverage of the actor. There are a number of deletion discussion "keep" votes as of late that are claiming the person notable based on verifying the person had notable roles, despite there being no significant coverage. This is happening mainly in the non-US film industry. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

One thing I have noticed is that some (rather many, actually) editors treat NACTOR as a hard rule, when all guidelines are meant to be broken (no not really :). I'm not being facetious, I'm saying that every rule has its exceptions, which is a time-honored Wikipedia tradition. I kind of wish guidelines were not written so absolutely, because it apparently makes editors think inclusion can be decided programmatically and with a clear-cut binary yes/no answer. This is simply not true. We have - and should keep having - articles written for entertainers that a) do not have more than one significant role in a notable work but b) still doesn't haven't made "unique, prolific or innovative contributions", maybe because they're still new to the industry. It is easy to see that exceptions need to be made, not often, but not never either, perhaps when an actor or actress rises from complete obscurity to a world-wide sensation overnight, and it would just be silly to consider Wikipedia using stodgy rules to argue for exclusion. Imagine, just for the sake of example, if Margot Robbie hadn't done earlier roles when she rose to instant A-lister fame with Wolf of Wall Street and you can easily see the creation of her article, and, unfortunately, some misguided editors arguing for its deletion.

My point? Only that I wish WP:IAR was invoked more often in (Biographical) AfDs. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Do notable supplements count towards "multiple" roles criterion for entertainers?

The first criterion of WP:ENTERTAINER reads: The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Should supplemental shows, like RuPaul's Drag Race: Untucked, Whatcha Packin', and The Great British Bake Off: An Extra Slice count towards this "multiple" requirement, thus making every contestant appearing on the parent shows (RuPaul's Drag Race and The Great British Bake Off, in these examples) notable per WP:ENT, since all contestants of the main show also appear in the supplements? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Some more examples of after-shows: American Idol Extra, Strictly Come Dancing: It Takes Two, and The Xtra Factor. If these count towards the "multiple" criterion, then all contestants appearing on American Idol, Strictly Come Dancing, and The X Factor and their companion shows meet the WP:ENT standard for notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Nobody is notable per se per ENT. ANYBIO still requires sigcov in reliable sources. These sorts of shows tend to get lots of write-ups online. If you can't find sources from a google search for these people, they're probably not notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

You’re saying one who satisfies WP:ENT is not necessarily notable? What is it, then, if not a standard for notability? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Read the first paragraph at the top of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria (the level 2 heading above ENT):

People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.

voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Notability regarding distant relatives

To understand my question I am gonna make up something up:

Let’s say there Major John. Major John is extremely notable in his local town has been written about nonstop. He tons of books written about him, he touched about in newspapers many times, and he has a whole park named after home. However Major John is almost rarely written about anywhere else.

With one exception, let’s say a few secondary sources have connected Major John confirming he is a descendant of Thomas Jefferson.

What kind of thing would we do about this?

Give Major John a Wikipedia article? Give him a section for Thomas Jefferson (which I don’t think Major John belongs on the article of Thomas Jefferson)? Or would Major John belong on a article for the genealogy of Thomas Jefferson?

Major John is clearly a notable figure in his community. But isn’t notable outside his community except he is a descendant of a president.

What do we in this situation?CycoMa2 (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I have never heard of a small town producing multiple newspapers and publishing several books about one guy. If that town somehow existed, and the publications were reliable and sufficiently independent of the person (for example, Major Tom doesn't hold a media monopoly), that person would be notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

While I would say discussing hypotheticals is a waste of time, in this instance that is described, this "Major John" would not be worthy to be on Thomas Jefferson's page. If this "Major John" were to meet WP:GNG, an article could be warranted. If this "Major John" is just "a notable figure in his community" but did nothing of real significance, then "Major John" should not have an article. The question if "Major John" belongs "on a[n] article for the genealogy of Thomas Jefferson" would depend on many different factors, such as the exact way they are related, or how many generations removed is "Major John" from Thomas Jefferson. Aquabluetesla (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Unelected political candidates with notable coverage

The theory that unelected political candidates are not notable even if they meet WP:GNG has been advanced at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia Hamer (2nd nomination). This seems to me to be a blatant misreading of WP:NPOL, but I'd be keen to hear other thoughts, either here or on the AFD page. Jpatokal (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

She doesn't have notable coverage. It's all about her election campaign. If she doesn't succeed at the election in ten years no one will know who she was. TarnishedPath^talk 01:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the policy is quite confusing and may need to be rewritten to be made more clear because current consensus on Wikipedia does give unelected candidates a higher bar to entry than other (which am personally in favour of). I can name a dozen people and deletion discussions where a person who on face value could have 4+ eligible sources on a source assessment, but due to accepted practice would be deleted. There is a line that is drawn somewhere when a candidate is notable enough (see Katherine Deves and Alex Bhathal). I think a rewrite of WP:NPOL should look something like:

CURRENT: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.

NEW: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline through coverage outside of of their election campaign; or when coverage of their campaign receives national attention.

I think perhaps an RfC would be good to get the ball rolling, I would love to hear your thoughts. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@GMH Melbourne I think the differences with Katherine Deves and Alex Bhathal was that in the case of the former there was signficant reporting on their views which was independent from regular campaign coverage and in the case of the later there was the 100 page complaint letter written by members of her own party as part of a bullying campaing against them which again had significant reporting independently of any campaign coverage. There was clearly signficant coverage about other stuff than just the election campain in both cases.

In the case of Hamer, the landlord stuff is not significant and forms part of regular reporting about her election campaign. I think your proposal is generally good but I wouldn't !vote for anything with the "or when coverage of their campaign receives national attention" bit on it. I think the following would be better:

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline through coverage outside of of their election campaign

TarnishedPath^talk 01:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

What about changing receives national attention to receives significant attention. Because I feel the sentence you proposed it may create a bit of confusion when looking at an article such as Kathrine Deves where all the coverage about her occurred within the scope of the 2022 election campaign, but her candidacy was somewhat of an election issue. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Ps, Teresa van Lieshout is another example of a unelected candidate who is notable and a review of the article about them clearly indicates why.

I dont' think the change to receives significant attention would be sufficient for my support because I think it would allow too much in, that is currently excluded by community practice. TarnishedPath^talk 01:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I said something similar on the AfD, but describing this as a BLP1E situation might solve the problem. But BLP1E might need some reorganization more generally, because WP:BLP1E redirects to the BLP policy, while WP:BIO1E and other shortcuts redirect here. And my personal belief is that it shouldn't be about "one event" at all but general coverage about the person—a person that happens to be mentioned in the context of two or three things still shouldn't be considered notable if there isn't any significant coverage of the person specifically. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

That's already addressed by the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG though. In the specific case of Hamer, there are numerous reliable sources with articles devoted entirely to her.

Also, WP:BLP1E specifically excludes "high-profile" people, such as political candidates running for national office. It's meant to protect random people from ending up on WP because of tangential association with some other event. Jpatokal (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• To the wording of or when coverage of their campaign receives national attention: Almost any candidate in a marginal seat is going to appear in national coverage. In the United States, their candidacy, which will inevitably include some background information on them, will be covered in Politico, Axios, and at least one newspaper of record because the election is newsworthy as it ties into control of the legislature and trends on national politics. This will be mistaken with the candidate being of national significance and we will be right back at square one with John Doe receiving an article because John Doe is a notable candidate simply by virtue of newspapers talking about him. There is no reason to believe that other countries that elect their legislature and have newspapers would be different. Also, on re-reading after my comment earlier, this increasingly feels less like a discussion about needed policy changes or clarifications and more like an attempt by the starter of this conversation to reverse an AfD with which they disagree.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

(undent) I keep seeing references to this mysterious "consensus" that the bar should be higher than WP:GNG for unelected political candidates only. Where, if anywhere, is this documented, and more importantly, what is the rationale? Why shouldn't Wikipedia have articles about notable political candidates?

I, personally, find WP:GNG a key cornerstone of Wikipedia and am very strongly opposed to any attempts like this to water it down. Jpatokal (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't disagree, I just think there should be some clarity in the policy. I can only speak to what happens in Australia, where in every battleground seat, there is always a profile done about the candidates and there is usually a lot of media hype which when looking back in retrospect after the election, if the candidate loses, is nothing. GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Please excuse my ignorance of Australian politics but how low do your elections go? By low I mean positions of lesser importance, for example are the local dogcatcher, roadkill control officer, school board, or utilities board elected positions? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Those things are not elected positions, there’s local elected councils but specific positions aren’t elected. No elections for judges in Australia either. GraziePrego (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

There can be elections for school councils (see https://www2.education.vic.gov.au/pal/school-council-elections/policy), but that is an exception to that sort of stuff. Even though there could technically be elections for school councils I think they're generally taking anyone who nominates due to lack of interest.

We certainly don't elect police chiefs or district attorneys like the yanks do and I think a fair number of Australians would be concerned about the politicisation of what are supposed to be professionals roles if that were to occur. TarnishedPath^talk 23:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

America is just throwing a real wrench in the system here with the populist/congregational governance quirks... Taking just police chiefs/sherrifs into consideration we have *both* elected and appointed ones... Often with overlapping jurisdictions... For my area we have both a chief of police for the city who is appointed by the city council/mayor and a county sheriff who we elect. Now you would think logically that since a county is a higher level than a city the sheriff would be more important and notable... But the city police department actually has 2x the sworn officers, 3x the budget and handles most of the major cases. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: The lowest election that a Government election commission would officiate is a local council election whose responsibility is local planning, residential roads, parking lots, bin collection, local parks, etc. A councillor usually works on a part-time basis. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah ok, then there is likely much truth to the claim that our standard is overly US centric. In the US many municipalities will elect officials below the council level. For example Sheriffs in the United States are generally choosen by popular vote. We also generally elect a Board of education (not the same concept as an Aussie school council/board which I believe is at the school level, these are at the district level) which by my understanding is very uncommon globally. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that on current policies it makes sense to delete this article. She isn't some retired sportstar or model who already merited an article before she became a political candidate. However I do think this is one of the areas where we could usefully challenge the concept that notability is always permanent. Another would be when there is a new signing to a major sports team. To those who are interested in the wider topic, the sport or that country's politics, it is interesting to know about the new face. After a short period of time if the individual loses the election or leaves the team without making a main team appearance, then usually their temporary notability is gone. A new class of "permanent notability can't yet be determined" articles would probably cater for more of our readership, and in politics it would avoid giving such an incumbency advantage to those already in office, or even more perversely an incentive for political parties to import minor celebrities as political candidates. Of course you'd then have the even more complex task of working out who the credible challengers were in a political election, because we'd want to fix a threshold such as GNG somewhere rather than allow an article on everyone who gets on the ballot for a national election. ϢereSpielChequers 11:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

And this is the rub. Political candidates, especially candidates who lose, may only be notable for one event, the campaign they run for. And when we think about the sheer number of candidates who run (even just for a national office), we have a lot of very low-profile biographies (that probably have few editors watching for vandalism and other BLP issues). What we should encourage is for the page about the election to have more (verifiable) details about the candidates and their platforms. - Enos733 (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

A huge portion of our notability issues would be solved if WP:NOPAGE was given as much precedence as other sections of WP:N like GNG, SNG, NEXIST, etc. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

That I entirely agree with... So many editors treat notability as meaning it automatically merits a page rather than just a step on the road, I'm sure that most editors contributing to these nastier discussions don't understand that something can be both notable and not suitable for a stand alone page. I also think that the way we separate AfD and merge discussions but allow merge as a common AfD outcome is encouraging people to be confused. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

100%. Many of the most contentious AFD debates over a candidate occur during the election cycle, so I have my doubts that we can remove much of the controversy (especially in the 2 months prior to an election). - Enos733 (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

In a recent discussion of renaming notability (which got no consensus), it seems pretty clear we need a essay or guidelines page to explain all criteria to be considered for a standalone page, (not just WP:N, but NOT, BLP, etc.) and which would be a good place to explain alternatives ala NOPAGE Masem (t) 22:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The point about temporary notability is that you wouldn't have lots of low profile biographies hanging around. After the election, or after the player is cut without having made an appearance for the team, a bunch of articles would get redirected or prodded. ϢereSpielChequers 17:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

If someone is getting a biography from a reliable source that's independent of them, that's not "low profile" that's GNG passing SIGCOV (if there's two of them). Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

This seems to just get you into conflicts with a whole lot of alphabet soup... You basically want us to engage in anti-establishment political advocacy against WP:NPOV, WP:PROMO, etc. And if the threshold is GNG why have a SNG at all? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Anti incumbent is not quite the same as antiestablishment. NPOV and Promo would still apply, and arguably we would be being more neutral if we covered all major candidates. ϢereSpielChequers 17:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Anti incumbent is just as problematic as antiestablishment. Argaubly that would conflict with WP:DUEWEIGHT and I don't think that it is actually arguable within policy and guideline but you're more than welcome to try. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

And if the threshold is GNG why have a SNG at all? I accept your terms. GMG^talk 17:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

To be fair I'm not sure that argument really is being raised... What I see is mostly people arguing that she appears to meet neither GNG or the SNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• Disregard SNGs. Embrace GNG.
  Otherwise, I don't know that I agree with the result here. Some of the arguments for deletion are pretty weak sauce. "Would require a lot of work" isn't a valid deletion rationale. "The draft is better" is not a deletion rationale. Pinging everyone from a previous AfD where there was no keep !votes...if not canvassing...is at least canvassing adjacent. GMG^talk 17:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, the WP:CORP people will string you up for that one. Jclemens (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Here is a selection of WP:RS presented in the AFD: The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, The Age story, plus SBS, news.com.au, ABC. These sources are significant coverage (the main topic is Hamer), they're reliable sources (the best in Australia), and they are independent of the subject (across the political spectrum too). How does this not meet WP:GNG? Jpatokal (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The first point under GNG is that it doesn't apply if there are other considerations that might challenge whether it warrants an article. WP:BLP1E and WP:SUSTAINED are such considerations. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Also people that run for elections are routinely put under the microscope. If the person fails to win, this type of coverage is very much a burst of coverage but without enduring coverage, even if it lasts several months through the election. A burst of coverage is not sufficient for the GNG. And argusbly this type of coverage is also a routine aspect of elections, which is the type of content that per NOTNEWS and GNG not sufficient for a standalone. If the election itself is sufficient fir a page, a summary of these can be described as part of discussing the candidates rather than creating a vacuous standalone article. Masem (t) 22:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E is explicitly scoped to apply only to people who are WP:LOWPROFILE, which an actively campaigning candidate for national office is not. WP:SUSTAINED is a stronger argument, but the sources do span several years and there's also WP:RS attesting that she will be a state election candidate if she doesn't get elected in the federal elections, means she's a not a flash in the pan. Plus, as far as I can see, nobody actually raised this during the AFD. Jpatokal (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

BLP1E and it's low profile aspect should be read if it's not apparent already of looking at that person beyond the scope of the one event and determining if the rest of that person's life is beyond low profile. That's the only way it can be evaluated to perform its job of avoiding giving articles to people with just 15 min of fleeting fame. Otherwise that advice is useless. Masem (t) 22:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

As it stands, the WP:BLP1E standard is that a) each of three conditions should be met, b) one of those conditions is that the person is not low profile, and c) WP:LOWPROFILE is linked as the explanatory essay for determining what's low profile and what's not. If you disagree, you should be proposing changes to that policy. Jpatokal (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The second point of BLP1E is: "The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." which is basically what I was saying. We consider LOWPROFILE around the event, not due to the event. Masem (t) 01:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I think that WP:LOWPROFILE is a generally unhelpful US-centric essay, especially in the context that notability is not permanent. - Enos733 (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I can confirm that WP:WIALPI was begun in the aftermath of the 2008 U.S. Presidential elections... seeing as how I started it and remember why I did. And you're correct, non-U.S. issues were not a central consideration. Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your work in trying to understand what makes someone a low-profile figure (especially in the earlier days of this project). It is a point that probably needs some clarification. At this point, I think we have an opportunity to flesh the essay out and consider the concept beyond the definitions largely based in US law. - Enos733 (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to seem overly attached to it, but after 16 years, being linked from policy pages, and many other editors' input this is the first time I'm hearing feedback that international considerations differ. I welcome improvement, of course, but I'd like everyone to really understand what the challenges are and make sure we are seeing the same problem and solution space. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I think there are two different questions here... While there is debate about whether or not we should have low-profile as a standard the current explantion for that standard is IMO excellent. I actually imported it into my own workplace as our working definition of low-profile. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I think a good comparison is a candidate in a by-election. Candidates usually receive a lot of coverage and because there is an article focusing just on the by-election the information can be included under WP:BLP1E even when a candidate meets GNG on face value. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

That works fine for by-elections because there's a handful of candidates at best. However, the 2025 Australian federal election covers 190 seats with hundreds of candidates, the vast majority of whom are not notable and don't have the kind of press coverage that Hamer is getting. Jpatokal (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

This discussion is full of people wanting to turn NPOL into a mandatory element of GNG. NPOL has nothing to do with subjects who are independently passing GNG. There is some weird background involving Elon Musk that I'm still not fully aware of, but ultimate NPOL as it stands is fine and does not need to be expanded, or turned into something that over-rides GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Macktheknifeau: I wasn't aware of a Musk related background to this discussion at all, please link. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back Check the deletion discussion: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amelia_Hamer_(2nd_nomination)

The original comment was removed, but searching for "Musk" brings up the rest of the conversation. Cortador (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• As I've pointed out in more than one AFD discussion on unelected candidates in the past, every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage — so if campaign coverage were enough by itself to get a person over WP:GNG and thus exempt them from WP:NPOL, then every candidate in every election everywhere would always pass GNG and therefore be exempted from NPOL, and NPOL itself would be rendered entirely meaningless and unenforceable since it would never actually apply to anybody at all anymore.
  But we don't want to have to keep an article about every single person who ever ran as a candidate in an election they didn't win — such people are low-profile outside the context of the election campaign itself and do not pass the ten year test for enduring significance, so they're not permanently notable just because they had campaign coverage. So campaign coverage falls under WP:MILL, not WP:GNG — non-winning candidates get articles only if they also have GNG-worthy coverage in some other context outside the election campaign itself (e.g. they were already notable as a writer, musician, actor, sportsperson or whatever, so that they would already have been eligible for an article on those other grounds regardless), or if the campaign coverage evinces a reason why their candidacy would somehow be a special case of much greater and more enduring significance than most other people's candidacies (i.e. the person's candidacy was somehow so uniquely important that even if they lose the election and never attain anything else more notable than running for office and losing, people will still be looking for information about their losing campaign decades from now.)
  GNG is not just "count up the footnotes and keep anybody whose article exceeds some arbitrary number" — GNG does also take into account the context of what the coverage is given for, and discounts some kinds of coverage as contributing less GNG-worthiness than other kinds of coverage. Campaign coverage as a candidate counts for a lot less than officeholder coverage; local coverage of local-interest topics can count for significantly less than wider nationalized coverage; and on and so forth. GNG does not just test for the number of sources a person has — it also tests for the importance of what the person was getting coverage for.
  We're writing history here, not news — the test is not "does she have X hits of coverage in the current news cycle", it's "does the context in which her coverage exists establish a reason why your great grandchildren will still need this article to exist". Holding a notable political office always satisfies that test — but with rare exceptions that require far more than this article showed, running as a candidate almost never does. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

This seems like an extreme over-exaggeration, perhaps this applies to federal elections in major districts but for example in my local school board and county utilities commission elections it is rare for any of the candidates to get any sigcov at all and some cycles the elections don't even get any coverage beyond the routine. If this is something you're pointing out repeatedly you should take care to make sure its true. You also seem to be making the claim that this falls under an essay (WP:MILL) which is just confusing because essays don't do that. I also believe that you have made those quotes up, neither is "the test" and you shouldn't be presenting your own words as policy or guideline. Its also uncivil to speculate about the fertility of other editors, plenty of editors will not have great grandchildren and there is nothing wrong with that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I do not think that Bearcat's comment is an extreme overreaction. In my area, in jurisdictions with a local newspaper, nearly all local candidates receive at least one or two stories (usually covering the announcement of their campaign and a bio piece closer to the election). In addition to this, small biographical details may be added in other coverage about the election. If we use the standard of WP:THREE, it is not terribly difficult to find sufficient material to write a stand-alone article on many candidates and nearly all officeholders (unless you start discounting sources from being too local). I also encourage us to think of the sheer scale of new pages could be created if the standard is loosened. - Enos733 (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Hard to know what this means without examples or a given area. Can you provide examples of the most minor elected positions where the candidates receive feature coverage? We also do in general discount local sources vs national and international ones when it comes to notability, coverage in the NYT counts for more than coverage in the town newsletter. I'm also interested in the qualifier you used, because Bearcat did not qualify their statement, they say "every" "every" "everywhere" "always" but you qualify yours with "in jurisdictions with a local newspaper" and "nearly all" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bearcat: Challenge accepted! David Vader is running right now for the same seat of Kooyong as Amelia Hamer, I dare you to find those three (3) significant, reliable, independent GNG-worthy sources that you assert "every candidate in every election everywhere can always" find. Jpatokal (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• IMO, NPOL doesn't exist to override GNG, it's a tool to distinguish between routine election coverage and actual SIGCOV. There are similar guidelines that exist for people only discussed in relation to crimes/single events/being a member of a band, and for companies that are only mentioned in routine coverage. Almost every mayoral or city council candidate in a town that has its own newspaper will be mentioned in sources, but most aren't actually notable as individuals. This is something that's discussed constantly at AfD, and consensus is pretty consistent. BuySomeApples (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Are we potentially revising policy right now? This is something I have thought about for a while, but I hadn't posted something as I felt it wasn't 100% done. Still, I don't want to miss a window. While people lean on NPOL when discussing deleting candidates, I disagree with the idea that election-based coverage is a GNG-work around for candidates who do not meet NPOL, some other occupation-specific rules/policies/guidelines, or GNG generally. GNG uses the example of a book on IBM and a mention of Bill Clinton playing in a band called Three Blind Mice. Almost all candidates are the Three Blind Mice of the election in which they run. I think the number of these people who would fail GNG without candidacy coverage is telling of that. I also have noticed a trend in AfDs where 1st nominations where a majority of contributors insist the subject meets GNG, only for a 2nd/3rd nomination a bit more removed from the election to discover that in fact, no, they did not and in some cases literally failed a ten-year test. This is not an all-inclusive list, but Randy Bryce, Steve Raby, Josue Larose, Sean Bielat, Sri Preston Kulkarni, and Kash Jackson. I was working on elaborating on why I think using election/candidacy coverage to meet GNG is problematic (not independent of subject, verifiability, NOTNEWS, the proliferation of niche and specialty publications that could count as "national coverage," but actually just feed the politics addiction of people like me, local candidates in major metro newspapers being mistaken for national coverage, incentivizing paid editing, 501c3 issues when flattering coverage is seen (in bad faith) as an in-kind contribution) and pitches some policy alternatives in a final product once I learned where they could be discussed (here apparently). Anyways, no Amelia did not meet GNG with election coverage and I'm sorry you are this upset your article was deleted for a second time.--Mpen320 (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm just saying that the consensus and practice for the past two years has been to delete every single article of otherwise non-notable candidates. Keeping in one single attack article undermines our credibility and neutrality. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm fairly certain you and I are largely in agreement. I also think there are real issues using election coverage to establish notability separately of that particular article.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:DRV

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 April 16#Amelia Hamer. Regards. TarnishedPath^talk 12:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Authority Control databases and notability

Do we have any guidance regarding N via inclusion in Authority Control databases? I'm looking at an article that was sent to AfD which seems like a keeper, however the subject is an academic architect much of whose work was pre-internet and published in Greek (see Stefanos Sinos). As he appears in quite a few of these AC databases, I thought that perhaps this would be straightforward ANYBIO or NPROF, but haven't found any specific mention of AC databases in our guidance. For what it's worth, it also looks (at first glance) as if our article understates the subject's (decades-long) contribution to the historical preservation of an interesting World Heritage site called Mystras (also see Talk page and the AfD nom for more detail.) Before spending too much time on the article itself, I wanted to first rescue it from AfD. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

AC databases are not significant coverage (in most cases), they are just databases, often fed from one another, and in many cases not even reliable sources anyway. So no, being included in AC databases gives no notability as such at all. They may be good pointers for further research though, as they may list works, pseudonyms, ... which are missing from the article. Fram (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't thinking SIGCOV so much as along the lines of a contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field (ANBIO) or significant impact in their scholarly discipline (NPROF). In any case, what's the best approach for this particular person (with the objective of a positive outcome at AfD in the near-term)? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS. An AfD with a nom plus two delete votes should not be brought here with the comment "seems like a keeper", nor should you try to get people to support your desired "positive outcome at AFD". The AfD should be done just like any other AfD. Fram (talk) 09:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from unwarranted hostility and accusations. My only objective is WP:1Q and I don't particularly appreciate your tone. I'm donating my time here and trying to learn new things (as I presume are you), so let's please be respectful. I don't care one way or another about the AfD in question (the nominator has already proposed draftifying, but it seems like that might be an unneeded step). I just don't want to waste my time on an article only to have the work trashed. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Are we really saying here that the Library of Congress or the other national equivalents are not even reliable? That seems to poke some pretty big holes in the foundations of basic knowledge and scholarship. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

No. Many cases <> all cases. Just look at the potential identifiers listed at Barack Obama on Wikipedia (scroll down to "identifiers"). It starts with mostly national libraries, which should normally be reliable. But then it goes to things like Amazon, Discogs, Famous Birthdays, Fandom, Imdb, Linkedin, Medium, Quora, ... which aren't reliable sources (just like Wikidata, which is also an identifier, is not a reliable source). Fram (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Noted, however, the identifiers that actually show up here in the enwiki article for Obama (and Stefanos Sinos, for that mater) are restricted to those that appear to be what we might call "reliable sources" (e.g., International: ISNI, VIAF, FAST, WorldCat; National: Germany, United States, France, etc.; Academics: CiNii, Scopus... and so on). It seems as if some thought has gone into the triage of the data that's ported over from Wikidata. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Re: reliability of Wikidata itself, I think that there's a bit of a grey area there. We use loads of Wikidta info in our articles (e.g., Wikidata generated infoboxes). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

But we don't use Wikidata as a reference, we should normally only show Wikidata data with a reference added to it (or better yet not use Wikidata data at all for other reasons, but that's not a discussion for here or now). Fram (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is probably not a discussion for here or now. Perhaps the idea could be relevant if one were to consider adding to our N guidance using similar RS criteria to those that are used to determine which information from Wikidata is used in things like Wikidata infoboxes and Authority Control templates. I'll leave it to folks with a better grasp of the bigger picture, but it seems like an argument that could rationally be made here at some future date. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)