WHAT IS CONSIDERED A NOTABLE

+6 votes
267 views
I know this project was under a different name and we used different sub-groups.  I am still a little confused. What are we looking for as notables now? I have one family that has three sons that murdered people. Before the change I would know what to do with this profile but not now. Do I ignore it? I feel silly asking this question because killing people is not notable.
WikiTree profile: Nancy Sitzlar
in The Tree House by Nancy Sitzlar G2G6 (8.3k points)
recategorized by Ellen Smith
Which project?  As far as I am aware, the Notables Project is still the Notables Project...

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Project:Notables
Maybe the former “Black Sheep” project?
yes, it was the former Black Sheep. But as I understood it we were all put into the notables.

4 Answers

+5 votes
 
Best answer
I also had a family who were murdered by one of their sons, and while the whole family has a wikipedia page, the son does not.

So unless each of the sons (that you are referring to) has their own wikipedia page, they are not considered to be notable. Sorry!!

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Bain-1193

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bain_family_murders
by Robynne Lozier G2G6 Pilot (939k points)
selected by Nancy Sitzlar
If a person meets the criteria for their own Wikipedia article, but doesn't have one yet, there's no reason why it can't be created. Then the person can be deemed notable on their WT profile.
As Chase points out, you only need to fit the Wikipedia criteria to have a page, to be eligible for notability.

In addition, while many Wikitreers are happy making minor edits to WP pages (I am one), they are not comfortable creating entire pages (I am one, or my X-greats grandfathers would have WP pages).

I think it places too much expectation on people to expect them to do more than create WT profiles and note notability here, so long as the person/people are eligible under the stated criteria.

As an example - Australia has many notables who do NOT have WP pages, because there has been no one to create them.  That does not make them less notable.  (I  believe WP even has a "todo list for such.)

As another example, on the other extreme - someone who gained an Olympic bronze medal gets a Wikipedia page as a notable --  even if that was their ONLY ever achievement.  Are they truly notable?  WP says so.

"As another example, on the other extreme - someone who gained an Olympic bronze medal gets a Wikipedia page as a notable --  even if that was their ONLY ever achievement.  Are they truly notable?  WP says so."

Or, rather, someone created a wikipedia page for them that is inconsistent with wikipedia's notability standards. This happens all the time. There are lots of people with wikipedia pages who are not notable under wikipedia's standards. Policing the policy is up to other wikipedia participants. That's another reason why we should not go by a rule that says, if they have a wikipedia page they are notable and, if they don't, they aren't. Lots of people who aren't on wikipedia are notable and some people who are on wikipedia aren't.

Australian notables may be found in the Australian Dictionary of Biography. Many of the people featured in there don't have Wikipedia pages.

Good point too from Chase too about Wikipedia pages of those who don't meet the criteria to have one.

Actually, as Olympians they are under a specific Wikipedia category, and definitely "qualify" as notable under that standard.  I just happen to disagree with it. (But I am biased in that regard.)

@Leandra - not all notable Aussies have a DoB page either.  It depends on who was doing the writing.  (And ADoB still gets things incorrect, as was clearly noted not so long ago when I submitted a correction to an entry that hade been around for DECADES until I corrected it.)

There is nothing wrong with using the WP criteria to determine notability.  But stating that, even if the person fits the criteria, they are not notable without a WP page is just wrong, and goes against the NP's own guidelines (as stated earlier by Chase).

I agree that WT criteria shouldn't be based on the existence of a profile elsewhere. Somewhere else will never include every eligible person. It's impossible to keep that up to date.

I've found incorrect information at ADB too when I've gone back to primary sources. That's why we shouldn't be copying great slabs of text from other sites. I seldom see primary records included in their sources.
I think, too, that Wikipedia is still very heavily slanted towards American notables -- because it's easier, and with the film industry, there are just so many of them!
You've made an important remark, Leandra. Most of the bios we find on other websites do no quote sources.  And, sadly, many of them are simply copy-and-paste jobs to one another's websites.  WikiTree biographies ought to be the standard for all these other websites (Wikipedia, Australian Dictionary of Biographies, Virtual War Memorial of Australia, etc).
One thing to remember about the whole Wikipedia versus National Dictionary of Biography. Wikipedia is the standard we follow for Notables (we have to maintain a standard - this is the one that was chosen), however, Wikipedia has acknowledged that all those that are included in some sort of National Dictionary of Biography should be in Wikipedia and have made efforts towards incorporating them.

Also, there are multiple Wikipedia versions out there - not just "English". There's this list here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias

of the many Wikipedia versions out there - each has it's own list of who is included. There is considerable overlap, but it's pretty amazing who you might find in (for example) the French version if you're looking for a French Notable.

I've certainly understood that people included in National Dictionaries of Biography were considered to be  notable,  even without a wikipedia article. I  added a notable sticker to a profile on that basis ( a woman notable for being a female school teacher and for being paid from the town  rates to teach the poor,  back in 1651.).

 The British articles on English Wikipedia tended  to be overloaded with men whose 'notability' was on account of their birth.  I was reading one article  about an Earl. The most notable  thing about him was that he was boring. He was jilted by a woman who thought him 'unexciting' and his father's biographer suggested he was steady but that he  'would never set the Thames alight'. But he was an Earl. 

 I think that's changing on wikipedia, there's obviously a finite number of gentry.  So for example, when I originally worked on  a profile for George Loveless, leader of the Tolpuddle martyrs,  he didn't have a wikipedia page. One was recently created. Who gets added  must surely depend on the interests of people who know how to add an article  to wikipedia. 

 I wonder how many  actors, sports and other 'personalities' on wikipedia will stand the test of time. 

+6 votes
I asked if my relative who was a Canadian Member of Parliament was considered a Notable. I was told that a Notable has an entry in an encyclopedia or on Wikipedia.
by A. Creighton G2G6 Pilot (648k points)
If your relative is eligible to have their own Wikipedia entry, you can create one. Then the relative can be notable here.
If they fit the criteria, they already qualify as notable.  They do not need an actual Wikipedia page.

You can create a WT profile for them and add the sticker (NOT the project box).  If there is any question about their notability, even if they fit the Wikipedia criteria, then you can check by asking the Notables Project.
+5 votes

The Notables template used to go on profiles of anybody who had a Wikipedia article, but the Notables Project cannot possibly deal with everyone in Wikipedia (presumably ranging from the Emperor Constantine to the Kardashians, and everyone in between). You can put the Notables Sticker on profiles for people with pages in Wikipedia, but the Notables Project now has defined a much narrower focus for profiles it will manage.

by Ellen Smith G2G Astronaut (1.2m points)
Not all profiles on wikipedia to me are actually notable, see for example  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Palmer

and you have to put in priest, he gets two lines and some of the information is wrong, he went to Oxford University not Trinity the rest is right. I got a surprise that he actually had one. I have not put the notable sticker on his profile.
+6 votes
For the examples you mentioned, there is a category for murderers. Most murderers would not have a Wikipedia page and I think most people would find it distasteful to consider them "notable" even if they do.
by Leandra Ford G2G6 Pilot (119k points)

Related questions

+10 votes
5 answers
459 views asked Apr 6, 2019 in Policy and Style by Antonia Reuvers G2G6 Mach 1 (17.5k points)
+3 votes
1 answer
131 views asked Sep 23, 2018 in Genealogy Help by Susan Smith G2G6 Pilot (497k points)
+3 votes
1 answer
+5 votes
3 answers
269 views asked Nov 30, 2018 in The Tree House by Susan Keil G2G6 Mach 5 (58.8k points)
+15 votes
1 answer
201 views asked Nov 20, 2017 in The Tree House by Amanda Frank G2G6 Mach 5 (50.9k points)
+13 votes
8 answers
394 views asked Oct 18, 2017 in The Tree House by Mark Burch G2G6 Pilot (132k points)

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...