Wikipedia talk:Probably not famous people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

I intend to start discussion on this in the Village Pump shortly. Once discussion takes off (if it does) it should be moved back here. Andrewa 00:54, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Nice. orthogonal 05:56, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Not nice. Silly. Just waiting for abuse for those people who would love to find an outlet for PR that they can't otherwise obtain. If you want something like this, it shouldn't be in the wikipedia.org space, but somewhere like "freepublicity.com". RickK 06:05, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wow, that didn't take long! I've only just put a case in the Village Pump. Thanks for the comments.
RickK, do you really think this will make the problem worse? Or don't you think it's a problem already? Why do you think it will make it worse? Andrewa 06:20, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I do think it's a problem with vanity pages being created every day and all of us "deletionists" fighting to delete them as fast as possible. I just don't like the idea of the good name of wikipedia being used for something like this, I think it would weaken the reputation of Wikipedia as a neutral source. RickK 16:25, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
My comment "nice" was inspired by the feeling that this was a subtle satire meant to mock EasterBradford and his ilk. If this will actually encourage more Bradfordism, then I'm against it. By the way, while I don't count myself as a "deletionist" I think it's clear that I've consistently supported the deletion of vanity pages. orthogonal 16:42, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
This is actually a serious proposal. I also support deletion of vanity pages. I don't think that is at issue at all. What is at issue is whether we need to do something more to handle the borderline cases that already escape deletion.
In reply to RickK, I don't like to see the good name of Wikipedia 'used' for anything either. But how is that good name, or 'reputation... as a neutral source', enhanced by having the article on Easter Bradford appear without a disclaimer? Food for thought?
I'm certainly not going to push for this to be implemented just now, in view of all the negative comments. But I hope it might be kept so that if, as I predict, our current policies prove inadequate as Wikipedia grows we might revisit it. Andrewa 03:11, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm famous!! (at wikipedia!) LOL Antonio Unpredictable behavior Martin

Yes, and that's a good point. I don't think there's any objection to autobiography in user pages. Hmmmm. Andrewa 09:14, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Moved from the Village Pump Andrewa 02:52, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've created a page at Wikipedia:Probably not famous people which I invite people to inspect, update and talk about. Presently I intend to move these comments to its talk page, along with any others that are added here in the meantime.

I'd prefer it wasn't used for a few days at least, until I do get some feedback about whether to do it at all, and how to do it best.

It was inspired by the discussion surrounding the Easter Bradford article(s). I don't want to enter into the discussion on this particular article, other than to say it raises some issues, see also this external link.

Whatever the status of Easter Bradford, I think the issues raised on Probably not famous people are all ones we need to address somehow.

My intention is that it should be used like the existing stub and NPOV dispute pages. People interested in helping with such problems can use the What links here facility to find affected pages.

Two advantages that I don't spell out on the page, or intend to spell out there:

  • I hope it will save us some time. I'm concerned that perhaps it's a lot less trouble for someone to set up a false identity than it is for us to investigate it.
  • I hope it will discourage some perpetrators. If they know that a link to a page such as this is a possibility, they may decide they don't want to be mentioned in Wikipedia at all. In particular, it's the last thing those wishing to further Internet-based mail fraud schemes (and I don't say whether or not this is the case with Easter Bradford) will want linked to their pages!

Likewise, I don't describe why third parties might set up false pages. I think it's best not to. It risks encouraging them.

If this were to be really successful, who knows, we might have people voting to delete their own autobiographies, rather than see themselves listed as 'probably not famous'.

Comments? Andrewa 06:11, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, we already have a guideline that people should not write about themselves and that Wikipedia is not to be used for advertizing. I think this is a useful guideline to be used until the 7 day period on VfD. If someone survives VfD, I would assume that the "not famous" banner could be removed 90% of the time. I'd suggest perhaps "not famous or not significant" since we have articles about a whole lot of people who are not famous, but are significant to world events, etc. Daniel Quinlan 06:23, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.
Interesting. But what of the other 10%? Does Easter Bradford fall into this category? I'm far more interested in the ones like this that survive VfD.
I suspect that you and I mean different things by "famous". Can you give me an example of a non-famous person who currently has a deserved article in Wikipedia? Andrewa 08:56, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)


I'm not sure about saying "not famous". How about "not verifiable"? If nobody has written about a person other than that person themselves, we can't check facts. therefore, we can't guarantee NPOV. Also, Wikipedia is not a primary source. This should be sufficient reason -- that and not being encyclopedic -- Tarquin 16:25, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've put a poll on whether lack of fame is a legitimate reason for deletion at: Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance. --Imran 01:21, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC) [link changed to reflect page move -- Oliver P. 04:08, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/o/Wikipedia_talk%7EProbably_not_famous_people_d38f.html"