Wikipedia talk:Vanity guidelines/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

"The Kid"

I wrote about the fiasco related to an ex-user. I know that he does not desire to have his name mentioned in perpetuity; however, I felt the matter was important to this article. If anyone feels that my inclusion of this material violates said person's privacy, or fans flames of further controversy, feel free to delete that section. I will not object. EventHorizon 05:31, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

summary

This rule could be summarized "Don't start an article about yourself. If you or your project is notable enough, someone else will start the article."

Add to first paragraph? - Omegatron 22:16, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Who decides what is noteworthy?

I know the obvious answer may be the editors of Wikipedia do, but think about it a bit deeper than that. What editors on wikipedia deem to be un-noteworthy, may actually be deemed noteworthy by many more people who don't edit on or use wikipedia, and may not even own or use a computer. If you want wikipedia to be a true source of correct information, then only including the perceptions of only a certain slice of the human race is not the way to do it.

I created a "vanity" article here a few days ago and within hours it was posted on my talk page that at least 2 editors found it to be vanity and so it was speedily deleted. I was not promoting myself in any way, I wrote it in true encylapedic fashion. I included a link to another website, and if this was what was vanity then it could have been resolved in the discussion section.

I'm positive there are companies, groups, individuals, organisations and teams employed, or otherwise, to promote or cover up certain issues and facts through wikipedia. Deleting somones silly little one paragraph article on themselves is a waste of time in my opinion. I do agree it's stupid to create an article about yourself especially if your a nobody and no one cares, and even if it dosent promote yourself. But seriously, I think theres more important things, and why then hell am I writing this anyway?Nick carson 07:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Minor revert war

There has been a minor revert war about whether articles on high schools can be considered vanity or not. I should point out that it was present in the first version of this page, and given the age of the page one cannot unilaterally take that out. I should also point out that the person to first remove the clause is presently blocked for disruption.

Note that this does not mean that all high school articles are vanity, merely that some are (just like not all articles on people are vanity, but some are). If people want to establish that high school articles are never vanity, they should find an appropriate place to put the matter to discussion. Radiant_* 12:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • The article as it stands right now is self-contradictory. Its second paragraph contradicts its third paragraph. Uncle G 10:33, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
    • You mean "Usually, vanity authors write about themselves..." contradicts "Joe Blow is a 32-year-old actuary from Seattle, Washington..."? I don't get it. Radiant_* 12:31, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • At the time that I wrote that, the article was somewhat different, and "Articles about start-up businesses or musicians are not vanity pages and are considered acceptable" contradicted "Several wikipedians include other personal articles under the "vanity" deletion criteria. These topic types include articles about one's high school, start-up business or band, for example.". Uncle G 12:46, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Lack of fame/recognition

Under the somewhat twee subtitle "Does lack of fame a vanity article make?", we read:

A page should not be cast away as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required for a page to be included in Wikipedia, and therefore, lack of fame should be completely ignored in deletion debates.

(This appears to have been added by EventHorizon in this edit and not touched since.) This appears to say "We don't know what the required degree of recognition (RDR) is and therefore it is zero." Huh?

Or does this perhaps mean "Of itself, even infinitesimally low DR is not grounds for the charge of vanity"? That seems OK, leaving open the possibility of: "I do not claim that the article is vanity, but do claim that its subject has such a negligible DR that it should be deleted." -- Hoary 07:17, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

  • Well, whatever EventHorizon says, 'lack of fame' is never 'completely ignored' in deletion debates. A subject doesn't have to be famous per se but needs to have some kind of merit before an article is merited. There's the biography inclusion guidelines, for instance. Radiant_* 10:08, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • That text has actually been in the article since its creation. EventHorizon merely moved it. The final part of the sentence is illogical, and a prescription that is entirely ignored in practice. Uncle G 10:26, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
  • Actually the passage you cite first appeared in the very first revision of this page back in May 2004, and has not been changed since, only moved to another location. It is true that "vanity" does not automatically follow from "non-notable" and the passage is correct that the degree of notability required for inclusion is frequently contested. Some very senior Wikipedians, like David Gerard maintain that notability is not a deletion criteria. Obviously that flies on the face of what happens on VfD every day. However, the suggestion "...and therefore, lack of fame should be completely ignored in deletion debates." is not very relevant to the problem of how to define "vanity" and should be removed by that reason, and also for being out-of-synch with current practice. I don't know what this semi-policy tag is, but don't let it stop you from improving this confusing section. jni 10:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, all, for what I take as a confirmation that I wasn't losing my marbles. This page does seem a crock. Note that it also says:

. . . it is particularly important that if you must write on these topics to write a good article in an encyclopedic style that establishes as much notability as possible.

-- which not only implies that notability is of some importance but emphasizes its importance (at least in some contexts. I think this page could benefit from a lot of work. -- Hoary 10:40, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

Reworking of the entire article

I've just got my toes wet in the article, as it were, making a few changes. There are a lot more that could be made. I think that a lot of what it says is wrong. One example: it may be a small minority (I don't know), but a significant number of vanity pages are truculently defended by their creators and recreated after deletion. -- Hoary 10:55, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Vanity. -- Hoary 06:29, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

PS but let's discuss it here instead. Incidentally, here is a much more interesting example of vanity than that presented in the article. (Admittedly vanity is not the only problem here, but it does seem to be the main motivation.) -- Hoary 12:05, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

I'd agree that this page needs cleaning up. I'd also support a rule prohibiting anyone from writing an article about themselves, their companies, their rock bands, etc. Note that the importance guidelines suggest, among other things, that the subject in question be of interest to 100+ people. —Wahoofive | Talk 20:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would support that as a hard rule as well--no starting an article on yourself or things you're officially associated with (within reason). Thus, we would remove "Do not consider an article vanity simply because the subject wrote it about him/herself." Meelar (talk) 02:57, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think this is such a good idea. "Vanity" pages should be deleted for reasons like not wikipedia:important, promotional material, or not verifiable. People can (sometimes) write reasonably neutral, informative articles about their own websites, like mindat.org. You'd only find out if they are honest enough to admit it, why punish them for that? Vfd deals with promotional articles about notable things pretty well, either they get cleaned up, or deleted. Kappa 05:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Point taken on the enforcability. Meelar (talk) 05:23, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, point taken. But in practice you don't only find out that people have written their own articles when they're honest enough to admit it; you also find out when they're thick enough to let drop something that implies it. (Sometimes they even admit it in VfD: "Why can't I have an article about myself?" etc.) Still, Kappa's line is interesting. Is it necessary to have a "no vanity" rule/guideline? Isn't the combination of existing rules/guidelines, plus that of "no promotion" (if this does not already exist), sufficient? -- Hoary 06:19, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
  • I think the general guideline is that, if you (or your business/band/...) is notable, someone else will write an article about it. However, as Kappa states, occasionally people do write good articles about their own things, since they're by default very knowledgeable on the subject. The trick is keeping it NPOV. I do believe the vanity clause is useful, because if I were to write an article on myself that would arguably not be promotion (since I'm not selling anything) nor would it be unverifiable. Radiant_* 08:44, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me for thinking out loud here.

What's said above suggests that it's not necessary to warn against vanity. Instead, you stipulate NPoV, verifiability, (at least minimal) importance, and lack of promotion, and you're done. Vanity is then a non-issue.

However, I've a hunch that this isn't quite enough. What does "promotion" mean? Let's suppose Taki, his mate Brian, and his flatmate Chaz make up a neopunk band, the Snotpickers. They don't have any commercial recordings yet, and they're curiously evasive about the number and location of their gigs. Still, they credibly claim to have twenty tracks available for downloading. Now, if somebody writes in a WP article about them that the Snotpickers are in the same class as the Clash, that's obviously promotion. But what about what might be regarded as the "implicit promotion" of writing a screenful of dispassionate and apparently factual stuff about the musical influences on Taki, Brian, and Chaz, their tattoos, the number of instruments they've trashed, etc.? Hey, it's verifiable and not original research -- after all, it came off the Official Website, snotpickers-spit-on-you.com (actually a vanity URL that frames a Geocities site). I realize there are different points of view on this, but at an extreme -- let's say if the SPs only have two tracks available for downloading, not twenty -- I think almost everybody would claim that they don't merit any article (even if a photo is claimed to show a hundred people grooving to their funky beat). Now let's notch up the notability: they really do have the twenty tracks for downloading, and can prove that they played at half a dozen campus events. They really have trashed a lot of instruments (an essential part of their neopunk image) and Taki's bright green "Fuck everything" tattoo is very artistique and noteworthy (or so it's claimed). The vanity here, I would say, is in treating their only marginally interesting selves as being as worthy of scrutiny as Joe Strummer or (gulp!) Ashlee Simpson. Perhaps it's a matter of proportion. If so, it would be good to have a fair and fair-seeming guideline that says that while you only have to be minimally notable to get an article, the depth of coverage should be somehow commensurate with your notability -- anything exceeding that is vanity.

Ideas? -- Hoary 09:41, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

In general, there is little consensus on the points you raise. One of the issues is that there is a sizable minority of Wikipedians who are inclusionists to the point where they believe that any topic is appropriate for an article. There have been some efforts to develop topic-specific inclusion guidelines, and there's one on music somewhere. The biggest trouble with articles like the one you describe is that it is very time consuming to refute the individual assertions, particularly if the band is effective at promoting themselves in other online venues. The passage of time makes this worse. Just try to go and find a source that gives any information about the Blackjacks, a punk band from the mid 80s that released a couple of records, got a fair amount of college airplay, did some big shows and a lot of little ones.
( above comment by UninvitedCompany. Here are the music guidelines mentioned). Kappa
  • I have to dispute that "there is a sizable minority of Wikipedians who are inclusionists to the point where they believe that any topic is appropriate for an article", I haven't met anyone like that. Actually I'm not sure many people would be voting to keep "the Snotpickers" but assuming they were included it would certainly be annoying to have a lot of unbalanced material about how great and important they are. If the "Fuck everything" tattoo is really noteworthy, there should be someone neutral who agrees, e.g. a music journalist. Maybe vanity could be defined as "excessive positive detail, lacking credible neutral sources", especially when the topic isn't significant enough to attract editors who want to balance it, or even excessive detail of any kind which is would be too much trouble to fact-check given the importance of the subject. Kappa 18:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposed guideline: conflict of interest

I proposed a guideline for approaching conflicts of interest, and someone commented that this should be a subcategory of the Vanity guideline. I don't see it that way myself, but I figured I would do the Right Thing and invite you to come judge for yourself. --Yannick 03:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vanity pages & speedy deletion

This page contains the following sentence: 'Vanity posters may post with the motive of increasing their own personal fame, or recognition of some group they are a part of.' That seems to strongly suggest that also pages about 'groups', such as obscure bands and businesses that don't assert notability, should be considered vanity and be subject to speedy deletion. I am aware that WP:CSD says otherwise, but to reduce the strain placed on VfD nominations I think the criterion should be expanded to include other articles that could qualify as vanity. - ulayiti (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I ran into this issue as a beginner. I personally think that verification be requested for such pages since they don't compromise the integrety of the site, unless their is concern for server space. -- Eddie 09:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

Who turned the first two paragraphs into legalese?

"The terms: vanity article and/or vanity information are amorphous constructs and it is therefore difficult to develop an exact criterion for the easy black-or-white diagnosis for these types of concerns."

Um... This needs revision. — Omegatron 06:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Autobiography

Why is it proposed that Autobiography be merged here? Autobiography is older, more concise, and frankly more sensible. This page is rather sprawling and aimless, especially given that it spends half its time trying to define what "vanity" is in the first place. Everything here could be understood by reading NPOV, NOT, and Autobiography. Isomorphic 08:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Wikiproject:External links

One major annoyance I have with Wikipedia is linkspam, as well as long lists of mediocre-quality external links at the end of articles.

I believe the length of external link lists should be limited and include only a small number of the highest-quality, reputable, and informative websites. Preferably the linked websites would also be ad-free or minimize use of ads. I have come across articles with 50+ external links (e.g. Hybrid vehicle), sorted through them (a tedious process) to only find 6 links that were truly informative and worthy. How do we expect readers to discern those 6 informative references out of such a lengthy list?

Often times, I suspect websites are added as external links by the owner/developer of that website, in effort to promote and advertise. I consider such behavior distasteful, tacky, and against the Vanity guidelines.

I propose a WikiProject where we nominate and work on such articles that need their external links weeded through to get rid of linkspam and be quality-checked. I have also put forth guidelines and philosophy regarding external links — primarily drawn upon "official" Wikipedia policies set forth here and on Wikipedia:External links. I expanded on "What should not be included in external links" and welcome discussion on these ideas. Maybe we could use these to improve the "official" Wikipedia external link policy.

Further information: User:Kmf164/External_links and Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List_of_proposed_projects

If interested in helping out, please indicate your interest on the List of proposed projects. --Aude 23:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed new section: "Beware of Unintended Consequences"

Here's something. This has now happened to me twice:

  1. A person (certainly from the company) wrote a corporate vanity puffpiece about a company.
  2. I came across it, and googled the company to see if it might be notable.
  3. It probably wasn't... but I DID find negative info about the company (fined for harrasment in first case, fined for polluting in second).
  4. Which was interesting enough to make the company notable.
  5. I put that new info into the article (and removed most of the vanity cruft).
  6. After which, in the first case the person now wanted the article removed, and in the second case certainly will if and when they see it.
  7. But its too late for that.
  8. But... they aren't notable enough that I or anyone would likely have noticed them if they hadn't created the vanity article in the first place.

So as a warning, I was wondering if something like this ought to be included here. Or perhaps elsewhere on a separate page. Or perhaps not at all, I don't know, I'm asking for opinion.

(Header: Beware of Unintended Consequences) or perhaps (Header: Be Careful What You Wish For)

A word of caution. Before you write a vanity article on yourself, your group, or your company, remember that, once the article is created, you have no more right or ability to delete it than does any other editor.

More than one user has created a vanity article, only to find that, in the normal course of research, other Wikipedia editors have found new material that presents the subject in a less-than-flattering light. Generally, such material will be added to the article, providing it is verifiably true and noteworthy — to the chagrin of the original creator.

So, before you create a vanity article, you might want to ask yourself if there is anything publicly available in your past history or that of your group or company that you would not want included in the article — because such material will probably find its way into the article eventually.

Of course, if you, your group, or your company are clearly notable, all of this will probably occur soon anyway, if it hasn't already. But if you are marginally notable, it may be that creating an article will jump-start this process where it might not have occured, or not for a long time anyway.

Consider yourself to have been cautioned.

Well there you go. Any comments welcome. Herostratus 22:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, isn't it a marketing axiom that no publicity is bad publicity if you're relatively unknown? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
They do say that, but the guy who created Coit Cleaners sure didn't think so. They guy who created 1928 Jewelry might not either. Check the history if you want to see the vanity versions. Herostratus 01:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Having been intimately involved with the Coit article, I feel conflicted. It would be nice of us to warn unthinking publicity pushers of this threat, but it's so damn amusing when they screw up. Meh, I guess I'll err on the side of niceness. Add the new section. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 11:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I added it (first three paras only)as boxed subsection of "Effectiveness of vanity articles". I mainly made it a boxed section to break up the long page of text. Of course anyone is invited to format, edit or move it as desired. Herostratus 23:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Who's Who

During a recent AfD I came across an attempt to use one of the many "Who's Who" directories and registries as a proof of notability of an individual, to argue for the inclusion of his biography in Wikipedia. Doing some research I found that, for example :

  • "Man of the Year - 2005, American Biographical Institute, Raleigh, N.C."
... is a scam as reported about this "award" at [1], [2], [3]
  • "America's Registry of Outstanding Professionals, 2003-2004"
..similar scam reports about this "registry": [4]
  • "The Contemporary Who's Who of Professionals"
... could not find any such thing anywhere, besides mentions alongside of one of the scams above.

In summary, it seems that anybody can get into a "Who's Who" or get a "Man of the Year" award. Listings on these directories includes bowling coaches, gym teachers, undertakers, administrative assistants, landscapers and school nurses. There are more than 100,000 entries in "Who's Who in America.", for example.

It seems that the Who's Who publication's aren't too picky about who gets into their books. John Fox Sullivan, a member of a "Who's Who in America" board of advisors, told Forbes, "The reality is, I don't do anything." So there are a lot of self-nominated people who haven't really accomplished much. Nearly everyone who is nominated gets into the book. Read the Forbes article debunking the whole thing: "The Hall of Lame"

I would like to include a statement in the policy as follows:

  • "Who's Who" directories and registries used as evidence of notability should be viewed critically as a source, as these registries' criteria for inclusion has been assessed to be either nonexistent or over-inclusive. Listings on these directories includes bowling coaches, gym teachers, undertakers, administrative assistants, landscapers and school nurses. There are more than 100,000 entries in "Who's Who in America", for example.

Your comments will be appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

From personmal experience, I can say that I have been nominated several times for a 'Who's Who...' inclusion, without in my opinion any justification for such. And one [I cannot remember the publication] even had in the letter the biography that they would publish. Of course many of these made inclusion contingent on buying a copy of the publication. --Dumarest 20:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

John Hemming

Mr. Hemming is an MP with a reputation for self-aggrandisement. I wonder if anyone considers he is violating the rules at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hemming_%28politician%29. He is editing as 82.36.105.85 147.114.226.175 14:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


USERPAGES

Is it acceptable for users to "blog" on their user pages? A number of folks have some pretty vanity oriented shtuff on their user pages, for the record, I, for one, will not be blogging on wikipedia!

~

I'm pretty sure the answer to that is no, but can't recall off the top of my head where it is written. - JVG 14:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The very first bullet of Wikipedia:User page#What can I not have on my user page? is:
  • A weblog relating your non-Wikipedia activities
You might cite this policy if you observe such misuse of user pages. — Jeff Q (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Subject's Editing

Let's say that someone had made a famous film, and then looked up the already created article on wiki. However, on reading the article, this person found that:

A) A lot of key infomation about the film was missing (Cast, Cost, Revenue, for example)

and

B) Some of the infomation on the page was wrong.

What would this person do? Is editing this sort of info vanity, even if it is done in a NPOV style?

The Halo (talk) 1:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a good point. I suppose the biggest concern here would be verifiability. If the person could cite sources in which the information they provided was confirmed, it would probably be an acceptable revision. So the producer would be able to add the cast, cost, revenue, etc. since those would be publically available information, but would not be able to add non-published or insider information (such as "actress X hated her casting" if she had never said so in a published interview) to the page. --Tjstrf 23:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

References to one's own books?

Take a look at the recent contributions of George dodds (talk · contribs). It appears he has written a number of books, and took it upon himself to add references to them in quite a few articles, including one image! Myself and other users have since removed his additions. I referered to it as "reference spam" in the edit summaries. Perhaps this rare type of self-promotion should be mentioned in this or other articles? Imroy 17:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

External Link on User page

Is it valid to link to your own external website from your user page? I know in the article namespace, linking to a site you own or run is considered spamming, but I wasn't sure about in the User space. Users so often seem to want to write epic poems about their lives and misadventures on their user page, but this practice seems to be frowned upon by many folks here. Linking to their personal website could help user's share personal information about themselves without unneccessarily loading the wikimedia servers, and at the same time distancing the 'pedia itself from this type of material that's unrelated to the encyclopaedic content, (extending Jimbo's objections to various types of User boxes). B.Mearns*, KSC 18:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

When vanity is allowed

There seems to be a consensus on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion that when a user page is pure vanity, and its user has no good edits (or nearly none), it should be deleted, as per WP:NOT and WP:USER. Can the "When vanity is allowed" paragraph have the word "Contributing" put at its start? --Hughcharlesparker 21:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

1st person knowledge

I am sorry, but 'vanity' and Wiki rules confuse me. If I know and have worked with say John Kendrew [which I have at a distance] and I know as a fact a thing, I can't put this up? not verifiable? how is this situation dealt with? And I apologize, I am new to this, so I need to learn. --Dumarest 20:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The rules for bios allow use of personal information from the subject. Pproctor 15:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
That's a somewhat misleading answer. "[P]ersonal information from the subject"? The info from the subject would be by definition personal. It cannot however, be evidence passed along from the subject to someone else (which is what your answer implies) exept on the article's talk page. •Jim62sch• 21:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

"===Using the subject as a source=== In some cases the subject may become involved in an article. They may edit it themselves or have a representative of theirs edit it. They may contact Wikipedians either through the article's talk page or via email. Or, they may provide information through press releases, a personal website or blog, or an autobiography. When information supplied by the subject conflicts with unsourced statements in the article, the unsourced statements should be removed.

Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:

  • It meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies.
  • It is relevant to the person's notability;
  • It is not contentious;
  • It is not unduly self-serving;
  • There is no reasonable doubt that it was provided by the subject.

A blog or personal website written by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section, even if the subject is not used as a source."

Simply-stated, if the subject of the biography informs you of something you directly, this can be cited.Pproctor 22:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Vain vs: encyclopedic, and "managed by an administrator"?

From the section titled "Vain vs: encyclopedic":

Wikipedia is not, therefore, a forum for advertising or a vanity press. For these purposes, it is probably not even effective: while Wikipedia's articles on famous topics are heavily trafficked, those on obscure topics are not. However, a seeming vanity article with much information should not be put on the VfD page because it may end up being encyclopedic. Such articles should be managed by an administrator.

Never mind that it's AfD now, that can be fixed quickly. I dont understand the admonition not to put it on AfD, nor do I know what "managed by an administrator" means. Joyous! | Talk 06:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

prone to problems?

"If you judge an article to be ... prone to the problems associated with such articles, you should request its deletion."

I would appreciate some discussion on this line in the guideline. It seems like this encourages people to predict whether an article will have the problems associated with a vanity page. This in effect turns users into crystal balls, since they are predicting the future, and on that basis attempting a deletion. Fresheneesz 08:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's Hear From Everybody

You know, I don't know nothing about nothing or nothing, but I'm sure a way to expand Wikipedia is to quit with the whole vanity thing against Joe Bloggs, and let everyone make their own article about themselves, Joe Bloggs wants to be a writer, maybe he becomes famous so we might as well keep the article. And besides, with 7 billion people we could hear from all the wacky ones, and besides, articles about low-profile executives are no better than the ones about Joe Bloggs. Think seriously, we could hear everyone's life story without knowing them. --Citikiwi 05:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That would definitely expand wikipedia quite a lot - that's one of the reasons not to do it. We're trying to build an encyclopedia here, and biographical entries for several million non-notable people like me would really be a problem. It's not a bad idea for a project, though - it already exists on Wikia, but it's empty. The project is here: Wikia:biographies - it's info page is here: http://wikia.com/wiki/Biographies. It's empty at the moment, but there's nothing to stop you taking the project in hand. If it takes off, then we could maybe link to it from Wikipedia:Autobiography. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
On a personal note, it is my desire to see these notability gudelines being less rigid in the distant future. For example, every person holding at least an executive post in a medium to large company would be included on Wikipedia. Furthermore all military personnel with at least the rank of a major in every military organization in the world would be included as well. Notability issues are highly subjective in nature. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
As long as we're noting personal preferences, I would be against any loosening of notability threshholds without first tightening the enforcement of reliable sourcing. It's already far too common for editors to expound on subjects purely from their own memory and perceptions. If we as a community can start practicing proper sourcing for our work as we write it, we might consider broadening its scope. But unless Wikipedia undergoes a major change in purpose, it's still going to require that we write from existing material. Widening the net will only encourage more essays on hard-to-verify subjects. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
That is very true, Jeffq! Our first priority should be tightening the enforcement of reliable sourcing. This is to ensure the credibility of this project. On a personal note, I feel that in the future, it would be much easier to verify topics or subjects that cater to a niche audience. Then, Wikipedia would be able to broaden its scope on "human knowledge". --Siva1979Talk to me 19:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)