Wikipedia talk:Generally notable people

This page was nominated for deletion on 4 August 2011. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Depeciated criteria?

Please note per update on WP:ENT one of the notability qualifications has been depreciated, "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." I belive it may need to be updated in this essay. CosmicNotes (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History

This essay was created from the "Additional criteria" section on WP:BIO, as discussed at WT:BIO#How to fix the Additional criteria section. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This essay is open to misinterpretation

I encountered an individual who confused WP:GNP with WP:GNG, citing a passage from it, and claiming that passage was from GNG. Specifically, they cited:

That a person has a relationship with a well-known person is not a reason for a standalone article; see Relationships do not transfer notability. However, the person may be included in the related article. For example Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander."

Well, there is something missing here. While having a relationship with someone more famous doesn't confer notability on the less famous individual, it should not preclude covering the less famous individual in a standalone article, if there are enough notability factors for them to measure up to our inclusion criteria, on their own right.

In fact, if the less notable person measures up to our inclusion criteria it is far better for them to have a standalone article than ot be shoehorned into the article on their more famous relative.

The examples I generally offer are Elizabeth Windsor, Queen of England, and her descendants and first, second, and third cousin. There has been sufficient independent coverage for all of the first two dozen individuals in the UK's official list of successors to all have standalone articles. About half of the third and fourth dozen individuals on that list -- EW's first cousins, merit standalone article. And then only ten to fifteen percent of the next hundred or so individuals on the list have standalone articles.

I think that section of this essay needs to be rewritten, so it doesn't mislead newbies into thinking that everyone related to someone more famous is always barred from having a standalone article of their own.

This seems to be a rarely read essay. It is possible no one will respond here. So, I will wait a reasonable period of time, and, if no one weighs in, I will rewrite the questionable passage myself. Geo Swan (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]