Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

needs a sub-section on footballers[change source]

A footballer is not notable simply by being employed by a notable club, no matter how famous the club is. This is because clubs employ many players who have not yet shown notable ability.

The standard is whether or not they are members of the first team squad, as defined by the club and manager. Also, they may not be current members of the squad, but on loan to other clubs. They are still notable if their career has shown them to be notable by being former squad members of a notable team.

The above holds good for all leagues where the standard is known to be first-rate. That might be judged as "the top division of any country which played in the finals of the World Cup". Notable players may be employed in lesser leagues, and may be judged notable on other grounds, for example as being former internationals, or achieving respected awards.

Commentary[change source]

This sets the bar pretty low, but many of our pages fail it because the issue of notability is simply not addressed. We could raise the bar but, whatever, we should insist on its being done on our pages.

Biographic pages on individual footballers must give evidence of their notability. It is not enough to say "Joe Blggs is/was an Arsenal player" or some such. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Porn stars[change source]

The notability guideline for pornographic actors was deprecated on enwiki, so it should be removed from the page here, unless people want porn star bios that would be deleted on enwiki to collect on simplewiki. Lights and freedom (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases, porn stars would ace the requirements for ENT while dismally failing for PORN. By removing PORN, it would be far easier for porn star to meet notability guidelines.

to be notable in ENT:

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. - The fan base is easy for them.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Prolific is an understatement. Several hundred films is an easy number for a port star.

Under PORN:

Award winners (or multiple year with major noms), mainstream attention or Hall of fame. Most porn star fail these requirements. Pure Evil (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pure Evil: I don't think that's the case. Articles about porn actors can currently show notability under either or both. THe section specific to porn actors just gives additional criteria that can be used to show notability. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the person is notable under the "entertainers" category, there's no need to look for the "pornstar" category. Either a person is notable, or he/she isn't. Eptalon (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And that is a problem these changes, nor what enwiki did, will not solve. Treating Porn as a subset only gives more ways to show notability when the base rules are already too simple for them to pass. Most full time porn stars will easily pass under "Prolific contributions to a field of entertainment." there is no requirement for them to be notable, just prolific. #1 requires notable projects but that is not a requirement in #3. ENT is biased in such a way to commonly pass porn stars with no notability by most standards. Rather than remove the reasons, we need to limit what rules porn stars can use to not allow them to use unfairly biased criteria that fail to prove notability in these cases Pure Evil (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]