Wikipedia talk:Notability (people): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Religious leaders: grammar |
|||
Line 387:
[[User:Stanning|''Stanning'']] ([[User talk:Stanning|talk]]) 14:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
*'''Definite support'''. I have always supported the idea that some senior people are inherently notable by virtue of their posts. This, to me, is common sense. Heads of diplomatic mission are among these people. If we assume that people who played a single match at the highest level of sport or had a single hit song are notable then surely people who have reached the top of their profession in this way must be notable. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 03:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Head of mission may be a "top" level post (if by top you mean within the top 5000 positions in terms of power or ability to affect world affairs in the government), but it is vanishingly unlikely that all of these people, or even most of these people, will ever receive ''significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject.'' The idea of notability stems from the idea that we should only have articles on topics that secondary sources will bother to cover, or, at the very least, people who have done work sufficiently important that disinterested observers will write about it. I find that very unlikely for even, say, American ambassadors to small countries, to say nothing of the ambassadors small countries send to each other. I do agree that an ambassador seems no more important than a brigadier, and I would oppose notability there too. Named chairs in academia, well, at least people cite their papers/books at high rates, and there is quite a fascination with athletes and other professional entertainers. <strong>[[User:RayAYang|<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:DarkRed">Ray</span>]]</strong>[[User_talk:RayAYang|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:Gray">Talk</span></sup>]] 13:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
== Religious leaders ==
| |||