Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)/Archive 12

RfC about independent sources for academic notability

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Current wording: Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.

Proposed wording: Academics/professors meeting one or more of the following conditions, as substantiated using multiple published, reliable, secondary sources which are independent of the subject and each other, are notable.

Shall the wording in the section Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria be changed to the proposed wording above? -- Netoholic @ 19:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the question by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Yes''' or *'''No''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

• No Obviously, there's no consensus for this change. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yes as proposer. #Evidence from other P&Gs indicates that, strictly for the purpose of determining notability, independent sources are critical to the process. The proposed wording has been built to reflect common wording found in other notability guidelines. Certainly, this change does not limit what can be used to expand an article, only what is considered when determining notability. The precise level of independence of various sources of information can be discussed later. -- Netoholic @ 20:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• No – NPROF criteria can be established by non-independent, primary sources. For example, a major university's announcement that it has a new president is a non-independent primary source, but it would be sufficient to establish the notability of the university's president. There is no reason to disqualify such a source from consideration, and if we did, we'd lose a ton of content. Not everything is covered in books, journals, and the media. Leviv ich 20:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  "Not everything is covered in books, journals, and the media" ... or encyclopedias. WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources". -- Netoholic @ 20:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• No, not as worded here. Above, I suggested a better way to express this idea, but we cannot rule out sources such as university websites for qualifying source materials for notability. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• No, unnecessary guidelines creep. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• No. This is an extra level of indirection that we do not apply to any other notability criterion. Normally, subjects are notable because they are noted: someone else, whom we feel to be sufficiently unbiased and reliable, has said they are significant in some way. It's not just being significant, of course, but someone saying something about the subject that makes for notability. In this guideline as already stated, certain specific examples of "saying something about the subject" are singled out as being sufficient: C1 is a lot of people publishing citations to the subject's research, C2 is an award committee giving a major award to the subject (and almost always, writing something nontrivial about why), C3 is an academic society recognizing that the subject is well above the level of the average professor (and again, often writing why), etc. But Netoholic thinks that, for this one kind of notability, we should move beyond "someone saying something about the subject" and instead go to a standard that looks like "someone saying something about the subject and then someone else saying something about the first someone saying something about the subject". On top of this, it is clear from past discussions that Netoholic has no idea how to distinguish good sources from bad (e.g. making no distinction between Marquis Who's Who and the Dictionary of National Biography), intends "independent" to mean "non-academic", thinks that one can decide independence of a source without consideration of what it is used to source, and can be expected to use this RFC to continue pushing these backwards views. So, no for three reasons: First, because the change requires additional hurdles that we do not require of other types of notability. Second, because no rationale beyond "that's what the rules must mean" has been supplied for this change, and throughout the long extensive discussions on this topic there has been no evidence presented that changes of this nature would improve the outcome of any decision. And third, because I don't see this RfC as a good faith effort to clarify or improve how we decide which academics are notable, but rather as an attack on the very idea that there should be any subject-specific standards for academics. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Netoholic, David has claimed that you believe '"independent" to mean "non-academic"'. Do you think this is a reasonably true view of your position? Or do you mean something like "Independent means whatever WP:INDY says it means" or "Independent means 'definitely not the organization that controls your paycheck, even if it happens to be an academic organization'"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Certainly not a reasonable summary on David's part. Independent is linked to WP:INDY, and to put it succinctly, I think it means that a source must be be intellectually, financially, and legally independent of the person it is covering for it to be of value as evidence of notability. Academia is full of independent sources for things like this. This is the exact same standard as WP:GNG requires for sources, but instead of requiring "significant coverage", this guideline lists specific Criteria which only need a small amount of coverage to pass notability - for example, say 3 independent sources for one award... or 3 independent sources for 3 different awards. The "significant coverage" standard of GNG would usually require far more than just that. An academic bio could pass this guideline using the Criteria and minimal independent sourcing, or could still pass GNG if, say, they weren't known for winning awards, but instead have been otherwise had "significant coverage". -- Netoholic @ 00:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

See, Netohilic, this kind of thing is how you get to be a "minority of one" in these discussions. First of all, "intellectual independence" is a complete canard: Allan Bloom, for example, doesn't cease to be a RS on Leo Stauss because he was influenced by the latter.

Second, the intent of NPROF, NCREATIVE or for that matter NBOOK and NMUSIC is to identify grounds for presumptive Notability. The "significant coverage" statement of GNG has literally nothing to with the status of any particular award, except for the tangential question of whether WP should have a standalone article on the award. If a book, an artist, or an academic win an award, and that award can be reliably (not necessarily independlently) sourced, then that contributes to their presumptive Notability. And you should be perfectly well aware that there is no policy-conpliant reason why a person's, or a work's, receipt of an award should me mentioned independently three times before being included in an article. This is a complete red herring. Newimpartial (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The real red herring is "presumptive notability" being confused for actual notability. Being given an award may indeed be a likely indicator that someone may be notable, but without independent sources that have noted it, we cannot be sure. An article might exist on Wikipedia for years just based on a non-independent award announcement, while we wait for an independent source to be found that mentions it. That's fine, mark the article with {{notability}} and let it sit. We can keep articles up on people that have not been proven independently notable - we just have to inform the readers of its status. These subjects of these articles in limbo might be called "presumed notable", but they are not proven notable until someone independent of them has actually taken note of or remarked on them. -- Netoholic @ 18:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the entire pragmatic reason to have SNGs at all (with the notable exception of NCORP) is to adjudicate presumptive Notability for whole classes of possible articles so that we do not need to have individual deletion discussions about them, or so that if nominated, the discussions will proceed in a more orderly way. If an article subject is presumed Notable, and given NODEADLINE, we don't delete such articles unless they fall under NOT (such as CVs) or have irremediable COI issues.

Honestly, if your concern is that we have articles without reliable sources, the way to go after that would be in terms of NBIO and WP:V violations; this whole teacup tempest you have engineered seems to be entirely beside the point, and you are achieving the opposite of its stated objective. This is particularly true of your comments about "intellectual independence" - obviously citations of one multiple-authored paper by other papers with shared authorship don't count towards its contribution, but at the other extreme the idea that the Notability of Augustine of Hippo is suspect because none of the sources on him is truly free from his influence is patently absurd, yet this is where your quest for "intellectual independence" would finally place the encyclopedia. The goal is supposed to be building an encyclopedia, not rebasing its content based on where the paywalls happen to be or what we don't like. The Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, certainly derived its content criteria based on serious scholarship rather than counts of mentions in broadsheets. Newimpartial (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not specifically educated about Augustine of Hippo, but his article has 187 references plus further reading. It seems unlikely that all of these are intellectually dependent on him. Certainly most are secondary sources, which analyze and interpret those sources which were closely-connected to him intellectually. -- Netoholic @ 00:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

You know, if I watch very carefully, I can see the goalposts sway as they move. Newimpartial (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• No. The most important thing is that sources should be reliable, which is what universities are. We accept sources for all other types of people based on university presses publishing the best possible reliable sources, so we should accept sources for the people working at those universities on the basis of those same sources. And I would add that the most common way for substantiating notability of academics is WP:PROF#C1 based on citations, which are typically hundreds or thousands of independent reliable sources about a subject - far more than the number of sources we demand for a pop musician who has got to number 47 in the charts or a League 2 footballer who has turned out once or twice in professional matches. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• No For some of the listed criteria, it's unlikely that there will be independent sources; a reliable source is sufficient. Schazjmd (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• No. Clearly does not reflect current or past criteria applied to academics; beyond that, the whole point of having separate criteria is so they can be adjusted to the specific needs and situation in that field, so copy-pasting language from other notability guidelines is undesirable (and as noted above, it is not true that all notability guidelines include this language.) In particular, academic primary or non-independent sources are in specific contexts more reliable than most secondary ones in other fields, especially when dealing with a highly-cited paper, a very common way to demonstrate notability for academics - such a paper has passed through independent peer review, then had its significance reinforced by every citation; it's absurd to suggest that it would be more reputable or usable if it were mentioned in Vogue. And, unlike some other criteria (where we require additional independent secondary source for validation), many of the WP:NPROF criteria can reasonably be demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt using citations from such non-independent sources. --Aquillion (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• No Numerous sectors of society are routinely still and have clearly in the past not been covered in truly independent sources. Historic representation of blacks was focused in the black press and journals, women in feminist newspapers and journals, Latinos in the Latin press and journals, academics in their publications, etc. If an arm of the media is deemed sufficiently notable, their determination of who is notable from within the focus of their community, is sufficiently notable for our purposes. As Phil Bridger pointed out, university press organs are typically deemed reliable and per Chris Troutman, we AGF that universities accurately report what their faculty accomplishes. SusunW (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• No. The point is that people who pass the NPROF criteria are worthy of having an article regardless of whether they've been written about by journalists. It shouldn't be up to journalists whether or not academics are notable. Natureium (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• No per David Eppstein, Phil Bridger, and Natureium. --JBL (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• No. I share pretty much all the concerns raised above. As before, this would just institutionalize the error that kept the draft on Donna Strickland out of mainspace, earning Wikipedia ridicule and derision. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• No. If they meet these conditions, they meet the GNG, so making this edit is basically the same as getting rid of this subject-specific guideline. This page exists as an addendum to the basic concept that's covered in WP:N. The concept that "university professors" is older than WP:N, and while the version outlined here is substantially narrower than the old "professor test", it's still a foundational part of Wikipedia policy. We can't delegitimise something so foundational without a wider discussion. Guettarda (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• No NPROF is one of the better SNG in this project. While we must be particularly careful when editing biographies, we should not throw out all official (i.e. not independent) sources and information because of the belief of a strict application of the need for "independent sources." In fact, official sources can be used to verify facts, such as who the current mayor of Ottawa, or whether a geographic area is considered a "census designated place," or whether an academic holds a named chair. What we must be careful of is of any claim made in a press release, or other statement from the source. However, under NPROF, verification of why the subject is notable is all that is necessary (from an independent or primary source). --Enos733 (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• No A SNG works by saying, if this guideline is met, GNG is almost certainly satisfied (unless otherwise shown to be false.) Requiring multiple guidelines to be met moves us away from that, since it has no bearing on the notability of a professor - it just makes it harder for a professor to have a page, which should not be the case. As I noted in the other RfC, though, I do believe there is a problem with the notability guidelines here that needs fixing. SportingFlyer T·C 22:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• No. This type of change, which does not acknowledge that the norms and standards in academia differ from what apply, say, in commerce will lead to absurd arguments:
  • X was elected to NAS; can that be used to establish notability? Nope. Source is primary.
  • OK, the election was publicized by Salk Institute. Is it ok now? Nope. Source is not independent.
  • Twenty years have passed. And on X's retirement, a festschrift has been published detailing how their work has transformed the field. Notable now? Nope. The volume is organized by the subject's colleagues and collaborators. Still not independent.
  • New York Post has an article on how someone said that X's research will lead to AI-bots taking over the world. Usable? Yup! Go ahead.

Abecedare (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

PS: I hadn't checked earlier, but Edward Callaway (a hypothetical I picked at random) is indeed a redlink. Abecedare (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• No. I feel that the (barely hidden) purpose is to get rid of WP:NPROF because the proposer feels academics are getting a free ride on WP by allowing themselves to self determine what is notable or not. But every subgroup seems to have their own criteria to some extent, so WP:NPROF does not seem really at odds with standard practice. And even if I am mistaken on the intentions of the proposer, I think it would unnecessarily complicate things as a whole section would have to be added to clarify what can be considered "independent" or not. My understanding of the role of these guidelines is two-fold: (1) it creates a framework for contributors when deciding to write an article about someone; (2) it is used as reference for AfD discussions. There needs to be some clarity otherwise it's defeating these purposes. If the proposer means that general media coverage should be mandatory to warrant notability, there is a serious risk that WP, instead of reflecting actual significant academic contribution, would be biased towards academics adept of flippant science (you know, the Ig Nobel Prize is a regular darling of the media), or involved in immoral or criminal activities. Modifying the wording as proposed would be an incitation to falling into this kind of bias.– egaudrain (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• No I would support Tryptofish's proposed wording, but this change would lead to bizarre situations as Abecedare explained. – Teratix ₵ 23:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• No Independence would be required if one was challenging the GNG, but at an SNG level, no independent source is required to demonstrate any of the criteria have been met, only that we have source(s) deemed reliable. Mind you, that's only for validating the 9 NPROF criteria: any other content in the article should be subject to care of sourcing under BLP or other policy. For example, say an academic meets the "named-chair" metric here via a dependent university-published press release, and then gets involved in a small publishing scandal that is still ongoing. That academic would have an article from meeting the criteria without needing an independent source, but any coverage of the scandal absolutely needs independent sourcing. --Masem (t) 00:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• No – This would defeat the reason for this guidelines existence. This SNG is written to characterize subjects that consensus has found meet WP:Notability but may or may not meet WP:GNG. There is no point in having WP:NPROF, or even having WP:Notability, if they still have to meet WP:GNG. The only basis for meeting thesethe NPROF criteria should be verifiability in reliable sources, either primary or secondary.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• No I've written dozens of biographies of scientists, and I'd prefer academic sources from affiliated universities or learned societies over independent but often clueless mainstream media any time. Stop wasting everyone's time with endless discussions and RFCs already. Also, tenured professors have complete academic independence, and they should be considered at least partially, if not fully independent, from their institutions. -Zanhe (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, since it more accurately describes how notability is determined, and is more consistent with other notability pages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  Well, at least there are two "yes" comments now... --Tryptofish (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• No to pointless wikilawyering. Let's put aside all the 'theory' behind Wikipedia notability for a second (how absurd is it that such a thing exists?) Guidelines like WP:N and WP:NPROF are supposed to "reflect the consensus of the community" and "always be applied using reason and common sense". This proposal—apparently aimed at stopping universities being used as sources for who is a professor at a university, scientific societies being used as sources for who is a fellow of scientific society, award-giving bodies being used as a source for who they give awards to, and so on—is neither reasonable nor a reflection of editors' longstanding practices. Please, Netoholic, drop this disruptive and tendentious crusade, or at least try writing an article about an academic so you can express an informed opinion. – Joe (talk) 05:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• No At best misguided pedantry or a failure to recognize consensus. At worst? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC).
• No - I think this is a misguided attempt to force "secondary" and "independent" onto our inclusion criteria for articles about academics. As Zanhe has pointed out, "secondary" and "independent" often mean less reliable when it comes to specialist academic content. Deryck C. 13:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• No because the guideline does reflect how Wikipedia works in practice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• No I particularly like how it was felt it also needed clarification that academics were still notable if they qualified through more than one ground {{facepalm}}. Also absolutely bonkers and contrary to one of the whole reasons NPROF was created! Nosebagbear (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• No I agree with many of the points, as made by Abecedare, Deryck and others. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• snow, per above. Academics notable in their field are not covered like celebrities or athletes and existing practice recognizes this. No need for a prescriptive change. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 17:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• To editor Netoholic: Nobody believes that universities are lying about what their faculty did or did not accomplish. Qualifications under PROF like sitting in a named chair are quite often stated by the University and only that university. That's sufficient for notability under our current guideline. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter if they are lying - that is an WP:RS question. What is important for -notability- is evidence that the outside world has -noted- a topic. An article on Wikipedia is not promised to every academic - only those that have been -noted- in sources out of their control. The rest of your point is the objective of this RfC to determine. -- Netoholic @ 20:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  Then the smarter approach would be to just remove PROF, or at least cut it down. There is no real independent media that covers academia. Only now and then "pop" sources will mention an academic but generally you'll never see independent sourcing for criteria 2, 3, 5, 6, or 8. Those will always come from connected outlets. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  "Independent source" does not mean "independent media". A review of a book, an analysis of a study - there are plenty of independent sources possible even just within academia. I realize that professors aren't rock stars and don't generally have that kind of media attention - but that doesn't mean we relax a fundamental value of Wikipedia. Other subject areas could make the same claim - I know plenty of esports fans that probably would love it if their biography topics didn't have to rely on independent coverage, too. And what's to stop them from seeing this RfC, if it fails, as precedent for changing their own notability requirements? How meaningless does our encyclopedia become? -- Netoholic @ 20:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  You are the only person who believes that "using the NAS announcement of its new fellows as evidence that someone is a fellow of the NAS" is in violation of a fundamental value of Wikipedia. Luckily, you have managed to produce a valid RfC question this time, so it will soon be overwhelmingly clear that you are the one out-of-step with Wikipedia's values. -JBL (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  "using the NAS announcement of its new fellows as evidence that someone is a fellow of the NAS" is fine. It does not prove notability, though. -- Netoholic @ 21:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  You are the only person who believes that using the NAS announcement of its new fellows does not prove notability of those fellows. --JBL (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  Only academics themselves seem to think it does. That's like saying every YouTuber that get's their Silver Play Button deserves an article with no additional independent sourcing. Achieving a level of success within your own circle does not mean the world at large has -noted- you. -- Netoholic @ 21:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  ...mean the world at large has -noted- you. Is that the notability criterion you are aiming for? If that's the bar, I think we can remove most BLPs. For instance, let me take the case of Formula One driver Hans-Joachim Stuck. All sources are either German (not exactly the world at large), or specialised in automotive sports (not exactly the world at large). That fits my perception: I don't care much about Formula One and I had never heard of that person. But judging by their career, it seems relatively obvious that this person is quite notable in the field of racing. In fact, by your count, it's possible that this person is actually much less notable than a Youtuber with hundreds of thousands of views... I mean, that's hundreds of thousands of views likely from different continents, from different socio-economic backgrounds, etc. That's getting pretty close to at least a reasonable sample of the world at large. (And, I'm guessing, likely more than the readership of ausmotive.com.) So I think there is something off in your logic, and I'm not getting where you going with all this.– egaudrain (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Egaudrain: Not to nitpick, but even a simple search of Hans-Joachim Stuck (not exactly a common name) using my Newspapers.com access found something like 1000 hits going back to 1973. That's primarily American newspapers, but also had 131 hits in Canada, and a few in Australia and England papers. Doesn't seem like much of a stranger in books, either. Maybe the term "world at large" has a different connotation to you. What I mean by it is that asking whether sources outside of the influence of the subject have taken note of the subject. -- Netoholic @ 16:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

This notion of "independence of the influence of the subject" is more than a little bit absurd. We would need an article on Augustine of Hippo, for example, even if nearly all those who have written about him were subject to his intellectual influence (I picked this example because this is, more nearly than usual, actually the case). Newimpartial (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Netoholic: Thanks for your response and for looking that up. It is indeed my point that Hans-Joachim Stuck is notable and with the right access to the right material you would find relevant information. From my point of view, though, without that Newspapers.com access of yours, Hans-Joachim Stuck is not exactly prominent in any search I can run (and you'll note that the wikipedia page on him doesn't seem to cite much of these 1000 sources you found). However using Google Scholar or my institutional journal subscriptions, I can find a lot of material concerning academics in my fields of interest. All academics concerned by WP:PROF are published in venues with considerable readership, all outside of the influence of the subject (as others have pointed out earlier). So it was my impression that it was the type of outlet (academic journals) that you didn't agree to consider? Am I mistaken?– egaudrain (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Egaudrain: That's true, and it relates to my concern here that we are taking the "easy route" by relying on sources closely-connected to the academic person largely because those are the most easily accessible. Academia is exceptionally closed-off, and many valuable resources are unfortunately behind the "ivory tower" of paywalls, subscriptions, and special collections. Independent sources are out there, just hard to get to. I do not think this barrier though is worth reducing our standards for notability. Let people create articles for academics which they are reasonably certain are notable, and if independent sources aren't accessible, use a cleanup tag like {{notability}}. Those of us that do have any access to special resources should then make it a priority to round out these biographies. I have never said we have to rely on "mainstream media" for academics - academic sources that are sufficiently independent are far better. -- Netoholic @ 17:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Netoholic: So, to make sure we are talking about the same thing: if an academic's name was referred to in a number of independent publications, that is, publications that are not controlled by the subject themselves, potentially behind paywall but solidly verifiable, you would consider it sufficient to prove notability? (Or to presume notability?) As for your comment about ivory towers, I agree with you that too many academics lock in their work behind publishers' paywalls to get a false sense of prestige in return... But that's another debate. Regarding your proposition that articles should be kept but a notability tag should be added if there are doubts about sources... how do you think this would play out when a draft article is submitted for review before publication? (like it happened, for instance, with Donna Strickland's page, as mentioned a number of times in this discussion).– egaudrain (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  I just want to comment about academics' views about paywalls. In my experience, the vast majority of academics want their work to be read by as many people as possible – and none of the paywall payments ever reach the academics; it all goes to the publishing company. I guess there can be some people in any group who think they get prestige from something, but the vast majority of academics take no pleasure from paywalls. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  This is right. Academia is extremely small-c conservative, and so systems like academic publishing change only very slowly. There has been some progress over the last couple of decades, but it will be a long time before everything is out there. (Although some fields--like those that use the arXiv--are better than others.) --JBL (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed, paywalls are as much a barrier to academic researchers, who need to be able to access other people's research in order to do their own, as they are to the general public. isaacl (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  Yet everyone dreams of publishing in Nature or Science... 😉 There's a nice article about this, from a couple years back in the Guardian. But I don't think those considerations are particularly helpful to the current discussion. What may contribute, though, is that now you don't need to necessarily access a paper itself to know whether it makes a reference to another paper or not. Google Scholar, for instance, will tell you what papers are citing the work of a certain person, all without paywall. So as far as establishing notability is concerned, that's good, no?– egaudrain (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  Academics want to publish in high-impact journals, of course, but it has nothing to do with whether or not the journals have paywalls. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  Tryptofish, if you mean to say that there are high-impact journals that are open access, yes, indeed. The paywall has been moved to the source, which is much better for encyclopedians. But if you mean that the very concept of "impact" is independent from the desire of publishers of making lots of money out of academic work, then I don't share your view, and I can only point you again to this Guardian article that makes those points much more convincingly than I would.– egaudrain (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  I took a quick look at the Guardian piece, and it says what I mean to say. Most academics dislike the way that publishers make money off of academic research. I think there are excellent open-source journals, and lousy ones, and excellent journals that have paywalls, and lousy ones that do. But academics want most to be published in journals that are widely-read, and highly regarded by their peers, and none of that has to do with the economic model followed by the journal. Nobody thinks: "They have a paywall, so I want to submit my manuscript there." --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  Except for Jeffrey Beall, who, despite his good works, is a total nutter on this issue: [1] --JBL (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, of course the context in those academic publications is relevant, though. Much like how we don't tend to "count" trivial mentions for other notability claims, I think simple paper/journal citations are fairly run-of-the-mill for academics, and are often in reference to the work rather than the person. That said, an academic source that is perhaps an in-depth review of another scholars work, or one which mentions a colleague and references one of the WP:PROF#Criteria would be certainly preferable. I am of the opinion that an experienced Wikipedian should not begin an article until they've found enough independent sources to reasonably guarantee its continued inclusion - it would be disappointing to spend a lot of effort by the creator and any editors that get involved in an AfD discussion just to have it ultimately deleted - but we have to allow for novice editors and give them the chance to see what is missing from a biography they create and what our notability guidelines require, so tagging it or putting through a Draft process is a good method. -- Netoholic @ 00:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Netoholic: Let me answer point-by-point. "simple paper/journal citations are fairly run-of-the-mill for academics": this is often more than just a mention, but I agree that it is pretty standard for academics, which is perhaps very much the reason why specific guidelines do exist? I mean, independently reviewed published work will exist for the vast majority of academics and comments and references will be made in material itself independently reviewed... So wouldn't you say that independent sources would always exist? (or almost always, if you want to be pedantic). I'm talking for the type of academics that are in fields where there is regular publication in journals. Could be different for others. Then you said "are often in reference to the work rather than the person". Well, we do hope academics are notable for their work more than for their person. Much like athletes are notable for their athletic performance more than for the gossips about their private lives. It looks like there is strong support in WP for this point of view. Finally, I think that "in-depth review of another scholars work" is very uncommon in many fields. Because, again, it is more the work of a person, and so also related work of other people, that is reviewed rather than the person itself. You will very rarely find personal details about an author in a scientific paper discussing their work. You will find those in fellow nomination speeches or obituaries... but these are definitely not "independent" as they are often written by close colleagues and friends. So. What do you propose?– egaudrain (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Egaudrain: An academic that is only cited in relation to specific work is perhaps of value to an article about the work's subject area, but in the case of a biography, we're looking for non-trivial mentions of the person. I think there is a fairly easy, objective way of telling if a mention in a scientific paper/etc is inappropriate for use in a biography: if the name of the academic is only is stated in a citation reference or bibliography, its trivial for the purposes of a biography article. If the academic's name instead appears in the prose, then that would potentially have biographical value. The equivalent for sportspeople would be if their name appears only in a statistics chart, its trivial; but if their name is mentioned in the prose of an article, its potentially biographical. As far as personal details, we can use their WP:BLPSELFPUB in articles as long as they aren't self-serving (I'm thinking you mean things like spouses, early life, etc), but those details wouldn't at all factor in for purposes of determining notability. -- Netoholic @ 22:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  Your views as expressed here are much more reasonable than any of your attempts to implement them in practice; I even somewhat agree with them. But the connection between them and the reality on the ground seems off. To use myself as an example: I am a tenure-track professor at a reasonably good research university; I have roughly 20 published papers, all of which have been reviewed in Mathematical Reviews, and somewhere between 70 citations and twice that many, including one from a paper titled "On some conjectures of JBL" or something like that. I definitely do not pass NPROF. This is good evidence that NPROF is already setting the bar quite a bit higher than you seem to think/worry about: it definitely rules out just-a-CV-from-a-typical-academic articles, and the criteria it imposes make it likely that people who meet them will eventually be the subject of biographical coverage (possibly posthumously). By contrast, the NSPORTS line seems much lower: it is literally true that people who appear in 1 game are deemed notable, whether or not anything is ever written about that appearance. If you are insistent on raising the general bar for biographical notability, NSPORTS seems like the low-hanging fruit. (But please go about it in a more sensible way than you have done in the past week.) --JBL (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  JBL: I'm going to say something fairly shocking, but honest. The general public cares far more about sportspeople than they do about academics. This is perhaps to the shame of our shared humanity, but it is undeniably the truth. WP:NSPORTS doesn't have a low bar - its just that a professional sportsperson (important, because you can't say what you did is true about a high school athlete or even a semi-pro) gets almost immediate independent coverage the minute they set foot out on the field... and their activities are viewed by thousands to millions of people. I am incredibly sorry that academics do not get that kind of star treatment, but I am (like Wikipedia should) simply accepting the world as it is. No matter how much I can personally believe that academics and the pursuit of knowledge deserves more attention, I have to stand for the principle, even if I stand alone at the moment, that Wikipedia needs to be impartial in our standards, or the standards do not mean a damn thing. -- Netoholic @ 23:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  Nothing shocking -- just goes to show that all your pretense about the fundamental principles of Wikipedia and whatnot is just that. It's actually reassuring -- no need for me to worry that I'm missing something subtle about your position. --JBL (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  Not sure how you see it as pretense, when I just said that foundational principles are my main concern, even when I personally would hope the situation was different. -- Netoholic @ 04:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I would chime in to say I have no problem with Netoholic's "appearance in prose" suggested criterion; my problem is with the suggestion that nobody the prof had ever coauthored with or mentioned in acknowledgements would ever count as an appearance, in any of their publications. There are plenty of constructive ways to apply COI more strictly in the domain of academics, but ruling out Gadamer's writing on Heidegger as contributing to Notability is not one of them, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Also, in response to the "shocking but honest" confession above: Netoholic's position actually runs directly counter to the fundamental principle WP:ENC, as encyclopedic coverage has never been based on "what the public cares more about" whether judged in terms of broadsheet coverage, page counts or hit statistics. So I think we can safely disregard this "principle" per WP:NOT. Newimpartial (talk) 02:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how you're defining "independent" but if we're excluding institutions, scholarly societies, and professional organizations then there are still independent media publications that cover academia e.g., The Chronicle of Higher Education, Inside Higher Ed, Times Higher Education. In the United States, there are also several think tanks that focus in part or entirely on higher education and although many of them have strong political views and agendas some of them are reasonably independent and frequently publish about academia e.g., New America, Brookings Institution. ElKevbo (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment the idea that "one" source could be "independent ... from each other" poses a logical conundrum. Still not well-formed. Also, the idea that that journals, scholarly societies, etc. are not RS - or that Notability, per the WP:GNG, sets a higher bar than "documentable without primary research - are just gonzo. But these assumptions made by the proposer don't even show up in the proposal as formulated. Newimpartial (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  Huh? The proposed wording asks for multiple sources, not just one source. --JBL (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Right. One or more criteria, multiple sources. Comment struck. Newimpartial (talk)

• Maybe this one should be closed, too? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  It doesn't seem like a bad thing to make it clear that this is not what the community wants. Natureium (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  This one is well-formulated; the fact that it's going to overwhelmingly go one direction is a benefit, since it will reduce by 1 the number of venues in which Netoholic can repeat the same bad arguments. --JBL (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  (after edit conflict) It might be better to allow this to run for a bit longer to make it even clearer that this is not what the community wants, which would avoid the nominator thinking anything otherwise. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  Would you bet your house on this one, too? :-) Leviv ich 13:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  If I had three houses I'd bet them all, along with my pension and any other savings, on this not being what the community wants, but not on the nominator accepting that. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  The precedent this sets if it fails is worth keeping it to run its full course. I foresee it fundamentally changing Wikipedia's inclusion/notability guidelines across the project. -- Netoholic @ 21:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  If you make this into a precise, testable claim, I would like the opportunity to take up the opposite side in a wager involving moderate amounts of money (say, hundreds of US dollars). Are you interested? --JBL (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  I'd bet my house on it, which is worth quite a bit more than a few hundred dollars. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger: As far as confidence level is concerned, that seems reasonable, but I'm sure my spouse would object to staking anything more than this on anything Wikipedia-related :). @Netoholic, I am entirely serious about this offer. --JBL (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Pinging @Xxanthippe, Bilorv, ElKevbo, Abecedare, SmokeyJoe, Joe Roe, Egaudrain, ජපස, SportingFlyer, and Guettarda: to alert them to the replacement of one RfC by another. (This is the complete list of people who participated in the previous RfC survey and have not already participated in the new version.) --JBL (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• My attempt at a SNOW close was reverted (here) with no reasoning; well I'm not going to argue but that's where this RfC is headed. It's forum shopping by the proposer, who started the RfC because they saw that their previous one was about to be snow closed, and there's strong unanimous consensus to not change the wording. The community's time shouldn't be wasted any further. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 22:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  A couple of lines up in this discussion, I suggested closing it, and I agree with you about forum shopping and wasting time. But other editors replied to me that they would like to keep the RfC open. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  It's not forum-shopping because the previous RfC was withdrawn as ill-posed, which this one is not. Previous to the opening of the RfC, the opener was wasting time across many different venues; currently they are focused on only one or two. This is a big improvement as far as I am concerned. --JBL (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  I mean, if someone closes it again I won't re-revert; but I think "forum-shopping" is a particularly bad reason to close in this case, and is not obviously supported by consensus. The close for this RfC should be substantive rather than procedural. --JBL (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  There have been a number of events before this point that add to the forum shopping issue, see this ANI thread, which involved AFDd that Netoholic opened on the basis of last of independent sourcing. If we are going to have a proper RFC on independence and NPROF, we should really have a brief prep to determine the neutral question to ask and then open the RFC. --Masem (t) 00:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  This is certainly true, but unfortunately none of those events have resulted ("were allowed to result"?) in a clear consensus on anything. At some point, there should be a substantive conclusion that these wrong ideas are rejected. Waiting a week or two (or whatever) for this to wrap up won't prevent a later sensible discussion. --JBL (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  I'm taking bets on whether or not there will be another RfC to determine whether or not we should refer to it as "forum shopping". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  Only an RfC? If this doesn't go all the way to ArbCom, I will feel that all my efforts have been wasted. --JBL (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  If you take it to ArbCom, I'll accuse you of forum shopping. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  The close was substantive and not procedural. I noted "a unanimous consensus (excluding the proposer) that the wording should not be changed" as the first and foremost reason for the close. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 00:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  As someone WP:INVOLVED, you shouldn't have closed it. Also, its been open only a few hours, and existing followers of this page have made their views known. Over the rest of the 30 days time, we can get input from outside participants and if this fails, establish a firm precedent which will shake up every other subject-specific notability guideline. -- Netoholic @ 23:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  This isn't going to stay open a full 30 days, and it's not going to shake anything up. Natureium (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  30 days is the delay after which Legobot decides the RfC's been forgotten... but there's no reason to wait that long if there is a clear consensus. Since you are not responding to arguments anymore, how about you give it a couple more days to see if there's any other input, and if not, after that you close it yourself? Does that seem a reasonable time frame?– egaudrain (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  I think its fair to let it go long enough that outside interested participants have a chance to see that it's been posted and express their views. There's no real deadline. If you've voted already, you are free to ignore its presence on this page for as long as it lasts. -- Netoholic @ 23:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  I would also like to see it go a while for maximum clarity, and I would strongly prefer it be closed by a not-involved party. --JBL (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Netoholic: I take accusations like this very seriously. I don't know you, haven't been in a conflict with you and don't have any vested interest in the RfC outcome. In what way was I involved? — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 00:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  You voted in the withdrawn RfC, and your text and tone indicate a strong viewpoint about my motives. -- Netoholic @ 00:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  That's a different RfC and I have no vendetta against you. Your motives were discussed by those commenting in the RfC, which included sentences like: "I don't see this RfC as a good faith effort"; "I feel that the (barely hidden) purpose is to get rid of WP:NPROF"; "Stop wasting everyone's time with endless discussions and RFCs already". If you really think that I violated WP:INVOLVED (but I've yet to see you quote a relevant passage from it) then you should file a discussion at WP:ANI. Otherwise don't make such serious accusations. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 11:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  The opening line of WP:INVOLVED states "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved." Since you !voted at the previous RfC pretty boldly, and because this RfC was a clear "continuation" of the other RfC, it's a bad look to close this one, even if you didn't technically !vote in the second RfC, and even if the outcome is already obvious. The goal is to avoid an appearance of any conflict of interest. It's also not anywhere close to being WP:ANI worthy, nor is it something I would take personally. SportingFlyer T·C 03:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• I still think some sort of change is needed. As I've noted, I strongly disagree WP:NPROF should be exempt from WP:GNG as it's currently written. WP:GNG is applicable for almost everything on the site, and the exemptions I'm aware of basically include gazetteers. I also want to make absolutely clear I'm not advocating for fewer articles under WP:NPROF. If you read through the discussion above, you see arguments such as "we have #2 because X gets written about the professor." As someone happily not part of the academic world, it's very difficult to assess notability even with the WP:NPROF guideline. It's extremely complicated, possibly unnecessarily duplicative, and I try not to touch any AfCs or AfDs where it might apply. I would make WP:NPROF notability presumptive (meaning an article could be deleted even if there's a technical pass if it's impossible to independently verify, like every other WP:SNG) and then clarify the guidelines to make clear which academic sources are considered reliable under the WP:GNG. For instance, it appears to me as an outsider as if 1,4,7 and 9 could all be collapsed into one category - #7, for instance, seems to have substantial overlap with WP:AUTHOR. SportingFlyer T·C 09:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  I don't think anything is preventing you (that is, not Netoholic, who hopefully is going to give up the crusade of disruption they've been on after this) from starting a separate discussion; but probably it will work better if you wait until after this RfC is finished. --JBL (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  • • Criterion 9 could possibly be omitted; it's kind of a "covering all the bases" point and is seldom invoked explicitly (see above). However, criteria 1, 4 and 7 are distinct and should not be collapsed together. To use the terminology that a tenure committee might, C1 is about research, C4 is about teaching (in the sense of, e.g., writing a very influential textbook) and C7 is about outreach. We might use the same tools to evaluate these criteria, in some cases. For example, we look up book reviews as part of evaluating C1 for humanities scholars, where the books in question are presentations of the authors' own original contributions. We also look for book reviews to evaluate C4, but there we're seeking evidence that the author has presented standard curriculum material in an influential way (like writing a famous/infamous reference on electromagnetism that endures for generations). So, while there are commonalities in the evaluations, they are separate points, and any individual academic can fail at some while passing others. XOR'easter (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think this is exactly the problem I'm discussing - as a non-academic, the notability determinations under WP:NPROF needs to be simpler so we don't turn WP:NPROF into a "tenure committee" of notability. I personally don't see any difference between C1, C4 and C7 - for instance, under WP:AUTHOR, two book reviews conveys notability (this directly plays into WP:GNG). Two book reviews under C1, C4, C7 would also grant notability, even if the book reviews are say in academic journals (which I think happens.) I'm happy to keep discussing this here, but will wait until this tempest blows over to start the conversation, if I remember. SportingFlyer T·C 23:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yet another venue: in addition to the rather fruitless discussions already going on here and elsewhere, another one was just opened on Jimbo Wales' talk page, for those who can't get enough of this. --Randykitty (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No question now about forum shopping. Netoholic, you might want to read WP:TE. --Masem (t) 13:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Jimbo Wales doesn't think it is either tendentious editing or forum shopping, he thinks it is an issue worth discusssing: "This is a very difficult topic and your position, which I partly share, is a respectable one." Jimbo Wales isn't God of course, but why shouldn't Netoholic discuss it with him? Harold the Sheep (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• @Masem: - that isn't forum shopping. If anything, it's Canvassing, but I think that'd be pushing it. Putting it on Jimbo's adds or takes away nothing to the current level of forum-shopping.
• Now have we reached SNOW? - 2 days ago those of us thinking snow were discouraged from doing so, so I !voted instead. We surely must have reached that level by now, though? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• I would have thought so. I counselled against closing this before, but if the proposer hasn't got the message by now then it will never get through. I'm more than happy for people to discuss away on Jimbo's talk page, as that is not where decisions are made. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• As I said, I won't object to another close (though I also don't see the harm in, say, letting it run over the weekend, or for a full week). I would still prefer that there be a closure by an uninvolved editor. --JBL (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fukuoka Prize

Would the receipt of this prize satisfy criterion #2 under WP:NACADEMIC? – see also Ang Choulean. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Ugh. For now, I'd say no - there's no indication that the award is significant (or even notable)... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

It would help but by itself, no. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC).

• @Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington:I don't know why people would make such confident proclamations about something they obviously know nothing about. Fukuoka Prize is one of the most prestigious cultural prizes in Asia, see [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Being a recipient of this prize almost certainly confers notability. -Zanhe (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks to those who commented above. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Michael Zinigrad

We had a discussion a while ago about this person's biography. This is just a note to indicate that I have now taken it to AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Zinigrad) and comments from interested editors are welcome (although be warned: given the long discussions on the article's talk page, I expect this one to become quite a battle...) --Randykitty (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Notable academic award

Is the Kelly West Award for Outstanding Achievement in Epidemiology [7] from the American Diabetes Association a notable award? Could it have its own article (or listicle) like the Bader Award? Would its recipients be automatically eligible for an article under WP:ACADEMIC? Thsmi002 (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Although it might contribute to the notability of a person, it would not by itself suffice. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC).

Update, I started the article Kelly West Award. To date, every recipient meets WP:ACADEMIC, although many are still redlinks. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. It seems like there are a huge number of these awards that are not considered sufficient evidence of notability on their own, but are exclusively given to academics who are of a stature that they meet criterion #1 (I spot-checked about a quarter of the Kelly West recipients and they all met C#1 by a mile). I'm of the opinion that keeping track of all these awards and listing them as an explanatory note to C#2 is not worth our time. But they are convenient ways to generate lists of scientists for whom we should consider writing articles. Ajpolino (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

C9

"The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC." Why does this exist? Wouldn't those people just use those guidelines instead? Natureium (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Presumably (i.e., I have no idea if this is really true) it is to avoid arguments about which SNG to apply. It seems like a harmless redundancy to me. --JBL (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

How about we get rid of it and simplify things? Natureium (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not feel strongly one way or the other (in particular, I would not object to removing it) but I would also probably wait for input from more people than just me. --JBL (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

On the face of it, it would seem to be redundant with the earlier "Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria". My assumption is that it's there as an explicit criterion to head off arguments that WP:PROF is an extra bar that all academics notable for their academic activity must pass; instead we explicitly state that some academic activity is subject to other criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Offhand, I don't recall any academic-biography AFD invoking a "keep per WP:PROF#C9"; people just say that it passes the GNG, or WP:AUTHOR, or whatever. But it may be useful to keep around as an explicit reminder. "Fails WP:PROF" is not the end of the story, if a person was an academic along with doing other things (politics, music, sports) for which they are more noteworthy. In short, I don't think C9 makes the guideline broken, so I wouldn't remove it. XOR'easter (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

FWIW: I scanned through a bunch (maybe 5 weeks worth?) of recent deletion discussions of academics, and the string "C9" did not appear in any of them. So it doesn't seem to get explicitly invoked very often, at least not in that form. --JBL (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's broken, I'm saying it's useless. It already says that if someone passes a different notability guideline, they would be notable without passing NPROF. I think we should remove it because there's no reason for it, and simplifying guidelines makes Wikipedia easier for more casual editors to understand. Natureium (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I found it useful as a newcomer. It isn't obvious to outside users that there are notability guidelines to start with. If someone is preparing an academics' biography, they would likely stumble across WP:PROF, if only because an editor pointed to it. From there, any explicit pointer to other guidelines that could be useful is great help. – egaudrain (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

While I can see the benefit of pointing to other guidelines for the benefit of new users, I think it would be more beneficial to this guideline to tighten and focus it so there are no ambiguities about it's intended purpose. It is true CREATIVEs can be academics, but for most of these subjects it is easier to show that the subject meets one or the other, instead of both. I think the caveat at the top of the list (may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria), basically meaning that other notability criteria exist, is enough. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Do I need to start a whole 30-day RfC in order to get consensus for this change? Natureium (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there any way to search for links to C9 itself, to see if removing it would break any old discussions? XOR'easter (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• I suggest we move that wording up behind the "other notability criteria" wording as a parenthetical: "(For example: . . . .). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I know this discussion has kind of petered out, but I'd also support removing it. Per JBL above it doesn't get used and it's obvious. If folks at AfD start forgetting that several notability guidelines can apply, then we can add it back. Otherwise it's just clutter for readers of this guideline. Ajpolino (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Criteria 1 recognition of collaborative achievements

I'm copying this excerpt from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Tuttle#Arbitrary break to outline the general idea of a proposal I'd like to make but will wait a few days before setting forth specific language for it:

@ජපස: would you support amending NPROF-C1 to include membership in groups shown to have "pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline"? Major advances are rarely attributable solely to individuals, and haven't been for at least a century. The NPROF-C1 criterion requirement that we have to prove that a singular "person" is responsible for an advance prevents a large proportion of the most prestigious award-winners from meeting it. It's not uncommon for breakthrough papers to have more than a dozen authors, and for good reason. Will you join the cause to allow Wikipedia to recognize achievements of collective efforts? EllenCT (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

You are absolutely right that the current NPROF guideline relies on a great man theory in a way that is more than a little problematic. Perhaps better to remove C1 entirely? I think we really need to provide more general guidance for combatting WP:BIAS in notability discussions. Perhaps a guideline such as WP:STRICT SCRUTINY or something where we say, all else being equal, recognize that historic biases can influence the appearance of notability as it has been leveled at this website. While Wikipedia has a default to keep option, with WP:BLP this often goes the other way for protection reasons (to good effect often, but it's variable as can be seen in situations such as this). Perhaps we should talk about this in a different venue, though. jps (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Ideally, someone else who has more familiarity with AFDs impacted by this issue will propose a specific change before I do. EllenCT (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. It does come up sometimes in deletion discussions, for scholars in fields where many-author papers are common; typically, in those cases we look at first-author papers (because the author order is informative). In some other fields, like mathematics, author order is meaningless (alphabetical). My own feeling is that I would consider membership in a small and equal group of authors with a notable contribution named after them (like the Aanderaa–Karp–Rosenberg conjecture as a reason for notability for Aanderaa) as counting towards #C1. However, for the recent case of Katie Bouman and the black hole image (certainly a notable collaborative achievement) Bouman would not have been notable if she were merely one of the many members of this collaboration; in that case, it is the press's elevation of her as the face of the achievement that made her notable, rather than the achievement itself. So I am wary of changes in wording that might take this too far in one direction or another. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Trying to decide what work is "significant impact" is an asinine activity. Standing on the shoulders of giants is only part of the issue. Wikipedia should not be in the business of trying to identify significance. Rather we should rely on reliable sources that attest to the work of the academic. That ought to be enough. jps (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The community recently repeatedly reconfirmed consensus for WP:NFOOTY's bar of one (1) professional game. Why doesn't an academic get "in" with one (1) published paper? I can't reconcile those two notability standards in my head. Leviv ich 01:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The logic NSPORTS uses is that if you have played a professional game , that means you had to have had some significant career in your sport that would make you a consideration for a major professional team (college or minor or ametuer league), and there will nearly always be documentation from that lower level of play or from the team hired into that is secondary about the athlete. Whereas, a single paper has no bearing on the academic's prior history, since the academic journals aren't judging the author, only the content during peer-review. So there's no assurance of any secondary sourcing here. --Masem (t) 01:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The more natural equivalent would be that anyone tenured at a research university must have published multiple significant pieces of research, there will nearly always be large numbers of citations to those publications that can be considered as secondary sources, and there will always be recommendation letters (that unfortunately we can't see) that provide a neutral independent and in-depth assessment of the person. Setting the bar at that level would be looser than what we have now but I think still considerably stricter than NSPORTS. However, it would be too US-centric for me to be comfortable with it as a standard. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Numbers of citations is a terrible way to decide this. IT will always rely on WP:OR of Wikipedians to decide thresholds... and those thresholds will be argued ad infinitum to be different based on the area of study, the specialization of the work, the active years of the author, and so many other factors... including the arguments in that AfD that suggests leniency based on historical biases of marginalized peoples. Absolutely a ridiculous quagmire - and one that is skewed towards academics themselves dominating such discussions. Instead the C1 guideline should be what independent sources describe. Keywords like "renowned", "respected", "authoritative", "prodigious", and the like would be the things we should look for in those sources. -- Netoholic @ 02:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

So you think we should look for sources that use the most highly promotional verbiage, and treat these opinions about personalities as being overwhelmindly more authoritative than publications that are actually about the specific scholarly accomplishments of the subject? An interesting opinion, but not one I share. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

This is the real world, Wikipedia just reflects it. I am sure there are plenty of other professions which would love to have Wikipedia drop our standards to allow them to get a coveted Wikipedia article. -- Netoholic @ 04:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

And you're ready to step in to help them? Now all they need to do is hire a publicist to get those adjectives into puff pieces about them? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems like you'd prefer Wikipedia to fulfill that publicist/promotional role. You're wanting to turn Wikipedia into a secondary source -where we refer to primary sources like university profiles, etc. Academics are not "owed" anything, so no one on Wikipedia has to "step in to help them". There is an entire ecosystem of academic tit-for-tat puffery out there. Wikipedia shouldn't be part of that. Its clear from recent events where academics complained about their profiles on Wikipedia being deleted that they value them as publicity. Turns my stomach. Its WP:What Wikipedia is not. -- Netoholic @ 05:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Say what you will about the low bar of NSPORT, but it is a bar. It's just not possible for any old wannabe to decide one day that they're going to be listed on Wikipedia as a notable athlete, and make it happen by paying for enough publicity as an athlete, because the top-level teams decide who gets to play for them and they don't take wannabes. Something more or less like that is true for PROF, with a messier but higher bar. There are plenty of wannabes who do a little research, think they're the next Einstein, and write their own Wikipedia autobiography on how great they are. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saurav L. Chaudhari for an ongoing likely example.) But they get stopped and deleted (at least in the egregious cases, and when the new page patrollers aren't asleep) because making a scientific accomplishment that people actually make note of is very difficult to fake. You want to take all that away and replace it with publicity puff pieces saying how distinguished they are (and by the way, in feminist circles "distinguished" is a loaded word because it basically means older white man) that anyone with enough time and persistence could buy. How is that an improvement? Or, to put it another way, yes, there are plenty of egotistical academics. Some of them are also accomplished, some of them are not. We should focus on how accomplished they are, and neither let the egotistical but non-accomplished ones buy their way in nor try to keep the egotistical but accomplished ones out. Journalists are good at finding egotistical people who are entertaining story-tellers and really really bad at distinguishing true accomplishments from hype. Neutral academic sources are much more trustworthy than popular media about where the real accomplishments are. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

NSPORT at least makes a good effort to require that independent sources are used to establish satisfaction of its criteria. Its not enough that someone played a professional game - that fact must be reported in an independent source, also (and realistically might be easily satisfied simply by the game being broadcast and the sportscasters noting the player). Its not what the criteria is on PROF that is the matter - its what sourcing requirements for proving that criteria was met that is the current issue. -- Netoholic @ 05:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The only issue is in your mind, where you have made up false sourcing requirements that throw out perfectly good sources (like the ones academic societies write about their award-winners) and substitute them with bad ones (newspaper hype). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. I am fine with subject-specific notability guidelines having specific criteria and requiring fewer/less-deep sources which prove those criteria are met, so long as independent sources are used for that purpose. It strains Wikipedia's integrity to say that, if you're an academic, we will suspend a core policy requiring independent sources in order that you get an article on our site. It makes it harder to say to other industries that they can't have the same special treatment. I remain deeply concerned that it is academics themselves on this very discussion page that are suggesting that we reduce our standard. We can find better ways to include academics than to turn our backs on core policies. Maybe start WP:WikiProject Academics in Red? Maybe you know. Is there a database/resource for academics out there that is independent of them, but provides basic biographical information? Something we can import and use across a wide swath of articles. I really an not against inclusion of academics, but we must keep our integrity about it. -- Netoholic @ 06:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

You keep falling back to an argument by authority — it's core policy! we must obey! — and avoiding any reasoning about why we might have policies like that, what the policy is intended to accomplish, and whether your repetitive and reason-free allegiance to your own made-up ideas about what it means to be independent is in line with the intended effects of that policy. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I mean, I guess you could say that, but I don't see how I'm wrong in thinking our core policies are, you know, kinda important. I could say you're making an appeal to pity for the poor, downtrodden academics that just can't catch a break in the media... but media is just one kind of independent source. -- Netoholic @ 06:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes we have policies, but they're trumped by WP:Five Pillars, the fifth of which says "The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording". I agree with David Eppstein that it makes little sense to apply the policy requiring independent sources to faculty bios at reputable universities. Universities dearly treasure their reputations as do almost all academics, and their campuses are filled with independent thinkers ready to protest at the first hint of dishonesty. It's inconceivable that they would publish false information regarding the qualifications of their faculty members, especially purely factual information such as academic appointments, awards, and publications. -Zanhe (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"throw out perfectly good sources (like the ones academic societies write about their award-winners)"

I don't believe that's what's being recommended. There's a gap between "We picked the best academic in the world for our annual prize" and "Let's give a prize to our dear Chairman Bob". When the organization gives an award to one of its own, then that's not independent. When they pick an academic who is merely one of thousands of other members, then that's no different in independence from a non-academic group giving an award. (Namely, it's primary and non-independent about the club's action, and potentially independent of and a potentially secondary source for the awardee's accomplishments, except for the ever-present danger that the blurb about the awardee was written by the awardee. At least we can claim a fig-leaf's worth of editorial review there, though, and editors will generally accept that as independent-ish, if not fully independent.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"Chairman Bob" depending on the org and the position already passes Prof. 6. And if the argument is that that is not independent recognition it has to be wrong because it is independent recognition. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing that the usual prize-giving by reputable scientific societies is potentially independent and, I would claim, sufficiently independent when it comes to the awardee's accomplishments. Given that WP:IS says why we should strive for independent sources, namely that independence is meant to help us write a NPOV article that does not fall into the traps of self-promotion, treating the awardee unfairly, or giving too much credence to the awardee's own views, a major scientific society definitely meets the criteria of being independent from an awardee in the sense that matters for WP:IS. Zanhe is right, though: The proposal by Netoholic here demanding multiple independent sources that are, in addition, independent of each other would mean that, say, the AAAS stating that person A had been made a fellow would not be considered sufficient evidence any more of person A having been made a fellow, and hence being sufficiently notable for their article to be safe from deletion. I (and others) think it's absurd, but yes, that is apparently really what is being proposed here. Markus Pössel (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, if the Catholic Church gave an award to one of its bishops, would you consider that organization to be an independent source about the bishop? I'd put "Chairman Bob, who just happens to head the award committee, gave himself the award" in the same category. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, that would be dumb. Since all bishops have articles, they seem to be notable, so if your point is that all Chairman Bob's (who fall in point 6) should have articles, fine. Note, your statement was not even responsive to mine, my point was that the Chairman Bob's of No. 6 pass Prof before the award. Alanscottwalker (talk)! Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

You're assuming that Chairman Bob is the head of the whole org, and not just the chair of the awards committee. You're also assuming that the chair of the org qualifies under #6, which is not necessarily always true. For example, we always create articles on people who win the Nobel Prize in Physics, but I don't see any mention of the committee members anywhere in that article. Nobel Committee for Physics has a lot of redlinks, and I doubt that any of them became eligible for an article on the basis of their membership there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

No. I didn't assume. I stated that the fictional Bob, who you've only now further fictionalized as the chairman of the awards committee, would be pass prof if his position falls under point 6. Point 6 is a position of recognition by independent others. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

One thing I've seen argued is that press-releases by universities/institutions we hold in high-regard at this website are not evidence of notability. I would like to see this argument eliminated. We should be wary that such sources can be problematic for various reasons (overly promotional, written by non-experts, etc.), but that's something to discuss at the level of content curation. It should not be used as a means to claim "not an independent source" unless there is strong evidence that this the press-release was gamed (by being, for example, released by an institution in the pocket of the individual). jps (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

You said this below, and I responded below. This is a ridiculous argument. Allowing university profiles to be used to determine notability would mean that every member of every university faculty should have a Wikipedia article. Natureium (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. Not every university faculty member has an in-depth profile. jps (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

jps, would you please clarify your idea down a little? Is it that we should accept:

1. press releases specifically (so materials sent from the PR department to journalists are okay, but the alumni magazine produced by the same PR department, or a blog post written by the same PR person, is not),
2. all types of PR materials from universities (so a press release from Big U. is good, but an equivalent press release from an equally reputable academic non-profit is not), or
3. something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I think any publication issued by a university or institution about a person is evidence of notability. The only thing I worry about is when, for example, some person starts their own Institute and starts issuing press releases to promote themselves. There is a difference between surreptitious self promotion and institutional notice. jps (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

It's clear that a school like Oxford or Yale or MIT is not going to put out press releases related to its academics to self-promote, but as you start going down the line to less-influential schools but that are still accredited institutions (mid- to low-tier state schools, for example), but self-promotion may become more significant. (I mean, consider during any college football or basketball televised event there is at least one ad from the schools to promote recruitment). It's hard to draw the line where a school would be safe to be free of self-promotion from others. It's why it is better that these are fine to meet #1, but should be very wary for evaluating the notability in the long-term. --Masem (t) 20:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not at all clear to me. Publicity efforts at top-tier research universities have a lot to do with self-promotion of both the school and their staff. Fundraising efforts depend upon the media attention they generate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I would want to see an example of such a problem to take this concern seriously. For a counter example, there are many people who argued that a profile posted by Oak Ridge National Laboratory was not clear evidence of the notability of the subject since the scientist in question was an employee. jps (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

You could call that an example or a counter example. Natureium (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I doubt anyone is calling ORNL the institutional equivalent of a mid- to low-tier state school. I guess I could be wrong about that. jps (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

jps, just academic orgs? Are we supposed to agree that other non-profits are suspicious, government agencies are self-centered, for-profits only send out press releases about their staff to make a buck, but academic orgs are motivated purely by, um – come to think of it, you didn't say why you think some of those schools spend millions of dollars a year on their publicity efforts. Yale's paying 38 PR folks right now. Why's a press release from them supposed to be evidence that someone unconnected with their faculty paid attention to their faculty, but an identical source from your local hospital isn't? Or should we accept press releases from anyone whose alleged motive isn't money? Or just bigger orgs?

And why the heck are we supposed to pretend that something put out directly by Yale, about Yale and its members, isn't connected to Yale? I get that admitting that Yale's talking about Yale's self is a problem for normal guidelines, but how about we admit to the basic facts? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say we pretend it's not in the interest of the institution to do this. I'm just saying even if it is, the existence of such a profile is evidence of notability. I'm mostly interested in academic-related topics because, well, that's what this guideline is ostensibly about. jps (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

So your belief is that non-independent, self-published attention from a university (but not, say, from a hospital), about one of its own, should be counted as proof that a person is eligible for an article on Wikipedia.

This is despite the fact that it is admittedly (a) attention from me-and-my-own rather than "attention from the world at large", and (b) the contents of that attention is likely to respond rationally to the incentives before it (e.g., to overstate my virtues and underplay my vices) in ways that make compliance with NPOV challenging, if not impossible (assuming that there aren't independent sources available to balance that, because if there were, then we wouldn't need any special exceptions).

Why should we volunteer to host a group of articles that is likely to be systematically biased? And what is unique about academics that makes them deserve preferential treatment? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

An in-depth profile of a doctor at a hospital published by a hospital would also be fine with me as evidence for notability of a doctor. I'm perplexed as to why you think I'm being institutionally prejudicial here. jps (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Notability: Notability is the property of being worthy of notice, having fame, or being considered to be of a high degree of interest, significance, or distinction. A profile of any employee posted to the employer's website is only evidence that the employer has taken notice of the employee - not that the outside world has. Wikipedia's WP:Notability guideline is based on using independent sources to show that. It applies to products posted on company website or CEO's posted to a company website. It applies to any employee being posted to any employer's website - and that includes professors. It is flatly required by core Wikipedia policy of WP:V#Notability that we use independent sources for this single purpose of determining notability - i.e. that someone outside the influence of the subject has taken notice of the subject. -- Netoholic @ 22:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

You are failing to understand that notability is a guideline to help Wikipedians figure out what kind of article is and is not possible to write. This is unfortunate because I have always been a champion of independent sourcing on Wikipedia, and I will certainly continue to be, but this is only a guide to drive users towards getting neutral articles without engaging in original research. What we absolutely should not do is pretend that employers necessarily are conflicted when they publish a biography of an employee. An employer and an employee are not the same thing. jps (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

No, this is a notability guideline... as shown in its title. What you're describing is more of a WP:Writing about academics tutorial/suggest/best practices guide. EVERY other notability guideline requires independent sources for the strict purpose of determining notability. Employee/professor profiles are fine to include - but they cannnot be used as evidence of notability in the wider world... which is what notability guidelines are for. -- Netoholic @ 22:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I know there is a strong temptation for users at this website to be rule-bound, but you have to understand that this guideline was invented by the community for a purpose. I am describing what that purpose is. What has happened lately is that people such as yourself have attached their own meaning to these guidelines beyond the intent of what they were originally meant to do. That's to be expected, but it is by far and away not the only interpretation that we have. The reason for notability guidelines is to provide a rough outline of how one can write a neutral, verifiable article without original research. If someone is able to do that and the subject of the article is deemed "not notable", Wikipedia should keep the article because, clearly, the notability threshold is not doing what it was supposed to do. Since we're supposed to document best practices, it is even advisable to modify the guideline so that we can avoid inane discussion such as this one. jps (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Cite IAR all you want, but it is impossible to "write a neutral, verifiable article without original research" based only on dependent sources. That's what WP:V#Notability means. IAR is meant, not to simply ignore the rules you think shouldn't apply... its meant to be used when the rules just get in in the way of you putting words up on the screen. IAR means, go ahead and unWatch this page and just go to work. IAR is something you invoke personally - not something you can push on others. I like the WP:V#Notability rule, its easy to follow. You can IAR and just write articles, but then you have to leave it to people like me to apply the policy and take it from there. Sometimes that means we'll find the independent sources we need... and if that fails, then we'll delete it... but since you are in IAR-mode, you can just ignore that process and keep writing. -- Netoholic @ 23:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

You keep saying that word impossible. I do not think it means what you think it means. It is perfectly possible to write a neutral, verifiable, OR-free article using sources that are primary and dependent but trustworthy. There are limits on what the article could include (probably it would need to stick to uncontroversial factual statements and avoid opinion), and it might or might not be allowed by some Wikipedia rules, but that's a different question. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

There is an implicit part of notability that we are using sources to show to the world at large why this topic is important. Explaining that is original research that WPians cannot do , so we require the secondary sources in the article to establish that. so to that point, it is impossible for an article only using dependent sources to be considered neutral for that purpose. This is nothing against universities, any accredited university is not going to be lying or falsifying details, but its more about being consistent across WP; NCORP had to be tightened even for schools, churches, and other organizations you'd take for grant for reputation. --Masem (t) 00:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, being consistent across WP is no longer a reason to establish blanket rules because there are many, many articles I can point to which are so absurd that I cannot believe they survive deletion discussion (remember the argument over schools? over Pokemon? over ever road in the US?). We have to have different standards depending on what the subject is. jps (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

WP is always a work in progress, and we're at a stage that we recognize many of the early attempts at notability have failed. eg there's no special notability allowances for fictional characters outside the GNG, NPORNBIO is gone, and NCORP worked to establish a guideline across all types of organizations including schools. This is just part of that process. --Masem (t) 02:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly possible to recognize that some primary sources are better than others. I remember a time when instead of "independent sources", people were hot-and-bothered about WP:PSTS. We moved away from that because some primary sources are fantastic. Universities and national labs are pretty fantastic at providing high quality sources. It's okay for us to acknowledge this. jps (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Try this. Ignore all the information in Christine Seidman that didn't come from a Harvard/Partners Healthcare source. It would still have basic information, but wouldn't be very interesting. Does it pass notability? Yes, because she's a member of several prestigious academic societies. Is the information verifiable? Yes, I've attached references to the Harvard website where the information is given. Is it independent? No. I might have an example of an article on someone clearly notable yet even more dependent on primary sources, but this is one I have handy from writing it earlier today. There are legitimate problems with NPROF (why are we using h-index to claim notability?), but this is not one of them. Natureium (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I think what you are saying is that NPROF helps you feel confident to write articles when there is a lack of independent sources. Many of us are arguing that these "dependent sources" are themselves indicators of notability in spite of the obsequious manner in which people have internalized the "independent source" notability rules. Rules, I might add, that were invented by community consensus and were really meant to be guidelines rather than steadfast policy. jps (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that these dependent sources are irrelevant to the question of notability. Notable academics will qualify regardless. You repeatedly trying to make this same point isn't helpful. Natureium (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Not to pursue undue consistency across the project, but NAUTHOR uses as one of its criteria The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. It seems to be a that a significant contribution to peer-reviewed, coauthored studies which, in turn, are cited in other, independent, peer-reviewed, coauthored studies would be a criterion that fits this logic and works much better in practice than Netoholic's attempt to bring in subjective characterizations of the achievement of academics. In fact, the latter approach seems to me to run directly counter to the whole approach underlying the GNC, which typically avoids such subjective characterizations. Newimpartial (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

---

@ජපස: Welp, I really didn't expect all that. Sheesh! Do you think I should move forward with the original proposal? EllenCT (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

My guess is that we won't find consensus for that. I think we might do better with a simplification of the criteria. jps (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

You're probably right, but now that everyone is thinking about it seems as good a time as ever to get the ball rolling. EllenCT (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

RFC on Criteria 1 recognizing collaborative work

Should NPROF Criteria 1, "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources," be changed to, "The person's research or collaborative efforts in which they were a substantial contributor have had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."? 20:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. We should recognize co-authors of influential works. EllenCT (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. In practice, it will be too difficult to define a "substantial" contribution. There is a great deal of collaborative scholarship, particularly in the sciences, and this change would open up many needless disputes over multi-author papers. The intention here should be to presume notability when independent sources document "significant impact", regardless of the role of the individual person. Either the person has done something significant, or they have not. And if what they did was indeed significant, that fact will be reflected in independent sources. So a collaborator who is identified by independent sources as having done something notable will already satisfy this criterion, without the need for additional debatable language. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Couldn't agree more with Tryptofish. Being fifth author on a 13-author paper is rather meaningless for establishing notability. --Randykitty (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just having been on a team that made a noteworthy contribution doesn't mean an individual is notable. Microsoft Windows is certainly notable, but that doesn't mean every developer who's worked on it is. This would not be good guidance for choosing appropriate subjects for biographies where there is likely to be sufficient sourcing for a full article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tryptofish, the proposal as worded is redundant with existing guidelines. I'm having a hard time thinking of examples of significant "collaborative efforts" that an academic might work on that wouldn't be covered by "the person's research". _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. In all collaborative work there is distinction between the contributions made. Some are leadership roles, some are just routine technical contributions. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC).
• Oppose - As worded. Concerns as per above, and also that it seeks to elevate too many WP:SINGLEEVENT people. -- Netoholic @ 04:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose (Summoned by bot) – there's often a kind of rough parity, or equal-weight balance of notability gravitas among the "any-one-of" bullet points in the criteria lists on notability child pages; not that that's a requirement, but it seems logical and well thought out. The proposed change would water down the first criterion, in a way that throws it out of balance. In my opinion, the current wording is better, and avoids a flood of turnstile-jumping from a stream of assistant profs who have gotten a byline on their first article or two with their doctoral advisor or department head, and can't quite meet the somewhat higher bar on any of the remaining eight criteria. Mathglot (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per main discussion. WP:IFITAINTBROKE   —  Hei Liebrecht 14:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Being a collaborator on work has absolutely no bearing on whether that person is likely to meet WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 19:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

How to check if a professor would match the guideline?

There's an academic in Shenzhen named Mary Ann O'Donnell who was profiled by CNN: http://travel.cnn.com/hong-kong/none/gallery-mary-odonnell-139766/. She did co-edit a book (and wrote two chapters in it), Learning from Shenzhen, but beyond that I don't know how to check her publications/awards. If I knew where she worked before, the archives on the Wayback Machine might say... WhisperToMe (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: This request looks like WP:NOTAFORUM to me. I don't see why lurkers here would research a professor in whom you're interested. I recommend, since you were made an admin in 2003, that you search and see if the subject passes the criteria listed here. Co-editing a book, even a notable one, isn't enough to my mind. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Chris, considering some of the guidelines themselves are quite open-ended ("The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.") I feel it would in fact be helpful for lurkers to give advice/feedback on whether the person passes these criteria. This talk page is there to discuss this guideline, yes? I think some examples would be a good idea. Re: the more concrete guidelines (named chair), I don't have evidence at this point that O'Donnell has gotten such posts. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable to suppose that if a good-faith effort by a reasonable, good-faith editor can not turn up any information that supports the notability of someone then perhaps he or she is not (yet) notable by our standards. It's also not unreasonable for that editor to then ask for help or confirmation from others to ensure that he or she has not simply missed some things or made mistakes. ElKevbo (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The academic guidelines are also difficult to apply, especially for someone outside academia. I can't help here, but I don't see how this fails WP:NOTAFORUM. SportingFlyer T·C 19:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The best way to check that is available to everyone is to do a Google Scholar search, and even better, if you have access, as most students or faculty members would, is to use Scopus or the Web of Science. These searches will both give you raw numbers of citations, in fields where they are appropriate (such as the natural sciences), or things like academic book reviews in other fields (such as the humanities). Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: A Google search brings up a CV webpage where you can find the seed information that would allow you to check former appointments and achievements. But perhaps you had found this already...? – egaudrain (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I actually hadn't found that site before! Thanks for that! Anyway the guidelines say "The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." - The CV page says she is "Contributing Editor, Architectural Worlds, School of Architecture, Shenzhen University". Her specialty seems to be the human geography/ethnography of Shenzhen itself (as per the CNN article), so would this count towards that? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Contributing editor is a lesser position than editor in chief and is not enough for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Yes, this is why I feel it's helpful to check a particular academic and clarify these things. Anyway it seems like there's no evidence as of now that she would pass the notability for academics. I may revisit the issue if she passes GNG (if say some passages in published books talk extensively about her), which would be a separate consideration. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Also found citations at Google Scholar but so far all seem to be under 100 each... Not sure what would be expected in her anthropology field... WhisperToMe (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The best way of finding if a candidate is suitable is to search through Academic AfDs for the last few years and find how similar people were treated. (As an aside the citation rate of this particular candidate looks too low to get far). Xxanthippe (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC).

She seems to be an independent scholar now, so she does not meet the tenure criterion. However, she does publish in reputable journals and having a book with University of Chicago Press is definitely a significant academic achievement. Coverage by CNN is also something many established academics do not have. Pundit|utter 07:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Feedback on who qualifies as an academic

For purposes of inherent notability, specifically criteria 3, what is the view of who actually is an academic? For instance, would an adjunct instructor be considered an academic so that if he were, say, elected a Fellow of the American Institute of Architects he would have inherent notability in the absence of meeting the WP:GNG? Chetsford (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I think for purposes of criterion 3, anyone included as a fellow by an academic society (for whom this fellowship is a high honor recognizing high academic achievement) should count as an academic regardless of employment. To pick an example I happen to know about, John Hershberger is not employed in an academic or research position (he works in the software industry), but nevertheless regularly publishes serious academic research on his own time, and has been honored for his research by being listed as an ACM Fellow. I believe he should be thought of as an academic for the purposes of #C3 even though his employment is not as an academic. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

David Eppstein - Would you consider the AIA an academic society, in that its membership includes both professionals and academics and in which fellowship may be extended for high professional achievement which, while not of an intentionally academic nature, might be the subject of academic study? Chetsford (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

No one should "have inherent notability in the absence of meeting the WP:GNG." This guideline is intended to clarify what notability means in this specific context, not override or circumvent it.

To answer your specific question: In my experience and my opinion, an academic is generally defined more by what one does than by one's title(s) or employer(s). It's entirely possible to be an academic even if one is unemployed and has no formal title at all (we generally refer to those people as "independent scholars"). In this specific instance, it seems plausible that membership in that specific organization is de facto evidence that professionals and scholars in that discipline consider him a peer and that's a judgment we should respect in the absence of contrary evidence. (I'm using some couching language here because I know nothing about architecture or this group.) ElKevbo (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! That's helpful and satisfies my question. To one point, however — "No one should 'have inherent notability in the absence of meeting the WP:GNG.' — the GNG establishes it is a non-exclusive route to recognize notability, the other being "criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline". Chetsford (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

As an example from another field, many art historians these days spend much of their career as "independent scholars", which usually means they are dealers, advisors, and/or do work for auction houses (as well as writing books). This is especially the case in big money areas like Renaissance paintings, Chinese ceramics and Islamic art. Or they work in museums - university jobs are for some a fall-back choice. Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I vaguely recall at least one academic styleguide - APA - has some guidelines that specifically address how independent scholars should format their manuscripts since they're not affiliated with a specific institution. It's very uncommon in my discipline but I imagine it's common in others like it is yours. ElKevbo (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, Chetsford. I think that's a very foolish idea and one that probably causes all sorts of trouble but I've got no desire to try to change it or argue about it. C'est la vie. ElKevbo (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

"I think that's a very foolish idea" ... Me too! Chetsford (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with what other editors have said, but the discussion makes me think of something where I would be curious about others' opinions. In the biomedical sciences (at least in the US, among university faculty), it's generally assumed that scientists at universities or research institutes are "academics", whereas those in industry positions, such as in the pharmaceutical industry, are not "academics". For example, one might say that someone "left academia to take a job at [name of pharmaceutical company]". However, for Wikipedia purposes, and certainly for purposes of this guideline, one would still consider that individual to be an "academic" – there would be no question, for example, that James Black (pharmacologist) was an academic even during the parts of his career when he worked in industry. I guess that that means one can be an academic even when not working in academia, which is actually what other editors here have been saying. I'm curious: does that sound correct to other editors here? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: that is my understanding as well. Basically the guideline could refer to someone in any occupation and is meant to evaluate whether or not a subject's research accomplishments make them "notable". As for Chetsford's original question, it's challenging to draw a bright line between "academics" and "other folks who think about stuff and come up with new ideas". I'm inclined not to view the American Institute of Architects as a "scholarly society or association", and see it more as a professional organization of creative professionals. I'd hold architects to WP:CREATIVE rather than this guideline (same as Johnbod's example of artists with academic appointments; but maybe that's based on my lack of understanding of architecture...). Ajpolino (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about artists at all, but (better link it) art historians - very different animals. Artists generally shouldn't need WP:PROF. Johnbod (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

My understanding of the AIA is that it is primarily a licensing organisation which also produces documents used in contracting, as opposed to say an institution of scholars like, say, the American Association of Geographers. SportingFlyer T·C 19:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the AIA specifically but would be entirely willing to believe that of them. On the other hand, it's the nature of the "fellow" title rather than the whole organization that's important. If an organization partly of scholars and partly of people who work in a related industry reserves the title only for those of great scholarly achievement, or if we have evidence that in some specific case it was bestowed for that reason, then we can go ahead with academic notability regardless of the overall membership of the organization. On the other hand, sometimes the same "fellow" title is also given to people for leadership in industry, and in those cases I think GNG-notability could be more appropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

There, you drew a distinction between academia and industry that is very much along the lines of what I asked about. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Short answer, No. Looking at [8] there appears to be only 1 of 5 AIA Fellows "Objects" that come close to "academic": "Fellowship in this category is granted to architects who have made notable contributions through their work in education, research, literature, or the practice of architecture. Work in education may be teaching, research, administration, or writing and should have a lasting impact, be widely recognized, and provide inspiration to others in the field and the profession. Research areas may include building codes and standards, specifications, new material applications, or inventions. . . ." But C3 would knock out the "practice" So, I don't think AIA Fellow alone meets the #C3 Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Move section "General notes" before "Criteria"

Hi all, appreciate all the work that has gone into this page already. Reading through it again, I feel it might be more coherent to move the General Notes before the Criteria section. This way we might help ease the understanding of applying the general before the specific criteria. What do you all think? --RuhriJörg 15:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Lead copyedits

Hi all. I proposed some copyedits to the lead of this guideline with the hope of making it more clear and concise without changing the meaning. The hope was to trim the legalese (e.g. "in the sense of the above definition...", "for the purposes of this guideline...") and repetition (e.g. the fact that people could be considered notable by alternate SNGs was mentioned three times), as well as streamline awkward verb constructs and repetitive bits (e.g. "academics hold or have held..."). My edit is here resulting in this version (although for whatever reason the diff view shows up more clearly on Tryptofish's revert back to the original version). Tryptofish reverted with the concern that precise wording in this guideline has been contentious in the past, and should therefore be discussed. Does anyone have an issue with any of the edits made? I'm happy to discuss the rationale of particular changes. Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking it to talk! For convenience, I'll show the two versions here, side-by-side:

Status quo This guideline, sometimes referred to as the professor test, is meant to reflect consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements. For the purposes of this guideline, an academic is someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education, and academic notability refers to being known for such engagement. Most academics are or have been faculty members (such as professors of various ranks) at colleges or universities. Also, many academics hold or have held academic or research positions in various academic research institutes (such as NIH, CNRS, etc.). However, academics, in the sense of the above definition, may also work outside academia (e.g., in industry, financial sector, government, as a clinical physician, as a practicing lawyer, etc.) and their primary job does not need to be academic in nature if they are known for their academic achievements. Conversely, if they are notable for their primary job, they do not need to be notable academics to warrant an article. School teachers at the secondary education level, sometimes also called professors, are not presumed to be academics. They may only be considered academics for the purposes of this guideline if they are engaged in substantial scholarly research and are known for such research. If not, they are evaluated by the usual rules for notability in their profession. See professor for more information about academic ranks and their meanings. Note that academic ranks are different in different countries. This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline. It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. Conversely, failure to meet either the general notability guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant if an academic is notable under this guideline.

Ajpolino's revision This guideline reflects consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements. An academic is someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education; academic notability refers to being known for such engagement. Most academics have been faculty members (such as professors) at colleges or universities. Also, many academics have held research positions at academic research institutes (such as NIH, CNRS, etc.). However, academics may also work outside academia and their primary job does not need to be academic if they are known for their academic achievements. Conversely, if they are notable for their primary job, they do not need to be notable academics to warrant an article. School teachers at the secondary education level are not presumed to be academics unless they are known for engaging in substantial scholarly research. Otherwise, they are evaluated by Wikipedia:Notability (people). See professor for more information about academic ranks and their meanings. Note that academic ranks are different in different countries. This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline.

Footnotes
References

I'll list here the things that should probably not be taken out:

1. The additional part in the bullet point about school teachers, because it does provide further clarity.
2. The stuff relative to GNG in the last paragraph, which is the language that was argued over and agreed upon in the past.

Maybe other editors will want to preserve more. Broadly speaking, I do like tightening up some of the language. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you for laying it out side-by-side; that's immensely helpful. It's not clear to me what clarity is added by the secondary school teachers bit. Both versions seem to get across the idea "Secondary school teachers are not generally academics, unless they are. If they're not, see WP:NBIO." And I now see the concern with the last paragraph. I still think the first and last sentence convey the same information (i.e. meeting NPROF is sufficient to confer notability), but since misunderstanding of that at AfD is a constant struggle, I understand the desire for repetition. The middle sentence (an academic can be notable by another notability criterion) seems obvious and is already stated in the first bullet point. I don't see that as a point of contention at AfDs, and think the guideline is clearer without it. What if we replaced that paragraph with something like "Meeting this guideline is sufficient to establish notability, independent of the general notability guideline or other subject notability guidelines." I think(?) that's what we're trying to emphasize here. Ajpolino (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I know it's not actually one of the proposed changes, but I'm a little uncomfortable with the restriction that secondary teachers can only be academically notable for research. There are two things wrong with that: (1) someone can be a secondary teacher at some point in their life and a professor at a different point; being a secondary teacher should not impinge on their notability as a professor, and (2) not all of our academic notability criteria touch on research, and I think we should allow school teachers to be considered for other criteria if they meet them. In particular, if a school teacher receives a major national or international-level award for their teaching accomplishments then I think they should be eligible for #C2 notability. On the other hand, I think we are in agreement that being principal of a secondary school does not pass #C6; such people can be notable, but not through this guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Good point. My understanding is all we want to say is that a secondary school cannot qualify as the "major insitution" for #C5 or #C6. Perhaps that would be best clarified in a note later in the guideline instead of in an even lengthier bullet in the lead. Ajpolino (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the parts about secondary school teachers preclude being notable for also having done work at the university level: if someone passes PROF on the basis of their university work, then their work at secondary schools does not undo that. As for them becoming notable for non-research achievements, I would think that would be adequately covered by GNG. I also think we need to be careful about not opening the door to "I wrote this article about my favorite high school teacher." --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I am worried about what seems to be an implicit assumption in some of the material above that WP:Prof is a alternative to WP:GNG. My view is that WP:Prof is a clarification of WP:GNG for the case of scholars and researchers. If a scholar has say, several thousand citations to their work reported in a citation database like Google scholar then there is a case for a pass of WP:GNG on the grounds that the scholar's work has been noted by a large number of independent reliable sources. It is the lack of account for this distinction that led to the scandal of the rejection of the draft Donna Strickland BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC).

As far as I have understood it, it is a clear alternative to GNG to counterbalance the typical reliance on popculture reporting on the person with a focus on the inpact of the work of an individual which makes the person notable in a non wiki sense but we do not have enaugh sources about the person himself which would make the individual wiki-notable in a GNG sense. Agathoclea (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

There is not an "implicit assumption...that WP:Prof is a alternative to WP:GNG." That is made explicit in the lede of WP:N: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if...[i]t meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." This is precisely why I wrote what I did above about this being a foolish idea - this should clarify our notability guideline, not expand or circumvent it. But if anyone wants to try to change WP:N then the discussion needs to occur on its Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I too think that this discussion is not the place to reexamine the relationship between GNG and SNGs. Also, how about getting back to the original topic of this discussion: whether or not to make the revisions that are shown above? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the part at the end about "It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way..." is important and should not be removed without significant additional discussion. The other simplifications, before this paragraph look like non-controversial tightening of wording to me and I have no objection to any of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, like I said my intention certainly wasn't to change the meaning, so I see how this was a problem. How would we feel about this for the last paragraph:

This guideline is independent from other subject-specific notability guidelines and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline. Failure to meet the general notability guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant if an academic is notable under this guideline.

It's not the clearest wording ever, but it emphasizes the point that I think is most often misunderstood at AfDs (i.e. that meeting NPROF is sufficient). I think removing that middle sentence helps focus the reader on the actual important part. Thoughts? Ajpolino (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

But why do you want to omit the other point, that meeting NPROF is not necessary even for people whose notability is as academics but is in some other way than the ways listed here? Steven Salaita for instance, who does meet this guideline but who is more notable for the controversy over his unhiring? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Two reasons: (1) It's already stated in the first bullet point as well as the footnote quoting WP:N in that paragraph, and (2) it seems like common sense? I know removing a sentence doesn't automatically add buckets of clarity to a paragraph, but in this case I think the extra words distract from the oft-missed point of that paragraph. Ajpolino (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi all, since it has been about a week and the conversation seems to have died out, I re-introduced only the uncontroversial changes. I've left the bullet point on secondary school teachers and the last paragraph untouched barring further discussion. Any thoughts on those remaining items would be appreciated, but if folks are tired of looking, I'll just leave them be. Thanks for your comments so far! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent study: "Who Counts as a Notable Sociologist on Wikipedia?"

• Adams, Julia; Brückner, Hannah; Naslund, Cambria (January 2019). "Who Counts as a Notable Sociologist on Wikipedia? Gender, Race, and the 'Professor Test'". Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World. 5: 1–14. doi:10.1177/2378023118823946. ISSN 2378-0231.

We show that the observed differences (in academic rank, length of career, and notability measured with both H-index and departmental reputation) between men and women sociologists and whites and nonwhites, respectively, explain only about half of the differences in the likelihood of being represented on Wikipedia.
— abstract

Recent study of potential interest to this group. Draft summary here. (not watching, please {{ping}} as needed) czar 10:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Very interesting! Thanks, Czar and Aaronshaw, for finding this, reviewing it, and bringing it to attention here. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a nice piece of work. I like the "bottom-up" approach - basically simulating how much of the real population should be on WP if the stated rules were ideally applied. Taking an extra look into deletion discussions is also a good touch. I was little concerned with their assumption that citation index would make for a good comparison metric (after all, "half the deletion discussions mentioned the H-index, hence it's a good metric" could just as well be interpreted as "half the deletion discussions did not mention the H-index, hence it clearly lacks explanatory power"), but the odds ratios (Table R3) seem to bear that out. - "No original research" clearly not in favour with the authors, as per end of Discussion... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

For the record, the above link was to the initial draft of the review - the final version is here, where we also quoted a part of the paper that specifically talks about this policy page. There has also been some discussion on the talk page there. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's my take on this study: Take a look at Table 2. It gives us 363 white men with wiki-articles and 180 people of other demographics with wiki-articles. In all, 543 articles (67% white male). Now let's take a look at what proportion we would get if we wrote 543 articles based solely on who has the highest h-index. No demographic considerations - h-index only. That would give us the 233 white men and 70 others in decile 10. Then we'd have to add 240 people from decile 9, which is 61% white male, so we'd get 147 white men and 93 other people. Then we end up with 233 + 147 = 380 white men and 163 other people. So this new h-index only method would have given us 380 articles on white male sociologists out of 543 total articles on sociologists. So instead of the actual ratio of 67% white men, going totally fairly by h-index would have given us 70% articles on white male sociologists. (I would be grateful if anyone would check this math.)

I think this suggests no bias against female sociologists on the part of Wikipedia. But the numbers reflect a society where men are (especially historically) more likely to reach the most prominent positions – become "notable" in Wikipedia terminology. The h-index is only an imperfect proxy of this prominence so it wouldn't be surprising for white men to have some 'residual' prominence even after h-index has been controlled for. That still doesn't indicate bias on the part of Wikipedia. The gender ratio in Category:Roman Republican consuls is very unequal indeed but does not reflect gender bias on the part of Wikipedia. I'm not convinced the gender ratio in Category:American sociologists reflects bias on the part of Wikipedia either. The article does not persuasively show this. Haukur (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I got lost when the maths started up, but it seemed to me that, like many such studies, it was struggling to accomodate properly the changes over recent decades in the target population (which let's remember was OF COURSE only American sociologists, as the title didn't feel needed specifying). Johnbod (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed edits to General Notes section

Hi all. I'm proposing some edits to the General Notes section. The rationale:

• The first bullet point currently covers two distinct ideas: (1) Claims must be backed up by reliable sources. (2) Non-independent sources can be used for uncontroversial details of the biography. I've split it into two bullets.
• Copyediting for clarity (the plan was not to change the meaning of the text).

I don't understand the intended meaning of the last two sentences. I took a guess at one "sets the bar fairly low, which is intentional", but I don't understand what was intended by "Academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas." Any thoughts or recollections from those who have been around longer than me? Proposed changes below (NOTE: One change was reverted per David Eppstein's comment below. See that thread for clarification):

Status quo An article's assertion that the subject passes this guideline is not sufficient. Every topic on Wikipedia must have sources that comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. For instance, major awards listed must be confirmed, claims of impact in the field need to be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, library holdings, etc. (see below for specific notes), and so on. However, once the facts establishing the passage of one or more of the notability criteria above have been verified through independent sources, or through the reliable sources listed explicitly for this purpose in the specific criteria notes, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details. The criteria above are sometimes summed up in an "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field? Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule, exceptions may well exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this guideline sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable.

Proposed revision An article's assertion that the subject passes this guideline is not sufficient. Every topic on Wikipedia must have sources that comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Major awards must be confirmed, claims of impact must be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, or library holdings, and so on. Once the passage of one or more notability criteria has been verified through independent sources, or through the reliable sources listed explicitly for this purpose in the specific criteria notes, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details. The criteria above are sometimes summed up as an "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished? Note that this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. It is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of number/quality of publications. The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this guideline sets the bar fairly low, which is intentional. Academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable.

Any input would be much appreciated! Thanks all! Ajpolino (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Why did you take out "or through the reliable sources listed explicitly for this purpose in the specific criteria notes" as a way of confirming a pass of these notability criteria?? This is far from a noncontroversial change. It heads right back into the big debates we have had over these issues in the past. For instance, if a university declares on their official web site that one of their professors has a certain endowed chair, and we agree that this chair meets criterion C5, why should we demand that someone independent of the university publish the same fact? If the IEEE announces that someone is an IEEE Fellow (an example explicitly given in this guideline as a pass of C3), why do we need a local newspaper to copy their press release in order to believe it? If this is an oversight, please fix it. If it is an intentional change to the guidelines, I oppose making these changes. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Facepalm Ah, my mistake. I had citation metrics in mind when I changed "have been verified through independent sources, or through the reliable sources listed explicitly for this purpose in the specific crtieria notes..." to "has been verified through independent sources (see reliable sources explicitly for this purpose in the specific crtieria notes)". Since you're the only one to comment so far I'll revert that part of the proposed changes. Sorry to edit the proposal along the way! Hopefully my comment here makes clear to others what you were opposing and why it was a problem. Thanks for taking a look. Ajpolino (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! The rest of your changes look uncontroversial to me, and somewhat of an improvement. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

What about adding to The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field the phrase and are determined by precedent and consensus? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC).

That sounds good to me! The degree of variation from field to field does seem to be something frequently misunderstood at AfD. Ajpolino (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Removing the first clause of "to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas..." doesn't seem sensible. Most academics don't "live in the public arena" to any meaningful degree. I think I'd be happy to drop this whole bit though, including the vague "Also, this guideline sets the bar fairly low, which is intentional." Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• 100% agree with what David Eppstein and Johnbod said here. (We know from the history of the guideline and its archives that the bar was intentionally set high and stating otherwise has always seemed odd to me.) SusunW (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'd also support removing that whole bit (i.e. "Also, this guideline sets the bar fairly low... successful ones should be considered notable"). Does anyone know the intended meaning of those sentences? I tried not to remove something I didn't understand... Also my understanding is that this bar could be considered low in that topics that may not meet GNG can still be notable under this guideline. But that "low" bar is intentional. The previous wording is that the bar is set low, "which is natural". But I'm not sure what meaning is intended by "natural"... Ajpolino (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I’m happy with the changes after David’s suggestion and with Xx’s clarification. I’d suggest waiting on J’s change because if the bar is thought to be too high in practice, removing the note saying that it shouldn’t be seems a step in the wrong direction. (Phone edit apologies for abbreviated names etc.) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Implemented proposed changes with Xxanthippe's proposed addition and with the last few sentences back to the way they were. Thanks all for your comments. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

We should dump criterion 9

This says: "#The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC." And if they are an elected national politician, or have competed in the Olympics.... We don't need to say this, it's just meaningless redundancy, and just bulks out what already seems a long and complicated list, and seems like over-reach. It should go. I'm pretty sure this has been said numerous times before. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I tentatively agree with this, but on the other hand, if you are an inexperienced editor trying to figure out whether some professor you want to write about is notable, it may be informative. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, ok, but it also gives the incorrect impression that anyone who is an academic has to meet NPROF. As others say below, the lead covers this more fully. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with removal of the criterion. I never see this cited in AfDs. Instead in AfDs for articles on people that fail NPROF but meet CREATIVE (e.g. some notable artists have "visiting professor" status at universities), folks tend to say "Keep per NCREATIVE". The lead of this guideline already states "It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines." I think that's sufficient. Ajpolino (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. This falls outside of the scope of this guideline and those other guidelines are already linked in the box at the top listing all of the other notability guidelines. It might be helpful to specifically note this but I don't know where to do that or where to draw the line on what merits this kind of helpful note and what doesn't. ElKevbo (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

cr. #9 is definitely unncessary since you have this statement in the lede: "It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. Conversely, failure to meet either the general notability guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant if an academic is notable under this guideline." --Masem (t) 16:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Criteria #5

Greetings. I've come across some confusion regarding this criteria in recent weeks, and it has to do with the part, "...an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." I remember seeing in some AfD's (sorry can't think of an example right off the top of my head), the successful "keep" argument that in some countries simply being named a full professor satisfies that clause. I'm pretty sure the academic of those AfD's was from Great Britain. I think it would be quite useful if this criteria could either contain, or point to, a list of such countries. And while we're at it, the same might be done for Criteria #6, as there are countries where the vice-regent is considered the top academic post. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not aware of any case where just having a full professorship has been held to satisfy #5, not even Harvard. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC).

not even Harvard – Yale, eat your heart out. EEng 21:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Typical Yale professors have actually done something that makes them notable, e.g. my advisor and friend for 30+ years, Michael J. Fischer. Jehochman ^Talk 23:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Elis are so defensive! EEng 21:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no horse in this race, but I kind of think Les Valiant has at least as good a record as Fischer. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

It is worth considering that 'professor' denotes different levels in different countries. Richard Nevell (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Xxanthippe - You're absolutely correct in the U.S., but as Richard Nevell, in other countries the standard is different. However, the article linked above doesn't seem to quite equate a British/European professorship with holding an endowed chair or "named professorship" in the U.S. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I've certainly seen this argument made. I'm not sure how successful it has been. But if a British university specifically denotes a professorship as a "personal chair", I'd be comfortable equating it with a US-style endowed chair. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Mark Alan Hershkovitz

Hi, guys! I found that the Simple English, Spanish and Chinese Wikipedias have an article on simple:Mark A. Hershkovitz, an American botanist who named various species of plants. I would like confirmation if this would be notable on the basis of his academic credentials or his status on naming plants. I find it odd that he's an American but doesn't yet have an ENwiki article.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Naming species is definitely not notable by itself (it's what all taxonomists do, and not all taxonomists should be notable). But his citations on Google scholar are unusually high for what is usually a low-citation field (he has four publications with over 100 citations each). It's probably enough to get by on criterion C1, at least for me. Of course, you'd need published and reliable sources about him, not just well-cited publications, in order to have the material for an encyclopedia article. I suggest you not start with the :simple: article that you link; its English is too low-quality and its sources too lacking. The Spanish article looks a little better, although the minor honor that it mentions doesn't look like enough for #C2. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

David Eppstein, I don't see those highly-cited articles in GScholar. I do see a few highly cited ones when I search for "Mark Alan Hershkovitz", but they seem to be from different persons. Perhaps you have a better way of searching, can you provide some titles (or links), so I can look those up? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Try "M A Hershkovitz". Phil Bridger (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Phil, I used the full first names, but this works better and confirms what David wrote above. I agree that this person meets PROF#C2. --Randykitty (talk) 10:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Mark A. Hershkovitz (ported simple EN article). I read David's comment after the fact, but the prose was so small that it just seemed like a list anyway. I found a document on the National Library of Medicine that goes a bit into his career, so I cited that. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

John Charles Polanyi Prizes

Is getting a John Charles Polanyi Prize for young researchers enough to meet PROF? I stumbled upon this award in this article, where it appears to be the only claim to fame. --Randykitty (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

No: "the Government of the Province of Ontario has established a fund to provide annually up to five prizes to outstanding researchers in the early stages of their career who are continuing to post-doctoral studies or have recently started a faculty appointment at an Ontario university. In 2019, the prizes have a value of $20,000 each and are available in the areas broadly defined as Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, and Economic Science." Not very close. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Too junior and too local. (The criterion asks for national or international so provincial is not enough.) —David Eppstein (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

This might be a point we should hash out in greater depth. I mean, Ontario is a big province. It has about 40% of the country's population, a proportion that's like the largest five states of the US combined. The fact that it's an award for junior work seems to count more against it than its being "local", for that definition of "local". XOR'easter (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Not nearly enough by itself to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC).

Quick sanity check

I don't want to waste anyone's time with a spurious AfD nomination so can a few kind souls please take a look at Christopher J. Schneider and let me know if it passes a sniff test for notability? I'm leaning toward "no" because I don't see anything that elevates him beyond what we'd normally expect of an Associate Professor. The only possible exception that jumps out at me is the "Endowed Chair in Criminology and Criminal Justice" at St. Thomas University but that's an unusual "maximum of four months each year" position so it doesn't seem to be the kind of endowed chair that we mean in this guideline. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe he meets WP:Author based on there being multiple academic reviews of several of his books (i.e. Researching Amongst Elites: Challenges and Opportunities in Studying Up and Policing and Social Media: Social Control in an Era of New Media). Ideally, these would be incorporated in the article. Thsmi002 (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and helpful reply! ElKevbo (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Government grants

If a professor is awarded a "Canada Research Chair Tier II" grant, is that enough to count for notability by itself? DS (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Tier I yes, tier II no. Per Canada Research Chair, "nominees for Tier 2 positions are assistant or associate professors", so this is not the sort of "beyond full professor" chaired professorship that meets WP:PROF#C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

FGS

Howdy folks, am I right in my reading of the situation that someone who is a Fellow of the Geological Society (application info here) would not automatically qualify as notable under Citeria II "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" because the application process of FGS requires a geological degree and application fees paid rather than being inherently selective? It's a shame as I ave a few who I'm struggling to find secondary resources for who are FGS, but I'm not convinced that I hit the necessary notability needs. Any wisdom? Zakhx150 (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The Geological Society, like the Royal Astronomical Society, calls its members "fellows". This is different from the American Geological Society which calls its members "members" and uses "Fellow" as an award for distinction. The Geological Society does have awards if that helps. If the geologist is a researcher who has published papers then the rest of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) may be of help. StarryGrandma (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

"The criteria for obtaining Fellowship are as follows:Possession of a degree or equivalent qualification which shall be an honours degree in Geology or related subject (see regulations R/FP/1)OR proof of relevant experience in geology or a related subject....". Absolutely not "notable under Criteria II"! See a recent discussion somewhere else too (where, anyone?). Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Editors who have access to The Chronicle of Higher Education

Not an academic notability issue, but don't know where else to find editors who can see the Chronicle. We have a discussion at Talk:Barrett Watten about what to include about an issue covered in the Chronicle. Currently I am the only experienced Wikipedia editor there who has access to the publication, and it needs more eyes than that. If you can help, see the discussion there. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

A little bit here[9] but probably not enough yet. There is more around but not RS. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC).

There is another article in CHE of December 11, 2019 which reports that Watten disputes certain matters. I suggest that editors take care with what they write. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC).

Professors with endowed chairs are automatically notable? Criterion 5 is probably too generous.

I was directed to this page by a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanne Knudsen. I was surprised to find that according to this guideline, "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. ... 5. The person has held a named chair appointment ..."

The wording of that criterion (#5) is at odds with the letter and spirit of WP:GNG; it essentially allows a rich donor to purchase "notability" for academics at their favored university. To pick just one example, Johns Hopkins University alone has 483 endowed professorships, and it is just one of hundreds of "major institution[s] of higher education and research" in the United States alone. That is more professors than there are players in the entire National Basketball Association (450).

I understand that there has been significant discussion in the past about this secondary guideline somehow being magically independent of WP:GNG, so I won't attempt to take on that issue, but criterion 5 is probably too generous. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree that this criterion is overly broad, and meeting only that, as being "any one" of those listed, should not be grounds for notability absent meeting other criteria. Named professorships are simply a method for funding both senior and junior professors and are not necessarily indicative of a researcher's experience, impact, publications, or significance. Under the uncertain assumption that professors with named appointments have made significant contributions to their field to earn the position, they should be able to meet criterion #1 and #5 is unnecessary. Even if #5 is intended to only refer to a department chair, I'm not sure why it would matter if the salary of the chair is endowed or not, and chairs are an administrative position that does not necessarily relate to notability or impact in their field. Universities can have well over 100 departments, and a department having wealthy donors who wish to pay for salaries should not affect our determination of notability of professors. Reywas92^Talk 22:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with the concerns of this thread. #5 reads "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." It prescribes a position at a major institution of higher education and research but increasingly editors are trying to game the scope to include their favorite persons. We remember that #1 is the core criterion for WP:Prof and that the others are shortcuts, where #5 etc. will implicitly imply that #1 is satisfied. This is no longer the case. Maybe #5 should be removed. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC).

The rubs are Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity and equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. They're too vague. If we can't firm them up then I agree the criterion should be removed and npotability will have to be established via the other criteria or the old-fashioned way -- GNG. David Eppstein, ElKevbo -- opinions? EEng 23:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

There is an underlying assumption that people who hold endowed chairs are notable for other reasons i.e., they're already well-known, tenured professors. Although that is true in most cases I have seen some named chairs for associate and even assistant professors where presumably part of the criteria is for potential and not demonstrated achievement.

I think that I agree with Reywas92: Do we really need this criterion? Are there any examples of someone who is notable only because of their endowed chair and not because of their demonstrated accomplishments e.g., publications, prizes, leadership positions? In an AfD discussion I would certainly weigh an endowed chair position as favorable but in the absence of other evidence I would probably not be convinced that the person is notable.

(There is a case under discussion here that led to this thread. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC).)

I've commented in more detail on the Knudsen AfD, but hers appears to be a lower-level endowed professorship given while the subject was at the associate level, while the notes for C5 state that it is "only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments". So that AfD is not relevant for whether C5 is an appropriate criterion, because it's not an AfD in which the conditions of C5 are met. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

(I can only speak from a U.S. perspective and although I can claim some expertise on U.S. faculty this is not a specific topic that I have explicitly researched. I'm especially curious to know if this is different in other countries particularly those that do not model their institutions after those in the U.S. And I am only talking about "chairs" that are endowed, named positions; I am not referring to or thinking of department chairs.) ElKevbo (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC))

Well, WRT your concern re asst and assoc profs, that's addressed in the criterion, which specifies tenure is required for it to apply. I suspect that this criterion was devised with the really, really distinguished chairs in mind (Hollis Chair of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy, Cavendish Professor of Physics, University Professors (or whatever) at the really top institutions, certain Regius Professors) but since then it's become all mushy. EEng 00:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

To continue the Johns Hopkins faculty example: There are some 800 JHU faculty who have been deemed notable enough for an article, but fewer than 500 endowed chairs at JHU. That suggests (assuming in good faith that most of these 800 are actually notable, and especially in conjunction with the observation that people who pass this criterion frequently pass others) that the endowed chair condition is more strict than our other academic notability criterion and seems to be strong evidence against the claim that it is "overly broad". I also observe that at my employer (an R1 public university) the number of endowed chairs is more like 120 [10], less than half of the number of faculty with articles, suggesting that treating JHU as typical may be a mistake.

So, if the goal is to reduce the number of academics who are deemed notable, I suspect this removal would have little effect in overall numbers. I suspect however that it would tilt the balance even more towards hard science and the like where society fellowships (criterion 3) are more plentiful and where impact (citation numbers, criterion 1) can be easily counted, and away from humanities, the arts, and especially professional studies (business, law, medicine) where other measures are difficult and endowed chairs are plentiful. Is that what we want to accomplish? Why? Additionally, although my experience is that cases where #C5 is the sole notability criterion are rare, cases where it quickly shortcuts a discussion and saves time and effort reviewing AfDs are plentiful. So this proposal would also have the disadvantage of making many cases less clear-cut.

By the way, here and in all my uses of C5 in deletion discussions, I am considering only endowed chairs given for scholarly accomplishment at a level above that of an ordinary full professor. There are endowed titles given to assistant or associate professors, given ex officio to department chairs or deans, or (in one recent case I recall seeing on AfD) given to faculty as an inducement to teach certain courses; they don't count. The claim that "Named professorships are simply a method for funding both senior and junior professors and are not necessarily indicative of a researcher's experience, impact, publications, or significance." is completely counter to my experience as a faculty member, and as someone who has chaired my campus's committee that decides who gets this sort of distinction. It may happen that some universities use these things purely as a funding vehicle for faculty at all levels, but the named chairs for which this is the case are not the named chairs described in criterion C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

PS perhaps the best argument against C5 is one not yet raised here: that it favors US private schools compared to US public schools, and UK Oxbridge vs UK other schools, and that it is largely irrelevant in other countries (except maybe for Canada Research Chairs). So it is another piece of anglocentrism and elitism that we should be on guard against. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak for others in this discussion but I have no particular desire to "reduce the number of academics who are deemed notable." My primary interest is to ensure that this specialized guideline is in line with the more general notability guideline and provides helpful guidance to editors trying to determine if a subject is notable by Wikipedia's standards. ElKevbo (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

What actual purpose in terms of changing how the encyclopedia covers academics would you like to accomplish, then? Changing one guideline that is deliberately distinct from another guideline, solely to make the two guidelines more compatible with each other, is pointless churn and would likely have side-effects in our coverage. If you are not even thinking about what those side-effects are, how can I have any expectation that they will be improvements? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't give ElKevbo a hard time; I pinged him here. EEng 05:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily "pointless churn" - one of the biggest problems with our academic guidelines is it's very difficult to parse for users outside academia (I stopped touching these at AfC/NPP unless the problems are explicit.) I think it would be helpful to identify articles whose only claim to notability is PROF#5 (if any exist, perhaps it's redundant) and determine whether these professors should be notable, which honestly is not something I feel as if I know how to do. SportingFlyer T·C 03:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Mild tangent, but redundant criteria are still useful if they're accurate and easy to verify _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Not a tangent at all. I was going to make the same point. Two criteria might define exactly the same set of people, but provide alternative paths so that sometimes one is easy to verify, sometimes the other. EEng 05:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sold on this criteria (it's applied fairly permissively as are the NPROF criteria in general) but I agree with EEng and Ros about the broader point (redundant criteria aren't always bad depending on how easy they are to verify). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

If you want a typical case of WP:PROF#C5 as it plays out in practice, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Harrington. I'm pretty sure she's notable for other reasons (and said so in the case) but by using C5 we shortcut the discussion and didn't have to take a lot of effort to build consensus for other criteria.

If you want a very very atypical case, but one where the primary reason for keeping the article was #C5 and where other forms of notability were difficult to discern, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Spilde (the only one I can remember like that).

My own feeling in comparing these cases is that the typical ones are the ones the guideline should be targeted at. And given the comment above about not knowing how academic processes work, an important thing to know is that (in my university and I believe at most or all universities that do this) there is a process of evaluation of the candidate by a committee of senior faculty that applies standards at least as rigorous as ours, looking at similar criteria (are they well cited? do they have external recognition such as society fellowships?) but based on more information (e.g. letters of recommendation from recognized experts in the same discipline). A gift of an endowed chair may be targeted to a specific discipline but the donor rarely if ever has much control over who ends up getting it. So when in the Spilde case I wrote that "I trust their judgement more than I trust our own more-limited view of her case", that's what I was referring to. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

That's a very useful example, & is indeed untypical. I don't find it great evidence for keeping #C5 myself. I note the Spilde article had avge views well below 1 per day over several months before the afd. Of course we never use views as a criterion, but really we should. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Counterpoint: really we shouldn't. Page views are at best a fallible indicator of actual humans finding an article of interest, and attention being paid to a person's Wikipedia page may or may not correlate with that person having done something noteworthy.

In my experience, #C5 is invoked less frequently than other points in WP:PROF, and #C5 being the only argument to keep is rare indeed. As described above, its typical function is that of a useful shortcut. Generally, someone doesn't get to hold an endowed chair without having done work that leaves evidence that we can evaluate by the other criteria of WP:PROF. But having that path available lets us use our time and energy more productively, even if it is in theory largely redundant. The Sanne Knudsen AfD is what one might jocularly call a typical example of an atypical case: we have a technical pass of one WP:PROF criterion, but very little in the way of sourcing to actually write an article with, and so we'd have grounds to say "IAR" and delete the page without it setting a precedent or motivating a revision of our guidelines. XOR'easter (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Page views are certainly not an "indicator of actual humans finding an article of interest" (by the time they've found the article uninteresting, their click is counted), but of wanting to find out about the subject (or who/what they hope the subject is). They are in general, over the long term, rather less fallible than most measures of notability. They certainly cast a harsh and probing light on our academic biographies, with some highlighted and others in permanent shadow. Johnbod (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you're looking to simplify the guideline by removing useless criteria, the ones to look at are #4 and #7. I don't recall ever seeing #4 used, and #7 is redundant with GNG (if they pass #7, the documentation of their impact outside academia will also pass GNG). But I wouldn't want to renumber the criteria; that would break the record of what happened in too many past AfDs. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, examples exist, but they don't appear to be common: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Petracca invoked C4 along with WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iyiola Solanke invoked C4, C5, C7 and WP:AUTHOR. I think the better case for calling both C4 and C7 "useless" is that, in practice, if we have documentation to support either one, they'd pass something else (likely WP:AUTHOR, if they're known for textbooks, or WP:GNG).

And yes, renumbering would break a lot of past AfDs. XOR'easter (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I mean wouldn't we just do like with CSD and simply retire the criteria rather than renumber? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I've always thought about it in the sense that simply being a tenured faculty member is not enough to establish notability, so that we are looking for something a bit above the level of "Professor of subject". Perhaps we should consider turning the criterion around, by saying that full professorships, by themselves, are not enough for notability, and therefore there needs to be some sort of evidence of being higher than that, as opposed to saying that a named chair is enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I haven't read the whole thread, but I like this idea. I'm hesitant to get rid of named chairs as a way of establishing notability because it's helpful for countering systemic bias since for smaller fields or underrepresented groups in academia who may not get huge mainstream press, their most notable faculty will probably have a named chair. Turning it around and saying full professorship is not sufficient for notability makes it clear what the bar is (i.e., more than an average prof) but still allows use of named chairs as an example of that. Best of both worlds it seems. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The explanatory text already says Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments. Maybe we should expand the bold text of C5 itself a little, e.g., The person has held a position given in recognition of a distinguished career above and beyond the status of tenured full professor, such as named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. XOR'easter (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

We are assured that Guideline #5 is fenced around by enough provisos to stop it being used in any other way than as a shortcut to #1. The downside to that is a) a person almost needs legal training to evaluate#5 for a given case, and b) the guideline is open to gaming. The issue that arises is if no notability can be found except through #5 alone, would that confer notability? In this case notability under #5 was avoided only by elaborate argumentation. What would the judgement be if she has in fact been granted the named professorship while a full professor? The WP:Prof guidelines are reputed to be among the most difficult to interpret in Wikipedia, almost a pons asinorum for editors. Any simplification is desirable. I think this could be done by removing #5 altogether and, to maintain continuity with past records, change it to "#5 This guideline is no longer in use". Xxanthippe (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC).

The one that gets gamed too often is #C6. People keep wanting to claim that department chairs, deans, heads of tiny seminaries, and high school principals should count. But I agree that the difficulty and technicality of C5 is a problem. We shouldn't require editors to be academics themselves to understand academic notability, just like we don't require editors to be professional athletes to understand athletic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that analogy has a bit of an issue, though I appreciate the basic point. We don't require editors to be professional athletes to understand athletic notability, but we also expect that editors weighing in on athlete AfDs know the difference between amateur and professional leagues, for example. And sometimes we ask for a good deal more than that. Look at item 8 under WP:NTRACK, which grants an athlete wiki-notability if they own a mark that placed the athlete in the top 12 in the world for that calendar year in a non-relay event contested or admitted to the senior IAAF World Championships or Olympics, or an equivalent performance over a closely matching imperial distance. To an outsider, that's not exactly a model of clarity, is it? Or what about WP:NCRICKET, which assumes that a cricket figure is presumed wiki-notable if they Have appeared as a player for an Associate team in a Twenty20 International match after 1 July 2018 in either a World T20 (men or women), Global Qualifier (men or women) or Regional Final (men only)? If your knowledge of cricket comes mostly from Douglas Adams spoofing it, that will be almost completely opaque. Perhaps it can be checked easily enough in any given case, but why is the line drawn there instead of higher or lower? Now, a fan of a sport could presumably make these evaluations (and maybe even give a good argument for where to draw the line) without participating in the sport themselves. The trouble is that there isn't a population of fans-of-academia the way there is for fans-of-sports-figures. The set of people familiar with how the profession works is much closer to coinciding with the profession itself. XOR'easter (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, and the rules for academics are a model of clarity and precision beside WP:ARTIST for living artist, & the situation for other types of people, such as designers. But the academic rules do have problems from being largely (despite the efforts of those involved) written with a North American model in mind. Johnbod (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm still trying to understand why this criterion is supposed to be a problem. If an editor has a general concern about Wikipedia becoming too large to manage properly, and thus wanting to limit the number of new articles, surely there are many other areas where one would start rather than with academic biographies. As for the comparison with the NBA, why does that comparison, using absolute numbers, have any relevance? There is no law that says things like "in any given field, no more than 600 individuals can be notable", that would be nonsense. Competition for named chairs at eminent institutions is high. The process of deciding who is the best candidate is much more rigorous than any original research with citation metrics in typical discussions of C1. In fact, that is probably a key point: If we were to get rid of C5, we are implicitly according the original research that typically goes into C1 discussions more weight than systematic evaluations by the professional community. Markus Pössel (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

American Physiological Society "Living History" subjects

The American Physiological Society has published a number of profiles in their journal on "Living History" subjects, "to recognize senior members who have made extraordinary contributions during their career to the advancement of the discipline and profession of physiology". These include:

• Clark M. Blatteis - Clark M. Blatteis
• Elsworth R. Buskirk - Elsworth R. Buskirk
• G. Edgar Folk Jr. - G. Edgar Folk Jr.
• Bodil Schmidt-Nielsen - Bodil Schmidt-Nielsen
• F. Eugene Yates - F. Eugene Yates
• Carl Gans - Carl Gans

Half of these are missing articles. Can we reasonably assume that the subjects of these profiles are notable? (Originally asked at Wikipedia talk:Notability, where it was suggested that I ask here). BD2412 T 20:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: I have started Draft:Clark M. Blatteis and Draft:Elsworth R. Buskirk. BD2412 T 01:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Blatteis and Buskirk had named/distinguished professor appointments, for WP:NPROF C5. Folk looks like he probably meets WP:NAUTHOR. At the least, something would certainly be strange if someone with one of these profiles were not notable. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

What makes for a notable science communicator?

I think it might be helpful to add another bullet point to the specific notes to criterion 7, when a person "has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." Definitely not every science communicator needs to be of the stature of a Neil deGrasse Tyson or Michio Kaku, but I feel like a well-defined lower bound is called for, given the number of recent additions to Wikipedia purported as "science communicators," like Earyn McGee, Sarafina Nance, Corina Newsome, and LaShyra Nolen, who are, in my opinion, stretching the boundaries of our current notability guidelines. The current bullet points are (shortened)

• the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.
• the person has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert and provided the books deal with that expert's field of study.
• Patents, commercial and financial applications are generally not indicative of satisfying Criterion 7.

but what's missing is a bullet point specific to science communicators on social media and other platforms with user-generated content (i.e., YouTube). Honestly I think our lower bound should be someone like a Grant Sanderson or Matt O'Dowd, individuals who demonstrably reach millions of people. Although I wouldn't just want to measure reach; any dedicated and more or less professional production of content would also suffice, as for instance in the case of Jason Ward and Birds of North America. Or someone who gave a somewhat popular TED Talk, like Esther Choo. But I think we'd be setting the notability bar too low—and the number of people meeting such a low standard in the tens of thousands—if we lower the criteria to include any science grad student with a Twitter account and some 20,000 followers. But maybe others disagree. Any suggestions on whether and how we could add such a bullet point? --bender235 (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd prefer to use WP:AUTHOR (for communication through books) or WP:GNG (for social media or other media) rather than trying to carve out another case here. It's too different from how academics are evaluated within academia to make as much sense for this collection of criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I feel like WP:GNG is overused in most cases, mostly because it isn't specific on when an individual is notable, but only helps determining whether the coverage they received was significant. For instance, the guy who sang Taylor Swift's "Shake It Off" in his car would meet GNG since the story made CNN, USA Today], Time Magazine, among others. I know we should avoid policy overkill, but I feel like some guidance as to what makes a science communicator notable as such would help. --bender235 (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I think there is enough in criterion 7 for a Wikipedia editor to use common sense to evaluate whether someone is or isn't 'notable'. Whilst you brush Esther Choo off as someone who gave a "someone who gave a somewhat popular TED Talk", she's in the news almost once a week, has 120k followers on Twitter (and isn't just some "science grad student") and has been a trusted source of advice for hundreds of thousands of people throughout the coronavirus pandemic. As for Jason Ward, he was one of several founding organisers of a recent naturalist event that got covered on almost every news platform. It's not as simple as counting Twitter followers or YouTube views as people often have considerable reach on different platforms (which is what criterion 7 recognises.Jesswade88 (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jesswade88: if you re-read my opening statement, you'll notice that I "brushed off" neither Esther Choo nor Jason Ward, but in fact cited them as an example of individuals who I think should qualify as "science communicators." My contrast to those two, and the others I've mentioned, where mere grad students with a Twitter account. --bender235 (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bender235: Got it, although, it is not very clear. Sarafina Nance for example has > 100k followers on Twitter and is regularly interviewed by the media. Simialrly, LaShyra Nolen is the first Black student president of the Harvard Medical School (whose page has a whole section on women and African-American representation, emphasising the significance of this achievement). Newsome has 61k followers on Twitter and has been in the news every other day since mid-April. Perhaps they don't yet fit all the criteria for Academic notability (they are all relatively early in their careers), but they all certainly meet criterion 7. Jesswade88 (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree on the notability of some of these, but I honestly didn't mean to single out these individuals. My hope is that we could come up with an additional criterion, akin to the three bullet points that already exist, so that we can draw the threshold somewhere. People who produce quality content (even indirectly, like a TED talk), or are being interviewed about research in their field (not necessarily their own) regularly should qualify, but people who merely are subjects of human-interest pieces because of their background should not. I think it was my mistake to prominently mention Twitter from the beginning, since it probably plays the smallest role in real science communication. --bender235 (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

But you do single out individuals. All women, all women of colour. Sorry they're not as 'notable' to you as Matt O'Dowd. Jesswade88 (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Ignoring the subtle effort to cast aspersions, let me assure you that neither gender nor race has anything to do with this. I'm not American, and I couldn't care less about the American fetish of sorting people by skin color. The four examples have all been created over the last week (two of them by you, which is why I pinged you for this discussion, to get a sense of why you think these individuals should be characterized as science communicators), which is why these articles collectively prompted my initial comment. If there were any other grad students with Twitter fame added in this time, it escaped my attention. Please let me know. --bender235 (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Tomas Cerny

Hello there - seeking some guidance please on whether or not Tomas Cerny (professor) is notable per NACADEMIC, based on @Tomcerny:'s list of achievements here. If he is I am happy to create a stub and sort out disambiguation from Tomáš Černý. GiantSnowman 07:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi GiantSnowman, my thinking is this may be a Wikipedia:Too soon situation. In Scopus, the top few articles on which the subject is an author have been cited 25, 19, 16, and 14 times. Often we consider notability from the first criterion (highly cited work) around having several works with about 100 citations each (with some allowance for the differences in fields and for the passage of time). This is not that surprising because the subject is an assistant professor and one hopes he still has many years of productive research time ahead of him. Relatively few assistant professors have had the time to meet the NACADEMIC criteria. Note the other criteria are things like being named to a National Academy, editor-in-chief of a major journal, and distinguished professorships, all things that are typically reserved for full professors later in their careers. So I'd suggest to Tomcerny to just keep doing what he's doing and not worry about the Wikipedia article. As he rises through the academic ranks, folks will take notice. Thanks for bringing it here! I hope all is well. Ajpolino (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Definitely below threshold both in citation counts (in a high-citation field) and in the level of external recognition he's been receiving for his work. The advice to wait a few years is appropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks to @Ajpolino and David Eppstein: for your comments here, and to @Russ Woodroofe: for his comment at my talk page.

@Tomcerny: as you can see you do not meet notability requirements (yet!) for a Wikipedia article. GiantSnowman 09:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Got it, will wait until I have 3+ publications with 100+ citations on Scopus, thanks for your help @GiantSnowman: Tomcerny Tomcerny talk 1:09, 28 June 2020 (Central Time)

BTW this comment from @Ajpolino and David Eppstein: could be integrated to the notable per NACADEMIC text as it was well detailed. Tomcerny Tomcerny talk 1:04, 28 June 2020 (Central Time)

Discussion

Discussion in progress of interest to those who work within SNGs: Wikipedia_talk:Notability#North8000's_description_of_how_wp:notability_actually_works_right_now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 13:25, July 4, 2020 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Thanks for the notification. I hope that the Talk pages of other SNGs are also being notified. ElKevbo (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

We need to relax criteria for academics

It is not fair NSPORT allows substubs like Mikołaj Kwietniewski, but we require very high levels of standards for academics. Polish Wikipedia, for example, has lower criteria for academics but higher for sportspeople, and I think it is much more encyclopedic as a result. Quick recommendations for discussion: let's make all associate professors and habilitation holders notable. Why not? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• No thanks! Sure we have a ridiculous 250k of footballers, but as with everything else on WP, if you don't seek them out you never see them. We have far too many bios as it is. My own perennial proposal is to ban all new biographies except for really new people (newly-elected, new film actors etc), at least for a 6 month period. That would be much more beneficial for the wiiki, but of course will never happen, any more than your proposal. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• We've been in active discussion at WT:N of one of several preliminary steps of how to address the problems of other SNGs (not NPROF) that have allowed for the proliferation of those stubs due to poorly chosen criteria and/or types of sourcing allowances. NPROF is not the issue nor should NPROF be expanded. --Masem (t) 14:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) No. First, Wikipedians tend to be academics and not athletes. The last thing we should ever do is change guidelines and policies to deepen our systemic bias. Second, nobody cares about professors. Journalists reliably cover stick-and-ball sports because the readers love their circuses and we have source material from which to draw. The corporate media does not review mere lecturers, even when important scholasticism is on display. From where would we find basic information about these academics when no one of note writes about them? Finally, WP:OSE is a lousy strategy. If you don't like outcomes on wiki, consider how unfair life is, in a general sense. I'm all for making our criteria stricter, never looser. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Whether or not 'corporate media' reviews lecturers or not is less relevant to notability since that is only one type of source on which articles can be based. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• I think we have relaxed verification for academics compared to other subjects. For instance I have witness more than one AfD where the only way to verify information in the article - literally the only way - is from university (or equivalent) biographies. Such self-published sources, not subject to any sort of editorial scrutiny and frequently written explicitly to promote the topic, would normally be insufficient for notability purposes. But because of the reason Piotrus lists there is some community acceptance for them in this context. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

You're mixing up verification and notability there, Barkeep49. We use faculty bios (which aren't self-published—they're published by a university—but aren't independent) to verify routine career details because they're easily available and there is no serious concern that a university would lie about e.g. the job title of one of its employees. Sometimes those details might support a presumption of notability under this guideline and so come up in an AfD. The argument there is that a fact appropriately verified by a non-independent source implies the existence of sufficient independent sources, not that the bio itself confers notability. WP:PROF still requires significant coverage in independent sources, either demonstrated (C1, 4 & 7) or inferred (C2, 3, 5, 6 & 8). – Joe (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Joe, an inability to verify information from reliable sources is #7 on the list of reasons for deletion. What I am suggesting is that despite this we end up cutting slack to academics. So I am not mixing up verifiability and notability merely talking about different reasons for deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes but what counts as a reliable source for verifying information is not the same as what counts as an independent source for establishing notability. The sources commonly used in academic biographies are the former but not the latter. – Joe (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Slight tangent, Joe Roe. While university bios aren't self-published, I think they're normally self-written. My partner's a prof (we've got an article on her (which I didn't write!)). Whenever she's joined a new university, she's been asked to write her own bio for their website. Nobody has ever checked any of the facts, or even done a copy edit, it just gets uploaded directly. I mean, she's not going to make stuff up - it would be pretty embarrassing if you got caught out - but we should bear in mind that we are reproducing material the subject has written about themselves when we use that sort of stuff. I'd be careful about using bios for anything other than very simple facts, like where they've worked and what their research is about. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

That's true, and I wouldn't support using them for anything remotely contentious. I think they are overwhelmingly used, as you say, to verify simple facts of where a person went to school, what their current position is, what their research interests are, etc. An analogy might be that when we have a guideline that says a sportsperson is notable if they'd played in a team at X level, using the website of a team at X level to verify that they'd played for them wouldn't be controversial. And in fifteen years of editing mainly focused on academic bios, I've never actually seen such uses of these sources challenged in an article. It only comes up as a hypothetical, in policy discussions like these. – Joe (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• No way - we already keep articles about academics using only the flimliest of sourcing, often based on only how many citations their publications have, far below the requirements of WP:BIO. Your gripe seems to be with WP:NSPORT not WP:PROF - personally I agree it's silly to have articles on any professional sportsplayer, but I am sure that there was length and heated discussion which got us to where we are today. SmartSE (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• I fully agree. In fact, I think there has been a rough consensus to do so amongst those who write academic background and understand how this guideline works in practice for years now. The question is how do we get there (here's one attempt, and another, and another). One barrier, which I think is on display above, is that as it stands PROF is opaquely written and gives the impression that it is both easy to pass and subverts the GNG, when in reality it is much stricter than the GNG and (unevenly) excludes a huge number of scholars who could have perfectly good biographies written of them. – Joe (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

But none of those have succeeded yet; I'm far from sure there is such a "rough consensus". I seem to have supported most of the middle one, but I've given my views on this above. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I think a comprehensive look at our standards of notability, of the kind Masem linked to above, is more likely to make progress on this idea than look at NPROF in isolation (as those 3 previous attempts showed). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

They failed to get local consensus here; whether they would have got through any further general stage is doubtful, except for tweaks. I won't be holding my breath for the current WP:N discussions to produce results. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I think there's a rough consensus that something is wrong with where PROF puts the notability bar. What perennially fails to get consensus is where the bar should be and what specific changes need to be made to get there. – Joe (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• The criteria for academics are already relaxed enough, perhaps too much to be honest. For example, this guideline considers publications from an academic's university a reliable source to deem the academic notable. Such lax standards do not exist for other individuals. -- Calidum 16:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• My sense is, if this 'loosening' is tried, you will get push-back that could make it worse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• As someone who became involved in writing academics articles later in my Wiki-career, I think the guidelines are already pretty loose. As mentioned above, we can already use sources from the institution itself which is usually not allowed for establishing notability. I think certain sports criteria are loose as well, for example, we have hundreds of stubs of players who played one professional basketball or hockey game in the 1930s with articles. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Seems all the above comments address the headline rather than the specifics of Piotrus' proposal. With that in mind, setting the bar at associate professors to be considered notable seems reasonable, though I'm less familiar with habilitation. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "Associate professor" is ambiguous (do visiting associate professors count? research associate professor? adjunct associate professors? associate professors of teaching?), covers very difficult levels of accomplishment at different institutions (research universities, community colleges, tiny seminaries of small religious sects, big non-research-level state universities, etc), doesn't cover many people currently covered (independent scholars and lab researchers with significant scholarly accomplishments), and is very US-centric (other systems use other ranks which can in some cases be approximately translated into US ranks, but only approximately). It would also cover an enormous number of additional people beyond the ones who currently meet our notability guideline, many with very little in the way of sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes - in UK terms "associate professor"=lecturer. This proposal would multiply the number of academics meeting the criteria by ?? 3, 4 I don't know. My comments above certainly addressed the specifics - we don't want this. Johnbod (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

3 or 4 is a conservative estimate. I'm not up on US nomenclature, but if it is equivalent to lecturer, and if we assume that all full profs are notable (that's not in the guideline, but it's a reasonable assumption as they have probably made major contributions to their field), you've probably got at least four times as many who haven't been proffed yet. Some of that number will of course be notable on other grounds, but they're already notable on other grounds. I don't see why we'd want to start opening the field to every new academic who hasn't done anything yet apart from get a job (which is not to say that I think it's a good thing that we seem to be obliged to host an article on everyone who has ever kicked, touched, seen or even heard of a football). GirthSummit _(blether) 00:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I thought I was being cautious, and not every full prof (US/new UK styles) is currently regarded as notable, by any means. See almost anything above and in the archives - that is what this page is all about. So this change would also make a load of full professors newly notable. Of course the sports standards are absurd, but at least they are generally very clear, avoiding the endless wrangles over notability that a relatively small number of academics produce. WP:NOT - the "not a directory" bit - is relevant to this proposal. Johnbod (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell: Maybe I should have suggested just habilitation (and probably we will need a new discussion on this since this thread is indeed being derailed a bit). I'll note that habilitation > associate professorships since you can often get associate professorships just by the virtue of being employed for a few years / decade or so, whereas habilitation is equivalent to writing a second PhD / a book. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Why would we draw the line at "Associate Professor?" If the intent is to capture all faculty members (in the U.S.) who have tenure then that criterion is not accurate. First, some institutions use the same titles and many of the same processes and procedures for non-tenure track faculty who focus on teaching with little or no responsibility for research (my current institution is among those who use the same professorial titles for tenure-track and non-tenure track faculty). Second, there are a handful of associate professors who do not (yet) have tenure; these are admittedly edge cases but they exist. Finally, there are also a handful of institutions that do not award tenure at all regardless of title; these tend to be controversial or poorly regarded institutions but they exist.

It seems to me that nearly all discussion of faculty members focuses almost exclusively on their role as researchers with some limited focus on their service i.e., leadership positions in scholarly organizations. But at most institutions, at least in the U.S., faculty also have significant teaching responsibilities. Although most institution use the same faculty titles, the balance precise between these three obligations - teaching, research, and service - vary considerably across and within institutions. Similarly, the expectations and requirements for promotion (and tenure, when appropriate) also vary considerably between institutions. So we should be very careful of making any blanket policies or procedures based solely on those titles.

Those who are interested in this proposal might be better off focusing on either "has been granted tenure by a legitimate (i.e., accredited) college or university" or, more stringently, "has been hired at or promoted to the rank of Professor by a legitimate (i.e., accredited) college or university." The former is closer to the proposed standard but would omit consideration of non-tenure track faculty. The latter is a more strict standard that would apply to fewer faculty members but would include a very small number of non-tenure track faculty without significant research accomplishments. ElKevbo (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins used to not award tenure at promotion to associate professor, and I think that may still be true of Harvard. I suspect User:EEng will take exception to your calling Harvard "controversial or poorly regarded". —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

My limited exposure to tenure matters at Harvard was decades ago and merely from the standpoint of an observer, but based on it I believe associate professor is a not a tenured rank there, but rather tenure track, at least in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences – see [11] – and in the old Division of Applied Sciences, though it wouldn't surprise me if the new School of Engineering and Applied Sciences has different practices. EEng 06:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC) From the link just given we learn that Harvard also hosts a form of life known as convertible instructor, maybe something like a convertible debenture.

• The ethos of WP:PROF is that being able to write about people because their work is important helps us be a better encyclopedia. I don't see how "all associate professors and habilitation holders" is a good line to draw, in that regard. XOR'easter (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• WP:NACADEMIC is all but irrelevant at this point anyways, since the much weaker WP:GNG is regularly invoked for academics these days. See Corina Newsome, Earyn McGee, and Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman, for examples of graduate/undergraduate "academics" kept because of WP:GNG. --bender235 (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense - these are activist/BLM cases, no different from academics better known for, and notable because of, sports/politics/music etc. None would have passed WP:PROF, which remains key for academics with no other claim to fame. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

They aren't described as "activist," (none of them as relevant in the BLM context anyways) but as "science communicators." The bar for the latter is presently set very low; a moderately popular Twitter account suffices. And there are more cases than just those three, such as Sarafina Nance, LaShyra Nolen, Katie Doores, Zelma Maine-Jackson, Na'Taki Osborne Jelks, and plenty more. All described as scientists/academics, but none notable per WP:NACADEMIC. But per WP:GNG, apparently. --bender235 (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Gifty, if I can call her that, is in fact described as an "activist", & rightly so, but yes. There's a deal to say about such examples, but not here. Johnbod (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

You can strike out one or another for supposed "activism" notability, but the majority of those that I've named are academics who not even remotely meet WP:NACADEMIC. As I've said, I could name dozens more. My point was not to single any of those out, but to point out the fact that WP:NACADEMIC has largely been rendered obsolete, so "watering it down" makes no difference whatsoever.

As a side note: if a one-time opportunistic Twitter hashtag qualifies you as a notable activist, we might need to rethink our notability criteria for those, too. --bender235 (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:NACADEMIC is the main notability criterion used for most of the current nominations in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators and most of the recent past nominations. It is far from obsolete. The occasional "science communicator" or former anti-government protestor or academic-turned-antiscience-loon or whatever other person who happens to be an academic but whose notability rests on other considerations does not change that, just as the occasional former-non-notable-school-level-athlete-turned-notable-politician does not render our athletic notability standards obsolete. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I concur with David Eppstein; in my experience, the academic-notability criterion definitely predominates in academic-biography AfD's. I would hazard a guess that WP:PROF#C1 is the most typical reason for a pass. XOR'easter (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: maybe I'm just disillusioned by recent events, but I've seen in multiple AfDs over the past few months how the notability bar for academics was lowered to WP:GNG after the subject had failed to meet WP:NACADEMIC. --bender235 (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's an accurate description, because it implies that NACADEMIC is a supplement to GNG that sets a higher bar than it. Instead, they are parallel notability guidelines and a subject can be notable by passing either one, independently. You may argue that the case for GNG for some of those subjects was dubiously argued, but that has nothing to do with the subject of this talk page. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed change to criterion 4 (several textbooks)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Proposal: change the note first note on WP:PROF#C4 from:

Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course)...

To:

Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored a work that is widely used as a textbook (or as a basis for a course)...

Rationale: C4 is seldom cited at AfDs, but it's the only criterion that explicitly recognises notability through contributions to teaching as opposed to research or service. However, requiring several notable textbooks sets a high bar, especially since it's rare to actually find sources for how widely a textbook is used. In contrast, just one highly-cited research work is enough to meet C1. This change would acknowledge that one widely-used textbook is likely to generate enough coverage in the form of reviews to write a short article on its author. It would also bring PROF into line with WP:NAUTHOR – since the existence of one textbook that is reviewed in multiple reliable sources would pass that anyway.

As an example, this came up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven L. Tuck (a senior academic who seems to have focused more on teaching and outreach than research), where I argued to keep on the basis that the subject had written a textbook that was both reviewed in multiple peer-reviewed journals (meeting WP:NAUTHOR) and explicitly stated by one reliable source to be widely used in teaching. However, PJvanMill pointed out to me that PROF technically requires "several" such works to pass C4. Since the consensus there appears to be that Tuck is notable, I thought it would be sensible to update the guideline to reflect that. – Joe (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, some fields have lots of books on sub-aspects of a field, others big fat volumes that may represent the work of most of a career (or that was the case in the old days anyway). Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the guideline should be changed. Some textbooks are very widely used and cover a broad part of their field, in which case authoring one would be enough, but others are only marginally widely used and cover a narrow topic, in which case several would be needed. As always guidelines need to be interpreted with a large dollop of common sense. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Support The suggested change sounds sensible. Richard Nevell (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I agree that authoring one widely-used textbook may be fairly notable, but the wording "as the basis for a course" is too vague. Lots of college professors write their own textbooks and use them as the basis of their courses, or even have them used by their colleagues or a few others. A lot of college courses are taught based on textbooks of marginal scholarship or originality. If something is widely-used, we might expect people to know of or refer to it, even if it has considerable flaws; but even in large numbers, poorly-written and little-used sources don't justify a conclusion of notability by themselves. P Aculeius (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

But the guideline would still say "widely used", which I believe qualifies "as the basis for a course" as well as "as a textbook". Maybe that point is ambigious, so the wording could be tightened up a bit. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment (not voting, but) I feel like this change would make NACADEMIC less of a guarantee that the subject passes the GNG, which is what any SNG is supposed to do. PJvanMill (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Without this guideline far more academics would be likely to pass the GNG, because the majority of people with a PhD would have at least two independent reliable sources writing about their work (which is the aspect of them that makes them notable rather than their dog's name or their inside leg measurement) in the form of citations. I can't imagine that anyone who has written a widely used textbook would be unlikely to pass the GNG. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• If an academic passes the GNG, failing NACADEMIC is not a valid reason to delete, so your first sentence does not make sense to me. And Steven L. Tuck, the article that prompted this proposal, does not have enough to pass the GNG at this point - and I don't think it's out there for him, that's why I nominated it for deletion in the first place. PJvanMill (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• @PJvanMill: There are 57 sources listed by Google Scholar as citing Tuck's journal paper "The Origins of Roman Imperial Hunting Imagery", 39 listed as citing his book "A history of Roman art", 29 listed as citing his journal paper "A new identification for the 'Porticus Aemilia'", etc. Presumably a large fraction of these are reliably published and some discuss his work in nontrivial detail. This is what makes academic deletion discussions difficult: the embarrassingly large number of sources, the difficulty of sifting out the good ones from many others that are not in-depth, and the fact (confusing to some newbies) that we don't consider scholars notable through citations when they have only a handful of other people writing about their works; we require many more citations than GNG requires sources. Pretending that none of these are sources at all oversimplifies the issue to the point of absurdity. And requiring that sources be about the subject's personal life rather than their work is also absurd; for athletes we expect sources to be about their athletic play, for politicians we expect sources to be about their political work, and so for scholars it makes sense that the sources should be about their scholarly work. These are all basic points that have been gone over many times in discussions here. As for the proposal, for notability for a single textbook: I am skeptical, because for this sort of contribution sources really do tend to be scarce. I think textbooks should be treated like any other book: usable for notability if there are multiple published reviews of multiple books, too little otherwise. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• For clarity: I'm not at all saying we need sources about his personal life. On the other hand, citations are not generally discussions of a scholar's impact on their field. Ultimately, you do need GNG-level coverage of some kind, or it's just impossible to write an actual article. PJvanMill (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• In fact, "citations are not generally discussions of a scholar's impact on their field", while possibly literally true, is so far from a refutation of what I said as to be misleading. Many citations are just citations. Some citations are specifically discussions of a scholar's impact. It is the avoidance of the tedious search for citations of the latter type that WP:PROF#C1 is supposed to shortcut. But the point of the comment you originally responded to is that, by doing so, #C1 also acts as a higher bar than GNG to notability: for GNG, all we need is a couple of published sources saying enough to count as nontrivial, while for C1 we generally ask for hundreds or thousands of citations. For instance, in the case of Tuck, among the 57 citations of "The Origins of Roman Imperial Hunting Imagery", a little searching found that at least two go into nontrivial detail about Tuck's leadership in the idea that the word "virtus" had a meaning that shifted over time [12] [13] and no doubt a closer reading of more of the citations of more of his works would reveal more material of that nature. But despite all these sources Tuck is still below the bar for #C1 and the keep arguers in that AfD had to resort to other arguments, many of which are not actually supported by WP:PROF. In that sense, Bridger's comment is correct, WP:PROF acts as a higher bar than WP:GNG, and your original comment asserting that WP:PROF exists only to check that the subject passes WP:GNG is misguided, neither describing what WP:PROF actually does nor displaying any understanding of the sort of sourcing that is generally available for academics. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• To at least two go into nontrivial detail about Tuck's leadership in the idea that...: one is written by his supervisee, the other is "just a citation". Whereas you have no doubt a closer reading [of citations]... would reveal more [analysis of his impact] , I certainly have my doubts. PJvanMill (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• I said that an SNG should act as a guarantee for the GNG. I'm not saying it exists to check that it passes the GNG - indeed, it is used as a placeholder to avoid that check. But it isn't failsafe. It can very well be that all of the citations are "just citations", in which case the guarantee breaks down. My point here is that the proposed change would make it more likely that the guarantee breaks down. PJvanMill (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• support -- we can figure out later how widely-used is necessary, etc. but agreed that the plural there isn't necessary. One textbook used at hundreds of institutions would certainly be more than enough; no need for two. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I would like to see the addition clarified to read "(or as a basis for a course at many institutions)" to discourage gaming of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC).

• Support per nom, looks like a straightforward improvement. - Astrophobe (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as it stands, dilutes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC).
• Oppose reviews of textbooks already count towards NAUTHOR/GNG; that does not require any amendment here because an article meeting either of those definitions does not need to meet NPROF. Just publishing them shouldn't count for notability, because that does not provide any independent coverage that could be used to write an article from an outside perspective. (t · c) buidhe 05:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: Yes, an author of a widely reviewed textbook could pass NAUTHOR, NBOOK, or the GNG. This proposal is to handle the edge case where the work isn't reviewed as such (because textbooks rarely are), but we have reliable sources saying e.g. "Doe's Introduction to Things is the standard text for undergraduate courses in..." – Joe (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I do not think that one textbook is enough, and "widely used" or however it is phrased is just a bit too malleable for me. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • To clarify, Drmies, "widely used" is already in the guideline. This proposal is only to change the plural to singular. – Joe (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
    • User:Joe Roe, you are correct, and I should have been more clear--what I meant (and I was thinking of a specific example from way back when) was that "widely used" is easier to establish for a number of textbooks than for one, or, to put it the other way around, it is easier to massage this for one book than for a bunch of them. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. After DESiegel's inaccurate close of this RFC, which I undid, I was motivated to clarify my own opinion on this, which is that if notability is only through a single book then WP:BIO1E should be controlling. If the book itself is notable through WP:NBOOK/WP:GNG then we should have an article on it rather than on its author or authors, and if not then we have nothing to base an article on despite wide use. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • My close was, I still think ,valid as of the time I made it, but given the subsequent comments by Drmies and David Eppstein, it would not be valid now, and given renewal of discussion, this is no longer ripe for closure by anyone. So I am not going to try to close again, and instead will comment. I must say i don't think thi8s was quite the best way to handle a clsoe thought to be incorrect. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I didn't see anything resembling your "rough consensus" — it looked like a no-consensus to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
      • But you'd already participated in the discussion, David. If it was a bad close (I don't think it was), an uninvolved person should have been the one to intervene. Reopening it and immediately commenting to tip the !vote scales towards your favoured outcome seems like poor form to me. – Joe (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Maybe, but I really hadn't formulated a support/oppose opinion until after the reopen. And the opinion I added (oppose) is different from what I think the sense of the discussion was before (no consensus). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support The issue is not just publishing a text, but having it be "widely adopted", which I think would mean adopted by a significant number of different schools. That is not a single event -- each separate adoption is a separate event, so WP:BIO1E does not apply. In any case a number of the criteria here could be considered to be single events. Being appointed to a named chair is a single event. Wining a highly significant honor or award is a single event, although it is likely to have significant coverage. In any case, the point is that an academic who is also the author of a widely adopted text is having significant impact on his or her field, and it is the impact that indicates notability. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposal makes some statements that seem out of line with AfD practice, in my experience. Usually, just one highly-cited research work is not enough to pass C1. Likewise, WP:AUTHOR asks for a significant or well-known work or collective body of work, and in practice, a single text typically doesn't count for enough. The bar seems to be set, roughly speaking, at having at least two books that have received at least two reviews each. I'm also not a fan of the or as a basis for a course parenthetical, for reasons pretty much given above. I'm sympathetic to the idea that C4 can be improved (what about teaching online courses? making video series? etc.), but this proposal isn't quite working for me. XOR'easter (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • My experience is the opposite: one very highly cited work, or one book with multiple reviews, almost always guarantees a keep outcome. I've closed or participated in thousands of AfDs, and the discussion linked above was the first time I've seen someone insist in more than one book for WP:PROF or WP:NAUTHOR. – Joe (talk) 05:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Note Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phil_Konstantin_(2nd_nomination) where an author article was deleted even though no-one has contested that one of his books, This Day in North American Indian History, is notable. Also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Linda_A._Malcor where the author definitely wrote a notable book (7 reviews). Haukur (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support for basically the opposite reasons of XOReaster. NAUTHOR says a single work, if significant enough, can be sufficient for notability. I see no reason, under Joe's reasoning, that the same can't be true of NPROF. I would definitely want that work widely used to be retained but since that's not under discussion, I support this change. Especially if Joe is correct and that's already what's happening at AfD - guidelines and policies should both shape and be shaped by actual community practice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think the proposed change unneceserily dilutes WP:PROF and makes it conflict with WP:BIO1E. I am not a big fan of Criterion 4 in the first place as a part of WP:PROF, and it is not surprising that it this criterion is hardly ever invoked in the AfDs. I think that in most cases textbook authors who genuinely pass it would qualify under WP:AUTHOR as well. I would just as well support removing criterion 4 altogether. Nsk92 (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support, although the wording may need to be worked on. There are some academics who produce a single monumental work, and for this they are famous. However, it is exceedingly unlikely for an academic to produce a well-recognized textbook, and to have no other scholarship to their name, so there should be some provision for those who produce one great work and a handful of journal articles or comparable smaller pieces. BD2412 T 16:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • if a single monumental work is produced it will be judged to be monumental by the references to it, which will count under WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.