Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)

This miscellaneous page was nominated for deletion on 7 February 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

This discussion was begun at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nicholas J. Hopper, where the early history of the discussion can be found.

---

See Wikipedia:Notability (academics)/Precedents for a collection of related AfD debates and related information from the early and pre- history of this guideline (2005-2006) and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Academics_and_educators/archive for a list of all sorted deletions regarding academics since 2007.

can an academic meet WP:GNG but fail WP:NACADEMIC?

There was a heated discussion on a recent AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rhonda_Patrick

My question here is about policy: can a researcher meet the GNG - if there have been sufficient reliable secondary sources found about him/her - even if those sources are about his/her status as a researcher and it has also been agreed has not met NACADEMIC? I think that's quite a difficult dilemma - I voted delete in the above discussion, but presented subsequently with evidence that the youtube channel had a large audience, I'm struggling to see how that fails the GNG.

I continue to believe that a researcher with a small number of citations over an extended period and low citations does not meet NACADEMIC - otherwise almost every researcher everywhere would have a wikipedia page. And as an ex science journalist, I don't really think that a lot of news articles about a piece of new research suggests notability of the researcher (because these are often led by press releases and all that yabber). But I think it is trickier when the researcher is getting coverage on a major youtube channel, and if this does suggest that she meets the GNG, then there is a problem of how to write the page without giving undue weight to her research which may/may not actually be particularly notable. Headache.

I'm really interested her in insights into the conflicts between GNG and NACADEMIC and how to weigh the one against the other in a situation like this, rather than further discussion of this particularly contentious AfD. Thanks. JMWt (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think that "coverage on a you tube channel" comes anywhere close to demonstrating a widespread interest in the biographical details of some ones life. GNG looks for examples of "significant" (ie not "routine") coverage in reliable sources. --ℕ ℱ 12:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Right, that's what I thought initially: but I think there is a difference if this is a major youtube channel with a wide audience. Otherwise are we saying it is only notable if on a major broadcast TV show? JMWt (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

reliable sources are one with a widespread reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight. Few YouTube channels have a full time professional editorial staff or anything like it. Who checks the facts? Who is responsible for ensuring weight is given to the important issues rather than what silly story gets clicks. --ℕ ℱ 12:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, that might be fair comment. Let's say instead an academic has a feature in the NYT about a single piece of widely reported news, but otherwise does not meet WP:NACADEMIC, what then? JMWt (talk) 13:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

In these days of decreasing journalistic standards I find myself asking a rule of thumb question: is this a person whose lifetime contribution to anything is likely to lead, based on current evidence, to a broadsheet national newspaper obituary. I appreciate that is not a guideline, needs a crystal ball, and people will no doubt argue it presents a higher standard. I would argue it is that level of notability that demonstrates a widespread interest in the biographical details of their life. A lot of 'stuff' appears in newspapers, but wikipedia isn't news. Can you point to the sort of details about a person published in independent sources showing when and where they were born and educated? Who their parents were etc etc. That's "significant biographical coverage" in my view and the sort of detail that fleshes out a biography, and without it whats the point of a wikipedia article that states "person X said a thing. everyone clicked on that thing". An exaggeration, but you see what I mean. --ℕ ℱ 14:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

And just to comment on my point, those subjects that are considered obviously notable MPs, congressmen, distinguished professors, are pretty much certain to have that sort of obit. --ℕ ℱ 15:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Putting aside the question whether this particular academic meets GNG - see the lead of WP:N: A topic is presumed to merit an article if it "meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline ..." The point of NACADEMIC is to make it easier to keep academics who are influential but not the subject of biographies; it doesn't override GNG. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts about the specific case is that YouTube viewings are a weak case for notability, but a press report about a notably large number of viewings would make a stronger case (secondary versus primary sourcing). But for the more important broader question, it's obvious that an academic can pass GNG on the basis of notice for something other than academic scholarship (Barack Obama was a law professor, but that's not why we have a page about him), so the trickier question here is about how to apply ACADEMIC versus GNG to academic scholarship itself, as the opening question here makes clear. I can think of a couple of examples where it would be quite appropriate to use GNG for this. One would be where a non-tenurable academic gains notoriety when their scholarly publications become the subject of popular sensation or of a major scandal. Another is when the scholar does not really accomplish that much academically, but publishes a prominent book that popularizes their area of scholarship for a general audience, or is featured in the media as a popularizer or educator, or is chosen to give extensive governmental expert testimony. Those are cases where a person can properly pass GNG on the basis of accomplishments that arise from their academic work, in spite of failing ACADEMIC. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to determine notability on the basis of non-traditional criteria about academic work. By that, I mean things that might roughly resemble the YouTube example. Publishing on YouTube and the like ain't publishing in a peer reviewed professional outlet. So that is why any kind of possible notability of academic work that does not satisfy ACADEMIC needs to be well demonstrated in independent secondary sources. In a nutshell then, either satisfy ACADEMIC, or have very strong documentation of recognition by independent secondary sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI The deletion has now gone to review JMWt (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Input wanted on a batch of bios

This links to a workpage to review a batch of 28 academic bios related to Columbia Theological Seminary. A 29th article was deleted already, which prompted a review of the full set. Seeking input from editors experienced in typical academic notability expectations. Thanx. Alsee (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarifying relationship between WP:PROF and the GNG

I added some information to the page about the relationship between WP:PROF and the WP:GNG (previously we only had information about the other subject-specific guidelines). It's a common error (I made it again recently, and I see it often) that the criteria here are a way of establishing that the GNG has been passed. Thus finding that someone has passed here but looking more closely and seeing that it doesn't pass GNG (via independent sources covering the subject's life) means that notability has not been established, while WP:Notability explicitly states that the subject-specific guidelines are alternatives to, not clarifications of, the GNG. I'm still not 100% happy with General Notes #1, which I think still gives the impression that this is a clarification of GNG, and I think can be worded in a better way. But I want to make sure that my most recent edits are uncontroversial before making another change. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's a sample rewrite of General Note 1: "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, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details." I think that this would make it clearer that this statement does not conflict with Verifiability without requiring GNG to be satisfied. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I think both of the ways you've characterized the relationship are roughly correct. The GNG is part of the WP:N guideline. An SNG should only have guideline status when it applies WP:N to a particular domain rather than define its own version of notability. There's room for gray area, but if an SNG consistently conflicts with the GNG, something is wrong. Nothing should be exempt from "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". There was an RfC a few years back in which there was a clear consensus that SNGs do not override the GNG, but in addition to that being old, lots of other conversations have taken place and more SNGs have been created. It seems like everybody who has an opinion about this is 100% certain they know how things are, yet opinions so often clash. I'm wondering if it's time for an RfC about that basic question at WT:N. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

time for an RfC I'd be interested in seeing this reaffirmed, if that requires an RfC or just enforcement of prior consensus czar 18:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rhodo... Thanks! Are we talking about [[1]] RfC which ended in no consensus for anything except [can outline sources that assert notability]. The failure of the proposal "B.5: SNGs override GNG" might look like the community concluded that SNGs interpret GNG, but actually a bulk of the proposal was that an article in a subject area can't be notable just for passing GNG. For instance here's a sample oppose vote: "Oppose. I would say that if a subject passes either one of the GNG or the SNG, it is deemed notable." It may be time for another RfC, but I think that would need to happen on WP:N and notified on all subject guidelines, not just here. (btw, there are SNGs that consistently conflict with GNG, such as the sports one, which does not allow high school athletes with coverage in local papers to be considered notable. That seems like a no-brainer to me, but it's definitely a conflict. In comparison, the differences between WP:PROF and GNG are small, and both seem to fit well under WP:N). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The first indication of the current language on WP:N (about passing either GNG or a SNG) was added in February 2009, so it's been around for a while and seems like a rather stable part of the WP:N guideline. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Common outcomes and Festschriften

I am being bold and moving Festschriften and dedicatory volumes to a clear pass of C1 from the current state of "contributes to passing C1 but does not pass in itself" with the caveat "unless by a fringe, vanity, or non-respected journal or press." I've searched through AfD and haven't found a case where someone with a Festschrift has not been kept. The "specific notes" section here should coincide with clear outcomes from AfD and in its previous state it didn't. I won't be offended by a revert with discussion here. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason to make this change. Just because it hasn't happened yet does not mean that it never will. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC).

By that logic, why list named chairs, presidents of universities, Nobel prizes? It could happen... -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Debates

I think debates with notable people (who have a page in Wikipedia) should be considered some evidence for the notability of academics (mostly in humanities). If X and Y have a debate and Y is notable in Wikipedia (provided that the debate is reported in some sources), then such a debate (one-to-one) will be reliable (because of the notability of Y). It will be independent too, because people in debates oppose each other. It shows that Y has acknowledged X's work. Can we add this to "Specific criteria notes" of criterion 1? --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

To the contrary, notability is WP:NOT INHERITED. --ℕ ℱ 23:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pirhayati: I'm going to agree with ℕ. WP:ACADEMIC is a difficult criteria to meet, and I don't see the advantage here of making it easier. If a postdoc debates a full professor, that may just mean the postdoc was the best person out of those available to support their side (or maybe they know how to make a debate entertaining. I'm not seeing how their participation necessarily contributes to their notability in the wikipedia sense. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pirhayati: -- I agree that "Not inherited" is the controlling doctrine here. However, I do think that coverage of the debate by others should be considered influence in a field in the same matter as citations. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that it is enough for notability. I wanted to say that it can be considered one good source for showing "influence in a field" so that several debates with several notable people would be the sign of notability. --‍Ali Pirhayati (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

How does Wikipedia define scholar for sources

If someone is using a reference to support something like 'scholars say' what are we required to know about a person being cited to refer to them as a scholar? Wiktionary has some broad variations on this:

1.A student; one who studies at school or college, typically having a scholarship.

2.A specialist in a particular branch of knowledge.

3.A learned person; a bookman.

Should we avoid using this word since it has a lot of wiggle room and people may end up thinking "this person is a specialist" when they might just be included as a student?

If people are going to use 'scholar' to mean 'expert' then why don't we just use 'expert' and then hash out the more clear conflict of how we assess who an expert is and how much their opinion matters in relation to others? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you in the right place? This talk page is about our standards for having an article on an academic, not about what to call someone in other articles. Maybe you want WP:RSN? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Further on h-index...

A discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Muthama Muasya was, perhaps (perhaps not), ended with the closing of the AfD it was connected to; since I very much respect the opinions of Wikicology and DGG and it seems like something likely to recur in future professorial AfDs (and since it was a discussion on my !vote), I thought I'd bring it here in case it was something that we wanted to continue.

DGG, WP:ACADEMIC does not rate one scholarly field above the other. It doesn't rate medicine above botany, just as biochemistry is not rated above microbiology. If H-index of 23, is not sufficient to establish notability in the field of medicine, it's simply not enough to establish notability in the field of botany if we are to follow the WP:ACADEMIC guidelines which editors are expected to follow. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Different fields have different citation patterns. The use of h index without taking field into consideration is like saying scientists are not notable unless they write books the way people in the humanities do. That's why the WP:PROF guideline does not specify h index--there would be too many qualifiers needed, as is in fact explained under WP:PROF in the specific criteria notes, point 1, "Generally, more experimental and applied subjects tend to have higher publication and citation rates than more theoretical ones. Publication and citation rates in humanities are generally lower than in sciences. Also, in sciences, most new original research is published in journals and conference proceedings whereas in humanities book publications tend to play a larger role (and are harder to count without access to offline libraries). The meaning of "substantial number of publications" and "high citation rates" is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations used by major research institutions in the awarding of tenure." DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

My point in the discussion, in case it's not clear, was that the user was notable for a high h-index in a medium-cited field but not for having a standard botanic name. I agree in this quote, however, completely with DGG, that judging a field by the notability criteria it creates itself is not only not discriminating (or rating one field above another), to do it any other way would be discriminating. But I know we have lots of different worldwide viewpoints here on WP, and I'd like to hear Wikicology's if he'd like to respond. Thanks all! (and tell me "Shut up!" if we just want to be done with this until it arises again). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I also agree that we should judge the significance of the h-index or other bibliometrics in a field-specific way. To do otherwise makes no sense, given the wide variation in citation patterns from one field to another. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It has long been the practice to weigh citation notability according to citation pattern in the particular field and most contributors to WP:Prof Afds follow this. A matter that concerns me more is a number of failed Afds made by nominators who appear to have no knowledge that WP:Prof#C1 exists at all. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 These waste the time of editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC).

People may also be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Black (art historian), where Xxanthippe is attempting to use h-index to rate an art historian and curator specializing in Artic Canada Inuit. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

What qualifies as a "major academic institution"?

I have not been able to find this in the archives, so my apologies if I am raising an already decided issue. Have we ever defined what qualifies as a "major academic institution"? Is any university a major educational institution, or does it depend on size or some other attribute?

The specific issue that raised this is whether Brandon University (~3700 undergrads, less than 4000 total students) is a major institution. Thanks. Meters (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to do doctorates, or even Masters in most subjects, so no. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

For the US, I think the R1 and R2 universities would make a good starting list. But probably that's too snobby; California State University, Los Angeles for instance would probably also qualify as major by anyone's standards, but isn't on the list. On the other hand, I think doctoral-degree-granting isn't the right criterion either — it lets in too many small research-only institutes. I do agree with Johnbod that a place like Brandon that is neither sizable, nor particularly prestigious, nor active in doctoral research probably doesn't qualify. But for other cases maybe we'll just have to go by Stewart's test. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree that Brandon is not a major university. I ended up here since another editor was arguing that that the president of Brandon would be considered notable under WP:NACADEMICS point 6 as having "held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution". If it hasn't come up before I don't want to start a long, involved discussion to define something that we're doing well enough without. I can see trying to balance way too many factors... Thanks for the quick and informative responses. Meters (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Too inclusive?

I think these guidelines are too inclusive and will lead to the existence of hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of stub-like vanity-type articles (hundreds of thousands may already exist)...which is damaging to Wikipedia in creating/sustaining the perception that it can be frivolous and of low quality. It also encourages the creation of articles against policy (conflict of interest, autobiography, etc) because many of them are created/contributed to by the people themselves or people very close to them (family, grad students, etc)...the vast majority of these articles will be orphaned and never made to adhere to policy...and the vast majority of these articles will never be visited, particularly as the years go by...

For the most part, academics work can and should be cited within other topics of genuine notable interest (and their names will appear there) but they should not have their own personal article...In order to have their own personal article they should meet something far closer to general notability guidelines as established by third-party, independent sources...in extreme example of this might be Noam Chomsky...his work will be both cited within other articles and he is notable enough generally to have his own personal article (a person wouldn't have to be as objectively notable as Chomsky on a personal level to have a personal article, but it's an example)..

If you look at the numbered criteria, the problematic ones in my opinion are: 1, 3, 5, 8.....I think the guidelines should more align along the general notability of 2, 4, 7, 9......THOUGHTS??68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note -- I disagree; if there's a chance of this passing, I'll give my concerns again, but I think the page's archives will give a lot of the arguments for why the guideline is where it is. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I checked out the "list University of Michigan faculty" article as just an example because this was my undergraduate school...started randomly clicking on articles...almost all of them are a total disaster as far as being stubs and against editorial policy generally...almost none of these people are personally notable but most of them probably do meet the current guidelines....I don't think Wikipedia intends to a vanity who's who for academia (we're talking about potentially millions of stub articles as the years go on too)....68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree as well, and I don't think this is a discussion worth rehashing. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• Me too. The WP:Prof criteria are among the most rigorous and specific in Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC).

I glanced through the history; can't find anywhere that states/supports the philosophy of allowing hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of academic stub autobiographies....what is the philosophy behind this, anyway?68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You are the one who says that there are "hundreds of thousands and eventually millions" of people who pass, so you tell me. The rest of us think that this is significantly more restrictive than, say, WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG, according to which you are notable if only two or three reliable sources describe your work, something that is true of almost all academics. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

those links you just posted arrive at far more restrictive guidelines...look at just those four bullets for the "author" one...and the other requires the demonstration of actual personal notability via third party sources.....????68.48.241.158 (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Those are disjunctions, not conjunctions. And most academics have *many* third party sources describing their work (i.e. citations to their publications). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

you're kind of missing the point as I state in my case that "citations to publications" as reason for a personal article is part of the problem (ie #1 in the current guidelines)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it is you who miss the point. Citations do count towards #C1, yes. They are also reliable publications about an academic's work that (when in-depth enough) can count towards GNG. The criterion here (requiring significant impact) is considerably more restrictive than the criterion in GNG (requiring only multiple sources). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

To pass WP:Prof#1 typically takes around 1000 citations to a researcher's published work, although this depends very greatly on field.

I note that User:68.48.241.158 has started the same thread on the Village pump[2], and lost the argument after making nearly 20 edits. He has now forum shopped over here but I doubt if he will gain better traction. It is worth looking at this user's talk page User talk:68.48.241.158, which shows evidence of misbehavior. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC).

I was told in the Village Pump to move this specific discussion here....here I made a more specific/formal proposal...there was nothing "won" or "lost" over there as it was just general discussion....and most of those edits you refer to ended up being about a specific person's notability in terms of the current guidelines...so really, completely different thing altogether....68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone weigh in on the what the general philosophy is for allowing these kinds of articles (ie what the utility is etc to allow articles for people who aren't otherwise personally notable?)..considering all the problems it creates (as I explain above)...??68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure. The philosophy is very broad, 'the sum of all human knowledge' - that gets broken down into how to calculate the sum. This guideline is part of that - it generally accepts that no policy is ever likely to be adopted that all academics are un-notable, nor will there be one that all academics are notable - so of necessity there is something between those polarities. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC

of course, but I'm talking about the philosophy behind the current guidelines....I explained a reasonable philosophy behind altering them to be more along the lines of 2, 4, 7, 9....what is the philosophy behind how they stand now??68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, 'along the lines of' is vague and ambiguous - so, as you have seen, response as should be expected is, 'what are you talking about' and 'there is nothing to respond to here' and 'your assertions are not making sense', etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

there would be different ways to go about this and if people agreed that the current guidelines are problematic they might go about making suggestions within this TALK about how to change them along the lines I suggest...For example, how about requiring academics to at least meet, say, 3 of the current guidelines instead of ONLY 1 as it stands now?? Wouldn't this be better? It would hugely reduce the problems I cite....what is the rationale for the current guidelines???68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The guideline states the 'philosophy' and the 'rationale'. So, your question either needs improvement or we, just are left to say, 'you are talking past us.' -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

please cite...the guidelines seem to state the guidelines, not the philosophy or rationale behind them..I'm arguing they're problematic and have stated a philosophy and rationale as to why...68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The guideline is on the page that this is talk page is attached to (so that's the cite) - perhaps you have not read it all, carefully? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I have read them...please cite..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

What them? Read the whole page, I have given you the cite. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

very good, I won't engage with you along these lines anymore..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)