I edited the page with help from another webpage that I found out was originally sourced from a deleted Wikipedia page but I found notable sources that back up the comments. I asked if I needed to put this in sandbox to work on and was told it could stay up as long as I wasn’t using multiple accounts. This writer has been cited in a number of postfeminist articles and I found out referred to in reference to her writing in mental illness and infertility. I think that her contributions make that notable, I’m researching postfeminism in relationship to trans and disability issues and I was introduced to this author’s work on infertility in terms of disability through the Rhetoric Research Network. I think that’s important for other people who share this interest. - Jenn Morris Jennmorris1 ( talk) 03:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I guess I’m not sure what reliable sources you mean - someone mentions newspaper articles not being reliable because they are local - this is a regional author and has 3 newspapers from 3 parts of Missouri. The STL today article was syndicated in over 100 newspapers. They were in the paper version of the newspapers before they were online. But I can keep researching to find other sources if I’m told what reliable is. She has a number of Huffington Post articles online I found, a dissertation, is mentioned in other books and articles online, just in the web search I did. Jennmorris1 ( talk) 03:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49: hopefully I’m replying right - I added more sources I hope are reliable plus I wanted to point out that this is a regional writer so it makes sense that the articles would be from Missouri, but I wouldn’t call them local or online, the links are to online editions but it looks like the articles were originally in print and syndicated in other newspapers. Regardless, other Wikipedia pages have a lot less sources and I think the ones I linked are pretty reliable. If you give advice on what else I need to find to be reliable or of noteworthiness I’d appreciate it. Jennmorris1 ( talk) 04:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Voceditenore: Thanks for referring me to the Wayback Machine. I can see how it’s useful if you remember particular links - I found a few websites that Google doesn’t list anywhere during a search. But when you don’t know (or don’t remember) what the original link is, I haven’t found a way on it to search for particular key words. I also didn’t find some sources that I did have a link for- it’s not as comprehensive then as I hoped it to be. I have been writing things on the WWW since 1996 and certain journals, websites through the years have disappeared. In some cases, even with the Wayback Machine, you get GoDaddy pages, etc. In terms of researching books that are offline via Google Books or Worldcat or behind paywalls, they aren’t always searchable to verify the content. There are books that I remember having information about certain people and subjects, but proving it would be difficult without access to that information. I guess this is one of the considerations of historiography- how to access and/or excavate records. It’s even a more challenging when those records don’t have/ or no longer have a physical counterpart and are no longer (easily or at all) accessible. I’m not sure how this figures into the purpose of Wikipedia. I actually hung out with Jimbo (Jimmy Wales) in the early 1990s a number of times —in person— and learned about his nascent view for Wikipedia, so it’s interesting to see how his original vision evolved. If you notice, I originally became a user on Wikipedia ten years ago and this page stood for many years without any discussion. Perhaps previous editors weren’t as diligent or it just took years for editors to discover it in order for it to be evaluated. Maybe the standards or application in those standards were more lax and editors are more rigorous now. Regardless, I think the discussion of what should be maintained in an encyclopedic context is very interesting. Lissahoop ( talk) 03:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)lissahoop
Hi @ Voceditenore: I have various questions about the arguments for deletion made about this page. I’m not sure if here is the place to ask them, but you seemed receptive to discussion from a novice, so hopefully it is. Plus you seem very knowledgeable about Wikipedia, and experienced with it as well. Anyway, my first question is about reliability. There were a number of objections to the article, one of which is that the self-published sources are not reliable. If an author creates a small press and publishes their own work via that press, is that considered self-publishing and thus make those sources unreliable (or not notable). I assumed a small press that published books by other authors and has others that work for the small press - editors, layout editors, artists, etc wasn’t equivalent to self-publishing. Next, there was an argument that local press - of two regional newspapers (one for all of Southwest Missouri and the other for an area of maybe 50,000 people in that region) were not reliable. Both articles are interviews and devoted to the subject of the deleted page, so they aren’t passing references. From what I could see, on the notability reference pages, locality was not a reason to deem a subject not notable. If I’m reading it right, a subject can be of particular interest to a specific region, but how small that region doesn’t matter. Now, I can understand that these articles might not be enough to establish notoriety, but should these sources be dismissed out of hand. Also, I’m not understanding how many or what kind of sources/coverage equals or establishes significant notoriety. For example, a book by a small press could receive a number of reviews, especially in the wake of publishing it, that aren’t in major presses, but blog reviews, goodreads, podcasts, newsletters, would be of lesser validity/less reliable? Or is it a matter of significance (but maybe that’s subjective) and/or popularity? I’m still struggling with the guidelines here. I think the problem I’m having is I’ve found the subject of this page interesting (which I know is not an argument against deletion), I’ve seen her work to be important to my own research in the field, etc. But the sources, apparently, that I found -even her writing itself - is not enough evidence to support my claims. What I find lacking is direction in what sources I would need to find/show notoriety? I’ve got a lot of feedback about how the sources I provided aren’t good, which helps, but I’m still stumped. I think that’s why I got accused of bombardment or stacking sources. I kept adding them not to say the sheer number of them is a reason to keep the articles, but because I wasn’t sure which source would be considered reliable or supportive. I don’t mind criticism of the article, but I’d like a little more guidance (and please believe me I’ve been reading as much as I can on Wikipedia about notability, reliability etc). And on a more philosophical note, what room does obscurity have in Wikipedia. Something can be obscure and important to a small group of people, and have large significance for society at large, but I’m not sure if that fits Wikipedia’s purpose. For example, I study the postfeminist approach to disability studies, in particular about reproduction/infertility, especially in how it relates to the trans community. This is a very narrow subject but it has larger implications on gender studies, politics, etc. There are certain authors who write about this subject or are relevant as sources in making arguments about this subject. But they may not pass the smell test of notability. Can I write a page about this subject in an encyclopedic fashion and include such sources. For example, can I refer to a self-published book because it makes an _original_ argument or is relevant to the content of the page? In other words could an author be a secondary source even if the author of it isn’t deemed notable enough to have their own page? Thanks so much for listening to my long winded questions! Jennmorris1 ( talk) 04:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)jennmorris1
- Jennmorris1, I'm not who you were asking but let me give it a shot anyway. There are two different, but somewhat connected, pieces when it comes to sources. A source can be reliable (or not) and can be helpful (or not) in showing notability. For example, New York Times is both reliable and generally helpful in showing notability - however if it were to run a straight interview that particular piece, because interviews are generally not considered independent, would not help with notability. Conversely, the newspapers in play here are not helpful in establishing notability but they probably would be OK to verify facts of a notable topic. As for the questions about small presses, if a topic is notable something which is self published or published by a smaller press with an editorial process (as opposed to merely a vanity press) then it could be used to say "this is what this person says is true" but not "this is true". Essentially we put the information in the subject's voice, rather than Wikipedia's. Hope that helps. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Jennmorris1, to aid readbility, I'm starting a separate section for my reply to your queries above.
"If you notice, I originally became a user on Wikipedia ten years ago and this page stood for many years without any discussion."
The logs show that you only registered your account 3 days ago. Unless you had another earlier account, I assume you mean that you have been reading Wikipedia for the last 10 years.
- (Apologies, the previous lack of headings and indenting made me think that Jennmorris1 had written that comment. I see now that it was Lissahoop who has indeed been editing here since 2009.)
Re "this page stood for many years without any discussion." The history of that article is a little more complicated than that. The first version was speedy deleted in October 2009 per Criteria A7: "an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." It was recreated in May 2014 and deleted in December 2017 via the proposed deletion process with the rationale "Promotional autobiography". The current incarnation of the article (created 5 days ago) appears to have been started with a verbatim copy of the deleted 2014 version.
While it is true that the second version stood for 3 years before it was deleted, that is no indication that it was deemed acceptable by other Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia has 5 million articles with hundreds and hundreds of new ones being created daily (not all of which survive). There is a group of about 300 editors who specialise in patrolling new pages, but before improvements in the tools, many new pages never got patrolled and simply slipped through the net. Eventually an editor may come across one of those pages and if they find problems will tag it for issues or propose its deletion.
I should also say that the more times a page is deleted and recreated, the more eyes there will be on it. This is especially true for pages that are autobiographies. Now on to your questions...
1. If an author creates a small press and publishes their own work via that press, is that considered self-publishing and thus make those sources unreliable (or not notable)?
- Yes, that is considered self-publishing. Works which are not subject to independent editorial control or peer-review are generally not considered reliable. They may be used to source very basic facts about a person, e.g. date and place of birth, or their opinion on an issue, if they were the published by that person. But they do not contribute to that person's notability. Some self-published works and small presses do achieve notability by virtue of their having been written about extensively in mainstream sources, having won major prizes, etc. The later works of Timothy Mo are a prime example.
2. Next, there was an argument that local press - of two regional newspapers (one for all of Southwest Missouri and the other for an area of maybe 50,000 people in that region) were not reliable. [...] Should these sources be dismissed out of hand?
- They were not be dismissed as unreliable for the purpose of verifying information about the subject. However, very local newspapers with low circulation do not contribute to the notability of the subject, unless there are multiple instances of significant, in depth, coverage. The two very similar articles about her publishing Joy, interrupted appearing in the Southeast Missourian and the Daily Journal in 2013 are simply not sufficient. The other brief mentions of her in a series of virtually identical articles from 2014 about a television series set in the town where she lives, were not about her and don't establish notability. A lengthy review of one of her books or a feature article about her and her work in a major, albeit regional newspaper, e.g. the St. Louis Post-Dispatch would contribute to notability, but this would need to be supplemented with features and reviews in peer-reviewed journals, books from major publishers, or other major newspapers and magazines.
3. but blog reviews, goodreads, podcasts, newsletters, would be of lesser validity/less reliable?
- Again, no self-published source (blogs) or sites with user-generated content ( Goodreads) should be used to verify claims about a third party. Nor do they contribute to the notability of the subject. Newsletters are very marginal and would need to be from a notable organization. Wikipedia does make exceptions for certain blogs by people who are notable in themselves and who are considered experts in the subject, for example Alex Ross's blog The Rest is Noise. The same criteria apply to podcasts.
4. Could an author be a secondary source even if the author of it isn't deemed notable enough to have their own page?
- It's not who the author is. It's where that source is published. If it's in a peer-reviewed journal, a book from a major publisher, or a major newspaper or magazine, then yes, it can be used as a secondary source.
5. I study the postfeminist approach to disability studies, in particular about reproduction/infertility, especially in how it relates to the trans community. Can I write a page about this subject in an encyclopedic fashion and include such a source?
- I've answered the source issue above. As to writing an article about your specialty, you need to read Wikipedia:No original research very carefully before you attempt it. In a nutshell, it says: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves."
Finally, Wikipedia's standards for sufficient personal notability to merit a stand-alone article do not equate to how interesting, talented, or accomplished that person is. Deletion of an article is in no way a reflection on the subject in any of those aspects. Hope this helps. Voceditenore ( talk) 14:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC) Updated and corrected by Voceditenore ( talk) 16:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I edited the page with help from another webpage that I found out was originally sourced from a deleted Wikipedia page but I found notable sources that back up the comments. I asked if I needed to put this in sandbox to work on and was told it could stay up as long as I wasn’t using multiple accounts. This writer has been cited in a number of postfeminist articles and I found out referred to in reference to her writing in mental illness and infertility. I think that her contributions make that notable, I’m researching postfeminism in relationship to trans and disability issues and I was introduced to this author’s work on infertility in terms of disability through the Rhetoric Research Network. I think that’s important for other people who share this interest. - Jenn Morris Jennmorris1 ( talk) 03:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I guess I’m not sure what reliable sources you mean - someone mentions newspaper articles not being reliable because they are local - this is a regional author and has 3 newspapers from 3 parts of Missouri. The STL today article was syndicated in over 100 newspapers. They were in the paper version of the newspapers before they were online. But I can keep researching to find other sources if I’m told what reliable is. She has a number of Huffington Post articles online I found, a dissertation, is mentioned in other books and articles online, just in the web search I did. Jennmorris1 ( talk) 03:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49: hopefully I’m replying right - I added more sources I hope are reliable plus I wanted to point out that this is a regional writer so it makes sense that the articles would be from Missouri, but I wouldn’t call them local or online, the links are to online editions but it looks like the articles were originally in print and syndicated in other newspapers. Regardless, other Wikipedia pages have a lot less sources and I think the ones I linked are pretty reliable. If you give advice on what else I need to find to be reliable or of noteworthiness I’d appreciate it. Jennmorris1 ( talk) 04:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Voceditenore: Thanks for referring me to the Wayback Machine. I can see how it’s useful if you remember particular links - I found a few websites that Google doesn’t list anywhere during a search. But when you don’t know (or don’t remember) what the original link is, I haven’t found a way on it to search for particular key words. I also didn’t find some sources that I did have a link for- it’s not as comprehensive then as I hoped it to be. I have been writing things on the WWW since 1996 and certain journals, websites through the years have disappeared. In some cases, even with the Wayback Machine, you get GoDaddy pages, etc. In terms of researching books that are offline via Google Books or Worldcat or behind paywalls, they aren’t always searchable to verify the content. There are books that I remember having information about certain people and subjects, but proving it would be difficult without access to that information. I guess this is one of the considerations of historiography- how to access and/or excavate records. It’s even a more challenging when those records don’t have/ or no longer have a physical counterpart and are no longer (easily or at all) accessible. I’m not sure how this figures into the purpose of Wikipedia. I actually hung out with Jimbo (Jimmy Wales) in the early 1990s a number of times —in person— and learned about his nascent view for Wikipedia, so it’s interesting to see how his original vision evolved. If you notice, I originally became a user on Wikipedia ten years ago and this page stood for many years without any discussion. Perhaps previous editors weren’t as diligent or it just took years for editors to discover it in order for it to be evaluated. Maybe the standards or application in those standards were more lax and editors are more rigorous now. Regardless, I think the discussion of what should be maintained in an encyclopedic context is very interesting. Lissahoop ( talk) 03:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)lissahoop
Hi @ Voceditenore: I have various questions about the arguments for deletion made about this page. I’m not sure if here is the place to ask them, but you seemed receptive to discussion from a novice, so hopefully it is. Plus you seem very knowledgeable about Wikipedia, and experienced with it as well. Anyway, my first question is about reliability. There were a number of objections to the article, one of which is that the self-published sources are not reliable. If an author creates a small press and publishes their own work via that press, is that considered self-publishing and thus make those sources unreliable (or not notable). I assumed a small press that published books by other authors and has others that work for the small press - editors, layout editors, artists, etc wasn’t equivalent to self-publishing. Next, there was an argument that local press - of two regional newspapers (one for all of Southwest Missouri and the other for an area of maybe 50,000 people in that region) were not reliable. Both articles are interviews and devoted to the subject of the deleted page, so they aren’t passing references. From what I could see, on the notability reference pages, locality was not a reason to deem a subject not notable. If I’m reading it right, a subject can be of particular interest to a specific region, but how small that region doesn’t matter. Now, I can understand that these articles might not be enough to establish notoriety, but should these sources be dismissed out of hand. Also, I’m not understanding how many or what kind of sources/coverage equals or establishes significant notoriety. For example, a book by a small press could receive a number of reviews, especially in the wake of publishing it, that aren’t in major presses, but blog reviews, goodreads, podcasts, newsletters, would be of lesser validity/less reliable? Or is it a matter of significance (but maybe that’s subjective) and/or popularity? I’m still struggling with the guidelines here. I think the problem I’m having is I’ve found the subject of this page interesting (which I know is not an argument against deletion), I’ve seen her work to be important to my own research in the field, etc. But the sources, apparently, that I found -even her writing itself - is not enough evidence to support my claims. What I find lacking is direction in what sources I would need to find/show notoriety? I’ve got a lot of feedback about how the sources I provided aren’t good, which helps, but I’m still stumped. I think that’s why I got accused of bombardment or stacking sources. I kept adding them not to say the sheer number of them is a reason to keep the articles, but because I wasn’t sure which source would be considered reliable or supportive. I don’t mind criticism of the article, but I’d like a little more guidance (and please believe me I’ve been reading as much as I can on Wikipedia about notability, reliability etc). And on a more philosophical note, what room does obscurity have in Wikipedia. Something can be obscure and important to a small group of people, and have large significance for society at large, but I’m not sure if that fits Wikipedia’s purpose. For example, I study the postfeminist approach to disability studies, in particular about reproduction/infertility, especially in how it relates to the trans community. This is a very narrow subject but it has larger implications on gender studies, politics, etc. There are certain authors who write about this subject or are relevant as sources in making arguments about this subject. But they may not pass the smell test of notability. Can I write a page about this subject in an encyclopedic fashion and include such sources. For example, can I refer to a self-published book because it makes an _original_ argument or is relevant to the content of the page? In other words could an author be a secondary source even if the author of it isn’t deemed notable enough to have their own page? Thanks so much for listening to my long winded questions! Jennmorris1 ( talk) 04:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)jennmorris1
- Jennmorris1, I'm not who you were asking but let me give it a shot anyway. There are two different, but somewhat connected, pieces when it comes to sources. A source can be reliable (or not) and can be helpful (or not) in showing notability. For example, New York Times is both reliable and generally helpful in showing notability - however if it were to run a straight interview that particular piece, because interviews are generally not considered independent, would not help with notability. Conversely, the newspapers in play here are not helpful in establishing notability but they probably would be OK to verify facts of a notable topic. As for the questions about small presses, if a topic is notable something which is self published or published by a smaller press with an editorial process (as opposed to merely a vanity press) then it could be used to say "this is what this person says is true" but not "this is true". Essentially we put the information in the subject's voice, rather than Wikipedia's. Hope that helps. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Jennmorris1, to aid readbility, I'm starting a separate section for my reply to your queries above.
"If you notice, I originally became a user on Wikipedia ten years ago and this page stood for many years without any discussion."
The logs show that you only registered your account 3 days ago. Unless you had another earlier account, I assume you mean that you have been reading Wikipedia for the last 10 years.
- (Apologies, the previous lack of headings and indenting made me think that Jennmorris1 had written that comment. I see now that it was Lissahoop who has indeed been editing here since 2009.)
Re "this page stood for many years without any discussion." The history of that article is a little more complicated than that. The first version was speedy deleted in October 2009 per Criteria A7: "an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." It was recreated in May 2014 and deleted in December 2017 via the proposed deletion process with the rationale "Promotional autobiography". The current incarnation of the article (created 5 days ago) appears to have been started with a verbatim copy of the deleted 2014 version.
While it is true that the second version stood for 3 years before it was deleted, that is no indication that it was deemed acceptable by other Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia has 5 million articles with hundreds and hundreds of new ones being created daily (not all of which survive). There is a group of about 300 editors who specialise in patrolling new pages, but before improvements in the tools, many new pages never got patrolled and simply slipped through the net. Eventually an editor may come across one of those pages and if they find problems will tag it for issues or propose its deletion.
I should also say that the more times a page is deleted and recreated, the more eyes there will be on it. This is especially true for pages that are autobiographies. Now on to your questions...
1. If an author creates a small press and publishes their own work via that press, is that considered self-publishing and thus make those sources unreliable (or not notable)?
- Yes, that is considered self-publishing. Works which are not subject to independent editorial control or peer-review are generally not considered reliable. They may be used to source very basic facts about a person, e.g. date and place of birth, or their opinion on an issue, if they were the published by that person. But they do not contribute to that person's notability. Some self-published works and small presses do achieve notability by virtue of their having been written about extensively in mainstream sources, having won major prizes, etc. The later works of Timothy Mo are a prime example.
2. Next, there was an argument that local press - of two regional newspapers (one for all of Southwest Missouri and the other for an area of maybe 50,000 people in that region) were not reliable. [...] Should these sources be dismissed out of hand?
- They were not be dismissed as unreliable for the purpose of verifying information about the subject. However, very local newspapers with low circulation do not contribute to the notability of the subject, unless there are multiple instances of significant, in depth, coverage. The two very similar articles about her publishing Joy, interrupted appearing in the Southeast Missourian and the Daily Journal in 2013 are simply not sufficient. The other brief mentions of her in a series of virtually identical articles from 2014 about a television series set in the town where she lives, were not about her and don't establish notability. A lengthy review of one of her books or a feature article about her and her work in a major, albeit regional newspaper, e.g. the St. Louis Post-Dispatch would contribute to notability, but this would need to be supplemented with features and reviews in peer-reviewed journals, books from major publishers, or other major newspapers and magazines.
3. but blog reviews, goodreads, podcasts, newsletters, would be of lesser validity/less reliable?
- Again, no self-published source (blogs) or sites with user-generated content ( Goodreads) should be used to verify claims about a third party. Nor do they contribute to the notability of the subject. Newsletters are very marginal and would need to be from a notable organization. Wikipedia does make exceptions for certain blogs by people who are notable in themselves and who are considered experts in the subject, for example Alex Ross's blog The Rest is Noise. The same criteria apply to podcasts.
4. Could an author be a secondary source even if the author of it isn't deemed notable enough to have their own page?
- It's not who the author is. It's where that source is published. If it's in a peer-reviewed journal, a book from a major publisher, or a major newspaper or magazine, then yes, it can be used as a secondary source.
5. I study the postfeminist approach to disability studies, in particular about reproduction/infertility, especially in how it relates to the trans community. Can I write a page about this subject in an encyclopedic fashion and include such a source?
- I've answered the source issue above. As to writing an article about your specialty, you need to read Wikipedia:No original research very carefully before you attempt it. In a nutshell, it says: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves."
Finally, Wikipedia's standards for sufficient personal notability to merit a stand-alone article do not equate to how interesting, talented, or accomplished that person is. Deletion of an article is in no way a reflection on the subject in any of those aspects. Hope this helps. Voceditenore ( talk) 14:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC) Updated and corrected by Voceditenore ( talk) 16:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)