Wikipedia:Draft rewrite of Notability (academics)

This proposal is aimed at changing the criteria for the subject-specific notability guideline for academic personnel on Wikipedia known as PROF or WP:NPROF. There are known limitations to the current criteria that we hope to address. The case below outlines the history of the guideline, the research relating to PROF, and includes recommendations.

In order to help people reading this document, the PROF criteria are listed here with the specific criteria notes listed here.

Background

Knowing the history of something is important to understanding how we got to where we are. Looking through the archives on the PROF guideline, prior to 2008, it was a very different measure. Three striking points emerge from the review:

1. it was revised to clarify the standards and eliminate the contentious nature of AfD discussions
2. it was specifically rewritten to address the qualifications of research professors, assuming that teaching professors and administrators would qualify under ANYBIO, and
3. there was recognition that the guidelines were culturally biased toward standards in the Global North.

It is much less clear whether or not the core group of editors who rewrote the standards submitted them for input from the community via an RfC or other community-wide process, but after ten years of implementation, it is clear that AfD has not overly changed, and that the intent of the guideline and what it actually implies by using the term "average professor test"—as well as the biases that it incorporated—have not solved the problems that they were intended to resolve. Wikipedia has changed dramatically over the decade that this guideline has been utilized, and application of this guideline within AfD, without wider discussion of how it is currently being applied, is a concern.

The contentious nature of repeated discussions concerning the PROF guideline is exhausting. As written, it is far too vague a measure for notability as it reinforces biases, it contains peacock terms, there appears to be original research, and there is a POV which would be disallowed in any other article on Wikipedia. As it stands, the guideline is much more in line with membership in an exclusive club than determining whether an academic is notable, given the context of both their field of study and geographical location.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that even with parallel careers, women's (and minorities') notability and recognition are likely to be less acknowledged and require greater documentation over a longer trajectory than their mainstream male counterparts. For example, a recent article written on a noted scientist gives us the following information: She and her husband graduated in the same medical class with the same degree from the same regional university in 1958. Simultaneously, they both earned their specialties at a well-known European university in 1964. They both returned to their home country where they were each appointed as Senior House Officers of the university hospital and lecturers in the medical faculty. He was appointed to head a medical department in 1973 where he worked in women's health. That same year, she was appointed to head a biology department at the same university, where she worked on infectious diseases. He was made a full professor in 1974. She was not made a full professor until 1983, and at that time, was only the second woman appointed as a full professor at their university. He was recognized with a national Order in 1979. She received the same award in 1998, seven years after he received appointment to another national Order, which to date, she has never been awarded. He has a page on the university "research publications" page, while she does not. She is not listed in World Cat, not listed in PubMed, or any other compiled list of publications, though sources cite that she "published prolifically". The few citations that could be located indicate that her work was not only regional in scope, but international, as was his. (The names have been omitted as both are living persons and a discussion of the biases that impacted their work should not include references which might impact them.)

In another anecdotal case, a woman scientist from Latin America, noted by her National Academy as "las figuras más importantes de la antropología en el país" (one of the most significant researchers in her field in the country), was feted upon her retirement. A book published by the Academy detailed her career trajectory and publication history. Comparing the hundreds of articles, books and monographs listed in the publication to known databases, Google scholar contained no entries for her; Scotus contained 1 entry; worldcat listed 37 publications. The omissions not only impact her publishing record, but anyone who cited her or whom she cited, and point to a flaw in using "highly cited" methodology as it currently stands, as it fails to take into account Global South researchers and those who publish prolifically in languages other than English.

The Problem

Guidelines should be clear and concise and make it readily apparent to readers what they are and what they are not. This guideline, as it is currently written, contains vague terms, subjective language and does not make clear that it does not apply to all academics, but rather only to academics engaged in research. It is widely accepted that the three-pronged mandate of universities is to teach, research, and provide service to their communities. Thus, the PROF guideline should clearly address all three tenets of that mandate, and should state that teaching academics and administrators who do not meet the guides should be subject to review under ANYBIO. As it stands now, the implication is that those not meeting this guide are not notable, which is hardly the case.

As the guidelines are now written, they decidedly favor the 80–90% male distribution that makes up the population of fully tenured professors. Specifically, criterion #5 regarding named chairs being valid only for full professorships limits the inclusion in Wikipedia of the accomplishments of the majority of women and minority academics who may spend years in academia, with significant accomplishments, but without attaining full professorship. More specifically, they do not include all notable faculty in the pool of potential articles (as would, say, the guidelines for professional sportspeople), but rather, they include only academics who are well above average and have significantly impacted their field of study. Impacting a field of study is unique and, if noteworthy in reliable sources, would constitute eligibility for GNG; however the PROF guideline goes a step farther, requiring "significant" impact, though it also purports to "set the bar fairly low", citing no evidence as to how the "low" criteria were established. However, going back to the archives of the guideline, it is apparent that standards were not set low, but instead were "set fairly high".

For example "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 determining the qualifications for the awarding of tenure", provides no evidence that this is widely accepted and uniform throughout academia, what those qualifications might be, or whether those same standards are applicable across different academic disciplines or applicable in the developing world. In actuality, there are no accepted standards, as the requirements vary widely between universities and even departments within universities, and even more widely when compared country to country.

The exclusivity in the guidelines goes even further, as the criterion #6 rejects academics, who are deans, head of a department, or provosts and yet includes anyone who holds the "highest-level elected or appointed administrative post", regardless of whether the administrator was involved in research, had an extensive teaching career, or was simply adroit at climbing the bureaucratic hierarchy. As shown in previously linked documentation, these are positions which are likely to have excluded women and minorities, thus being selected for such a position, which requires a proven track record, is likely to indicate that those assigned these high-level administrate posts are above the average academic level. As is also shown from the previous discussion from the history of the guideline's creators, the intent was not to imply that these people were not notable, but rather to point to other notability guidelines for their evaluation.

Likewise criterion #7 requires that if the person is working outside of academia (say, in a laboratory of a company), that their contribution must have been of substantial impact. Implying, for example, discovering a failsafe aniline dye as a consequence of trying to unsuccessfully develop quinine isn't unique enough in itself to establish notability, but rather one must confirm that creation of that substance changed the world of patenting and fashion, as well as the entire agricultural market that up until that time had relied on plants for supply of materials to produce dye. As noted before, the term "substantial" is subjective, is not in line with allowing sourcing to establish notability, requires editors to use their own analytical ability to determine what substantial might be, and should be eliminated from the guideline, as it is at odds with other accepted Wikipedia policies.

Which brings the next point, which is that highly cited is in and of itself prejudicial. Historical comparison of regional data shows that the majority of "highly cited" researchers live in the Global North. Further, the standard reflects well for those engaged in fields in the hard sciences and who publish in journals, while simultaneously penalizing those who work in fields where there is relatively little cross-citation to other research (such as in law, where authority) or where books or trial outcomes are the norm. Citations also rely on factors which may be impacted themselves by biases, known or unintentional. For example, research has shown that the majority of women cite both women and men's research whereas men typically cite other men. Add to that, the frequency with which many women have name changes often impact whether or not they are credited with all of their publications. Citations can and are manipulated by those who cite their own works, and simply citing a work does not ensure that it has actually been read. Documentary evidence exists to show that those with lengthy careers who published in the pre-internet era rank lower in indices like the H-index than more recent graduates whose work began after 1996.

Women and people from the Global South are often excluded from publishing because the funds to publish are controlled by academic hierarchies which exclude them, or by the dominance of the Global North in the small market of professional academic publishers. Even if academics in the Global South have produced journal content, they have typically needed to rely on established networks in the Global North to print and circulate their materials to larger markets. Further, many rankings require that published materials be in English, regardless of whether English is the predominant language in the country. This impacts the publishing ability of academics who speak English as a second language.

Criterion #4, requiring publication of "several books" used as texts, does not appear to be based upon any criteria, and could just as easily be indicative of placing the bar far above average. If a scholar has produced a single widely used textbook or the only textbook on the subject, have they met the bar of above average and exceeded the routine execution of their job? Likewise, if their work has affected or contributed to the development of curricula for other universities within their regional context, would the arbitrary criterion be satisfied? Terms and or criteria which cannot be established as globally accepted standards or in line with other Wikipedia policies should be removed from the guidelines.

Proposal

Having identified flaws and shortcomings in the existing guideline, it seems clear that a major overhaul of the criteria is required to eliminate criteria which do not appear to be in line with other Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Throughout the guideline the terms highly selective and highly prestigious should be removed as these are subjective terms, bordering on weasel words, and replaced with actual qualification requirements. It should also state in the lede that the guideline specifically does not include those engaged in pseudo-science and marginal or fringe scientific theories, who would be notable only if they meet criteria under the general notability or WP:BIO guidelines, eliminating the need to repeatedly address the subject. Biases which have been identified, studied and quantified need to be acknowledged, as they impact the analysis of notability. If it is harder to even arrive at the bar and then achieve it and surpass it, notability is enhanced, not ghettoized, as is frequently alleged. Failure to acknowledge that those biases exist gives editors inadequate information to assess significance. It is also recommended that the section called "Specific criteria notes" be eliminated and that the qualifiers for each section be moved to discussion points immediately following the numbered criteria to which they apply.

Criterion 1

Original text: The person's research has had an significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

• Removal of the word "significant" would bring the guideline more into line with existing standards for other subject-area notability guidelines and GNG and would eliminate some of the subjective nature of the guideline which causes so much tension. As written, the guideline places Wikipedia editors, "who [may have] virtually no back-ground" in a specific area of expertise, in the position of weighing their own ideas of what is "significant" against expert opinion from those who do have specific knowledge in a field.

General notes, discussed below, are found here.

• Under Notes on 1:

1. Bullet point one should be eliminated as it is discussed thoroughly in bullet point 6.
2. Bullet point two should be eliminated in its entirety, renumbered as 1–1 and replaced with "Persons appearing on major indices of highly cited academics are notable."

• While highly cited in and of itself, if noted in one of the major indices, such as Clarivate Analytics or Thomson Reuters would denote notability, the converse is not automatically true, in that not appearing on the lists could be due to a variety of factors, such as systemic bias, geographical location, whether the academic published in the pre-internet age, etc.

3. Sub-bullet point 2A should be modified to a bullet point on its own, 1–2, and state, "To count towards satisfying Criterion 1, citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books as may be included in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, or the Web of Science Core Collection. As any one database does not include all scholarly journals, monographs, or book chapters, it is acknowledged that failure to appear on such a list does not automatically mean that the journal fails peer-review."
4. Sub-bullet point 2C should be reordered and renumbered as 1-3 and the sentence "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 determining the qualifications for the awarding of tenure" should be stricken and replaced with An average of one publication per year in a scholarly academic journal over the career trajectory satisfies publishing requirements.

• As there is no uniform interpretation of what that a substantial number of publications might be, nor any uniform requirement across universities, within departments of a university, or across geographical boundaries, referring to a uniform institutional standard implies something that does not exist. One study which evaluated the entire Scopus database, containing 15,153,100 publishing scientists, found that less than 1% of all authors published more than one article per year over the 16-year period between 1996 and 2011. An average of one article per year appears to be a fairly standard performance requirement for universities.
• As for citation rates, over an eleven-year period from 2000–2010 the Essential Science Indicators database of Thomson Reuters showed an overall citation rate of 19.92 for articles with a ten-year track record of publication declining to 0.41 in the most recent year studied, but citation rates vary widely between fields. Those with the longest track record, from the first year of publication (2000), showed that the highest citation rates occurred in molecular biology and genetics (49.10) , immunology (38.21) and neuroscience (36.06). The lowest average citation rates occurred in Social Sciences (9.25), computer sciences (7.17) and mathematics (6.76). The rankings of high to low citations in various fields remained consistent over the period. Clearly, across varying fields the standards vary widely.

5. Sub-bullet point 2B should be renumbered as 1-4 and retained. It follows standard accepted practice in other Wikipedia guidelines that mere mention is insufficient and that content must be evaluated.
6. Bullet point 3 should be renumbered as 1–5 and should eliminate subjective terms, to wit: Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea; made a significant notable discovery; or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references in multiple reliable sources of academic publications by researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question.
7. Bullet point 4 should be renumbered as 1–6 and retained. It follows standard accepted practice in other Wikipedia guidelines of what are and are not reliable sources.
8. Bullet point 5 should be renumbered as 1–7 and retained with the change that (see below) be modified to state (see Criterion 2).
9. Bullet point 6 should be stricken unless documentary evidence can be provided that proves the criterion are widely accepted as non-routine job performance measures.
10. Bullet point 7 should be stricken. Wikipedia editors do not determine whether someone is an expert in a field, sources do. Regardless of whether the field is broad or narrow, editors must follow what is stated in reliable sourcing.
11. Bullet point 8, should be renumbered as 1–8 with the caveat that WP prohibits using indices such as the h-index, m-index, etc. to establish notability.

• Citations alone are inadequate to judge impact, as performance measures typically include a balanced review of quantity versus quality. Research has shown that less than 50% of the articles published in the top 4500 scientific journals are cited even once in the first five years after publication, with almost a quarter of those citations that do occur being self-citation. Research indicates that some of the most acclaimed research publications, even those which received the Nobel Prize, are not among the most highly cited works of all time. Further, publication biases controlled by hierarchical funding mechanisms or the small number of academic publishers, may impact the ability of women and minorities in bringing their works to print. It should also be stressed that name changes, which typically affect women, may reduce the number of citations credited to authors as do the period in which they published. Pre-internet scholars are far less likely to have their works compiled in such statistical compilations or bibliometric tools.
• Bibliometric indices are problematic for various reasons cited above and require editors to make subjective assessments of whether or not they are applicable for a given field. According to the French Academy of Sciences such tools are useful if used by experts and should be avoided by nonspecialists. Instead assessment should be based upon reliable secondary sources which indicate clearly whether or not the academic has had an impact upon their field of study.

12. Bullet point 9 should be renumbered as 1–9 and should be modified to append, unless reliable secondary sourcing confirms that the naming was based on the impact of an academic on their field.
13. Bullet point 10 should be renumbered as 1–10 and retained, as it is in line with other Wikipedia guidelines that notability is not inherited.

Criterion 2

Original text: The person has received an highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

• If the applicant has received an academic "award or honor at a national or international level", they have already surpassed the "average academic". Acceptance of national and international awards and honors as indications of notability are standard across Wikipedia. If sourcing indicates that an academic was chosen for a national or international academic honor, under what criterion of policy would an editor reject that as meeting notability?
• Under Notes on 2: Notes, discussed below, are found here.

1. Bullet point one should be retained and renumbered as 2–1.
2. Bullet point two should be retained and renumbered as 2–2.
3. Bullet point three should be retained and renumbered as 2-3.

Criterion 3

Original text: The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National academy or Royal Society for any country) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor an internationally recognized foundation or society known for scholarship (e.g., Fellow of the IEEE, Humboldt Fellows).

• Eliminating the subjective terms in the verbiage make the guideline more objective and in line with other Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia editors do not determine notability, rather sources do. If further clarification is needed for the types of awards that meet academic honors, those should be spelled out or qualified by things which such awards are not, i.e. does not include awards given for X.
• Under Notes on 3: discussed below, are found here.

1. Bullet point one should be renumbered as 3–1 and modified: For the purposes of Criterion 3, elected memberships, in minor and non-notable societies for which notability has not been established, are insufficient (most newly formed societies fall into that category).
2. A new point 3–2 should be added to confirm that "An academic who is a member of any national academy, which has adopted "practices that uphold the integrity of research to ensure advances in knowledge", meets the criterion.
3. A new point 3-3 should be added to align with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines: An academic who is a Fellow of a notable foundation or society, which was created for purposes other than scholarship, such to increase diversity, does not automatically meet the criteria of this guideline.

• It is certainly possible that a fellowship might be notable for granting funds to improve targeted underrepresented groups and yet their fellows have not yet proven that they meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. For example, while Laureates and Fellows of the L'Oréal-UNESCO Awards for Women in Science recognize established scientists, the Rising Talent Award is awarded to young talent, who may or may not have yet met sufficient criteria.

Criterion 4

Original text: The person's academic work has made an significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of multiple academic institutions.

• Removal of peacock terms to remove uncertainty and vagueness, should be completed. Guidelines for textbooks require use by two educational facilities.

General notes, discussed below, are found here.

• Under Notes on 4:

1. Bullet point 1 should be eliminated unless it can be proven that authorship of several books that are widely used as textbooks is generally accepted as a benchmark for high academic standards, separately from authoring one such book, or designing a course curricula, that has been in print for decades and is still in use. It should be replaced with "In lieu of confirming that the textbook is in use in multiple educational facilities, translation(s) into other languages or multiple editions satisfy verification of impact".

• Common sense dictates that as publishers are in the business to make money, they are not likely to spend publishing revenues to print multiple editions or translations of a work which they do not think will sell.

Criterion 5

Original text: The person holds or 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).

• Should be retained as it is widely accepted that named chairs recognize academic excellence and are valued by scholars as well as their universities.

General notes, discussed below, are found here.

• Under Notes on 5:

1. Bullet point one should be stricken. It is highly biased and does not reflect the reality for minorities in the academic setting, which shows that on average 80–90% of full professorships are held by men, that women rarely hold even 20% of full professorships and only tiny fractions are held by minorities.

• If a chair is endowed, it is endowed and based on the above cited documentation has value to the scholar, their peers and the university. Editors do not determine notability. The fact that the university selected the occupant of the chair, if confirmed in reliable sources, is sufficient to establish that the value of the appointment was recognized.

2. Bullet point two should also be stricken as prejudicial, there is no documentation given to show that major institutions have a better result at naming chairs than other institutions. In fact, there is ample evidence to show that reputations and scholarship by institutions in the Global South have only recently begun being studied. Further, simply because a university is considered "prestigious" has not been found to correlate with whether or not they are serving the needs of their students, academics, or communities.

• Comments:I have run into several instances were it is assumed that #5 creates inherent notability. Recently the comments "Passes WP:PROF if he held a named chair..." gives such indication. These and all other notability guidelines include availability of reliable sources as a main determining criteria. I would suggest using highlighting as substantiated through reliable sources. I am not trying to negate that holding a chair is not a "presumption" of notability but there seems to be a lack of knowledge that sometimes other than full professors are appointed to chairs, such as assistant or associate professors. Many institutions of higher education allow for such appointments in extreme or extraordinary circumstances but some just give exceptions that non-tenured or even non-tenure track associate or assistant professors can be appointed to a chair. Also, one area of concern I have is with allowing a chair to be a presumption of notability while a dean is considered a lessor position on a notability scale. Are most aware that a dean usually appoints a chair, with the advise of a committee, provost, or maybe the president. Sometimes the "dean of the college" establishes the search committee and ultimately still makes the appointment. I am just trying to make sense of the "rules" that a tenured professor, appointed as dean (of the college whether considered dean of faculty), most of the time subordinate (not always) to a provost and certainly a school president, but is not considered as notable as someone appointed to a chair. If we are going to use academic notability it seems that a dean, certainly a provost, would be on par with notability. Could there be some input on this? Otr500 (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Criterion 6

Original text: The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at an major accredited academic institution or major notable academic society.

General notes, discussed below, are found here.

• Under Notes on 6:

1. Bullet point 1 should be retained and renumbered as 6–1 with the exception that the last sentence should be stricken as pseudo-science has already been excluded from the guideline in its entirety. It is in-line with other Wikipedia policies which recognize CEOs, CFOs and business leaders as notable.

• The fact that the university acknowledged the occupant of the chair, if confirmed in reliable sources, is sufficient to establish that the value of the appointment was recognized.

Criterion (new)

A new point should be inserted as number 7, stating that The person is a teaching academic whose teaching excellence has been noted by a national award; who has designed a noted teaching innovation; or who has produced a notable textbook.

• As women and minorities make up more of the teaching staff and are more likely to be asked to fulfill the service missions of universities,[1][[2]], [3] are less likely to receive research funding in most fields[4], [5], [6], [7] and are less likely to be on a tenure track[8],[9] giving credit for teaching excellence will recognize academics who are less involved in research but within academia's three focus areas.

1. National awards (like the Australian Awards for University Teaching, the National Excellence in Teaching and Learning Awards of South Africa etc.) or teaching recognition from a national-level or international private foundation or society (such as the Deborah and Franklin Haimo Awards for Distinguished College or University Teaching of Mathematics, the 3M Teaching Fellowship, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Awards Program for Excellence in College and University Teaching in the Food and Agricultural Sciences, etc.), which is known for selective criteria founded in promoting high teaching standards, satisfy the requirement. Recognition by provincial/state or regional organizations, or awards from the academic's own university, may only be used to satisfy this requirement if both of the following hold true: 1) sourcing confirms that they were conferred based upon scholarly activities and were not inclusive of polls of peers or students and 2) the academic has received multiple awards mentioned in reliable sources.
2. Teaching awards which incorporate student evaluations are not acceptable to use in this criterion based on a review of their unreliability in assessing learning.
3. Innovation can include any aspect of education that has made a marked impact on improving learning including creation of curricula, development of technology, practical uses, policy development, etc. Adequate coverage in reliable sources must demonstrate that the person is widely credited with the development of the innovation or process.
4. Textbooks must meet standards established for textbook notability in criterion #4 of Book Criteria

Criterion (new)

A new point should be inserted as number 8, stating that: The person is an academic working in a field known primarily for their practice, such as architecture, engineering, law, or clinical work (such as physicians or other medical specialties); an administrator, such as dean, head of a department, provost, etc.; or any other academic and meets the standards for notability of ANYBIO or the General Notability Guideline.

1. Far less subjective criteria than the peacock term "prestigious" used repeatedly in the guideline should be included in the criteria, such as being appointed to one of those positions in a university listed in the top regional rankings on any of the major academic ranking organizations, like lists produced by the Academic Ranking of World Universities, the QS World University Rankings or the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. It is imperative that the location of the institution be evaluated, as for example, these ranking organizations have only recently (2013–2016) included locations in parts of the Global South in their surveys, which clearly indicate that the numbers of universities in those regions that are competing at a global level are comparatively small, when evaluated against universities in the Global North.
2. Not appearing on the lists does not mean that the university or academic working at them are not notable, as flaws to the ranking system point out biases toward English-speaking universities, toward elite institutions and toward universities which focus on hard sciences rather than social sciences, or the arts and humanities. Further, the needs of the communities which universities serve in the Global South may be quite different than in other areas, making rankings alone an insufficient measure as to whether or not they and the academics they employ are notable in their geographic location.

Criterion 7

The current criterion 7, The person has had an substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity, should be renumbered as 9 and edited to remove subjective text and eliminate criterion not included in the guideline: "The person has had an substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity".

General notes, discussed below, are found here.

• Under Notes on 8 (previously numbered as 7):

1. Bullet point one should be retained and renumbered as 8–1. It falls in line with other Wikipedia standards of significant coverage.
2. Bullet point two should be retained and renumbered as 8-2, striking out the phrases on pseudo-science which has already been excluded from the guideline in its entirety.

• Bullet point three needs clarification before it is retained. Recent scholarship indicates that patents are becoming an important source of research and development income to universities, are increasingly used by scholars who have taken over the place of industrial research laboratories, and have value as tenure measures.

Criterion 8

Original text:The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major peer-reviewed, well-established academic journal, noted for excellence in their subject area, the current criterion 8 should be renumbered as 10 and edited.

• In line with other Wikipedia guidelines, the length of establishment or size of the enterprise, may or may not denote notability. To establish the reputation under the criterion it is more precise to state that the journal is known for excellence in a particular field, which should be documentable with reliable sources. Likewise as with the discussion of industry, heads of notable journals are typically within the bounds of other Wikipedia guidelines of notability.

General notes, discussed above, are found here.

• Under Notes on 9 (previously numbered as 8):

1. Bullet point one should be stricken. It is repetitive and the entire subject of pseudo-science has been excluded from the guideline.

Criterion 9

The current criterion 9: 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 should be retained and renumbered as 11.