Talk:Sas Carey

Untitled

I fail to see how this woman is notable, no coverage, cited sources are her organizations web site and "Personal Correspondence"?? Sounds like Paid or COI issues to me.Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Okay, after reading through some of the information on notability and biographies, I understand why my article was tagged, and I agree that it is not adequate. However, I contest the notion that it should be speedily deleted. I feel the person who tagged the article has combined what should be three separate critiques in the previous Talk comments: (1) the authorship is dubious, (2) the article is not adequately cited, and (3) the subject is not in fact notable. As to the first: I, the author, live near and have met the subject, but I received no payments or benefits for writing the article. My additions to Wikipedia are in no way systematic or insidious, they are only things I am interested in or familiar with that I don't find on Wikipedia. There is nothing sensation, derogatory, or hagiographic in the article, so I fail to see any conflict of interest. If the subject were, in fact, say, a serial killer who had never been to Mongolia, then (a) anyone could correct my article and (b) I could make the same mistake by gleaning from secondary sources. As to the second: yes, the article is not adequately cited. I will change that as much as I can, but I hasten to note that the guidelines on notability specifically say that they are guidelines and that there can be exceptions. This is important to recognize because meeting the basic criteria of secondary sources is often to do with fame and not intrinsic interest (and fame is specifically noted as an inadequate reason for inclusion); i.e., fame begets secondary sources, and this type of attention does not warrant an article. I bring to your attention the case of another filmmaker picked at random named Clark Johnson. His Wikipedia article includes only a couple references that are truly secondary sources and they are only entertainment blurbs. But--and this goes to points (2) and (3)--would you seriously contend that an TV actor/director has as much inherent notability as someone who has received nation awards for public service, produced origin films in the third world, and built institutions from scratch to contribute the health of 100s or 1000s of people? Anyhow, I think the article should be allowed to stand and the citations built up rather than having it be deleted entirely. --CxLxMx (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"Once the article has at least one reliable source, you may remove this tag." Okey-dokey. --CxLxMx (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Your sourcing work certainly meets the requirement to remove the deletion tag and I wouldn't tag it for deletion or mention the conflict or Paid editing concerns. that mostly stemmed from the "personal correspondence" reference.

That said, I am going to tag this with maintenance tags and a notability tag. I'm not sure she meets notability requirements, but that should be discussed by a larger audience without deletion hanging over all your hard work. I'll look at the other article you mentioned, but the well what about this article doesn't carry any weight in deletion discussions.FYI. Newmanoconnor (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a conflict between the two definitions of notability given in Wikipedia's Notability guidelines. The objective measure of several non-trivial secondary sources is not a great test of whether something is "'worthy of notice'; that is, 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded'". It is a better test of fame. As I mentioned above, I fail to see how this woman's life could be regarded as "not interesting enough to deserve attention," when there are plenty of other people on Wikipedia whose notability is connected exclusively with the fact that they have been on camera, i.e. their notability is connected directly and exclusively with their visibility, i.e. their fame. The fact that someone hasn't had a NYTimes profile or some such could have many reasons including ideology, humility, etc... I think this is why the notability guidelines say that there can be exceptions to the non-trivial secondary sources rule. I would suggest that the subject of this article is interesting enough to deserve attention, and that suggesting otherwise is mostly just making value judgments about the intrinsic interest of traditional medicine, the lives of nomads, etc. But I appreciate that Newmanoconnor reversed opinion on the speedy deletion issue. --CxLxMx (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)