Talk:Philip Schwyzer

Notability
notability? this reads like a minor academic's vanity page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.50.106 (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Good question. Here are some links that might help show whether the subject meets WP:BASIC notability criteria, or alternative WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR criteria:
 * Happy editing! JFHJr (㊟) 03:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He seems to be reasonably widely cited in relevant journals, as well as being trotted out by the mainstream press whenever they have a piece somehow related to disturbing Shakespeares grave (to paraphrase, he seems to have an unusual obsession with Shakespeare's alleged fear of exhumation; probably because he's written a paper about that). I'd say the number of books he's published combined with the number of papers and how much they're cited, not to mention how often he's quoted in the popular press, nudges him over the bar set by WP:PROF. --Xover (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * He seems to be reasonably widely cited in relevant journals, as well as being trotted out by the mainstream press whenever they have a piece somehow related to disturbing Shakespeares grave (to paraphrase, he seems to have an unusual obsession with Shakespeare's alleged fear of exhumation; probably because he's written a paper about that). I'd say the number of books he's published combined with the number of papers and how much they're cited, not to mention how often he's quoted in the popular press, nudges him over the bar set by WP:PROF. --Xover (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Requirements for WP:RS
Hi Bbb23,

If you follow the links in the maintenance tag added in (primary source-inline), you'll find WP:PSTS and WP:V. As you can read from these, primary sources are perfectly ok to use on Wikipedia so long as they're not used to advance a position, novel synthesis, or original research. In this particular case, citing the work itself or its publisher's web site, is entirely sufficient to support the fact that the work exists and that this person is the author of that work (i.e. the article can say he wrote it). It would obviously not be sufficient to establish how the work was received, whether the work is significant in the relevant field, and so forth.

However, I'm beginning to suspect that you're really intending to challenge the notability of the subject as a whole? You're quite right you can't really (at least not in any meaningful sense) cite a source afiliated with the subject in order to establish notability (primary vs. secondary source isn't really the concern; it's first-party vs. third-party, or independent, that is the key factor); but if that's the case you should use Primary sources up top rather than this inline version (which applies only to its immediate context).

I'd probably !vote keep at AfD—cf. my comment above—but I agree the article needs reliable secondary sources independent of the article's subject to demonstrate its notability. --Xover (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No response in two days (editor in question has been active in the interval, with just shy of 100 edits elsewhere) so I've gone ahead and removed the tag again. Any remaining issues can be brought up for discussion here if needed. --Xover (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The poor editor in question didn't notice the comment. It was decent of you to wait. I'll go along with leaving the tag out.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)