Wikipedia:Notability (scholars)

This is a draft notability guideline for academics, educators, scientists and other scholars. It is intended to explore ideas about the notability of scholars that cannot easily be incorporated into the existing guideline at Notability (academics) (commonly referred to as WP:PROF). Eventually, if it obtains sufficient consensus, it could become an alternative to or replacement for WP:PROF. If nothing else, it can help generate ideas for improving it.

Background
This section is not intended to be part of the finished proposal.

Shortcomings of PROF
The notability guideline for academics (PROF) is one of the oldest and best-established subject-specific notability guidelines. It has a strong consensus behind it and a citation to a PROF criterion is frequently enough to end a debate on notability (e.g. at AfD). However, over the years a number of criticisms have consistently emerged. This suggests that while PROF might 'work' in the sense that it produces results, a large section of the community is not satisfied with these results.

These are some of the shortcomings of PROF that have been raised in the past and which new guideline could overcome:


 * 1) PROF is too complicated: it has nine separate criteria, each with lengthy notes, many of which require in-depth knowledge of how academia works.
 * 2) PROF is too strict: it is based on the presumption that the "average professor" is not notable, so most of the criteria look for achievements that only the most distinguished academics attain, usually towards the end of their careers. Other similar notability guidelines (e.g. WP:NSPORT, WP:NACTOR) are more inclusive, and presume 'average' member of a widely-covered profession implies notability. Although ultimately all articles are subject to the GNG, there is editorial leeway in where we presume notability. For example, WP:NCORP is deliberately strict, because it is a topic prone to promotional abuse. Academic biography has a low potential for abuse, so we can afford to apply a looser presumption of notability in order to fulfil Wikipedia's function as a gazetteer or almanac.
 * 3) PROF is too subjective: the use of qualifiers like 'significant', 'prestigious' and 'highly selective' in the criteria leave considerable scope for individual interpretation.
 * 4) PROF exacerbates systematic biases:
 * 5) * Gender bias – it is demonstrably more difficult for women academics to pass PROF than men of equivalent career achievement, and biographies of women are more likely to be scrutinised for notability than those of men;
 * 6) * Regional bias – the criteria refer to aspects of academic careers that only exist in the United States, or in western countries;
 * 7) * Career trajectory bias – PROF reproduces the 'hero scientist' trope, emphasising singular contributions by individual academics, and making it more difficult to argue for the notability of collaborative contributions to science.
 * 8) The relationship between PROF and WP:GNG is ambiguous: since PROF was created, the community consensus has evolved to see the GNG as the ultimate standard of notability, to which SNGs like PROF must be subordinate. It has been difficult to reconcile PROF with this view because most of its criteria do not refer to the existence of "independent, reliable sources" but to arbitrary achievements.

Goals of a new guideline

 * 1) PROF2 should be simple: a concise set of criteria covering the most common presumptions of notability, including necessary but not exhaustive explanatory notes and examples; avoid assuming "inside knowledge".
 * 2) PROF2 should be inclusive: the criteria for presumed notability should reflect the fact that the "average professor" is somebody who has spent a career engaged in work that is by its nature covered by reliable sources; it's very likely that there enough of these sources to write an encyclopaedic biography.
 * 3) PROF2 should be objective: the criteria should reference specific facts that can be directly verified with reliable sources; avoid qualifiers that are open to interpretation and/or invite editors to do original research.
 * 4) PROF2 should be fair: criteria should be globally-applicable as far as possible, and avoid referencing achievements known to be historically gender- or otherwise biased.
 * 5) PROF2 should be grounded in the GNG: like other SNGs, PROF2 should be framed as an advisory supplements to the GNG, explaining the peculiarities of sourcing in a particular domain and giving sensible rules of thumb on which subjects are likely to meet the GNG, but not superseding it.

Basic criteria
A person is notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that scholars are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have attained a certain level of academic rank or recognition by their peers. Scholars that meet any one of the specific criteria below may be presumed to be notable.

In assessing the notability of scholars, due consideration should be given to the fact that secondary source coverage is more likely to focus on the subject's work than aspects of their biography. Examples of such coverage include citations, book reviews and review articles. If a scholar's body of work, or any single element of it, meets the general notability guideline, they themselves are also notable.

Specific criteria
Scholars are presumed to be notable if they verifiably meet any one of the following criteria.

Academic appointments and awards

 * 1) They have held a full professorship or equivalent position at a major university or other institution of higher education and research.
 * 2) They have received an international or national-level award (e.g. ...) for research or teaching.
 * 3) They have been an elected member or fellow of a selective scholarly or professional society.

Coverage of work

 * 1) Their published work has been highly cited relative to their field.
 * 2) Their published work has been the subject of multiple reviews.
 * 3) There has been significant coverage of their work in popular media.