This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi there, I wanted to know if this draft article User:Sintaku/Kristen Rudisill will satisfy those two. I've included reliable sources, and the person has been awarded more than two awards (but I can't seem to find them on google apart from the two sourced ones). I couldn't find the age/dob online, so I dropped her an email which I found on the university website. Other than that everything has a secondary source. And any other advice would be great! ~~SintakuTalk17:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
I'd say notability is an issue. Many of your sources are not secondary, but primary sources: Her own employer, programs in which she participates, the websites of conferences she organizes. None of those are truly independent. The Toledo Blade is independent, but that article isn't really about Rudisill and provides next to no information about her. The Hindu probably is your best source, but it still provides rather little information on Rudisill (compared to the finer points of translation). Huon (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
How would you judge notability? She has two awards. It is hard to find secondary sources. So should I wait for more secondary sources? What would be needed to make it satisfy the base requirements for Wikipedia? ~~SintakuTalk20:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
A topic is presumed notable if it is the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Rudisill may well meet that criterion, but right now the sources in the article don't show all that much independent coverage. For example, if newspapers had reported on those awards, that would be much more of an indication of notability than if her own institutes and departments are the only ones who care. (As an aside, Fulbright is not so much an award as a stipend; you already mention it earlier in the article.) Huon (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Can you have a look at User:Sintaku/Kristen Rudisill and tell me if it meets WP:V and WP:N for inclusion into Wikipedia? Also can I use the publications made by the academic professor in question Kristen Rudisill (journal articles, papers, etc.) as sources? She has punlished with the Oxford University Press, etc... I know self-published sources like websites, blogs, etc don't count but what about peer reviewed publications? ~~SintakuTalk11:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Verifiability is not an issue, but notability is. There is very little third-party coverage of Rudisill, and that doesn't really cover her in any detail. Her own writings unfortunately cannot help in that regard - what we need are independent sources, such as others reviewing her scholarship. Huon (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
I've added some more sources. So far 3 news sources, 2 books, the others are papers and university news. How many more do I need? ~~SintakuTalk00:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Without having looked it up, I doubt a book published in 1997 will cover Rudiskill in any detail. That's the year she completed her BA, hardly a level of accomplishment that usually gets someone discussed in books. Similarly, those news sources I checked didn't have much to say about her. And the vast majority of sources are primary sources, including the most-cited one - so many primary sources that it's difficult to find the third-party sources among them. There's no fixed number of sources needed, and quality is at least as important as quantity - if, for example, The New York Times, Le Monde and Asahi Shinbun had written articles about her that covered her in some detail, those three would likely suffice. A passing mention in some college newspaper is much less helpful. Huon (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
