Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)

message: :I would like to return to XOR'easter's proposal and vote Support for it as a good compromise that seems (?) to satisfy most participants of this debate. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. XOR'easter's proposal seems reasonable. - Enos733 (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if it makes things clearer. It seems to be the way C5 is interpreted at AfD anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with the change.  I don't think it affects how people who often participate in academic AfDs will interpret the guideline, but it will help people who are trying to read the guideline for the first time and understanding what it means. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

text: For clarity, I understand this to be the change to: "The person has held a Distinguished Professor appointment, a named chair that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where...". Assuming I understand that correctly, I support that, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I would agree with that if we were discussing the deletion of C5. But (assuming I understand correctly) what we are discussing here is the wording change that I just quoted in my support comment. I have trouble seeing that as a substantive change. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with this change and fine with doing it without a formal RFC. I think it is a clarifying minor wording change without any intended change to the substance of the guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and made the change on those grounds. XOR'easter (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Cheers, Qflib (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shifting back 

message: I just went and re-read the whole C1-8 for the first time in a while and realized something that is quite confusing about the whole list.  There are sort of two different types of criterion mixed together; three of which apply to 90% of academic notability cases, and five of which are specialized shortcuts.  Compare the current list with some sort of reorganization like this:
General Criteria for Notability of Academics (passing any one is enough):
* The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. (=1)
* The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. (=4)
* The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. (=7)
Specific Positions, Awards, and Roles
Academics who have held any of the following positions or received such awards and recognition in their own field have sufficiently shown that their work has had significant impact in either their discipline, higher education, or outside academia.  Thus passing any of these categories also satisfies notability:
* The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. (=2)
* The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association...(etc.) (=3)
* The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment...(etc.) (=5)
* The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post...(etc.) (=6)
* The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. (=8)
---------
It seems that somehow distinguishing the more general from the more specific cases might be helpful especially for newcomers to understand that there is a general way that academics are judged and then there are specific ways that save time at AfD.  Drawback of course would be renumbering the criteria many of us know so well (call them A1–3, B1–B5?).  The category labels and transition words are just things I came up with really fast, they're not important to the proposal, just the notion that these are two different things. Thoughts?  -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that although this might have made sense to do at the dawn of time, this change would create more confusion than it would cure if carried out at this point. Just my opinion. Qflib (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  C1,4,7 vs C2,3,5,6,8