Talk:Nancy Dudney

On current sourcing

FWIW, [1], [2], [3] are all primary, and [4] and [5] are mere database entries. It would be better to have independent secondary sources. This is a separate issue from notability, which does not depend at all on the sources that are in an article per WP:NEXIST. I am completely baffled as to why anyone would remove an accurate maintenance template from an article when they exist specifically to help people who specialize in fixing articles with particular issues to find the ones that could benefit from their attention. Ok so the removal may have been mistaken because the diff was not actually checked, but I thought I would leave this thorough explanation anyway. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:78EA:9B86:3096:3798 (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand what is meant by scarlet letter at all, that is just bizarre. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:78EA:9B86:3096:3798 (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

There absolutely no reason to hang a THIS ARTICLE IS DAMAGED READERS BEWARE sign on this article, something that would likely last years and in turn damage the reputation of its subject. That is what I mean by a scarlet letter. All of this article's sources are reliable, by organizations whose accuracy we can trust. They are used only for factual information about the subject. And in fact reference [3] is fully secondary, as it is by one organization reporting on actions taken by a different organization. The fact that the publisher is her employer does not make it non-secondary. It makes it non-independent, but that is a different thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

User:David Eppstein It is not a "READERS BEWARE" sign, is that claim supported in our policies and guidelines anywhere? If so please link. All it does is flag the article in a maintenance category for specialists to help with, nothing more and nothing less. In general bios by an organization about an employee are primary, that is different from ABOUTSELF, though related to it. The example of WP:PRIMARY used is a "traffic incident written by a witness", that is primary even though the witness was not a party to the incident and this is similar. It would be nice to have secondary references even if not required. Why not request help from specialists? Are you to proud? Does it have to be all your own work? Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, team effort is good. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:78EA:9B86:3096:3798 (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a few brief mentions of awards, honors and achievements:

• activities, affiliations and honors The Knoxville News-Sentinel, Knoxville, Tennessee, July 31, 2005, page E10, "2005 YWCA Tribute to Women Finalists"
• Distinguished Achievements in Science award 1989 Association for Women in Science, "4 women to receice science awards", The Knoxville News-Sentinel, Knoxville, Tennessee, May 8, 1989, page A2
• doi:10.1017/S1551929511000885 ProQuest 2209633829, 2011 Microscopy Today Innovation Awards

Isaidnoway (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that is the kind of coverage I was hoping people would help turn up, I would add it right now but I suspect that attempts at collaboration will not be welcomed at present. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:DD80:A0:6FAD:36F0 (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

That is local coverage of minor awards that mentions her only in passing as a member of an awarded research group. I'm not convinced that using it to puff up the article would be an improvement. The secondary nature of that coverage is...secondary. The main consideration should be: is this a significant aspect of her life and career? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

In general we shouldn't be the ones making the decision on what aspects of a topic are significant. Sources make those decisions and after reviewing all of the available sourcing for a topic, or as good a representative sample as limitations allow, we try to represent proportionately what the reliable sources on a topic say about it without any editorial bias or imposition of our own notions of importance. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:DD80:A0:6FAD:36F0 (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps editing articles on academics is not for you. In this topic, notability and content are based on scholarly accomplishments and their recognition by other scholars, not on the splash their hype makes in the outside world. For instance, the recognition we already list in the article are of a level of significance that Wikipedia's notability guidelines recognizes (see WP:PROF#C3); the ones listed in this thread appear to be local and non-notable awards rather than the sort of major or international award that would contribute towards #C2. Now, of course, we don't list things in articles only when those things directly contribute to notability, but that should at least give you some external guidance about what is significant and what is not, if you're too timid to use your own judgement on the matter. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing a guideline in article retention WP:N, which as has been repeatedly explained is not at all at issue. The notability guidelines do not apply to content in articles, in fact rather explicitly so, see WP:NNC. The issue at hand involves our core content policies, and no amount verbal gymnastics will have a result that our core content policies do not apply to certain classes of pages merely because you do not want them to. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:2977:7256:AACA:5F31 (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course notability and content are two different things. I said that already. Maybe you should try rereading my comment. But accomplishments that contribute to notability should definitely be included in our articles. Minor accomplishments that puff up articles with minor sources, not so much. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you should reread my earlier comment then, we should not be the ones who should be making the decision on what accomplishments are important, we let sources do that for us. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:9C9C:2B74:E732:DF8D (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)