Talk:Ken Ring (writer)
I'm obviously missing something - what else do i need to provide to demonstrate notability? VIQleSthe2nd (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject."
[news items about ken ring - including non NZ media]
VIQleSthe2nd (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Granted, but note the next paragraph in WP:BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."
- Also, refer to WP:ANYBIO. WP:ENT may likewise be relevant. Otherwise, I'm puzzled why a bad-tempered astrologer who can't astrologise (that's how he's depicted in the article) should be in an encyclopaedia. LordVetinari (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Some of the references aren't suitable (e.g. discussion website). The subject is perhaps notable under points 2 and 3 of WP:BIO#Entertainers. Tayste (edits) 02:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- References to the author's publications, including ISBN etc., might assist too. Tayste (edits) 02:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- He's very notable in NZ at the moment - primarily due to the recent events surrounding the earthquake and his claimed predictions. ISBN of his latest book is 9781869793029, not quite sure how you'd normally work that into the article. other books: (see article)