Talk:Philip Schwyzer

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Shakespeare Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability

notability? this reads like a minor academic's vanity page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.50.106 (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Here are some links that might help show whether the subject meets WP:BASIC notability criteria, or alternative WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR criteria:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Happy editing! JFHJr (㊟) 03:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be reasonably widely cited in relevant journals, as well as being trotted out by the mainstream press whenever they have a piece somehow related to disturbing Shakespeares grave (to paraphrase, he seems to have an unusual obsession with Shakespeare's alleged fear of exhumation; probably because he's written a paper about that). I'd say the number of books he's published combined with the number of papers and how much they're cited, not to mention how often he's quoted in the popular press, nudges him over the bar set by WP:PROF. --Xover (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements for WP:RS

Hi Bbb23,

If you follow the links in the maintenance tag added in this edit ({{primary source-inline}}), you'll find WP:PSTS and WP:V. As you can read from these, primary sources are perfectly ok to use on Wikipedia so long as they're not used to advance a position, novel synthesis, or original research. In this particular case, citing the work itself or its publisher's web site, is entirely sufficient to support the fact that the work exists and that this person is the author of that work (i.e. the article can say he wrote it). It would obviously not be sufficient to establish how the work was received, whether the work is significant in the relevant field, and so forth.

However, I'm beginning to suspect that you're really intending to challenge the notability of the subject as a whole? You're quite right you can't really (at least not in any meaningful sense) cite a source afiliated with the subject in order to establish notability (primary vs. secondary source isn't really the concern; it's first-party vs. third-party, or independent, that is the key factor); but if that's the case you should use {{Primary sources}} up top rather than this inline version (which applies only to its immediate context).

I'd probably !vote keep at AfD—cf. my comment above—but I agree the article needs reliable secondary sources independent of the article's subject to demonstrate its notability. --Xover (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No response in two days (editor in question has been active in the interval, with just shy of 100 edits elsewhere) so I've gone ahead and removed the tag again. Any remaining issues can be brought up for discussion here if needed. --Xover (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The poor editor in question didn't notice the comment. It was decent of you to wait. I'll go along with leaving the tag out.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]