Talk:Rosemary Ellen Guiley

Notability

I would say this is pretty marginal at the moment. She has written some books, and been criticised for them. Is there significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject or evidence of meeting WP:AUTHOR? Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I answer that later? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

No rush! Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

For now: I've been looking up her books one by one (mostly for the ISBNs), and they, especially the encyclopedias are widely referenced in other published books (also, do a search for Guiley on Wikipedia itself), and according to what I'm reading from different places, she's considered an authority on the paranormal. I just started looking into it a couple of days ago, I don't think I have the kind of sources you're looking for. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not me, it's a Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not new here. To be clear: I'm positive that point 1 of WP:AUTHOR applies. It's not the principle behind the Wikipedia guideline that says this particular subject isn't noteworthy, but an editor who interprets the policy too strictly. So yes, it's you who I need to convince.

It's not always possible to make a subject's noteworthiness explicitly clear in the article itself; I can't cite by example each one of the tons of books that have listed a work of hers as a useful resource. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

No, and I wouldn't expect you to pile up those lists. But to establish that "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" you need to find independent reliable sources making that assessment. Doing it yourself by counting citations or whatever would be at best original research. Just like anything else, really. Are there sources that so describe her? Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Should I move this back to userspace draft for now? You're linking me to common policies, there's nothing I haven't heard before. Give me a week or so and then take it to AfD if you must; I'm not having this conversation right now. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I over-reacted, sorry. I tried to initially refrain from making the article sound promotional, since that's what the Deletionist Cabal likes to pounce on, but apparently I instead managed to make the subject look un-notable. I've added things to the lead and there's plenty more, I just don't want to clutter the text with more refs unless it's necessary. Any feedback and improvements are welcome at any time. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 21:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not planning to do anything drastic. Since you're aware of the policies I'll leave you to it. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Response section

The content of the Response section is an opinion of a single author. Recommend it be reduced or additional more neutral commentary be added. Aacool (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)