Draft talk:Merlin Sheldrake

Many issues

• PhD needs a citation, e.g. his thesis at UL
• Ref 9 is not relevant to postdoc
• Royal Society book prize needs source
• Inspiration of couture needs source to verify
• Where he works does not confer notability
• His FFF does not confer notability, and needs a source
• Being a RA is not notable
• Unverified advisor to Fungi Foundation
• His business does not confer notability
• Consultant for runway is not notable

He has one book, but that by itself is not enough. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Ldm1954

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond in detail. Much appreciated.

I will address your feedback as best I can.

One point for clarification:

I understand the point that articles by the subject themself are not the same quality as articles about the subject.

Therefore - is the solution to remove the articles by the person to a different location?

I am referring, for example, to this piece in The Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/10/hidden-world-fungi-life-earth

Kind regards, Science and such (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Just writing an article does not make the author notable in Wikipedia terms. This is why there is a redirect page, which was the conclusion of a previous | deletion discussion. The book is notable, that is all at the moment and I do not see anything that changes the conclusion in the prior discussion. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Ldm1954

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond in detail. Much appreciated.

Recent version updated to include (all) of your feedback. See numbers below.

One point to begin, you state:

He has one book, but that by itself is not enough.

I would raise the point that a person may write one hundred books which go unread - or a single book which sells hundreds of thousands (?) of copies.

See separate comments on Notability.

Here, to address Reviewer points (thank you):

1. PhD needs a citation, e.g. his thesis at UL - DONE

2. Ref 9 is not relevant to postdoc - moved

3. Royal Society book prize needs source - source added

4. Inspiration of couture needs source to verify - source added

5. Where he works does not confer notability - place of work - similar to a university affiliation or position indicates current notable activity. In this case by the Society for the Protection of underground Networks which is carrying out notable work.

Question: what is a better way to indicate this affiliation?

6. His FFF does not confer notability, and needs a source - source added. Is notable because of the impact on Policy level with IUCN and government agencies. Impact in terms of policy formulation is high.

7. Being a RA is not notable - agreed, unless qualified - work done at place of work is relevant - VU (Vrije Universeit) - with Kiers lab - is relevant because of its nature, notable because of current topicality and widespread attention: using nanoprobes and high-resolution imaging to map the nutrient flows and architecture of plant-fungal networks.

8. Unverified advisor to Fungi Foundation - source / reference added

9. His business does not confer notability - agreed. Removed.

10. Consultant for runway is not notable - disagree - in this case a high profile runway / fashion icon. Interesting for many people on wikipedia interested in Fashion and Design, etc. Science and such (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

No. You are not doing a balanced and unbiased reading of the notability guide. If you want examples of decent pages try Cathie Clarke and, slightly more fluffy, Sam Stranks. Please stop trying to persuade that being an RA is notable, it is not. 90% of the current draft is overstatements, i.e. WP:PUFFERY. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I will review the examples you have provided. Science and such (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

To make sure that I understand: are you instructing to remove, for example, multiple references to profiles in popular press and select only one representative piece? In terms of puffery, how to document significant coverage without puffery? Science and such (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I said before that where he works does not confer notability -- it would only if he was something like a cabinet member. You disagreed with my prior comments to help you about what does not belong. Look at the two examples I gave. They both state simply major achievements and awards, and minimal fluff. Major. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

N.B., academics who are notable typically have > 200 publications and an h-factor of > 50. His publications are minute by comparison, and should not be mentioned. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Notability considerations and previous discussions

Work has been done to address previous discussions on Notability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Merlin_Sheldrake

1. change in details since last appraisal: - More academic publications / citations - Flora Fauna Funga initiative - IMAX film - presenter and executive producer - Further success of book

2. two types of Notability are addressed, General Notability Guidelines, and Creative Professionals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals

The references are a list of sources that constitute: 1. significant coverage in 2. reliable sources and 3. secondary sources which are 4. independent of the subject

The person who is the subject of the article has been profiled (distinctly from his book) in the following publications: New Yorker, New York Times, Emergence Magazine, The Telegraph, Der Spiegel, The Observer, Deutsche Welle.

and interviewed in Scientific American, Financial Times, and Literary Hub.

Has made numerous radio appearances, BBC 4, CBC Sunday Edition, Virgin Radio, ABC. Additionally, the references demonstrate:

WP; NOTABILITY as per WP: AUTHOR quoting from Wikipedia Guidelines here: specifically as the person has created "a significant or well-known work" " (for example, a book" which is "the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and

Additionally the person's work (or works) has: (c) won significant critical attention. As demonstrated by, for example, partial list of book reviews in: New York Times, Wall Street Journal, TIME magazine, The Guardian, The New Yorker, The Sunday Times, The London Review of Books, New Statesman, Nature Plants, Times Literary Supplement, New York Review of Books. Science and such (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources added to support the submission.

in response to objection on the grounds of: lack of significant coverage (ADDRESSED) which has now been demonstrated in Reliable, Secondary sources which are Independent of the subject. Notability of the person (author) has been demonstrated. Science and such (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Additionally work has been done to demonstrate the difference in Notability between the Subject (a person) and the redirect to a book they wrote. Multiple references have been added to demonstrate the notability of the subject independent of the book (where the current article redirects).

Editorial issues and Notability

Thank you for your continued patience and editorial guidance.

1. regarding editorial observations of Puffery and Reference Bombing: Please note that the references were inserted into the draft article as placeholders meant to demonstrate notability. The intention is not to include the references in the article.

2. Please suggest how to demonstrate notability by citing multiple references without over-burdening the (draft) article with "bombing".

3. Notability. Referring to WP:BASIC

The argument for notability is based on the specific guidelines as quoted below.

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

Sheldrake has been profiled in the New Yorker, New York Times, Guardian, The Telegraph, Der Spiegel, The Observer, and Deutsche Welle, etc. (see question above: here/ how to cite without bombing) Please note that these are profiles of him and his work, and NOT his book. His work with the Society for the Protection of Underground Networks has been covered in the New York Times, Science, and Washington Post (ibid). His work with the fauna flora funga initiative has been covered in the Guardian.

Regarding WP:CREATIVE

"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);"

Sheldrake has written a book that has been the "primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Note that the criterion above specifically states that 'a book' can qualify an author for notability provided it has received enough coverage. In addition, he is the executive producer and presenter of a significant IMAX forthcoming IMAX movie in collaboration with Bjork. Science and such (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)