4 ms·
> She is notable now for having won a Nobel Prize That's not right. The Nobel Prize didn't bequeath notability to her, it recognized the notability she alrea
by MichaelGroves 5y ago
> She is notable now for having won a Nobel Prize
That's not right. The Nobel Prize didn't bequeath notability to her, it recognized the notability she already earned for herself.
- nsajko 5y agoHow so? And how is this relevant?
- bloqs 5y agoFrom an Encyclopedic perspective, this is wrong
- prvc 5y agoThat's not the definition of notability used by Wikipedia.
- MichaelGroves 5y agoThat's the point of all of this isn't it? Wikipedia's standard/definition of notability, or their method for determining it, is broken.
- ethelward 5y agoAt the same time, you can't expect Wiki editors to be expert in all cutting-edge domain of knowledge to be able to determine which academics are or aren't notable.
- DerpyBaby123 5y agoI think it is right, as a result of winning the Nobel Prize, she received significant coverage in multiple published sources. At least, I don't see any current wikipedia sources from before the time she was recognized as a Nobel winner. From wikipedia[1]: >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. From this definition, it seems you can't 'earn yourself notibility' directly, except as to earn it indirectly by having independent reliable sources publish about you. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#...