Examples of articles in various areas and information for reviewing articles.

• User talk:DGG/Archive 99 Apr. 2015#Notability - "Most of the special guidelines are attempts to correct bias..." (April 2015)
• Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)/Archive 9#Modification of the last paragraph in the lead - RFC on WP:PROF's relation to WP:GNG (upheld), especially DGG's statement (Sept 2017)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xmonad (3rd nomination) - DGG's Keep vote summarizing his views on the GNG and consistency (Sept 2018)
• User talk:DGG#WP:BEFORE and other AfD advice - DGG on "letting other people have their harmless over-coverage in their areas of interest" (Sept 2018)
• User talk:DGG#Request on 00:09:57, 24 September 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Mr Kalm - DGG's comment " One thing you say is certainly right, and I have been saying this on and off for 12 years now: We should not call it notability because then when we reject an article, it does sound like an insult and is not really fair to the subject. What we really mean is "not suitable for an article in an encyclopedia", and that properly puts the responsibility for the decision on us." (Sept 2019)
• 2021 RfC on SNG wording re GNG - Some SNGs have specialised functions: for example, the SNG for academics and professors and the SNG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GNG. is now part of Wikipedia:Notability#Subject-specific notability guidelines. (Feb 2021)

• "There is more than one valid way of working here" DGG (May 2011)

• User talk:SMcCandlish#Adjusting approach - Choosing goals, working with people, and especially sourcing and original research (synthesis) (March 2016) Diff here

• User:Guy Macon/One against many - Essay on handling yourself as a minority in a content dispute (March 2017)

• User talk:Realmessage#undoing of the addition to the meaning of the word Elohim - Jtydog's succinct explanation to a new editor. See also his patient discussion here with another confused new editor on the same day (22 April 2016)
• User:Jytdog/How - "This is a narrative to get you oriented to how this place works, and to the key policies and guidelines." (11 October 2018)

• Ian Thompson on writing an article (June 2018)

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive292#Statement by Bilorv Succinct explanation of why an editor's statement that "Not every sentence on Wikipedia needs a citation." is not true. (August 2021) - may not need an inline citation but must be attributable. I am concerned about the difference between "attributable" and "attributed within the article".

• Owen Astrachan - professor of computer science, field curriculum and teaching methods, low publication and citations for professors doing this sort of thing. Instead on meeting panels, special sessions, etc. at meetings of groups like ACM SIGCSE as recorded in his cv and in the Bulletin.
• Catherine L. Besteman - anthropologist
• Martha Copp - stub with enough to show notability including reasonable list of selected publications
• Rae Helen Langton - professor of philosophy whose CV provided extensive autobiographical information
• John Swinton (theologian)
• Margaret Hotchkiss - very nice research section

From DGG's talk page - Basic cleanup steps for professors (and much of it applies to all bios) Oct 2014

• User talk:DGG/Archive 0.5#Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stephen M. Sheppard and revising faculty academic bios

For help in writing an article see User:StarryGrandma/Writing an article about a professor or researcher.

An example of a photo from the public relations department of a university

• File:Joy Johnson.jpeg - later deleted as non-free content

• Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 51#"Articles" about academics (July 2017) , entire discussion, DGG's comment diff here about relation to GNG, work being influential, and differences between encyclopedia article vs CVs and press releases.
• December 2016 and August-September 2017 discussions . DGG's thoughtful diff here on citations, etc.
• May 2019 discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)/Archive 12#RfC about independent sources for academic notability. Joe Roe's comment: This proposal—apparently aimed at stopping universities being used as sources for who is a professor at a university, scientific societies being used as sources for who is a fellow of scientific society, award-giving bodies being used as a source for who they give awards to, and so on—is neither reasonable nor a reflection of editors' longstanding practices.
• May 2021 discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive327#NACADEMIC. Contains David Eppstein's comment on accomplishment-based notability.b
• September 2023 discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 79#Notability (academics). Joe Roe mentions his attempt at PROF2 at Wikipedia:Notability (scholars). North8000 mentioned his essay Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works and pointed out that Also, unlike other areas like sports (which is at the other extreme where the coverage itself is a form of entertainment and so is more voluminous and less indicative) GNG coverage of academics is less so and so I think that a bit of extra consideration for the the types of things targeted by the SNG is a good thing.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators/archive
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators/archive 2

My comment at AfD for Adem Yetim:

• There may be some confusion about the meaning of being a Fellow of a professional society where the term is a membership level and of being a Fellow of other professional societies where the term Fellow is reserved for honorary awards. The BCS Fellow is a membership level for senior people in the profession. A person applies for it themselves; there is an application fee. Fellows pay higher dues. This is different from the American computing societies. Fellow is an honorary award given to a limited number of members. A person does not apply for it but must be nominated by others. There are no fees. Receiving it has no effect on dues. See ACM Fellows and IEEE Fellows. BCS does have an equivalent award, Distinguished Fellow of the British Computer Society. (Oct 2021)

Examples of non-honorary fellows

• Institute of Physics - senior members who pay more dues
• Institution of Engineering and Technology - - senior members who pay more dues
• Royal Astronomical Society - all full members are called Fellows
• Royal Society of Biology - senior members who pay more dues
• Royal Society of Chemistry - senior members who pay more dues

• User talk:DGG/Archive 97 Feb. 2015#23:14:23, 2 February 2015 review of submission by TheosophyAtlantian - Why so many existing "personal advertisements" and 1600 article submissions a day (February 2015)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From the Notebooks of a Middle School Princess - Keep vote by Tokyogirl79 analyzing the issues with popular children's books/series and saying "no consensus at this time that short reviews are unusable." (November 2015)

• Argo Tea - small company, GA status 3 December 2011
• Chemical Bank - large company, GA status 31 July 2010, oldid=375815558
• Duluth Pack (company) - small company, oldid=586995460
• International Hat Company - new article (Dec 13) about former company
• Ipsy (company) - student's version before AfD vs Jytog's rewrite 8 April 2017
• Waggener Edstrom Worldwide - public relations firm, GA status 5 February 2013

• User talk:DGG#Notability - On company notability, promotionalism (September 2013)
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 226#Why did my article get denied - What company article content should be (July 2014)
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 229#Submission Rejected - Why existing company articles aren't good models (July 2014)
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 304#Can I get a review for checks and balances before I resubmit my draft - Difference between presenting company to clients and an encyclopedia article (February 2015)
• User talk:DGG/Archive 98 Mar. 2015#22:19:53, 13 March 2015 review of submission by Jtrosenb - Legacy Devers Eye Institute, and general for such organizations (March 2015)
• User talk:DGG/Archive 99 Apr. 2015#Recreation of previously speedy deleted article by company representative again :( - On why professional press release writers can't write a plain neutral presentation (April 2015)
• Orange Mike quoting DGG - On why PR people can't write in non-PR style (quoted May 2016)

• International directory of company histories - print, also a database avail at some libraries. See use in Honeywell from here.

Applicable to women in many fields, in response to Google's Ideological Echo Chamber see "The e-mail Larry Page should have written to James Damore". The Economist. Vol. 424, no. 9054. 19 August 2017.

• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 594#Speedy deletion nomination for academic library page - Academic institution concerned about "branding", wants their web page copied to Wikipedia (March 2017)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Institute - On keeping professional and scholarly organizations in the face of demand for sources (December 2019)

While the Notability documents don't say this, there is a statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Schools that says "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." (Retrieved February 2015)

• Clarkson College - health sciences, Omaha, Nebraska

• Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines, particularly regarding "textbook" or other well-known knowledge.

• DGG's insights on the WP:AfD process here, now as a diff [1].

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive931#Actual fixes DGG, 14 August 2016, continued at User talk:DGG/Archive 115 Aug. 2016#AFC redux.
• Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC, its links, and its talk page
• Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Should the AfC process be scrapped altogether (while retaining the draft namespace)? closed as no consensus 6 March 2017
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Combining AfC reviewers and new page reviewers - closed as no consensus 17 April 2017
• User talk:DGG#AfC and AfD, 9 September 2021, from a discussion here, AfC a screening mechanism "to keep out the impossible and improve the borderline", not a process where a single editor determines content.

Some of these are new and editors might respond, others are old review requests

• Draft:Juliette Denny (Mon, Aug 14)
• Draft:Quail Coalition
• Draft:Andrew de Burgh
• Draft:Crunchy Data
• Draft:Pamarco
• Draft:Brian K. Stafford

• Draft:Cassantec AG (Tue, Aug 15)

• Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers - AfC and Draft namespace come up often. Discussions easier to follow and predate RfC's.
• DGG on New Page Patrol and subsequent discussion (14 June 2017)