Bernardbonvin
Welcome
editHello, Bernardbonvin, and welcome to the English Wikiquote, a free compendium of quotations written collaboratively by people just like you!
- For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote:Wikiquote.
- See also What Wikiquote is not for common activities that Wikiquote does not support.
- To browse Wikiquote, take a look at our browsing start page.
- Before creating new articles, consult our guide. You may practice how to edit a page at Sandbox.
- Please remember to use edit summaries when editing pages.
- When posting to a discussion, please sign with a date by writing four tildes (~~~~) and saving.
- Be bold.
To ask for advice or assistance feel free to drop by the Village Pump or ask on my talk page. Happy editing! And again, welcome! ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 15:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
You wrote:
- Regarding Ningauble's statement "it does not appear that userpage exercises are what he (F. Cercignani) is noted for": F. Cercignani is certainly notable as a creative writer and his userpage examples contain his own aphorisms, not mere exercises. ~ Bernardbonvin (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
"Notable" is a Wikipedian term of art. It doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means. Wikiquote generally depends on Wikipedia for notability of subject decisions. WQ then has its own standards for "quotability," which may include notability, but also other considerations.
See the page Ningauble pointed to, w:WP:GNG. To understand that, you need to understand, as well, the "reliable source" guideline, and other referenced guidelines. Again, "reliable" is a term of art, it does not, for example, mean "truthful."
Wikipedia developed standards that, in theory, should be objective, not subjective. (The reality is somewhat different, but that's another problem.) If a topic is not covered in "reliable source," it is not notable (because it has not been "noted in a reliable source.")
I suggest reading that guideline and all the linked guidelines if you want to understand what is happening. What is at stake is the Wikipedia article, because it does not show adequate reliable source. Instead the article shows what fans of the topic may think interesting. Once a subject is established as notable, then some additional materials may be allowed, such as lists of publications that include self-published works. But a self-published work, itself, cannot establish notability. If you think about it, it makes sense. What makes something "notable" is that it is "noticed," and to avoid the problem of just anyone noticing stuff -- hey, you quote me and I'll quote you and we can be notable together! -- it must be covered in a reliable *secondary* source. An author's works are primary source that the author published or had a work published.
There are many details of this, too much for me to cover here.
If the Wikipedia article is deleted, the Wikiquote article will probably be toast. Articles sometimes sit with inadequate content for years before someone notices and requests deletion.
Someone with a lot of Google hits can actually be more difficult to find evidence of notability, because a few sources that qualify as w:WP:RS can be hidden in piles of links that are useless for that purpose. And an article that is full of links to non-RS pages can end up deleted because it creates the impression that there are no reliable sources.
I will point to this discussion for the user who did most of the work on the Wikipedia article. There is a good chance that there are reliable sources, for the Wikipedia article. One point should be realized: "reliable source" is not limited to web sources. If there are independent newspaper articles, or independently published books (not self-published!) that cover the subject or his work, those can be used as reliable source, they are merely more difficult to verify. However, merely that the subject was an author doesn't establish notability. Reviews of the work in an academic journal might. --Abd (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)