User:Pilaz/Don't use obituaries to determine notability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obituaries are poor indicators of notability. In most cases, obituaries should not be used to determine whether the subject of an article meets the notability requirements of Wikipedia, and in particular of the general notability guideline (GNG). This is due to the fact that obituaries are oftentimes written by the families of the deceased individual and published in otherwise respectable sources for a fee, and are therefore close to being self-published sources; that they often do not have a clear editorial policy, unlike the rest of the publication of which they are part; and that they tend to include even unnotable individuals. All of this leads to a yet to be estimated number of obits of ordinary people being published every year, many of which do not have a credible claim to notability. This phenomenon has been widely covered in reliable sources, interviews with obituary writers, and academic research.

The case against obituaries[edit]

Not secondary sources[edit]

Not independent[edit]

Not reliable[edit]

Everyone is included[edit]

Wikipedia is not a memorial[edit]

Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.

Survey of available obituaries[edit]

Likely reliable[edit]

Likely reliable obituaries
Source Unpaid?

(Independent?)

Obit editor/editing policy?

(Reliable?)

Count towards GNG? Rationale Ref.
The New York Times Yes Yes Yes The unpaid NYT obituaries are few (~ 3 per day), written by NYT staff, and reviewed by an editor. [1]
BBC Yes Yes Yes The unpaid BBC obituaries are written by BBC staff, and reviewed by an editor. [2]

Likely unreliable[edit]

Likely unreliable obituaries
Source Unpaid?

(Independent?)

Obit editor/editing policy?

(Reliable?)

Count towards GNG? Rationale Ref.
Legacy and legacy-affiliated

for-pay obituaries and death notices

No No No Legacy obits and death notices are usually written by the families of the deceased, and sent from Legacy to the partner newspaper chosen by the family for a fee. Sometimes, families can bypass Legacy and go directly to their chosen publication, who will publish it in their (paid) obits section, but will still make it available on the Legacy database. Sometimes, funeral homes will act as intermediaries between Legacy and the family. No fact-checking is made, and no editorial policy exists. [3]

Commented bibliography[edit]

Press

  • William McDonald, "From the Death Desk: Why Most Obituaries Are Still of White Men". 8 March 2018. The New York Times. – "Some 155,000 people die between each day’s print version of The New York Times and the next — enough to fill Yankee Stadium three times over. On average, we publish obituaries on about three of them." McDonald adds that obituaries overrepresent white, male individuals because places of power are predominantly occupied by them.
  • Oscar Schwartz."'A deluge of death': how reading obituaries can humanise a crisis". 2 May 2020. The Guardian. – Interestingly reveals that an obit writer for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution wrote 2,000 obituaries between 1996 and 2009, including for the very notable "church choir singer who had a frontal lobotomy and donated his brain to science", "the girl who sang at Martin Luther King Jr’s funeral", and "the woman who was Flannery O’Connor’s secret pen pal for 30 years".

Academia

Blogs

Documentaries

  • Obit – a 2016 documentary about the New York Times obituary section writers and their daily work.

Other essays[edit]

  1. ^ "Fascinating 'Obit' Doc Brings the Business of Death to Life". Observer. 2017-04-21. Retrieved 2022-02-09.
  2. ^ "Art of the obituary: you're a journalist not a funeral director". BBC. 2013-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-09.
  3. ^ Kinsey, Melissa Jayne (2017-12-01). "One Company Has Cornered the Digital Market on Death". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 2022-02-09.