User talk:330highflyer/sandbox2

Notability, etc.

Regarding your request, I'll be happy to give you my opinions here. First off, I'll advise that in practice, there is a wide spectrum of opinions on what qualifies as notable enough for a stand alone article. Of course we have WP:BIO to guide us for articles focusing on individuals such as Mick West, and WP:ORG for organizations such as Metabunk. Many new article reviewers will see lots of citations to reliable sources and happily approve articles based on that. Others will nit pick based on strict interpretations of guidelines.

Some might look at the first 4 citations (very weak passing mentions of West being one programmer among several other contributors) and decide that the subject isn't notable based on what they see as an attempt at padding. Padding out a subject's bio with trivial detail to make it appear fuller is a red flag to most reviewers. I'm aware there is a school of thought that believes that including every single time the subject's name is mentioned in sources or on the internet helps show notability, but I'm of the opposite view, so if I were you, I'd leave the early career programmer section out, and trim the article of any similar fluff.

What helps a prospective BIO article are sources that concentrate exclusively on the individual, rather than just passing mentions as part of a story that covers several people. In that respect, the radio/podcast interview-with-Mick-West transcripts used as citations are OK but not strong. Interviews by more prominent media outlets, magazines or newspapers focusing on Mick West would be better. Articles in CSICOP publications are fine, the scientific paper co-authorship is good, and the article authored by West in Salon is excellent (I wish there were more like that to establish a larger body of work). On the whole, I'd say notability is by no means weak, but not as strong as it should be. There may be a question of Metabunk being as notable or more notable than Mick West as an individual, but I haven't researched this. However, I would say it's a well-constructed and written article (especially if this is your first try at an article) and personally I would have no problem seeing it in the encyclopedia. Best regards, - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)