We need to define who is and who is not notable enough to have articles on TG. At the moment we don't have a policy on this and we are in a situation where "non-notables" have articles while some "notables" do not. This seems a bit silly to me. I had a go at defining a few different options for how to define "notable", but felt it a bit clumsy - so I'll just give my opinion. We should have articles for all the major Tolkien scholars (sure there will be "junior" scholars who research Tolkien and teach Tolkien etc., but these will only become more numerous and frankly "run-of-the-mill" - they will need to have made an impact on Tolkien studies I think), Tolkienists who have made major contributions to Tolkien studies or fandom, the main actors and producers of adaptations, the important illustrators/artists, and obviously people connected with Tolkien himself (we will need to draw a line on Tolkien's descendants, though).
For reference have a look at Category:People by name. I think our guiding principle should be, is this useful? Will someone actually search for this person? Will someone want to find out what other things a scholar has written, e.g.?
How we interpret "major" and "important" will naturally be open to conjecture, but in this area we have to make judgements. I know these forum pages go mostly ignored, so please spare a few minutes to share your thoughts. And let's not escalate this into something bigger about the scope of other areas (like publications, games etc.) - one thing at a time please! --14:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that it would be useful with a policy concerning people articles. But I don't think we need to be as restrictive as you suggest and only include major names, which would likely lead to unnecessary evaluations of who's notable enough. I'd say we better keep it simple and set up a couple of standards (with room for exceptions) which are easy to interpret and follow.--Morgan 15:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- What are your proposed standards?-- 15:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)