This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thailand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thailand-related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Thailand-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.ThailandWikipedia:WikiProject ThailandTemplate:WikiProject ThailandThailand articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
It isn't clear how the subject meets the notability guidelines. The first two references don't seem to mention her as the primary subject (the second only her letters) and I don't have access to the 1993 paper, but I would guess that the mention is as an internal reference rather than actual news coverage. --Paul_012(talk)09:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
What do you mean "the second only her letters"?? Did you read the article? Edith Clampton is not a real person. She is a made-up character entirely for the purpose of the letters to the editor page of that newspaper. That is her entire existence. The character became so well known in that country at that time that the newspaper thought it was a good idea to collect together all(?) her letters and publish them as a book in its own right! What better claim of notability do you need than the fact that the major newspaper printed and sold a collection of this character's letters. If you do a google search for her name you get message boards where people are asking if they remember "that crazy lady in the paper" from a decade later. Now, those message boards are not good sources to reference in WP but they demonstrate that there is a common memory of this person. Just because you havn't heard of Edith doesn't mean she's not notable. WittyLama14:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
What above implied I hadn't read the article? I understood from how the article began with Mrs. Edith Clampton was a pseudononymous writer... that the article meant to discuss the fictional character and the anonymous writer behind the character as a common entity. So this character made regular appearances on the Bangkok Post's letters page, and the Post published a collection. Remember that the general notability guideline states that a topic should have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to be notable. I still don't see how she is notable to anyone outside regular readers of the column. --Paul_012(talk)18:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}