833:. And here, what are the commonalities? Things directly related to the subject or closely related, but this isn't closely related in geographic terms, but closely related as in the source and the subject matter have a direct reason to promote the subject matter. For instance, a story in a company's newsletter about Bob the janitor would directly promote the company and help the image of the company because Bob is so awesome that the company must also be, which is why PR people put out crap like that. That's why advertising is listed, but nothing about a news story in a newspaper (local or national) where the subject matter is also a paid advertiser (for instance movie reviews next to the ads by the movie studios). Further, and this is key, if we go with your theory, it also makes
739:
notability, that sources are not completely independent really doesn't matter much. The thing is, we are going for notability, as in people have taken note. In the case of any RS type source, unless they are paid (i.e. an actual ad for say a Labor Day Sale), the media outlet decided to go with the story, which is taking note, as they are exercising their editorial judgment on what topics to cover in their often limited space. Otherwise, should we discount coverage on ESPN.com of MLB because MLB advertises with ESPN and they have other contractual arrangements? Should we discount coverage of politicians in newspapers because those politicians advertise for their campaigns in those newspapers? Or should we even discount coverage by the
365:- Though WP:ATHLETE is not a policy, it should be amended to include NFL practice squad players. As the NFL is the highest level of pro football, it stands to reason that any practice squad player in the NFL is talented enough to play in the CFL, af2, UFL, etc. Practice squad players often end up playing in the NFL in some form or for another league. While many are undrafted players, the practice squad guys are the elite players of that bunch. We're not talking about guys that are signed in April, cut in June and never heard from again. A guy who spends the year on a practice squad, and especially one that spends multiple years on them, should be notable for that alone.►
582:. These sources provided above are extremely weak--they are entirely local, sometimes providing only a sentence worth of mention, and contain no significant discussion of the subject. Contrary to the author's assertion that all these practice squad players are somehow automatically notable (he's created dozens or more of them), they are not. The ones I looked at are not notable as athletes, and they do not pass general notability guidelines. This one doesn't.
792:
publications that accept political advertising can provide independent coverage for the purposes of notability, it should be on a case-by-case basis for the same reason (I think that people who attain the highest elected office in a country are specifically considered notable). I won't address the question as to whether such sources are reliable for the purposes of verifiability, as that's not related to the issue at hand.
738:
and are not exactly completely independent (something you learn a college journalism class). That's how news organizations find much of their news. You should compare some press releases from say
BusinessWire or U.S. News sometime to news articles covering the topic. But in the end, for Knowledge and
664:
has done a series of articles on an assistant coach at a local junior high school. Notwithstanding the existence of that coverage, a large number of editors would not consider the subject to be notable because of the limited interest of the very local source. Not all editors agree with this approach,
451:
Firstly, how would that contradict what I stated?: I believe "there will be enough reliable sources for a V, NPOV, NOR to start an article on this subject." Secondly, "minor news stories" does not exclude local and state newspapers, it excludes passing references. Thirdly, WP:N is a helpful guideline
791:
a reason to abandon a genuine investigation of independence in other contexts. Personally, where the only coverage in reliable sources that themselves are independent of the subject consists of rehashed press releases, I argue (occasionally successfully) that those are not independent. As to whether
743:
if they quote
President Obama, as then that would not be completely independent since that quote came from the subject of the news article? Far-fetched, but it demonstrates that much of our sources are not completely independent. That's why for me, independent means "excludes works produced by those
539:
in a major league (with the exception of those that can "walk on water", or have some sort of notability outside of their sport) and have them put into some sort of list that groups similar individuals. I think that would be more comprehensive and helpful than creating a bunch of articles (that are
622:
Notability, as far as I am concerned, is a matter of size. The bigger the paper covering some subject, the bigger the notability--that should go without saying. This is not an argument for 'global notability' and it does not mean that local coverage doesn't count for anything; it just means that if
827:
As to your contention of "opening up the universe to what reasonable people acting in good faith may find to be not independent". Actually, not quite. In law we use what we call statutory interpretation, which is quite useful to use when parsing rules, which we have here. One key rule is that when
818:
Interesting. You tell me "You are wrong", and I then demonstrate a different opinion backed by reasonable interpretations. Which then you take as "inexplicable"? So, you can call me wrong, but I can't argue different, and that is some how a violation by me of good faith? Interesting process there.
778:
Independent and local are two separate issues. Per "but not limited to", your statement that "local sources that meet the definition are A-OK" is qualified by the judgment of editors that coverage in such sources is independent of the subject. In a local paper, reasonable editors in good faith may
682:
I know people like to think notability is global notablity, but the fact remains that neither BIO nor NOTE require this and do not discount local coverage in any way. Now, some local sources will fail as RS, but that's a source by source determination. But the notability guidelines, including the
830:
Here is a list of items that we know are not independent, but there may be others, please use the commonalities of these listed items to guide you, as new things such as
Twitter and Facebook can develop and we need to be able to plan for those without coming up with a 500 example long list; thus
275:
actually requires the AfD nominator to perform a good faith search for sources prior to nominating for deletion, of which a Google News search would be standard to meet the good faith test. As AfD is for removing articles that cover subjects that are actually not notable, and not just removing
838:
notability guidelines does it say anything about limiting sources to non-local, and trying to get around that by trying to question the independence of the sources is just too much of a stretch (especially as I have noted that no source is immune from these issues). But feel free to disagree.
837:
superfluous as well. As in, there would be no need for that proposal if the community agreed with your theory. And if you check the talk page of the proposed guideline you will see a consensus against any sort of limitation regarding local sources. Not to mention, again, that no where in the
534:
I tend to be a little more strict with what I qualify as "Significant
Coverage in a Reliable Source that are Independent of the subject" for minor league baseball/college athletes. First I don't include school newspapers as I don't consider them independent of the subject. Of the list that
733:
looks pretty promising to me for a precise definition? But, independent and local are two separate issues (and thus your equating would be your own, so I'm not sure what fallacy you are going for since only you just brought up "independent"). As to independent,
687:
where the consensus has been we don't discriminate against local stuff, are the places for any local discount, not in AfD where we try to stick with current policy/guideline and apply those to the article in question. Discounting local sources is equivalent to
779:
argue that topics of solely local interest are covered because of their proximity to—i.e., nonndependence from—the sources rather than because of the notability of the subject (coverage of the local high school quarterback, say). See above comment on the
643:), with a picture (he looks like he's high on being Tebow) and quotes--and no way does this make this nice young man notable. Bongo below makes a similar point; I butted in since I made the original remark. (Bongo, I'll apologize on the talk page.)
744:
affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." which means local sources that meet that definition are A-OK.
731:"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc."
859:. The subject had an unremarkable college career and is paid to be an extra body on an NFL practice field. There is certainly no consensus that these things confer inherent notability. I think we can parse the definitions at
828:
you have a list of something, it is not superfluous. If we actually open it up to ANY argument that something is not independent, then the examples given become superfluous. Instead how we read that is like this:
659:
The geographic reach of a source is relevant to the question of whether coverage—even if in-depth—is sufficiently independent for the purpose of establishing notability. For example, the reliable (and excellent)
159:
786:
Other forms of nonidependence. The fact that the guideline ostensibly permits (though the "not limited to" proviso gives room for editors to argue) lots of stuff that you and I don't think of as independent is
823:
then they cannot be notable despite that BIO says otherwise (and ATHLETE is part of BIO). Other editors are then free to discredit those theories, but it must be done through logic, which is what I have
433:
With respect to the references above, some are references to student newspapers; all (except the roster) they are all local coverage of local events that don't establish notability. See WP:N footnote 6.
313:. I don't necessarily think all practice roster players meet content criteria but a search convinces me that there will be enough reliable sources for a V, NPOV, NOR to start an article on this subject.
623:
there's nothing else, then there isn't much, and here there's nothing else (and even the local coverage is flimsy). Look, this morning I read that Cory Wilkes, who is on the 'practice squad' for
665:
but many do. It is inconsistent with neither WP:GNG nor
Notability (people). Hope that's helpful (not in persuading you of the correctness of this view, but why some people hold it).
290:
I understand that, however when an editor creates an unsourced article about a living person with questionable notability, they should not be surprised when it comes to AfD. --
120:
535:
DoubleBlue put up I would say that 3, 7, and 8 would fit the bill for me. Personally I would like to see a stop to creation of separate articles about players that have not
636:
871:
all day long, but in the end they are all just guidelines. In my opinion, the overall volume and depth of coverage does not indicate that the subject is (yet) notable.
475:
I am commenting for the benefit of other editors who may wish to opine here, not trying to suggest your opinion is inconsistent with policy or internally inconsistent.
153:
775:
states to be nonindependent, it says "but not limited to", opening up the universe to what reasonable people acting in good faith may find to be not independent.
408:
We are not talking about importance here anyway, we are talking about notability, the ability to find reliable sourcing to create a fair and verifiable article.
819:
But to be perfectly clear, other editors are free to put forth all sorts of theories, which in the past have included ones where if someone does not pass
705:
You are wrong. The guidelines provide no precise definition of "independent", so it is within editor's good faith assessment (and I'm sure you always
325:
801:
feel this way, that's fine. But in order not to see how logical reasonable editors acting in good faith might see things like this is inexplicable.
834:
684:
314:
333:
807:
719:
671:
600:
Question, what does "local" sources have to do with anything? Trivial coverage yes, but local coverage is not a topic covered by
507:
per the sources brought up by DoubleBlue. I told you to not create these one line stubs, Chris because things like this happen.--
481:
440:
208:
93:
88:
97:
17:
331:
329:
327:
323:
321:
514:
640:
319:
174:
80:
141:
735:
272:
56:, and it has been credibly asserted here without credible refutation that the topic meets that fundamental threshold.
780:
661:
253:. If you had provided third party reliable sources in the first place, this would never have gone to AfD (or been
916:
540:
all BLPs) that are destined to be orphaned for ever with few people watching them. But that's just my opinion.--
36:
915:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
135:
632:
520:
131:
901:
880:
847:
843:
813:
753:
749:
736:
you do know the dirty little secret in journalism is that many "stories" are re-hashes of press releases
725:
700:
696:
689:
677:
652:
613:
609:
591:
574:
570:
549:
526:
487:
470:
446:
426:
403:
376:
353:
299:
285:
281:
266:
234:
214:
62:
385:
I disagree with your bias and facts prove otherwise but that is outside the scope of this discussion.
860:
803:
715:
667:
545:
477:
465:
436:
421:
398:
348:
295:
262:
204:
181:
167:
57:
897:
876:
508:
868:
820:
367:
225:
84:
49:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
839:
745:
709:) to determine when reliable sources may not be independent. Equating the classification of
692:
648:
605:
587:
566:
277:
242:
624:
541:
453:
409:
386:
336:
291:
258:
147:
601:
562:
276:
articles that fail to properly demonstrate it. We have various clean up tags for that.
254:
199:
713:
as insufficiently independent with requiring notability to be "global" is fallacious.
893:
872:
864:
730:
706:
558:
504:
246:
191:
53:
250:
76:
68:
114:
245:
is on the person who adds the content to the page, this is particularly true for
889:
888:
I am persuaded that the coverage identified by DoubleBlue is sufficient to meet
644:
583:
317:
628:
565:
through multiple, third-party RS. Just needs a "more sources needed" tag.
771:
Precision of definition. While the definition is precise about what it
452:
for interpreting our content policies; it is not our content policy.
223:- Passes WP:BIO. WP:ATHLETE is not a policy. Google news the guy.►
909:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
831:
things similar to these examples are what are not independent
249:, saying "Google news the guy" is not actually providing
110:
106:
102:
202:
players, by definition, are not permitted to compete.
166:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
919:). No further edits should be made to this page.
198:at the fully professional level of a sport."
180:
8:
835:the local interests proposed guideline
48:. Subject-specific guidelines such as
7:
194:, which requires subjects to have "
24:
768:←You address a number of issues:
711:certain extremely local coverage
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
902:17:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
881:23:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
848:20:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
814:10:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
754:10:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
726:07:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
701:07:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
678:06:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
653:16:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
639:(longer than Bates got in his
614:06:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
592:05:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
63:04:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
1:
575:06:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
550:22:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
527:18:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
488:08:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
471:08:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
447:07:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
427:06:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
404:06:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
377:04:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
354:04:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
300:15:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
286:06:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
267:18:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
235:03:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
215:03:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
54:general notability guideline
936:
892:and establish notability.
781:Anderson Valley Advertiser
662:Anderson Valley Advertiser
912:Please do not modify it.
685:local guideline proposal
602:the notability guideline
257:in the first place). --
32:Please do not modify it.
783:as a specific example.
631:cause they're playing
271:Just a note, but the
255:proposed for deletion
52:are secondary to the
627:, has to make like
243:burden of evidence
44:The result was
812:
805:
724:
717:
707:assume good faith
676:
669:
486:
479:
469:
445:
438:
425:
402:
352:
241:Just a note, the
213:
206:
927:
914:
806:
802:
718:
714:
690:I don't like it.
670:
666:
641:university paper
523:
517:
511:
480:
476:
463:
461:
458:
439:
435:
419:
417:
414:
396:
394:
391:
373:
370:
346:
344:
341:
251:reliable sources
231:
228:
207:
203:
185:
184:
170:
118:
100:
60:
34:
935:
934:
930:
929:
928:
926:
925:
924:
923:
917:deletion review
910:
810:
741:Washington Post
722:
674:
625:Troy University
521:
515:
509:
484:
459:
454:
443:
415:
410:
392:
387:
371:
368:
342:
337:
229:
226:
211:
127:
91:
75:
72:
58:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
933:
931:
922:
921:
905:
904:
883:
853:
852:
851:
850:
825:
808:
795:
794:
793:
784:
776:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
720:
672:
656:
655:
617:
616:
595:
594:
577:
552:
532:Very week keep
529:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
482:
441:
431:
430:
429:
406:
380:
379:
357:
356:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
238:
237:
209:
200:Practice squad
188:
187:
124:
71:
66:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
932:
920:
918:
913:
907:
906:
903:
899:
895:
891:
887:
884:
882:
878:
874:
870:
866:
862:
861:WP:NOTABILITY
858:
855:
854:
849:
845:
841:
836:
832:
826:
822:
817:
816:
815:
811:
804:
800:
796:
790:
785:
782:
777:
774:
770:
769:
767:
755:
751:
747:
742:
737:
732:
729:
728:
727:
723:
716:
712:
708:
704:
703:
702:
698:
694:
691:
686:
681:
680:
679:
675:
668:
663:
658:
657:
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
621:
620:
619:
618:
615:
611:
607:
603:
599:
598:
597:
596:
593:
589:
585:
581:
578:
576:
572:
568:
564:
560:
556:
553:
551:
547:
543:
538:
533:
530:
528:
524:
518:
512:
506:
502:
499:
498:
489:
485:
478:
474:
473:
472:
467:
462:
457:
450:
449:
448:
444:
437:
432:
428:
423:
418:
413:
407:
405:
400:
395:
390:
384:
383:
382:
381:
378:
375:
374:
364:
361:
360:
359:
358:
355:
350:
345:
340:
334:
332:
330:
328:
326:
324:
322:
320:
318:
316:
312:
309:
308:
301:
297:
293:
289:
288:
287:
283:
279:
274:
270:
269:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
247:living people
244:
240:
239:
236:
233:
232:
222:
219:
218:
217:
216:
212:
205:
201:
197:
193:
183:
179:
176:
173:
169:
165:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
133:
130:
129:Find sources:
125:
122:
116:
112:
108:
104:
99:
95:
90:
86:
82:
78:
74:
73:
70:
67:
65:
64:
61:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
911:
908:
885:
856:
829:
798:
788:
772:
740:
710:
637:Nice article
579:
554:
536:
531:
500:
455:
411:
388:
366:
362:
338:
310:
224:
220:
195:
189:
177:
171:
163:
156:
150:
144:
138:
128:
77:Jackie Bates
69:Jackie Bates
45:
43:
31:
28:
840:Aboutmovies
746:Aboutmovies
693:Aboutmovies
606:Aboutmovies
567:Aboutmovies
278:Aboutmovies
273:AfD process
154:free images
869:WP:ATHLETE
824:presented.
821:WP:ATHLETE
773:explicitly
542:kelapstick
315:GoogleNews
292:kelapstick
259:kelapstick
59:Skomorokh
50:WP:ATHLETE
629:Tim Tebow
557:- passes
894:Davewild
873:Location
510:Giants27
196:competed
121:View log
797:If you
633:Florida
563:WP:NOTE
503:Passes
363:Comment
160:WP refs
148:scholar
94:protect
89:history
867:, and
865:WP:BIO
857:Delete
645:Drmies
584:Drmies
580:Delete
559:WP:BIO
537:played
505:WP:GNG
456:Double
412:Double
389:Double
372:Nelson
369:Chris
339:Double
230:Nelson
227:Chris
192:WP:ATH
190:Fails
132:Google
98:delete
809:matic
799:don't
721:matic
673:matic
483:matic
442:matic
210:matic
175:JSTOR
136:books
115:views
107:watch
103:links
16:<
898:talk
890:WP:N
886:Keep
877:talk
844:talk
750:talk
697:talk
649:talk
610:talk
588:talk
571:talk
555:Keep
546:talk
501:Keep
466:talk
460:Blue
422:talk
416:Blue
399:talk
393:Blue
349:talk
343:Blue
311:Keep
296:talk
282:talk
263:talk
221:Keep
168:FENS
142:news
111:logs
85:talk
81:edit
46:keep
789:not
182:TWL
119:– (
900:)
879:)
863:,
846:)
752:)
699:)
651:)
635:.
612:)
604:.
590:)
573:)
548:)
525:)
335:.
298:)
284:)
265:)
162:)
113:|
109:|
105:|
101:|
96:|
92:|
87:|
83:|
896:(
875:(
842:(
748:(
695:(
647:(
608:(
586:(
569:(
561:/
544:(
522:s
519:|
516:c
513:(
468:)
464:(
424:)
420:(
401:)
397:(
351:)
347:(
294:(
280:(
261:(
186:)
178:·
172:·
164:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
134:(
126:(
123:)
117:)
79:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.