Many people have also successfully argued that this does not convey notability as it isn't significant coverage.- Crossmr ( talk) 00:13, (UTC) Some of the cited articles do not contain the text "Robb Thompson". A simple name drop in a 600 word article. There are plenty of times where someone tries to establish notability through a notable and reliable source, but the content is minuscule. As well not all reliable sources contain significant coverage of the subject. I've seen many successful arguments on AfD where simple coverage in a college news paper is not enough to confer notability to a subject even though we consider them reliable. primary sources for example, also certain things like small town news papers, or even college news papers might not necessarily confer true notability to a subject. Some sources are reliable but don't confer notability. doesn't that include an objection that the source is potentially unreliable? Could someone please comment on whether this is a useful board? No. I have nothing against you, its just that I came across this page and could not figure out any more information why a mere pastor would be notable.
If Wikipedia has to be a reliable source of information, I'm sure we can look around for better references. I looked at the source of each reference but there is no mention of Robb Thompson in some of them.
But I still think a third opinion from an experienced person might help clarify the matter. Perhaps this board intends to inspect #3 ("sources") by questioning whether the sources are primary or tertiary? Or (#1 and #3) whether there are sufficient numbers and nontriviality among them? Is this basically just a forum for saying there is not enough coverage to confer notability, such as when there are only two mentions of two sentences each, other than primary or dependent sources? Please clarify. 5 is determined by reference to other policy. 4 is determined by relation of the source to its subject. 3 is satisfied by having multiple secondary sources, where "sources" has wide application. 2 is highly debatable and determined at RSN. 1 means coverage is not trivial, mostly determinable by inspection.
However, I'm not certain that there is a real difference between this board and WP:RSN, because if someone objects that a source is too to confer notability, doesn't that include an objection that the source is potentially unreliable? Could someone please comment on whether this is a useful board? The classic breakdown is 1 significant, 2 reliable, 3 sources, 4 independent, 5 presumed. The outside coverage itself for Thompson is linked at this version. Based on the stated purpose of this board, I think that at a minimum, any newspaper with its own stable WP article is sufficient to contribute accumulatively toward the notability bar for its covered subjects. I'd hate to think that someone had an ax to grind against this topic. If anyone has specific needs for quotes from the articles, I will be happy to provide. I have removed the tag (again) I also have more source materials to add. As already stated in edit summary, notability is established by both WP:ORG (noncommercial) and WP:PEOPLE. contribs) 14:08, 15 March 2009 Hallelujah, do I get to be the first to use this shiny new board?! As article creator, I suspect the IP editor has flagged this article solely because some of the articles from the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago Daily Herald, Star Newspapers, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and Charlotte Observer are pay-per-view and harder to reach (accessibility is a WP:V question).Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.170.81 ( talk
Is Robb Thompson a notable article? All references seem fake.
0 kommentar(er)
