Talk:Maya Stein

sources

To editor Rosguill: Please reconsider the tag you added. Actually only two of the sources were written by her and by my count 9 of the 12 sources are independent of her. Thanks. McKay (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources like [1], [2], [3] are not independent of the subject, they are profiles published by institutions that she has been affiliated with. The only currently cited nominally independent secondary source is [4], and I'm somewhat concerned that it's not reliable, as Marca Chile has a lot of the trappings of a PR firm, rather than a journalistic endeavor (there's also one or two citations to databases like [5] but that's really not something to base an article on). I have primarily marked this article reviewed on an WP:NACADEMIC basis; the cited sources are really nowhere near meeting the general WP:GNG standard. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 12:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

For reference, my edit summary in removing this: "All material is sourced adequately. Finding some third-party source who happens to say thing would make ZERO improvement to the reliability of the article. It is not the sort of thing that readers need to see a big WARNING WARNING UNRELIABLE permanent banner-of-shame for."

Also, your "nowhere near meeting the general WP:GNG standard" suggests that you have a mistaken belief that academic notability is somehow connected to GNG. It is not. It is independent, based on different principles, and explicitly allows primary sources for uncontroversial factual claims. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The template is to bring it to the attention of those watching this article. Now that it has been brought to editors' attention, it has served its purpose. You seem to be jumping to the wrong conclusion regarding my beliefs about relationships between guidelines. I placed the template to notify editors (principally McKay, but article creators aren't always the people to follow up with an article) that, while in this case I have no intention of proceeding to AfD, the standard of sourcing here is not one that normally satisfies general notability guidelines, and that my decision to not proceed to AfD was based on a charitable reading of WP:NACADEMIC. Finally, . Finding some third-party source who happens to say thing would make ZERO improvement to the reliability of the article. is false: independent corroboration of details and analysis in secondary sources is always preferred when possible, not least because they might not say the same thing that the primary sources say. Is it the end of the world that primary sources are being used here? Obviously not. Would it be better to rely more firmly on secondary sources? Yes it would, and that is still true now. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Note that NACADEMIC mentions multiple cases where a publication of an involved party is considered reliable for some fact. These include the organization which gave a prize (reliable for them getting the prize), the institution in which the subject holds a position (reliable for them having that position), an association in which the subject is a member (reliable for them being a member) and a journal that for which the subject is an editor (reliable for them being an editor). The reason this makes sense and is not a violation in spirit of the usual rule about independent sources is clear: the primary reason we like independent sources is to avoid information tainted by COI, but in each of these cases the source is motivated towards precision and in each case the source is the best possible published source for that information. For example, the official web page of a (non-predatory) journal is the best possible source for who the editors are and asking for a third-party source for that is just asking for incorrect data. McKay (talk) 07:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)