Jump to content

Talk:Sylvia Kantaris

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources

[edit]

I was reviewing this AfC draft and returned to find it already accepted, so I'll share my comments here:

  • The claim "In 1971 she returned to the UK, and settled in Helston, Cornwall, in 1974, where she undertook tutoring in Twentieth Century Poetry for the Open University while writing and publishing her major works of poetry." is sourced to the subject's own website, which is not a reliable source and should be avoided for biographies. Is there a better source available for this sentence? Bradv 13:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How is the subject's own website not a reliable source? Perhaps you mean it's a primary source, which per self published source guidelines is acceptable to show basic factual detail, though it cannot be used to show that a subject is notable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the information can't be used, but the subject's own webpage is certainly not a reliable source per WP:RSSELF. A source that is independent of the topic is preferable. Bradv 14:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's for subjects talking about other things such as the earth being flat, crop circles being formed by aliens etc. Obviously common sense would tell you that Kantaris is a reliable subject expert on herself! An independent source is preferable, but the article's only at start-class at the moment, so there's plenty of improvement that can be done, including this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that anywhere in policy. Here's what WP:RSSELF says:

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media.

If we accepted all drafts at AfC based on what people said about themselves, the queue would be empty. Again, this is not a contentious statement so it's probably fine (and notability is established by other sources), but a reliable source would be preferable. Bradv 14:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's just a link to the front page of the source, with the specifics documented in the rest of the citation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's a search function on that site which doesn't appear to work. If the site isn't public, the reference is not of much use (unless the problem is only temporary). Bradv 14:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]