Talk:Kenny Kelley
Notability[edit]
@Mr RD, if Kelley is known for his crowdfunded product, please cite the reliable sources that say so. If you can only cite primary sources and blogs, there is not enough coverage to sustain a dedicated article about Kelley. Please revert your revert. – czar 17:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Was just mentioning you here. :D
I have reverted one of the edits of czar, I believe the person is not only notable for Adrenaline Crew but for other entrepreneurial ventures also. For example Silent Beacon among others. I believe the person is covered appropriately in independent media. I will find more resources for him in the mean time and try to improve the article further. Mr RD 17:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- In addition to the citations mentioned in the page, here are some of the additional resources that I found for Silent Beacon [1], [2], [3]. There is one Examiner citation which I believe is reliable but I believe Wikipedia has blacklisted Examiner.com. I think I can find more if I go deeper. Please let me know. Mr RD 17:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- It has not to do with your belief but in whether reliable, secondary sources actually cover the subject. The sites you linked are not reliable in that they have no editorial or fact-checking mechanisms. They are blogs. Examiner is blacklisted because it similarly consists of user-submitted entries that are not reliable for the purposes of an encyclopedia. If Kelley's new venture was covered in mainstream reliable sources, I'd agree with you, but he isn't, so please revert back to the redirect until those sources exist. – czar 18:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- The citations of Washington post (page 2), Indie Game, Geek Insider, Gazette Net and Potomac Magazine (December 2012 issue) are both reliable secondary sources and discusses Kenny Kelley. The Crowdfund insider and Wearable Tech news are editorial articles. However I would like to know how can I identify whether a site has fact checking mechanism or not? Please tell me so that in future I can know which citations to rely upon. Mr RD 08:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- No, they're not. Reliable sources have a reputation for reliability and fact checking. IndieGameHQ, GeekInsider, etc. are blogs with none of that. Furthermore, their coverage of Kelley is nonexistent. Anything that can be reliably sourced about the subject can be said in the Adrenaline article. Questions of sources can be raised at WP:RSN or specifically for video games at WP:VG/RS. Sites usually explain their policy on a separate page. Not doing so is generally a sign of not having such a policy. – czar 23:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- But the citations of Washington Post and Potomac Magazine are both reliable. What about them? Mr RD (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Czar: Please respond. Mr RD (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have a personal affiliation with the subject? The Washington Post article is very straightforwardly about Adrenalin Crew and not about Kelley, though it may say some things about him. Kelley himself does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) The Potomac article is about the shelter and not about Kelley. – czar 16:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, they're not. Reliable sources have a reputation for reliability and fact checking. IndieGameHQ, GeekInsider, etc. are blogs with none of that. Furthermore, their coverage of Kelley is nonexistent. Anything that can be reliably sourced about the subject can be said in the Adrenaline article. Questions of sources can be raised at WP:RSN or specifically for video games at WP:VG/RS. Sites usually explain their policy on a separate page. Not doing so is generally a sign of not having such a policy. – czar 23:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- The citations of Washington post (page 2), Indie Game, Geek Insider, Gazette Net and Potomac Magazine (December 2012 issue) are both reliable secondary sources and discusses Kenny Kelley. The Crowdfund insider and Wearable Tech news are editorial articles. However I would like to know how can I identify whether a site has fact checking mechanism or not? Please tell me so that in future I can know which citations to rely upon. Mr RD 08:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- It has not to do with your belief but in whether reliable, secondary sources actually cover the subject. The sites you linked are not reliable in that they have no editorial or fact-checking mechanisms. They are blogs. Examiner is blacklisted because it similarly consists of user-submitted entries that are not reliable for the purposes of an encyclopedia. If Kelley's new venture was covered in mainstream reliable sources, I'd agree with you, but he isn't, so please revert back to the redirect until those sources exist. – czar 18:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)