Talk:Stephen Snoddy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sources needed[edit]

This article needs better sourcing for its content generally. The notability of its subject is not readily apparent (see WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE for applicable guidelines). Therefore, in particular, it needs reliable sources that give this subject some kind of substantial coverage. Below are some links that may lead to such sources:

Find sources: "Stephen Snoddy" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Note, as this individual is most likely relatively unknown, WP:BLPCRIME bears on permissible content. Happy editing! JFHJr () 22:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I didn't find much in the way of in-depth coverage when I looked myself. --j⚛e deckertalk 02:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added several significant references. These clearly establish notability Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The references added by Pigsonthewing are, by most standards, far from "significant". One, in particular, from the (online only) local arts paper "The Art Observer" has in fact got large sections cut and pasted from the wikipedia article - a somewhat circular way of "clearly establishing notability". Many sections of the article appear to be written by Snoddy himself, as they are things tha cannot be independently referenced and which nobody other than the subject would be likely to know (eg, that he was elected a fellow of the RSA - they don't publish lists of members' names - and that he is an amateur rugby referee - see version I would say COI clearly applies here. Picstloup (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Picstloup
This article's references now include the BBC, the Observer, Daily Telegraph, the Newcastle Journal, the Museums Journal, and the Express and Star. The Art Observer piece is only cited once. Where is the alleged CoI? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
The following additions anonymously made at various times are unsourced and are likely only to be known by the subject or somebody close to him (collectively they still make up over 75% of the existing article): version of 2 August 2012, by user (a user who has only ever edited articles on Snoddy) version of 5 April, by user (a user who has only ever amended articles on Snoddy) version of 15 November 2010, by user (a user who has only ever edited articles on Snoddy) version of 9 October 2010, by user (cf 29 September, 2010; a user who has only ever edited articles on Snoddy) version of 3 October 2010, by user (a user who has only ever edited articles on Snoddy) version of 29 September 2010, by user (a user who has only ever edited articles on Snoddy) version of 7 June 2010, by user (a user who has only ever edited articles on Snoddy) version of 2 November 2009, by user (a user who has only ever edited articles on Snoddy)
- these are only a selection of the anonymous articles more egregiously demonstrating COI. Users,,,, are all based in Walsall, where the subject works, and and are in Greater Manchester, where he lives Picstloup (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)picstloupPicstloup (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I thought you meant CoI in the references I added, thanks for clarifying. The issue with the edits you cite is not so much CoI (if your assumptions are correct, they'd be WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY) , but whether they are relevant, correct, and can be reliably sourced. The former is certainly so. I think we can assume good faith in the second (I'm in touch with the subject, and have advised him of relevant Wikipedia policies; and he doesn't dispute them), so we just need to sort out the latter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks. Picstloup (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)picstloupPicstloup (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that WP:COI and WP:AUTO are glaring, blatant problems here. Every autobiographer has a WP:COI problem and is in the worst position to identify what's actually a significant accomplishment or detail fit for inclusion. On that note, I've marked many, many passages as needing citations, especially several instances of uncited passages between two ostensibly cited passages. If this subject's accomplishments are not verifiable in reliable sources, they must be omitted for that reason first and foremost. Secondly, if they do not appear at all in any reliable source, it would also indicate the accomplishments are not actually biographically significant enough merit any weight at all in an encyclopedic biography. Note several claims involving third parties are currently unsourced and are likely claims made by the subject himself; WP:BLPSPS clearly indicates this is unacceptable. Before removing the glut of puffery, I'll give any interested editors an opportunity to reliably source the claims and demonstrate some sort of significance through those sources. JFHJr () 16:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The documentation for {{COI}} says " this is not a badge of shame. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies." I contend that lack of citation, while it must be addressed, is not sufficiently severe to warrant tagging with that template, as the issue is already addressed by other cleanup templates, both headline and in-line. Accordingly, I've removed it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
COI reinstated - as it is "not a badge of shame", there is no lack of good will in applying it here. It applies to articles where "a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject". As JFHJr says, the COI in this case is "glaring, blatant". Picstloup (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)picstloup
And I do apologise for labouring the point about a fairly insignificant provincial curator, but the Prix Pictet reference Andy Mabbett has so liberally used (10 times!) as a "significant source" to back up Snoddy's claims for notability are clearly based on an article which was blatantly cut and pasted from the original wikipedia article. Circular notability or what? Picstloup (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)picstloup
The source in question may or may not have been lifted from Wikipedia. It's equally likely that what we have here is an unabashed copyright violation through the lifting of prose, as opposed to paraphrasing. This is a problem even when the text is properly cited otherwise. At any rate, this "source" is not reliable. It appears to be produced by the subject himself as a profile on the site associated with him. Whether the org or the subject wrote it, it's essentially a self-publication. It runs afoul of all five points listed at WP:BLPSPS: 1) is unduly self-serving; 2) involves claims about third parties; 3) involves claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4) reasonable doubt exists as to its authenticity; and 5) the article is based primarily on such sources. JFHJr () 01:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)