The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I see no indication in guidance documents that the Daily Record is not considered a reliable source - is there guidance on that somewhere? I'm also puzzled on why the size of paper it's printed on is a factor. The Independent published for a while in Tabloid format - was that not reliable?
Nfitz (
talk)
18:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Coverage is mostly
WP:ROUTINE. Notability (especially for a
WP:BLP) is not automatically inherited from the teams he has coached. Cheers,
1292simon (
talk)
Keep per GNG.
[1],
[2],
[3] People can argue the coverage is routine, but in truth it is exactly the sort of reporting you would expect to see about a notable football manager. Namely cliche-ridden stuff with him talking about being "over the moon" or "sick as a parrot" depending on results. We've seen time and again that the WP:FPL essay isn't relevant for women's football. I'd venture it's doubly irrelevant for any players/managers in Scotland – since quite a few Championship clubs in Scotland which the essay purports are "fully professional" are anything but.
Bring back Daz Sampson (
talk)
16:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. BBC 2009 is trivial coverage (a one line quote), BBC 2019 is arguably trivial and non-independent (it's mostly an interview; six of the nine paragraphs are spoken by Caulfield himself), GlasgowTimes is primary/non-notability-conferring because it's entirely an interview; The Herald and In the Winning Zone are arguable but don't constitute sufficient coverage taken as a whole. Kevin (aka
L235·t·c)
17:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Sorry
Nfitz that I didn't comment on the Daily Record article specifically, but I don't think that piece contributes to notability at all. The parts that contain unfiltered interview is all primary, and excluding that interview (the great majority of the article) the source counts as trivial coverage. Kevin (
alt of
L235·t·c)
18:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not seeing how it's trivial - it's much of the article. I'm also not sure the basis that you are tossing interviews as being primary sources. The article isn't just an interview ... interviewing someone as part of an article, doesn't make the article a primary source. In
WP:GNG "independent of the source" says "... example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website". It doesn't preclude (for example) biographies that involved an interview of the subject.
Nfitz (
talk)
19:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I see where you're coming from,
Nfitz, but I respectfully disagree on both points. GNG specifically says secondary sources are the sources that count for notability purposes, and NOR subsection
WP:PRIMARY (in note c) specifically counts interviews as primary sources. If we take out the interview, the only two sentences that mention Caulfield are one that state the fact that Caulfield took over the club, and one that leads into the interview, and that counts as trivial coverage and as
WP:ROUTINE coverage of a sports event (both of which disqualify the source from supporting notability). This isn't being picky just to be bureaucratic, either; primary sources (including interviews, even ones published in news sources, because there's limited – if any – factchecking done by the media organization) have (obviously) limited va pilue in contributing to the verifiability of an article, and one of the intentions behind the notability guidelines is to ensure that we have enough strong sourcing to back a decent article. I know it must be frustrating to be arguing here based on what feel like technicalities, but I think the Daily Record article does not factor into the notability calculus. Best, Kevin (
alt of
L235·t·c)
01:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Though {{|L236}},
WP:Primary doesn't preclude all interview, it notes depending on context. Surely the context is that a transcribed interview is a primary source, yet when someone is interviewed as part of an article in a newspaper, that is a secondary source - see
WP:Secondary. And it certainly isn't routine. Routine would be a paragraph about an appointment - not an in depth piece at the time of an appointment.
Nfitz (
talk)
06:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Nfitz:WP:Secondary, which you mention, states that a secondary source contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources (emphasis in original). I don't see how this interview does that. And my point about routine coverage is that if the interview portion was taken out of the article, the remaining portion would clearly be routine and trivial. Best, Kevin (aka
L235·t·c)
17:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Reading it again, that portion of the article is a bit more verbatim than I'd remembered. Still, there's a lot of borderline sources - and I don't think venerability is the actual issue here - more the bureaucratic barriers that inadvertently create
systemic bias against those involved in women's soccer.
Nfitz (
talk)
19:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I see no indication in guidance documents that the Daily Record is not considered a reliable source - is there guidance on that somewhere? I'm also puzzled on why the size of paper it's printed on is a factor. The Independent published for a while in Tabloid format - was that not reliable?
Nfitz (
talk)
18:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Coverage is mostly
WP:ROUTINE. Notability (especially for a
WP:BLP) is not automatically inherited from the teams he has coached. Cheers,
1292simon (
talk)
Keep per GNG.
[1],
[2],
[3] People can argue the coverage is routine, but in truth it is exactly the sort of reporting you would expect to see about a notable football manager. Namely cliche-ridden stuff with him talking about being "over the moon" or "sick as a parrot" depending on results. We've seen time and again that the WP:FPL essay isn't relevant for women's football. I'd venture it's doubly irrelevant for any players/managers in Scotland – since quite a few Championship clubs in Scotland which the essay purports are "fully professional" are anything but.
Bring back Daz Sampson (
talk)
16:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. BBC 2009 is trivial coverage (a one line quote), BBC 2019 is arguably trivial and non-independent (it's mostly an interview; six of the nine paragraphs are spoken by Caulfield himself), GlasgowTimes is primary/non-notability-conferring because it's entirely an interview; The Herald and In the Winning Zone are arguable but don't constitute sufficient coverage taken as a whole. Kevin (aka
L235·t·c)
17:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Sorry
Nfitz that I didn't comment on the Daily Record article specifically, but I don't think that piece contributes to notability at all. The parts that contain unfiltered interview is all primary, and excluding that interview (the great majority of the article) the source counts as trivial coverage. Kevin (
alt of
L235·t·c)
18:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not seeing how it's trivial - it's much of the article. I'm also not sure the basis that you are tossing interviews as being primary sources. The article isn't just an interview ... interviewing someone as part of an article, doesn't make the article a primary source. In
WP:GNG "independent of the source" says "... example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website". It doesn't preclude (for example) biographies that involved an interview of the subject.
Nfitz (
talk)
19:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I see where you're coming from,
Nfitz, but I respectfully disagree on both points. GNG specifically says secondary sources are the sources that count for notability purposes, and NOR subsection
WP:PRIMARY (in note c) specifically counts interviews as primary sources. If we take out the interview, the only two sentences that mention Caulfield are one that state the fact that Caulfield took over the club, and one that leads into the interview, and that counts as trivial coverage and as
WP:ROUTINE coverage of a sports event (both of which disqualify the source from supporting notability). This isn't being picky just to be bureaucratic, either; primary sources (including interviews, even ones published in news sources, because there's limited – if any – factchecking done by the media organization) have (obviously) limited va pilue in contributing to the verifiability of an article, and one of the intentions behind the notability guidelines is to ensure that we have enough strong sourcing to back a decent article. I know it must be frustrating to be arguing here based on what feel like technicalities, but I think the Daily Record article does not factor into the notability calculus. Best, Kevin (
alt of
L235·t·c)
01:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Though {{|L236}},
WP:Primary doesn't preclude all interview, it notes depending on context. Surely the context is that a transcribed interview is a primary source, yet when someone is interviewed as part of an article in a newspaper, that is a secondary source - see
WP:Secondary. And it certainly isn't routine. Routine would be a paragraph about an appointment - not an in depth piece at the time of an appointment.
Nfitz (
talk)
06:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Nfitz:WP:Secondary, which you mention, states that a secondary source contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources (emphasis in original). I don't see how this interview does that. And my point about routine coverage is that if the interview portion was taken out of the article, the remaining portion would clearly be routine and trivial. Best, Kevin (aka
L235·t·c)
17:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Reading it again, that portion of the article is a bit more verbatim than I'd remembered. Still, there's a lot of borderline sources - and I don't think venerability is the actual issue here - more the bureaucratic barriers that inadvertently create
systemic bias against those involved in women's soccer.
Nfitz (
talk)
19:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.