Draft talk:Preston Corbell

Sourcing rundown

I'm going to go through the sourcing one by one to show if it is usable or unusable, and the reasons why.

Blogspot review. This is a self published blog review, a self-published source (SPS). The thing with blogs is that anyone can create one and review movies. It's rare for SPS to be seen as a reliable source - to establish that they are you'd need to show where proven reliable sources have established it as a reliable source. For example, is it routinely used as a source in places like scholarly articles and books, major media outlets, and the like? In this case it wasn't, so it's unusable.
Twisted Edge Magazine. The magazine itself is unknown as far as reliability goes. You'd need to show that it's seen as a reliable source as per above. There is another link lower down that looks to be a screenshot of the actual article, which is an interview. This poses an issue since that would make it a primary source to many on Wikipedia, especially as it's in a question and answer format. The issue here is that interviews often just print what was stated verbatim, with little to no fact checking. As such, interviews are traditionally not seen as notability giving sources. I don't always agree with that, but it's kind of a moot point here since the reliability of the magazine is questionable. primary source.
Bold Journey. This is more or less a self-published source. It's also an interview. Interviews, especially those in question and answer format, are typically seen as WP:PRIMARY sources since they just print what the person says. It doesn't really have any info about their editorial process and a quick search didn't bring up anything to show where it would be seen as a reliable source by established reliable sources. Unusable
LA Times. This is routine reporting on school sports. Corbell isn't the center of focus, which would be needed even if this was about a major championship. This is a WP:TRIVIAL source at best. You can use it for basic details but it can't give notability.
College commencement. This is another trivial source. Good for basic details, but not anything else. It's also primary in this situation. Primary sources are any sources that are issued by the person/subject in question or by anyone or any organization they're affiliated with. They are almost never usable for notability purposes. The only ones that would be something like say, the Oscars website for someone winning an Academy Award.
Podcast. This is a self-published source. I've actually heard of this podcast in passing, it's supposed to be nice. But it's not anything that would be seen as a notable SPS. It's also an interview. Unusable for notability giving purposes.
Media Mikes. This is an interview. The site also looks to be another SPS. Unusable.
Another interview with a SPS. Unusable.
Austin Fusion Magazine. This is an online magazine. It's better laid out than most but I can't really find anything about its editorial process. If you can find RS sourcing to show that the magazine is a reliable source it might be usable, but establishing this would be the hard part. I'm going to say that this is probably unusable.
Twisted Edge. This appears to be the TE magazine article mentioned above, so unusable. Also, even if this was usable this would still be a single source regardless of where else the article might be posted.
Self-published source, YouTube. Another SPS. Unusable.
Divine magazine. Another question and answer interview. Unusable.
Blog post. Unusable SPS.
Same. It's a nicer blog, but still a SPS. Unusable.
Dread Central. One of the mainstays of horror reporting online. Usable.
Community Impact. This is a mention in passing and Corbell is not the central focus of the piece. At most this would be a trivial source. I suppose the reliability of the outlet could be questioned, but as the source couldn't count towards notability anyway it's kind of irrelevant.
Press release. Being a guest at a con isn't really a sign of notability as far as Wikipedia goes. Part of this is because while some cons will only accept and list a major celebrity as a guest of honor, other conventions kind of go with who they can. This doesn't mean that the person involved isn't cool or that someone like say, you or I could walk in and get a spot, but it does mean that it isn't really a way to establish notability. Plus this is kind of one of those things that is somewhat a given for someone in the field. They'll put out work and attend conventions to drum up publicity. What would show notability are articles written by various media outlets about their appearance. It's generally not important to note in an article that someone attends conventions unless they're exceptionally well known for attending cons, like George R. R. Martin. Unusable.
The next three are all links to con websites. unusable'.

The issue here is that all of the sourcing is unusable for notability purposes. The interviews can be used to back up basic information but they can't establish notability. This leaves the Dread Central source and the Austin Fusion source to do all of the heavy lifting of establishing notability - and the Austin Fusion source is questionable. Even with that, two sources makes it difficult to establish notability. It's not impossible for two sources to establish notability, as guidelines do state two sources, but the expectation is for those two sources to be of very good quality and make some major claims of notability. In other words, the two sources should basically tell other editors that other, equally good sourcing exists and can be used to further establish notability.

Something else to keep in mind here is that while Corbell has been associated with notable projects, notability is not automatically inherited. So for him to gain notability for working on a major film he would need to be the focus of some coverage in reliable sources, which is lacking here. Not every role in a notable production is notable per Wikipedia's guidelines - and I must stress per Wikipedia guidelines. The person may be well known outside of Wikipedia and be respected, but this doesn't always mean that the person passes guidelines. As a long time fan of horror I'm well aware of that - there have been a lot of times where I've had to abandon an article because there are no sources. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as some of the sourcing being used on other pages, please be aware that this itself does not mean that the source is reliable. It can be a sign that it is probably usable but it could also mean that the website was used to back up basic info without establishing notability or that it was added despite being a non-reliable source.

With the acceptance, nomination, and move back to AfC, I'm sorry that it unfolded that way. This was not how the process is supposed to go. At this point I would recommend that you look for more sources like the Dread Central one. WP:HORROR/S has a good list of usable sources, so I would recommend looking to see if Corbell or any of his work has been covered there. You can also reach out to them and recommend him - a lot of these outlets do listen to fan requests. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]