Talk:Oceana Publications/Archives/2016

Sources not listed yet

It seems to me that inside each volume of the AALL newsletter there are typically more than a dozen separate articles about Oceana. In order to find them, however, you have to search inside each volume one at a time. James500 (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Those are not what WP means by "articles about" -- casual mentions or directory references are not secondary RS to establish notability. If they were, every company in the Yellow Pages would have a WP article. In the end, adding large numbers of primary and non-RS references will not establish notability. SPECIFICO talk 20:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

They are not casual mentions or directory references. (That isn't even the language used in GNG which is "trivial mention" which GNG does not define as beyond saying that it includes a single fourteen word sentence that says nothing of importance). They are full independent reliable secondary periodical articles. The vast majority of companies in the yellow pages don't get anything remotely approaching that level of coverage (try picking a dozen examples of non-notable companies in the yellow pages at random and run a search on them if you don't believe me). I have not added a single plainly unreliable source, nor large numbers of primary sources. There are a large number of independent, reliable secondary sources in the article right now. I notice that you are failing to be specific about exactly which sources you think are primary etc and why you think they are primary etc. The reason for that, of course, is that you are simply mudslinging. You are hurling vague criticisms in the hope that your audience will not check up on what you are saying. The suggestion that Oceana are not notable is preposterous. I happen to know that Oceana produced books that were or were amongst the leading works in their field and that there are sources to prove that. That is why, when I first saw this article on the PRODLIST, I realised immediately that the nomination was almost certainly spectacularly wrong. The New York Times does not write lengthy profiles of non-notable entities. If you can't recognise that as something that obviously satisfies GNG, you can't possibly understand what GNG is about. And of course all of this misses the point that NRVE clearly states that notability depends on the existence of sources, not their citation. I don't have to establish anything. Nor are you entitled to ignore the large number of suitable sources not yet cited in the article. (No one is saying the sources in the article are the best ones either). I have absolutely run out of patience with your behaviour so far as it consists of refusing to look for or read sources, twisting the notability guidelines far beyond their breaking point, adopting the "no matter what coverage is produced, I won't accept it" approach, demanding that I do everything for you, apparently in the hope of deleting the article at the end in order to waste as much of my time as possible (not that you are likely to succeed), trying to force me to work on the article by making threats to vexatiously AfD it if I don't, and generally conveying the impression that you think I am here to jump to your bidding like some kind of slave. I would like you to help to expand that article. I would like to see you put some serious effort into it. I would like you to do that immediately. James500 (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The Virtual Reference Desk

@User:Srich32977: I don't understand why the link to the above site isn't working for some users. It works fine for me. The page is archived in the Wayback Machine of Internet Archive, which has 38 snapshots of it. That might work better for you. James500 (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

James, the www.oceanalaw.com link that Christopher Brown supplies is dead. He copyrighted it in 1997 and revised it in 2001. (The Wayback link you provided doesn't help either.) That's why the entry as a reference is worthless. – S. Rich (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Srich32977: www.oceanalaw.com was not itself a work of Chris Brown. He did not copyright or revise it. It was the website of Oceana Publications. The Internet Archive provides snapshots of what oceanalaw.com looked like in 1997 (reached from this) and 2001 (and another 437 snapshots of it), when Chris Brown wrote and revised the virtual reference desk page (virtualref.com/abs/842.htm) which is in part a review of the Oceanalaw website (oceanalaw.com), where he says, for example, that the database of treaties on oceanalaw.com (which he did not write) is "outstanding", which is exactly the sort of critical commentary we want in our article. I don't think a review of a website becomes worthless just because the website reviewed is not extant, let alone because the website reviewed is now only available from Internet Archive. We have plenty of articles on non-extant works based on extant commentary on those works. James500 (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

These arguments sound like justifications for articles on curing warts according to 16th century potions found in old witches' cookbooks. Almost all the listed references are either about the owner rather than his business or are listings in industry trade directories, similar to a listing of a certain size bushing in a hardware catalog, also not indicative of notability. Moreover, if you wish to claim that blogger Christopher Brown is an acknowledged expert such as would make his opinion count for these purposes, please provide secondary confirmation as to his recognized expertise. Srich is correct. SPECIFICO talk 14:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I am getting sick of your hogwash, SPECIFICO. Firstly, Srich32977 has said nothing about notability. He has only commented on one particular source. Secondly, he says in his edit summaries that the source is reliable, so he doesn't agree with you on that point either. Thirdly, I see no basis for calling Chris Brown's site a blog. Fourthly, as I already pointed out when I added the source, searches for "virtualref", "virtualref com", alone and with "Denver" added, in GBooks bring up the United Nations Regional Development Newsletter that confirms Brown's status as an expert from the library of the University of Denver, along with a large number of citations in reliable sources (a good indicator of reliability) including books by Routledge and Cengage Learning. And whilst they are secondary, they do not technically need to be. And of course there is his profile from the University of Denver itself: [1] [2]. And I think the University will know who their associate professors are! Indeed, GScholar says the Virtual Reference Desk was published by the University of Denver: [3]. Fifthly, there isn't a single "industry trade directory" cited in the article, nor are there any listings, whether similar to a catalogue or otherwise. Again I notice that you are being vague, and failing to be specific, about which sources these are because you are again just mudslinging. Sixthly, while some of the sources are arguably primarily about Cohen, they are also about Oceana, discussing it directly and in detail. There is no requirement that the article topic be the main subject of the source material. GNG says the exact opposite. This has already be pointed out to you over and over again. And even if everything you were saying was true, it wouldn't matter anyway, because that type of profile in the NYT trumps everything else. Seventhly, you seem, figuratively speaking, to be systematically going through every single point of the manual of standard deletionist wikilawyering tactics one at a time. That is what I think of your rubbish arguments. I also think you should drop the stick here, as no one agrees with your arguments about notability. Also you are making it difficult to discuss the actual topic of this thread which isn't about notability, but whether that particular source is a dead link. If you really want to throw up more notability chaff, at least do it at the end of one of the earlier threads that was about notability, or start a new thread. Finally, I will add more sources when I have time (which won't be soon if I have to keep arguing with you), not that any more are actually needed. James500 (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Please remain civil. Srich is an attorney, dean of a Law School if I recall correctly and a well-established and knowledgeable contributor here. As I have twice previously explained to you, the Times piece is about Cohen, not Oceana Press. Please review GNG. SPECIFICO talk 00:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have been civil. Srich32977 has not agreed with you in respect of anything to which his credentials could be relevant even if we did not have IGNOREALLCREDENTIALS. "Dead link or no dead link" is not a question of law. He has said nothing about notability, and the only issue he raises is whether a particular link is a dead link. In respect of that issue, it is fairly obvious that an URL is not a dead link just because the text on the web page at the URL includes a dead link amongst the rest of its content. The point is that the page on virtualref.com is not a mere redirect to the oceanalaw.com page. It contains more than that. As I have previously explained to you several times, one of the two Times pieces is primarily about Oceana, not Cohen. The other, his obituary, is partially about Oceana, even if Oceana is not the main topic. You are the one who needs to review GNG. As for experience, I have made nearly thirty thousand edits since 2008. I might possibly already be very familiar with GNG. In fact, I might be so overly familiar with it that I can recite it backwards from memory. James500 (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The Chris Brown/VRD page is not appropriate for one reason – WP:ELNO number 16. The links he provides don't go anywhere. If the old links have archiving, then those archived links might be useful in an External Links section of the article. As a reference for the article, the link provides no useful information. – S. Rich (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Whilst admitting that there might be an ELNO problem, I am unable to agree with the proposition that the virtualref.com page provides no useful information. I cannot see why the information it contains is not useful. James500 (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not "information". It's self-published opinion. It's kind of like citing google. The long list of "references" including among other things trade publications and directories still fails to provide clear documentation of notability. I forget the sequence of events, but it would help if the notability tag were restored to the article header so that other editors can try to help improve the references. SPECIFICO talk 14:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Opinion is information. In fact, one definition (it isn't the only one) of "secondary source", which we ourselves do use to some extent, is a source that expresses some kind of opinion about an earlier source, evaluates it, interprets it, makes a judgement about it or etc which would cover what Brown says about the "outstanding" website. That is why we use reviews as sources, and treat them as evidence of notability. And GScholar says it is not self published. There are no trade publications or directories in the list of references. Librarians, for example, are not part of the publishing trade. They are consumers of books. Likewise, publishers are not professionally interested in news or other information about other publishers, or in book reviews. Because publishers don't buy other people's books for a living. Nor are they interested in information about themselves because they already know that. That sort of information is aimed at the book buying public, especially librarians and other scholars. Consumers are not part of a trade. The references in the article are generally of a scholarly academic character, coming from university librarians (who are scholarly university academics concerned with education, teaching and research, not with selling stuff) etc. In other words, they are amongst the best possible sources. The notability of the topic is clearly established by the sources already present in the article (not that those are the only ones), so you can't put the tag on the article. In any event the purpose of that template is not to encourage editors to find sources. It is to facilitate indiscriminate mass nominations and generally to encourage deletionists to attack the article. If you want to find people to expand the article, you could try asking the "Article Rescue Squad" or some other group of editors who actually improve articles. I have no objection to a *neutrally* worded request being made to the ARS. In order to be neutral, I think you would have to refrain from claims about the topic's notability. James500 (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the best way to call for help is to tag the article for notability. I will reinsert the tag, now that you have acknowledged the need. Please let it do its job. It's not appropriate to remove the tag. SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I did not acknowledge any need. I expressly denied there was any need. Notability does not depend on the present state of this article, which, in any event, the references in the article conclusively prove that the topic is notable. The topic is manifestly notable. That template will not attract anyone who wants to edit constructively. You are putting words into my mouth on purpose and that is trolling. It is not appropriate to replace that tenplate without consensus. James500 (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It *might* be acceptable to add Template:Incomplete (which is the successor of 'Expand') to the article, or something like that. Notability is not an issue here. The only issue is that the article is missing a lot of information that ought in principal to be included in the finished article (eg the merger with Glanville ought to be discussed in the main body of the article, the level of sales/profit should be given (there is a source for this in GBooks) etc). James500 (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)