Talk:Stoyanka Kurbatova

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Sports and Games

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Olympics Low‑importance

	Olympic Games portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bulgaria Low‑importance

	Bulgaria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's sport Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Improper source

Hi! I don't mean to be rude, so if I come off that way, I apologize. I was looking through my watchlist and discovered that you reverted my edit at Stoyanka Kurbatova‎‎. I can understand removing the PROD template, I often use it for just that: to prod people into action over a neglected article. I can't help but notice, however, that you allowed the source I deleted to stay on the page after the revert, when it doesn't meet WP:RS, WP:BLP, or WP:NOR.

That the site is created by Olympic Historians, I am not disputing, though it has an inordinate amount of ads for an historical committee and is partnered with the marketing conglomerate, Fantasy Sports Ventures, thus making the site suspect. However, if you had perused the site's sources, you would have seen that the entire site is composed entirely of original research and is a primary source that cannot be used in any Biography of a Living Person. This is, currently, one of the few Wikilaws that is more or less set in stone. The only books mentioned on the site are those that have been written by the site's contributors; there is no bibliography of published sources for their statistics. Their research stands unsupported. I'm deleting the source again, and also including this on the talk page, so everyone can benefit from it. Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that source has widely been accepted at both featured article and featured list candidacies, and has been discussed multiple times on the reliable source noticeboard and has been ruled acceptable. See RSN tread, Second RSN thread, and FAC. Courcelles 21:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's my mistake then. Still, it seems kind of shady that no justification, that I can see, has been given to support this site's authenticity, other than the credentials of the site's authors, in which case, it is still a self-published source and unacceptable as per WP:BLP, and a single quote from Sports Illustrated, which gave their opinion on the site as a short comment, rather than vetting the site. Shouldn't there be an independent source to confirm SR's authenticity, perhaps one that is qualified to vet statistical analysts, as opposed to a source that is qualified to vet hockey players?

...and the argument that it has been used before is hardly watertight. It has not been 'widely' accepted, either; It's only been used in a handful of featured articles, few of which came to verbal conclusion about the site. Most of the [...]-reference.com sites come from the same 2-3 people, and they are all self-published sources and original research. You have been unable to provide me with sufficient data to convince me that this site, and its affiliates, are acceptable in a BLP.

As per WP:SPS:

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

Is it possible for this series of sites to be re-evaluated on a grander scale? Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to raise it on RSN again, though given I only gave three out of the couple dozen of discussions I could have, I suspect you will be wasting your time. This has been so well established for years (see links on User:Ealdgyth/FAC cheatsheet (and if you've never faced Victoria's grilling of your sources, I envy you.)) that no one who works or reviews sports articles at the FAC/FLC level even questions it anymore. Courcelles 22:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could have just said "The Cabal supports it", from the start, and I would have believed you! :-D Eh, I'm a twerp; I just make these arguments for fun (and to improve WP's consistency on its own rules) to see how much logic and reference to the rules will actually change Wikipedia. So far, it hasn't. Ever. ...which solidifies my opinion that Wikipedia is hypocritical, because I will get the same damn argument if I use a self-published source in a BLP, and my reference won't stick. Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience with me! I tend to be blind to something unless it's right in front of me, and, even then, I've been bitten by a snake or two, in my life. ...literally. Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]