Template talk:Did you know nominations/MBT-80

Hi again Vanamonde. Just got back from a fortnights holiday to find that BlueMoonset had closed this application on rather dubious grounds (not to mention procedure) while I was gone. With all due respect, neither of ye have yet explained exactly why exactly you consider a professional armoured vehicle consultancy, with highly qualified experts in the field of armoured warfare and who moreover have no conflict of interest in the article concerned, to be not a Reliable Source. To be even more frank, your claims that TND does not meet the requirements of WP:SPS do not appear to hold any water no matter how one looks at it. Is there some other reason you feel that this source is not suitable for use in the article, and by Wikipedia in general? Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Ceanlann gorm, the source in question is a blog. Whether or not the writer is an expert, on his blog, he can say whatever he likes, with no accountability. It has no editorial oversight, which is basically a necessity for a source to meet WP:RS for analytical claims. The fact that you linked the wrong guideline (WP:SPS, which also applies in this case, is an argument against a source, typically) does not inspire confidence. This argument has been made before, and you have ignored it. You also had some other reasonable options; you could have invited scrutiny from folks who worked in the topic, and who might point us to consensus on the use of this source; you might have opened a discussion at RSN, and established consensus there one way or another; or you could have replaced the source. Instead, you chose to be stubborn, insisted that the source was reliable, and demanded that we accept your categorization. Is it any wonder that folks got fed up with the nomination? I'm not particularly interested in prolonging this discussion, because there is nothing more for me to say. I, and several others, have provided reasons; you have chosen to ignore them, several times. Nonetheless, I have given you all the reasons once again, which will hopefully mean that we won't have the same issue in the future. Right now, I think it's time for you to drop the stick; and if that is not to your liking, go to RSN, establish consensus for the use of the source, and then return. Vanamonde (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)