User talk:Jbhunley/Archives/2016/August

Backlog

The NPP backlog now stands at 13,158 total unreviewed pages.

Just to recap:

13 July 2016: 7,000
1 August 2016: 9,000
7 August 2016: 10,472
16 August 2016: 11,500
28 August 2016: 13,158

You naturally don't have to feel obliged, but if there's anything you can do it would be most appreciated. I've spent 40 hours on it this week but it's only a drop in the ocean.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: I do not have a lot of free time but I have spent some time on NPP this morning and will do more during my down time. Jbh ^Talk 14:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability tag on Paul Supramaniam

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that I've restored the notability tag on the Paul Supramaniam article as I have not been able to find any sources verifying the Dato-Knight Commander of the Order of Pahang (DIMP) Award. Aust331 (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aust331: No problem. Thank you for letting me know. Jbh ^Talk 16:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jbh, the source you provided fails WP:RS as it's a PDF file that can be easily altered. If you cannot find another source, I'll need to restore the tag. Thanks. Aust331 (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aust331: I am sorry but you are incorrect in your interpratation of RS. The format is irrelevant. Publitas (the hosting site) seems to be the e-publisher of the University's newsletter rather than the file being hosted on something like a personal or non-independent web site. The document itself is an alumni newsletter published by the university and is where one would expect to find such anouncements.

If you feel the award itself does not meet BASIC that is a different mater entirely. Jbh ^Talk 18:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that the award itself does not meet BASIC, I'm saying that the source you provided does not meet the criteria for a reliable source. We need something more official as a source. What you provided can be easily forged. Aust331 (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is that the only time we worry about that is when the site is not independent from the user. Whether something is a PDF or not is immaterial. Everything electronic can be forged. This is the type of publication where this type of thing is announced in English language sources. I do not know if there is even an electronic version of the Honors List for Malasia as there is for the U.K. Honors list. If there is it is not in English. If you truly feel the source is inappropriate because it is a PDF and therefore "easily forged" please take that arguement to WP:RSN. My firm belief is that arguement will be soundly rejected. Jbh ^Talk 18:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aust331: Based on this [1] the award may not be sufficient to meet ANYBIO. It is the lowest order granted, much like an MBE, I thought it more like KBE. Go ahead and replace the notability tag. Jbh ^Talk 19:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yi Mu (academic)

How is a Google Scholar profile page not an independent reliable source for the subject's publications? Yi Mu has no control over its content, so it's independent, and it's reliable in that it is compiled by Google Scholar from publications in refereed reliable journals. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read reliable sources and WP:BLPPROD which discuss the type of source required to remove a {{blpprod}}. Basicly you need something like a book, newspaper article, magazine article or some such, written by an independent third party or not related to him or his school which talks about him or verifies some material in the article. The source must have a reputation for good editorial control and fact checking and accuracy to be a WP:RS. Google Scholar is not appropriate. It is effectively a social media profile and has no editorial control and can be edited by the scholar.

I am replacing the BLPPROD and linking to this explanation. Please do not remove it again without adding a source which meets the requirements for removal. The article will not be deleted, even at then end of the 7 days, without an administrator reviewing the article and any sources which may have been added. Because of this, until you become more familiar with our sourcing requirements for biographies of living people it is best to just leave to tag on the article rather than to keep removing it without adding an adequate source. If you have questions or need help please feel free to ask me or {{ping}} me from the article talk page. Jbh ^Talk 20:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS If you feel a GScholar profile is a reliable source you may want to bring up the question at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard where sources are discussed. Please see How to edit your Google Scholar Profile for why it is neither an independent nor a reliable source. Jbh ^Talk 20:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This [2] will get rid of the BLPPROD. He is the Editor-in-Chief for the International Journal of Applied Cryptography. A better source would be a link to the journal's mast head rather than the publisher's web page. Note though that Inderscience evidently not considered a very good publisher [3]. Jbh ^Talk 20:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]