Talk:Georgiy Starostin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The notability of this subject[edit]

I did some research but couldn't establish the notability of this person. It looks like there are two persons: A musician and a scientist. I think this article shuold at least has a reference to a CV or a homepage of this person at his university or at the Santa Fe institute. It doesn't matter if this is in Russian, but English would be better. However, if a scientist doesn't have such a basic feature in English, I doubt he finds himselve notable. - Mdd 11:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but did you have a look at ref#2? That is his homepage at SFI. regards, Jim Butler (not logged in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.28.123.115 (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I took a look at ref#2, but this doesn't give much information. I don't question the fact that Georgiy Starostin is a capable young scientist, but if he hasn't even have a website of his own, it's not the intention that Wikipedia will be the first here. - Mdd 20:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But he does have a site of his own, in English. It's the site you looked at, his home page at the Santa Fe Institute. It's also linked from their "Participants" pages, just to establish that it's indeed specific to him. I think that his work at SFI, along with the USA Today article[1], adequately fulfill WP:NOTE and Wikipedia:Notability (academics). The mere fact that he's collaborating with the Santa Fe Institute establishes that he "is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources" (i.e., by his collaborators there, such as Merritt Ruhlen and Murray Gell-Mann, who are by any standard highly eminent and reliable sources for judging who else is an expert.) I agree that it's perhaps not exceptional notability, but from a common sense perspective, it's entirely fine for Wikipedia. It certainly puts him above the "average college professor" threshold.
There was an earlier deletion discussion for this article, and the finding was "delete" because that version had no sources apart from the subject's home page in Russia. The sources in this version fix that problem entirely. As far as I'm concerned, WP:PAPER puts this whole thing over the top. Hope you come to see it the same way, Mdd. (By the way, the music reviewer and the linguist are indeed one and the same.) regards, Jim Butler(talk) 00:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cited him in Borean languages and I see there are about 100 wikilinks to his page. --JWB 01:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that hardly counts. See also WP:NOTE and further pages. Notablity should be established here by at least a few third party sources. - Mdd 12:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTE does not say "at least a few". It says independent source(s), and historically goes back and forth on whether there must be one or more. Common sense dictates avoiding repeated deletion debates based on that. At any rate, SFI and USA Today are independent and suffice here, especially in terms of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). (I haven't formed an opinion on his notability in terms of popular music reviewing, but it doesn't matter.) Jim Butler(talk) 00:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His father was possibly the most notable linguist in the long-range comparison field, and he's carrying on that work. There are 22500 Google hits in Russian. I posted to ru:Обсуждение:Старостин, Сергей Анатольевич requesting more contributions. --JWB 20:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, his father doesn't count here, see also WP:NOTINHERITED. The rules of Wikipedia are rather restricted here. - Mdd 20:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His notability or lack thereof as a linguist is one thing, but what about his notability as an online writer about music? If Mark Prindle has a Wiki entry on the basis of his website, I can't see why George shouldn't. Hopefully I'm not just going to get Prindle's entry deleted too... Hughteg 04:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I made some improvementrs on the article. But still: if this person has a weblog about music, has written one paper and is refered to in one article... Why would you want to have this person mentioned in the Wikipedia in the first place? - Mdd 14:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again the links added are not of third party sources. One way to find those sources is by looking at Google BETA. But I have an explicit question: What did Georgiy Starostin publish in English? and where? If no proper answer is given, I'm going to proposed this article for deletion. - Mdd 18:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The product is called Google Scholar and the BETA in the logo means it is in beta testing. --JWB 04:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTE and related guidelines don't say that publications in English are required; rather, the sources establishing notability should be in English (since this is English-language Wikipedia). And that is the case (SFI and USA Today). That said, he does appear to have several English-language publications, and I'll add those presently. Jim Butler(talk) 00:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Here you can find some more. His interests are quite wide-ranging. Jim Butler(talk) 00:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a blog, it's a website, and it's not just -a- website, it's widely regarded as one of, if not the, most comprehensive idependent record review sites on the web. You will find multiple references to Starostin as a reviewer on message boards and mailing lists - his opinion is often invoked, if not always agreed with, when discussing music. I think that for this reason his notability is established.Hughteg 23:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry. I only look at it from the systems science perspective. Now youb say he is a notable music critic. Now if I search for "Only Solitaire George Starostin" in Google I find only 23 hits. How is this possible? - Mdd 00:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try googling for "starostin music review". 19,700 hits. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 00:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term "starostin music review" as one word gives me 5 hits. - Mdd 00:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try without the quotes and with a slightly better search: "george starostin" OR "george starostin's" music review OR reviews OR reviewer. About 14,200 hits. Still, I think what is needed for this aspect of notability is Wikipedia:Notability (web); not sure if we have that or not, but academically, it's still more than adequate, imo. --Jim Butler(talk) 01:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to establish notability[edit]

The list of more articles is a good step (and Russian articles are all right for me.) And so is the search criterea on Google to find something on him.

But now a next step has to be taken. There has to be found at least two independent third party sources, who says something notable about his work, in a publiced source... or an highly regarded website article. This text must be put in the article with a reference. This shouldn't be to hard? - Mdd 11:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link to the policy section where you are getting this criterion? I don't see it in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Your sentence is also unclear... says something notable about his what? There are at least two independent third party sources already cited, not even counting the projects where he is participating. --JWB 17:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First sorry, I meant his work. Second the criteria for Notability (academics). The first three are:

  1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.
  2. The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field.
  3. The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature.

All three kind of mention: by independent sources. Hereby sources mean at least two. - Mdd 18:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only independent source I see yet is the US today and that is very thin. - Mdd 18:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mdd, I directly addressed this just above.[2]. To summarize: Here, an independent source is one outside the author's, or his father's, page (starling.rinet.ru). Thus, his collaborators at the Santa Fe Institute qualify, and there are several notable ones there (Ruhlen, Bengtson, and of course Gell-Mann). His participation in that project is itself notable. Also the fact that he edited Mother Tongue, a peer-reviewed journal, signifies academic notability.
This stuff exceeds the "average college professor" criterion.
Also, please read the the deletion log for the earlier version of this article. The problem was that in that article (see a mirror of it here), WP:PROF was not met by independent sources. With the SFI and USA Today refs, we've fixed that. Reading that discussion, it's obvious that had the article then had those references, it wouldn't have been deleted.
Thanks. Let me know if anything's still not clear. Jim Butler(talk) 19:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, both Santa Fe Institute and Mother Tongue are no independent sources. I haven't read this yet untill now and I wasn't aware of the fact that this article was already recently deleted. That explains something to me (If I am not mistaken, this is also a reason that an article can be speedily deleted). I have to read it a bit more, to get a clear picture. - Mdd 21:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, for the purposes of establishing that other academics view him as an expert, they are just fine. Read the deletion discussion I linked to. Jim Butler(talk) 21:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can ask User:HisSpaceResearch? - Mdd 21:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I compare this article sometimes with an article of another young scientist Christian Fuchs (sociologist). His work published more than 60 contributions, including 5 monographs and 2 anthologies, and he just got the benefit of the doubt. Wikipedia can't have an article about every young scientist. - Mdd 21:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inline links to external sources[edit]

Mdd, is there some kind of policy against inline links? --JWB 03:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the general rule is all external links should be gathered in the external links section, and each webside should there be linked only once. That is why I removed all inline links to external sources (as I did before in maybe over 100 articles). I make an exception for the reference - and publication sections. - Mdd 11:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point out where this policy is documented? Thanks. --JWB 17:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can try to find out. It is probably listed somewhere... but I'm no expert on those rules. But you can also look for yourselve for example in featured article, or biographical article about the most famous. For example in the article Einstein. You find one inline link to a wikisource. All others links are in the reference-section. - Mdd 18:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've seen External Links sections in other articles, though I don't remember seeing edits specifically to move links to those sections.
It seems to me that not having the link inline only reduces usability, so I would like to go to the talk page for the policy and discuss it. Thanks in advance for finding out. --JWB 19:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, "edits specifically to move links to those sections", the last change I made to this article moments ago, all other changes I made. It's called wikification. As the initiator of the WikiProject Systems I have been corrected more then 100 articles in this field the past three months. I have more then 600 articles on my watch list and daily I check and often correct more then 10 articles. Do you want to question my abilities? - Mdd 20:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are editing to apply a policy, it's reasonable to ask for a cite for that policy. If it is a personal preference and not a policy, of course you don't need a policy source for that. As for your abilities, I don't need to hear that they're special, unless of course you have two independent third party sources to that effect. :) --JWB 20:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I ask is if you or anybody else what to establish the notability of this person. - Mdd 20:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still interested in a source for the inline links policy. Thanks. --JWB 20:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ask the helpdesk.- Mdd 20:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've searched the relevant policies on links, and there is in fact no such requirement. The ones that mention external link position are Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Position_in_article which says links *can* be moved to an external link section, but also mentions embedded links without saying they should be moved, and Wikipedia:External_links#External_links_section which says there are two basic formats and that an external links section is the most common. --JWB 21:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ask the helpdesk what is normal and let me know!? - Mdd 21:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or give me some examples of articles with inline links - Mdd 21:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mdd, in response to your question "The only thing I ask is if you or anybody else what to establish the notability of this person": Oh, please! I've already replied in detail twice, here and here, and you have yet to say anything specific in response. If you don't understand my points, please ask, but please stop requesting information that others are spending a lot of time trying to explain to you. I've been cutting you lots of slack because I see you aren't a native English speaker, but even so, WP:TPG still applies to us all. Thanks! --Jim Butler(talk) 21:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't read the last contribution here. I looked at the article and saw that the situation had not improved yet. - Mdd 21:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Me beeing not native English has little to do with establishing notability. I'm just trying to help.

Improvements on this article[edit]

I started making some improvements on the article... just to give a direction how I think this article can be improved. - Mdd 22:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used a second way to make this article more notable by adding some of his work. More details has to be filled in, but I think the situation is improving. - Mdd 22:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job, looks very good! Didn't mean to get hot above; WP:AGF is indeed a very good idea. On the fact-tags, yes, maybe some of the Russian users will be able to flesh out stuff like his alma mater. Your work has improved the article quite a lot. regards, --Jim Butler(talk) 01:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making a sourced recreation[edit]

Of course, I appreciate Starostin's music criticism instead of his linguistic work, but after the AfD I felt that Wikipedia was somehow missing something without this article. See the AfD.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand that you are the editor who proposed to deleted the article the last time. I don't knwo how the first article was like. I do know ee had quiet some discussion around this article, and I think we develope it into an interesting start. - Mdd 20:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The earlier version looked a lot like this. The current one is a big improvement substantively, thanks in large part to Mdd's additions (nice choice of illustrations, too). I too am a fan of Starostin's music site. I just went ahead and added back in some of the music stuff from the earlier version; it's all sourced from his personal page, but per WP:SOURCES that's OK as long as the article isn't primarily based on such sources. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 03:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Music criticism[edit]

This is an excessive deletion; there is nothing "unduly self-serving" about the material (permalink; live version here). It briefly describes Starostin's music criticism, nothing more. It would be "unduly self-serving" if, e.g., he were making claims about being one of the foremost Internet music critics. Common sense also applies, since he arguably is one. Perhaps some fat could be trimmed from the section, but definitely keep it in the TOC and keep the EL's to his old and new sites. --Middle 8 (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this entire addition has no reliable sources to support its inclusion in the article. Forget even the impossible-to-cite "prolific self-published Internet music critic" label, the entire section added is either based in self-published sources or is unsourced. No third-party sources have covered his "music criticism". Using the subject as a self-published source → 1. "unduly self-serving". Is there a reliable source that says he is a music critic? Having a personal blog or website about albums doesn't quite fit neither the academic discipline nor the journalistic meaning of the title. Per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, for relatively unknown people, "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." Another one, WP:SPS: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." And common sense tells you that people can have hobbies, none of which are covered in BLP articles unless they've been deemed notable by third-party sources. I'm not sure about those external links (WP:BLPEL), but I'm pretty sure a section making him out to be a music critic isn't in keeping with the spirit of notability or BLP guidelines. Dan56 (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dan56 asked for my input as an experienced Wikipedian, and I have to say that Dan56 is completely correct. If no independent source has ever discussed his blog, then it shouldn't be covered here. Well, maybe we could have a single sentence (and I do stress maybe), but any more would be WP:UNDUE. Our job is always to report what independent sources have said about people (that's how we determine what is or isn't important), and if they haven't said anything, we should say nothing. The typical times that we use SPS are for things that are inherently personal; for example, if his blog stated that is married, or had a kid, then we could use the source for that. We don't, however, look to his blog to find out what his hobbies are, or what sorts of things he likes to write about. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should Starostin's hobby as a self-published music blogger be mentioned in this article?[edit]

There is consensus to include a brief mention of Starostin's music blogging in the article. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 02:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revisiting this issue, which was pretty dormant until Redheylin began an edit war over it today... Dan56 (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

As the nominator, I'll just let a few WP policies and guidelines speak for themselves.

  • "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)
  • Wikipedia is "not a dumping ground for any and all information that readers consider important or useful. For the sake of neutrality, Wikipedia cannot rely upon any editor's opinion about what topics are important. Everything in Wikipedia must be verified in reliable sources, including statements about what subjects are important and why. To verify that a subject is important, only a source that is independent of the subject can provide a reliable evaluation." (WP:3PARTY)
  • "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject ... about themselves ... [and] not unduly self-serving" or if "the article is not based primarily on such sources." It IS (WP:BLPSPS). Dan56 (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are NO reliable, third-party sources that discuss his hobby as a music blogger/reviewer. There's an external link to his music blog at the bottom of this article, which is more than sufficient, although I don't even see any third-party sources in general for this article, so why add any more self-serving trivia when this article seems like a candidate for deletion? Dan56 (talk) 05:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JG66:, "part-time"? Who has he ever worked for in that capacity, part-time, any-time?? That's why significant coverage from multiple third-party sources are important. Cause a brief, off-hand mention doesn't verify much, and it's not exactly the best kind of research on a topic (WP:NOR). I would accept a compromise on mentioning him as a "music blogger", since those are the facts, but not in the lead, where the emphasis should be on the most important parts of an article, and how extensive can you get about a music blog whose coverage is limited to obscure mentions in an index of obscure music websites listed in a book on Song Sheets to Software, and a book on The Dark Side of the Moon where the writer compares the critical opinion of "one amazon.com reviewer, 'a music fan from Queens, NY'" to that of "George Starostin's Reviews website" lmaoo. Dan56 (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're taking this thing way too seriously and wikilawyering the hell out of the statements in those sources. So the PopMatters writer says "part-time music critic" – so what if that adjective is inaccurate?, it's no reason to ignore the mention in its entirety, nor the fact that the writer chooses to lead off his appraisal of one of the foremost heavy metal bands by paraphrasing the opinion of George Starostin. And with that discussion in the Introduction to Speak to Me: The Legacy of Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon, I think you're missing the context. Rather than merely "comparing" Starostin's view with that of an amazon reviewer, Russell Reising is discussing the album's legacy with regard to professional and non-professional reviews, and Starostin gets significant coverage with an opinion that clearly irks Reising. I'll concede that a mention in this article's Lead might be pushing it, but there's enough to warrant inclusion in the main body. In Songs Sheets to Software, we get: "George Starostin's Classic Album Reviews … Detailed reviews of 1960s and 70s rock and pop music; ratings; best of lists; etc." PopMatters cites him as a rock critic but, importantly, clarifies that it's only a sideline. And the context of Reising's argument is important too, because Starostin is being discussed among non-professional online reviewers – there's no mistaking that he's anything but that in terms of music criticism. JG66 (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikimandia:, the first source you cited is a "database" in the sense that a Wiki is a database, made up of user-generated content ([3]). The second source is taken out of context, making a brief, off-hand mention of Starostin's name in an article on music blogs that makes no mention of Starostin's blog, in an article that's not directly related to the topic of Georgiy Starostin and doesn't directly support the material you're using it to support (NO original research). Unless Starostin's writing on music has been published by someone other than himself, he's not a music critic, which is the claim that continues to be written into this article's lead. Also, his blog is written in English not RUssian. Dan56 (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Peoples.ru is not a database but has an editorial staff. Some of the biographies have bylines while others are taken from other sites. The second reference refers to him and one other as the early wave of Russian rock music bloggers back in the 90s, so I fail to see how it's out of context. One can be an independent critic as what he does falls under that scope of music critic; he's not blah-blah-blogging about things like who's going to leave One Direction next. Additionally, his reputation is as a Russian music critic of western rock music and he appears to be quite respected in this area. His reviews appear frequently cited (eg). Nobody is saying he's the greatest critic in the world or has set music critic world records but there's ample evidence it's notable enough for his biography. I don't know what your obsession is with this minor point to his biography but surely you can find better things to do with your time. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read peoples.ru's about page. The second source says "a wave of English-language websites", name-checking Starostin and Mark Prindle. You're misrepresenting what the source said. And wow, a Russian vinyl shop. Dan56 (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think? ([4]) Dan56 (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it needs to be stated up front that there are other sources to consider: [5], [6], [[7]. I've mentioned them below, but it seems editors can arrive here and only consider the above-linked medium.com piece. Starostin's also mentioned as "a Russian linguist who has an extensive site about classic rock" in a rockcritics.com interview with Jonathan Bogart, whose pieces for The Atlantic and The Singles Jukebox we cite in some music articles. @K.e.coffman: you've referred only to the medium.com article – what do you think in light of these other sources? JG66 (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those first three links you cited don't discuss or cover his role as a music blogger. They're mostly brief mentions unrelated to the topic of Georgiy Starostin (WP:NOR). Also, Bogart qualifies his response to the interview question with "It depends on what you mean by many. (Or by critics!)". Dan56 (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I simply can't understand where you're coming from when you cite WP:NOR. Unless you're focusing purely on his music blog (in which case, no, there's no mention of him there as a music blogger) – me, I'm referring to his activities as an album reviewer. Okay, your title for this RfC includes only "music blogger", but you then mention "his hobby as a music blogger/reviewer"; and, when you also say "Revisiting this issue …", I take it you mean whether to recognise Starostin as an online reviewer/critic – because that is the issue that seems to have done the rounds (at WP Albums, for instance), and it's also what Redheylin seems to have been trying to add.
Because, I can't see any reason why the PopMatters review can't be used to support a statement along the lines of "Georgiy Starostin also writes music reviews". I can't see any reason why Songs Sheets to Software can't be used to say "Starostin's website, George Starostin's Classic Album Reviews, includes his critiques of albums from the 1960s and 1970s." Where's the original research in any of that? [As for Bogart's qualification ("depends on what you mean … by critics!"), sure why not – that's the perspective of a professional music journalist, consistent with the sort of "but he's not a real critic" treatment Starostin receives from Reising in the Pink Floyd book and from the PopMatters writer. No one's trying to say otherwise.]
I guess I must be missing something – but where's does OR come into it?
Also, would you object if I put a request out to some of the editors who took part in the past discussions on Starostin? JG66 (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's OR because considering the type of sources you're finding, it looks like you're fishing for sources to support a particular point of view, say for instance Googling "Starostin" + "music reviewer" (or the like) and finding some article that's unrelated to the topic of Starostin. Best practice is the research the most reliable sources on a topic and say what they explicitly say (WP:STICKTOSOURCE). The Song Sheets page says nothing. It's just an index of any and all music-related websites that happens to list Starostin's blog. How would that be an appropriate source in a BLP on a Russian anthropologist/linguist? You just wanna use it to mention the name of the review site, but with no context (WP:STICKTOSOURCE). Then again, it's hard to tell what would be an appropriate source considering this whole article is made up of references to Starostin's website, but that doesn't mean we should add to this mess. And saying he writes music reviews is misleading. He's never been published, by anyone or any website other than his own blog. He's a blogger, and it's of such little notability. My compromise was what's been added in the article body, a brief mention that he's a music blogger. The best question to ask is are there multiple reliable third-party sources specifically on Georgiy Starostin (profiles, bios, interviews, articles) that discuss or even mention him being a music blogger, critics, reviewer or whatever you'd like to see him mentioned as in this article? Dan56 (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The real issue here seems to be you have a problem with the subject which is why you're causing unnecessary drama - you refer to him as having questionable notability, which shows you've failed to do any actual search on the subject or bother to find sources in Russian. It also shows you don't understand WP:NOR. He has a website of thousands of music reviews going back years. Who is contesting this? It is not controversial information and why you think it's contentious is beyond me. Details like these are all over Wikipedia biographies. Get over it. —МандичкаYO 😜 14:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The real issue is you're avoiding addressing my argument. So what if he has a website of thousands of music reviews going back years. And I don't "refer to him as having questionable notability" (although it's been brought up before, just read the first post of this talk page #The notability of this subject). I refer to his music blogging as having questionable or no notability, and I'm not the only one; K.e.coffman agrees. It is irrelevant information, since what's been cited here so far are reliable sources that briefly mention his name in articles not related to this page's topic (a definition of original research, simple) or questionable sources that barely discuss his music blogging. Where is the significant coverage of his music blogging that it warrants mentioning it in the lead?? His hobby is not significant information (MOS:INTRO). Get over it. Barack Obama's hobby playing basketball has received far more significant coverage in third-party sources and even that doesn't warrant being mentioned in his article's lead lmao. Dan56 (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, it might be useful to hear from editors who have participated in previous Starostin-related threads (the following are the only active wikipedians I could find). @Middle 8: @Qwyrxian: @JohnInDC: @SilkTork: @Andrzejbanas: Even though you may only have contributed to a past discussion on whether Starostin's reviews should be included in album articles, would you care to comment here on whether some sort of a mention of his music blogging/reviewing activities can be added in his biographical article? JG66 (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
JG66, what usefulness? Look at the top of this talk page, the banners: "Wikiproject Biography", "Wikiproject Systems". You could have found a number of active members there to weigh in, since they're topics are actually relevant to Starostin. Instead, you're soliciting opinions from editors who've only discussed Starostin in relation to his music blog, editors from a music wikiproject. How is that not vote-banking? (WP:CANVAS) Dan56 (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, get some perspective, will you. Your whole presence here, and mine, is only "in relation to his music blog [/reviews]". Discussions regarding the blog and reviews site have taken place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums; the most recent (September 2012) produced two potential sources, one of which was discussed by Redheylin at the AN/EW that began this RfC, after all. Anyway, how on earth do I know what those two music project editors are going to make of this? I trust them, as I would anyone else coming here. It's not like I'm determined to see something added to the article, you know – certainly not like the determination you've shown here and since 2013 that something shouldn't be – I just like the idea of the community all weighing in. (Which, it should be noted, is in complete contrast to some of the music RfCs you've got underway, or even seen through to completion, by inviting a chosen few and without ever notifying the Music or Albums projects, even though the proposed changes affect each and every album article.) As another editor said last year, "guidelines are not absolute dogma"; a bit of common sense never goes amiss. And by that I mean the ability to think like a reader also, instead of viewing issues such as this through a pinhole. JG66 (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My presence here is, because of it being mentioned in the lead in the past, less experienced editors are mislead to believe Starostin is qualified in any way as a source on music criticism when in fact he's no different in that respect than any other unknown music blogger who publishes their opinion on WordPress. My presence here for that reason doesn't take anything away from what I've argued. Multiple third-party sources dictate notability (sounds like a pretty damn reasonable guideline lmaoo), and there's barely any notability to this aspect of Starostin's life and work. What common sense is there to mentioning a Russian linguist/anthropologist's hobby of publishing a music blog in the lead of an article on them??? What are you even arguing anymore dude? The music blog bit has been included in the article body. Are you still proposing it be added to the lead? And to your point about guidelines not being dogma, why are you trying to make an exception of this? Dan56 (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because he's actually thinking about what readers are going to be looking for (as opposed to, e.g., wikilawyering for the sheer joy of winning an argument). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 13:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Readers will go to an article on a Russian anthropologist looking for information on his music blog? Do you hear yourself??? And "he writes very well"? Some neutrality you're showing there. Btw, look up the definition of "hobby". It fits. Dan56 (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most readers who come here will have heard about Starostin from his music reviews, and probably don't know he's also an academic. There's no harm whatsoever in including a little bit about the music reviews in the article, and it will help such readers. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 06:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know what most readers will be looking for? Sounds like fancruft only music geeks will be looking for, as reflected by the lack of significant coverage on this topic. Dan56 (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Answered below. (you don't need to mention WP:FANCRUFT more than once btw [8]) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 09:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least 8 of the 13 references cited in this article are Starostin's website/blog --> This article is based primarily on self-published sources, which makes your point moot (WP:BLPSELFPUB): "Such material may be used as a source only if: 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources." Dan56 (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Easily fixable per below [9] --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 17:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, actually the self-pub linguistics stuff is exempt, per WP:SELFPUB. Fuller explanation below. [10] --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 12:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and canvassing issues[edit]

This is Starostin's music blog. Also, it should be noted, JG66 pinged editors to this RfC whose only past experience with the article's topic was discussing Starostin's music blog as a source for WP:ALBUMS articles, and Middle 8, who had in the above past section expressed the point of view proposed by JG66 in this RfC. I interpreted pinging those editors as vote-banking, since they all expressed support in allowing content from Starostin's music blog, with one finding Starostin's writing "remarkable" (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_44#Georgiy_Starostin), and since only the music aspect of this article's subject (otherwise a biography of a Russian anthropologist and linguist) is all those editors presumably know about or would resonate with them, and the fact that considering how there's no significant coverage by third-party sources discussing his music blogging, that aspect would only appeal to music geeks (WP:FANCRUFT). I have since messaged several editors from the relevant wikiprojects (those actually listed above this talk page) to weigh in, including from WP:BLP and WP:SYSTEMS. Dan56 (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, pinging others who have edited here is not canvassing, and this introductory section is not for (re-(re-))arguing your point of view. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 09:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true, about the editors he pinged; you're the only one out of the editors he pinged that made a single contribution to this article, which coincidently was only adding information on his music blog ([11], [12]). Also, this edit of theirs and the reasoning behind it is revealing. Like, do any of you know what good research is?? Or you're that much music geeks or fans of his "music reviewing"? How dedicated to promoting this cause of yours must you be if you're willing to knowingly use a false characterization of him in the article?--He's obviously not a "part-time rock critic", since "part-time" means he has been paid for or worked in this field, and "critic" suggests he judges something professionally. Like c'mon! The little bit that's currently in the article suffices. "He's a music blogger". Nothing more, nothing less. He's not a critic (see music journalism; that's a profession), but a blogger. If you want to expand upon that with more info on his blog, hopefully it's gotten coverage from reliable sources that can offer more info on it, just shtty low-quality, questionable sources or self-published sources that would let you add any insignificant detail about his blog just because it's true (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Dan56 (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
e/c- Yes, I was about to say, JG66 also pinged those who have edited the topic area, i.e. Starostin as music critic/reviewer. So? That's not canvassing as long as you do so without respect to their expressed opinions on the question at hand -- so no, JG66 did not canvas. BTW it's insulting and ridiculous to assert that just because they've edited about it, the music aspect "is all those editors presumably know about or would resonate with them". And one more time: this introductory section is not for (re-(re-))arguing your point of view. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 11:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is canvassing. Those editors were supportive of Starostin's music blog in that context (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_44#Georgiy_Starostin) Dan56 (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dude. It's only canvassing if it's selective for opinion. In this case you just happen to be alone in your opinion among those who have edited the topic area. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI)
This intro section is for presenting the question neutrally. Concerns about canvassing are OK here even if they're mistaken, but that aside, the question isn't framed neutrally, and the added commentary supporting one side [13][14] belongs elsewhere. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 20:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC) struck - thanks for moving the above 22:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I focused on the article itself, rather than rereading this discussion thread, which I first looked at yesterday morning. (It has since grown.) One sentence seems sufficient to me, regarding Georgiy Starostin's music blogging hobby. There is currently a single sentence to that effect in the article. What is more uh problematic is the fact that there is so much dependency on the references and external links to his music blogging in the article. Some of the links to his subject matter expertise come from the music blogs, or rather, his father's blog. There is plenty of information about Georgiy Starostin available that is NPOV and acceptable for a BLP. I don't understand the seeming obsession with his music blog. It receives undue emphasis in the article. Instead of fussing over the music blog so much, I would recommend that an infobox be added to the article, with a photograph of Starostin, his date of birth, and some mention of family, e.g. wife or children if any. At the moment, the only photo is of one the subjects of his research, which is misleading when one views the hover over for the article page. Also, I would strongly suggest replacing the links to Starostin's father's blog as references in this article. Overall, I am in agreement with the gist of Dan56's point here.--FeralOink (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FeralOink -- Actually, in the article body, his own site isn't used as a ref for his music blogs -- it's used for his academic career (plus his birthday). The music stuff has been in the EL section, but can be moved back to the body, which is an acceptable use of self-pub sources per WP:BLPSPS. (Earlier versions had a couple sentences in the body + one in the lede.) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 16:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant canvassing. @Dan56: For all your huffing and puffing about my contacting editors who have commented in the past on Starostin's music blogging and reviewing activities, either on this page or at WP Albums discussions, you are currently, blatantly engaging in canvassing: [15], [16], [17], [18]. Apart from one of the four editors you've just contacted (SlimVirgin), none of them are members of WP Biography, judging by their user pages and the project members list. And not a single one of the four has participated in a discussion regarding Starostin's blog/reviews site. Per Wikipedia: Canvassing, specifically Appropriate notification (WP:APPNOTE), I'm confident my notifications – sent from this page to every participating editor who is still active, having raised the possibility here before doing so – were in line with the guideline: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: … On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include: … * Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)." Those recent notifications you made, on the editors' talk pages, are not in line with the guideline. Wikipedia:Canvassing#How to respond to inappropriate canvassing offers steps you could have taken if you really felt my contacting those five editors was a violation of the guideline. You didn't, you've just been stomping up and down like a spoilt child ever since. As I've said already, I welcome the idea of plenty more editors participating here, as in every discussion or RfC – that's an approach I've increasingly viewed as important after seeing how you have carried out RfCs in the past, without ever notifying the projects affected by the RfC. So your sudden adoption of an open-door policy is puzzling … Let's be clear, for the record: you have unequivocally gone about canvassing editors of your choosing, editors with no previous link to this issue. JG66 (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Rephrased part of the above for clarity, following FeralOink's comment below. JG66 (talk) 07:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the editors contacted by Dan56 and I'll have you know that I AM a member of WikiProject Biography, specifically for biographical articles about people in science and academia. I've spent at least half my time as a Wikipedia editor since 2011 working on biographical articles, for the living and the dead, whose primary area of notability was in some form of science, engineering, business or academia. I think that I am appropriate editor for Dan56 to have contacted to comment here.--FeralOink (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FeralOink: No argument from me at all on that. What made you think I was talking about you? JG66 (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JG66:Since Dan56 asked me to comment, I thought you meant me too when you said this, "Apart from one of the four editors you've just contacted (SlimVirgin), none of them are members of WP Biography, judging by their user pages and the project members list". I know that I am not one of the four, but since Dan56 asked me to comment, I thought you were lumping me in with them, so I got all defensive-like. I'm sorry. <meep>--FeralOink (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FeralOink: Hey, no probs. I realised I'd probably not been specific enough before, so I then clarified my comments. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BULLSHIT Yooooo, like wtf??? All those editors I got from the edit history page of the WP:BIO talk page ([19]), so please get your facts straight!!! And the only editors to have discussed Starostin before were at WP:ALBUMS regarding whether or not to consider him a reliable source for reviews, BECAUSE HE HAS NO OTHER NOTABILITY IT SEEMS, AS THIS ENTIRE ARTICLE IS PRIMARILY BASED ON REFERENCES TO HIS OWN WEBSITE, WHICH WOULD VIOLATE WP:BLPSPS POINT NUMBER 5 IF YOU OR MIDDLE 8 ARE CONSIDERING USING ANY MORE REFERENCES TO HIS BLOG TO CITE INFORMATION ABOUT HIS BLOG, WHICH IS NOT NOTABLE ITSELF SINCE NO THIRD-PARTY SOURCES DISCUSS THE BLOG. Dan56 (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Please list sources here and discuss below.

3rd-party RS:

  • Pop Matters (magazine; RS) - opens with a mention of "part-time rock critic George Starostin"
  • German Rolling Stone (magazine; RS) - several paragraphs praising and recommending his music review website
  • Der Spiegel (news magazine; RS) - quote from above Rolling Stone endorsement
(note for English readers: Der Spiegel is the foremost German-language weekly news magazine, comparable in stature to TIME Magazine).

Possible 3rd-party RS:

  • Medium (blog; RS, assuming editorial oversight) - cites Starosin as "music blogger" and quotes from his blog

Starostin's self-published sites:

  • Only Solitaire - original site, 390 artists, each with multiple reviews
  • Only Solitaire - current blog, 220+ artists, each with multiple reviews; updated with new review daily since July 6, 2009

Other sources:

  • Gentle Giant website (apparent fan site and SELFPUB source) - mentions Starostin's original site & reader comments there


Discussion of sources[edit]

Note: Moved comments to own subsection. Dan56 comment just below (@12:18, 11 March 2016) is re PopMatters source, above in first bullet point. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 03:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A brief, off-hand mention of Starostin that erroneously calls him a "part-time rock critic" (in reality, he blogs as a hobby) and does not go on to say anything more about him. Dan56 (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reising compares the critical opinion of "one amazon.com reviewer, 'a music fan from Queens, NY'" to that of "George Starostin's Reviews website" in that source lmaoo. Dan56 (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh) There's already a discussion section; I'd hoped we could just list sources here and continue discussion elsewhere... @JG66:, you were right (below), sorry. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 06:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, broke out this "Discussion of sources" subsection --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 21:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're personal opinion on the relevance of his music blog is clouding your judgment, which is no surprise since the only ppl JG66 pinged were editors from the music WP. WP:NOR: "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly." How are any of those the most reliable sources on a Russian linguist/anthropologist? Also, it's misleading to call him a "part-time rock critic" since he's NEVER been hired or published by ANYONE. He self-publishes, and blogs, as a hobby, not for work. Period. Dan56 (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Middle 8: I think it was a mistake to set the sources out in this way. Partly because the list is incomplete, based on the discussion that's gone on above, and partly because, even though I know you haven't added any further comments or editorialisation here, it's an invitation for Dan56 to indulge his habit of last-word-itis. @Dan56: pull your head out your arse/ass. "The only ppl JG66 pinged were editors from the music WP"? – well, I pinged Middle 8 and Qwyrxian, both of whom contributed to a similar discussion on this talk page in 2013. If they're from the music project, I wouldn't know. I also pinged SilkTork and Andrzejbanas, because they participated in a discussion on a music project talk page about Starostin's activities as a reviewer and music blogger. JG66 (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ JG66 - belated note FWIW: broke out discussion of sources and attempted to complete sources ... at least it should make it easier for RfC closer, assuming someone's willing to slog through all this (and assuming that's even necessary given how discussion has evolved & sources have been added) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 21:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Dan56 (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing improper about pinging others who have edited this page. If some/all of them happen to have opposed Dan 56's position, how exactly does that make them biased? Interesting Dan56 sees it that way ... --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 06:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're making arguments that would appeal to music geeks, which would be the only readers I assume who would know of Starostin's music blog, since it has no significant coverage discussing it (WP:FANCRUFT). Interesting you don't see that... Dan56 (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some perspective on the two 3rd-party sources above: they are supplementary. We don't even need them to be BLP-compliant 3rd-party RS! Per WP:BLPSPS, we can source this stuff to Starostin's self-pub sources. For all his arguments here, Dan56 ignores this simple fact. He strenuously impeaches the two RS above, on the mistaken theory that even non-contentious material can be included in a BLP only to the degree that 3rd-party sources discuss them -- all of which is a red herring. This material is well within BLPSPS parameters.
  • Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:
  1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The only one of these that Dan56 has suggested applies is the first -- that somehow (?!?) this stuff is self-serving, a view that nobody else has endorsed. This material is more than fine to include, and all the 3rd-party RS's above do is underscore that point. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 05:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC) struck/reword for proper PAG 19:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC); minor edit to reflect changes to Sources section 21:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As is, this article is based primarily on self-published sources (i.e. Starostin's website), which makes your point moot (WP:BLPSELFPUB): "Such material may be used as a source only if: 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources." Dan56 (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it'll be easy to source most of the linguistics stuff to 3rd-party sources, since he's an academic at two well-regarded institutions. His personal site in English has been used mainly as a convenience link for his Russian-language faculty page [20]. Latter in English via Google bot: [21]. Good you noticed this. -Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 16:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it turns out that the linguistics stuff on his personal site is exempt form the requirement that "the article is not based primarily on such sources", because Starostin is a published expert in his field. That's per WP:SELFPUB (part of WP:V); see the first sentence (bolding mine): Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as... [list of five criteria above]. It still can't hurt to use his faculty page, but some of the Tower of Babel stuff is probably available only at that self-published page, and will benefit the article without violating policy. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 12:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Votes[edit]

  • No as nominator and per above. Dan56 (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. He's referred to as a "part-time rock critic" in this PopMatters piece on Black Sabbath: [22] – in the opening sentence. His reviews site gets a listing in an educational title published by Scarecrow Press: [23]. And, per Redheylin's addition, Starostin's opinions on Pink Floyd and Dark Side of the Moon seem controversial enough to have invited discussion in Russell Reising's Speak to Me: The Legacy of Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon. I can't see what the problem is – no one's trying to assign him the hallowed status of a Professional Music Critic. In its own right, his role as an amateur reviewer wouldn't be sufficient to qualify him for a Wikipedia article. But his other achievements are sufficient, and his album reviews have at least been recognised by those few third-party reliable sources. I think that's enough to allow for a brief mention in the article's Lead as well as something in the main body. JG66 (talk) 06:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm reinstating my wish that the Lead contain a mention of his reviewing and blogging activities. I'd been leaning back that way anyway (after striking it above), but with some of the sources that have been added here recently, I also think we'd be justified in covering these activities in a dedicated section, in the main body. JG66 (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. (My recollection is the article contained such a section not too long ago.) --Andreas JN466 23:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - Apparently nobody bothered to look into Russian sources for this Russian subject who reviews music in Russian. Here's a start: "музыкальный критик Георгий Старостин" —МандичкаYO 😜 10:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - There's no notability or relevance to his other work in the way the article presents it, and the source "Medium" is somewhat sketchy (spelling mistakes, etc). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other sources not convincing either; I just don't see a point of including this information; it sort of has a "fringy" feeling to it. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Summoned by bot. Personal blogs and websites are commonly listed in external link sections. Can be included there, and mentioned in the article, briefly, if referenced in a reliable source. Have no opinion on the sources mentioned above. Coretheapple (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - Above all else, Wikipedia should be thinking about its readers -- if IAR means anything, it surely means that -- and most readers who look up Starostin will be interested in his music reviews. It should be in the lede and there should be a short section on it, sourced to this and the subject's two self-pub review pages [24][25] (which are sufficient here per WP:BLPSPS). For example: [26] --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 13:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC) P.S. For the record, my comment is from watching the page, not being pinged. 09:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC) + diff 00:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC); +BLPSPS 09:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- The RfC is phrased a bit misleadingly imo as Starostin's music reviews are a much bigger deal than the average hobbyists'. He's an academic who writes very well, and has written well over 3000 reviews [27][28], including one per day since July 2009. What else comes close? This RS opens with a mention of "part-time rock critic George Starostin". ... Not to mention lots of other sources which, just like Wikipedia itself, aren't considered RS, but do reflect real-life interest in the subject.... point being, again, people come here wanting to know this stuff. It's non-controversial, not self-serving, and the subject's own SPS should suffice -- the mentions in RS just put it over the top. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 13:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC) (added cmt 09:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment -- Consensus has clearly favored inclusion, per page history. Starostin's reviews were mentioned in the article body for nearly five-and-a-half years, surviving edits by at least 30 different editors, before Dan56 removed it. Of the 40 edits to this page since then, he's made 18, most of which were reverts of ANY mention of Starostin's reviews. Not sure this rises to WP:OWN but it has, imo, shown a lack of respect for consensus. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 13:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. And why not? I think it's an important part of what he does but even if it isn't - not every aspect of a notable subject's article need itself be notable. JohnInDC (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fleshing out my comment and vote - Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_apply_to_content_within_an_article plainly states that "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content.... Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." "Notability" as a criterion for inclusion of the music blog here is a red herring. Rather, it's a matter of WP:WEIGHT; and to my mind, one or two modest sentences about the simple fact of the blog (which he really does write, you know) is hardly the kind of massive, distracting, disruptive addition that UNDUE is meant to guard against. JohnInDC (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I agree with JohnInDC. Every fact mentioned in an article does not need to met the notability standard. The content of an article merely needs to be verifiable from a reliable source and relevant to the topic. A major hobby is relevant when it is mentioned in reliable sources. In this instance, that clearly is the case and it is fine to have a mention of the hobby. The mention of the hobby is not an extraordinary claim that would require an especially strong set of references. Any reference from reliable source is fine. (I was invited to this RFC on my talk page as member of WikiProject Biography.) Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight, do you think it should be in the lead? Dan56 (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I may comment: I say yes, since that's what most readers will be looking for. That's the benefit; what's the harm? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 06:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wtf, was someone asking you here?? And how do you know what most readers will be looking for? Sounds like fancruft, since only music geeks will be looking for, because who else would know about this blog when there's no significant coverage on it, just brief allusions to Starostin being a critic in articles otherwise unrelated to the topic of Starostin (WP:NOR), and one passage in a book on Pink Floyd, in a chapter comparing non-professional reviews. Dan56 (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Use Google: the music stuff is all over the place. I daresay we have at least as many "music geeks" as "linguistics geeks" for readers... c'mon people! it's not like rock music is more arcane than the origins of language. :-) Too much wikilawyering and battleground behavior from Dan56 on this page.... not without precedent [29][30][31] --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 09:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC) struck comments that don't belong here, with apologies 03:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did use Google, finding nothing but questionable sources, self-published and forums and the like, which would suggest his blog is of interest to a small segment of fans of the music subject (WP:FANCRUFT). But I see you did your research on something at least. Flattering ;) Dan56 (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Not flattering -- a lot of us wish you'd take constructive criticism seriously.) Re Google - You're not getting it. Wikipedia itself is not an RS (not even "questionable"), but lots of people still read it.... same with those other hits (e.g. TVTropes), where people will read about the subject and come here to learn more. Pop/rock reviews generally are too broad an area for WP:FANCRUFT. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 12:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC) struck per above 03:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - There is undue emphasis on the music blog. One might say that such extensive emphasis somewhat denigrates Starostin. The reason that we have a BLP article about him is because of his subject matter expertise in his field of study. The music blog is a hobby. I would suggest including a single sentence about the music blog. I don't object to it being in the lead, the way it is currently. I would remove the extensive references and dependence on the music blog in external links though. (I was invited to this RFC on my talk page as member of WikiProject Biography.)--FeralOink (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually neither the blog nor the old site is currently referenced in the article. The cites to starling.rinet.ru are all to the Tower of Babel linguistics site (WP:SPS) which is the site's main purpose; subject's music site is hosted there as a sideline. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 09:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. It's a fact of his life, and one that is mentioned by independent sources. Frankly I'm surprised this is being discussed as it is part of what we do to mention significant hobbies. We do not censor or suppress information merely because we have a personal dislike for it. This source alone [32] establishes notability for the blog enough to even consider having a stand alone article on it, let alone a brief mention in our article on Starostin. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is one passage in a book on Pink Floyd, in a chapter comparing non-professional reviews (an Amazon.com user review compared to Starostin's review), with no discussion of the blog itself, because there are no reliable third-party sources that actually discuss the blog, SilkTork. Why are there no reliable sources directly related to the topic of Starostin that can be used to flesh out this blog info on this Wikipedia article? (WP:NOR) Just brief allusions to Starostin in low-quality sources, definitely low-quality for a BLP. Relatively shitty sources compared to what's expected, but then again--and I'm sure FeralOink would agree--this article is full of nothing but references to Starostin's website so the standard here I suppose is shitty. Dan56 (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You keep applying the 3rd-party standard of WP:N, but per WP:SELFPUB (cf. FloNight above), not everything in the article needs to meet that. Adding something like this about subject's music writing falls easily within SELFPUB. Mention in outside sources is gravy -- puts it over the top. This isn't indiscriminate; it's an extensive body of work (thousands of detailed reviews). So what's the problem? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 00:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Mention", not coverage. First of all, he's not a music critic, but a blogger (the Medium writer currently cited is more accurate in their description than the PopMatters source), and both sources are not directly related to the topic of Starostin (WP:NOR); we're just using bits out of sentences that don't actually discuss Starostin or his blog as an excuse to introduce anything on his blog--not very good research or article writing IMO. Second of all, it has to be more than just mention. Of what use are those sources in this article when you don't actually use them to cite information about his blog, but instead rely on Starostin's own site to create an entire section on his "music criticism"? He hasn't been published nor is he a notable blogger (the scarcity of sources discussing him in that light proves that), and the material is self-serving. And why call them "detailed reviews" or an "extensive body of work"? According to whom? Your own opinion on his writing? There's a reason we don't ignore the rules in cases like these, because editors lose sight of objectivity in determining what's notable, when the threshold for that is established by significant coverage from reliable sources. Dan56 (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand about WP:N? "These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." So which rules, then? And how is writing music reviews (which anyone can see he does) self-serving? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 06:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't cite WP:N as a rule; you brought up WP:IAR before, so that was the wording you suggested ("Ignore all rules"). I cited "What Wikipedia is not", specifically it not being an indiscriminate collection of information: Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, "an encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight." You want to give his music blogging more weight than the whatever third-party sources discussing it show it deserves. Briefly alluding to him being a music blogger is proportional to the third-party coverage of that (because that's all that the very few reliable sources mentioning him as a music reviewer do, briefly alluding to him being a music blogger), yet you're suggesting a stand-alone section going into more detail than any of the sources goes into. I mean, to end this back and forth, would it be too much to expect that a reliable third-party source has said something to the effect of "Starostin operates a music blog called 'Only Solitaire'", or "publishes music reviews on a blog...", etc.??? The only hits I get when I search "Starostin" and "Only Solitaire" are music fan forums, message boards, wikis (like tvropes), and other questionable sources with self-published/user-generated content, so what does that tell you??? It already says "Starostin is a music blogger" in the "Biography" section of this article, cited to Medium's "Trickster -- When Is Music Fandom Pathological?" article. What more do you want? Dan56 (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What those Google hits tells me is that while Only Solitaire itself isn't very notable, people are reading about it (TVTropes is not tiny), so we should give them more than a crumb of coverage. You argue that we can cover things in a BLP only to the degree that 3rd-party sources discuss them, but WP:SELFPUB imposes no such limit; another couple sentences aren't excessive. You also cite NOTEVERYTHING, but most people's hobbies aren't even mentioned in 3rd party sources. That's where those hits come in: not to limit coverage to a bare minimum, but simply to show it is not indiscriminate. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 08:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most people's hobbies aren't even mentioned in Wikipedia articles. I cant take you seriously if you bring up TVtropes again; it's a Wiki, which says nothing about Starostin's life/work. it's just some unknown user(s)'s summary of his blog, which proves the same thing these other hits--nothing but message boards and forums and fan blogs ([33], [34], [35], [36])--prove: His blog is only of interest to a small segment of readers, which in this case appear to be rock music geeks (WP:FANCRUFT). That's what those hits show, and let's not pretend like we don't see what "people are reading about it". Dan56 (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand the fuss. The blog exists, right? And it's his? Thin third party coverage notwithstanding, lots of people seem to know about it - not all of them "music geeks" (myself, for example) and would find it useful to know that the fellow we've just found on Wikipedia is, indeed, the guy whose blog we've enjoyed reading. Why are we arguing, arguing, arguing about it? Honestly! JohnInDC (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"whose blog we've enjoyed reading"? LMFAO Dan56 (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, Dan56, but I don't understand what you found offensive in my comment, or what I ever said or did to you to warrant the uncivil response, "Laugh My F**king Ass Off". JohnInDC (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing, Dan56? I wasn't asking rhetorically. I'd really like an explanation. Unless I suppose it's simply your MO to belittle editors with whom you disagree. JohnInDC (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again Dan56 you're focusing on the 3rd party sources which aren't even the main point. Per WP:BLPSPS (the BLP version of SELFPUB) we can just source to Starostin's own sites. That's a really simple point, and your only rebuttal has been "but it's self-serving" which nobody else accepts. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 05:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article is based primarily on self-published sources (i.e. Starostin's website), which makes your point moot (WP:BLPSELFPUB): "Such material may be used as a source only if: 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources." Dan56 (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's easily fixed; see Sources section above. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 16:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
N.B. Hopefully this will be fixed (I will try) in a timely fashion, before RfC closes. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 23:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it doesn't need to be fixed, per WP:SELFPUB. [37] --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 12:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. FANCRUFT isn't even a policy or guideline. There's no "rule" against this at all; it's simply editorial discretion. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 06:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FeralOink, K.e.coffman agree. So show some editorial discretion. Dan56 (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I happened to come to this article two or three weeks ago, having spent an enjoyable hour on his music review site, and upon checking the edit history thought it was weird that the info had been deleted. It's a major part of his web footprint, he's invested years of work in it, there are several RS references to it, and there is absolutely no reason in policy or guideline to say it shouldn't be mentioned. Wikipedia has thousands of biographies containing statements relying on a single source. Andreas JN466 05:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wow, those actually would probably justify having a standalone article on Starostin's site. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 03:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. It is normal to list biographees' hobbies and interests outside their area of notability, so long as they are verifiable. For example the politician Ian Duncan-Smith, who is currently in the news, is reported to support the Tottenham Hotspur football club.
  • Comment - By the way - here's another link - the noted progressive group Gentle Giant recommends Starostin's reviews on its website[38] Redheylin (talk) 09:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, as per Middle 8 (each argument is spot on). This is as clear as day and night to me – the fact that many readers learn of Starostin as a music reviewer merits this fact being mentioned in the lead; anything else would be confusing and deceptive. Sure, if there's a lack of reputable coverage, it might be unwise to elaborate on this information, but what, mentioning it tersely and in passing in the Biography with "He is also a music blogger."? That misleadingly indicates a niche fact, rather than something that inspires many people to keep editing the page to make it more prominent. This seems like an unmistakable case of Wikilawyering to me – facts that are widespread but not well-documented by reputable sources are being suppressed to the detriment of readers. FMašić (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Georgiy_Starostin&oldid=1202096728"