Talk:Isle of Media

Removal of Issues

I have removed the notability issue note (added by User:MrX in October), as the references added since then appear to clear up the issue.
I believe that the primary sources issue note should also be removed. The references are varied and substantial, including news and media outlets, which I believe would be sufficient to have this issue removed. However, it was added by User:Rocknrollmancer in December when the references were the same as at present. Do other editors have a view? Manx James (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Most of the references are primary sources. I won't object of the template is removed, but I suggest that someone find more independent sources for the article otherwise it may be deleted.- MrX 🖋 12:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

'Most' - you're right. My 'including' news & media outlets doesn't go far enough. I will leave it to others to take on the Issue here. Gura mie ayd. Manx James (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I've worked with the Isle of Media team so I'm aware of the initiative and organisation. There are a number of articles around the recent appointment of Michael Wilson as CEO on news websites. They're also referenced in the Isle of Man Government's Creative Industries info . I didn't want to add these if they are of no benefit so thought best to check with you both first for thoughts - Manx James (talk) and MrX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammyq (talk • contribs) 14:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

These refs are from the same press primary source press release - they are almost worthless, as he does not presently have a WP:BIOgraphy article, and has already been added to the article. The refs almost come under WP:ROUTINE. Do we - or the readership - really need to know about Michael Wilson and "chairman is Dr Richard Arning from SES Satellites"? Or is this just more business promotion? WP:Notability cannot be inherited, and particularly by trivia added about new appointees.

References

Removal of Notability tag and general comments

I am very against this removal - MrX was spot-on, which is why I added {{primary}}, to emphasise and draw attention. This is just a promotion-piece for the Isle of Man; whereas we cannot easily deny an article, it has to conform with regular criteria. If kept, it may be a permastub unless buffered-out with off-topic content. I stripped-back the WP:PUFFery, which was copyvio-ed from the government sources.

• "Senior executives of the media and broadcast industry and Isle of Man Film provide support for investors and entrepreneurs interested in co-financing, relocating or relocating operations in the Isle of Man. Isle of Media have released a national economic strategy for the Island's digital media sector"
• Announced at The Celtic Media Festival by Isle of Media, a UK local TV group expressed an interest to set up a national television channel on the Isle of Man
• the Isle of Media is portrayed as an industry development proposal to be embraced by the government department in the roll out and re-launch of the new Department for Enterprise, embedded in wider Creative Industries sector of the Island

  The main reference/sources are government, not "varied and substantial", and fail the general notability requirement of "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The others are simply passing mentions of the name - not articles about Isle of Media. Manx James would you please consider self-reverting to restore the notability tag, ASAP?

  I arrived here by chance - I have Economy of the Isle of Man on my watchlist and noticed a new editor had posted some commercial/promotional stuff, which lead me to examine their other edits, which led me to this article, Isle of Man Film and Celtic Media Festival where two new editors both crossover. I am not convinced of the impartiality of these. What neutral point of view WP editor would spontaneously write "digital media cluster" and Creative Industries - we are required to para-phrase, and it was noticeable that these new editors were copypasting in a narrow topic area. One new editor's contributions were clearly not newbie and has admitted previous editing experience. There was also a suspicious Guernsey IP from Sure (that I can't recall where, now) which I know has a presence in IoM.

  The Isle of Man, as a small island, is always going to be in a difficult position regarding Notability requirements of:

• ... significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources
• Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.
• If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

  What I have previously referred to (in othe WP articles) as 'parochial' - local to Isle of Man only sources are unlikely to provide significant coverage, and cannot be distant or independent if reliant upon, or reacting to, public relations/press releases.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

As a postscript, if there is any obliging Manx-domiciled editor, I really need images of Waterworks 1 and Waterworks 2 for WP articles, wide-ish angle, about the 35mm setting, 3 or 5 MB file size, to establish surrounding context, with or without a vehicle. Many thanks!--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Reverted. I don't agree fully with you, but I don't feel as strongly as you do about the issue. I had read Isle of Media as not a government organisation, and so government references as sufficiently "varied and substantial," but perhaps you have a point. I disagree with you entirely about distrusting Manx press/media. The Isle of Man is not a county of England (or any other of the surrounding nations), and so holding up (I assume) the English press/media as the standard of 'notability' for the Isle of Man is both irrelevant and offensive (even within Wikipedia contexts, surely)... But this is besides the point for this article, so please excuse a Manx person's outburst! Thank you for the clear note about your concerns, Rocknrollmancer. Manx James (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Manx James ThanQ for the reversion. It might be difficult for some to understand, but I was actually trying to be helpful, in offering guidance by acknowledging why it was Templated for Notability many weeks earlier. I don't believe I implied that Manx press/media could/should be regarded with distrust - what I intended to convey is that mainland sources are less likely to report on the internal matters, and that in a small island with perhaps little in the way of news when compared with a region or country, what is WP:ROUTINE elsewhere and not major reporting, is regarded as newsworthy in an island community. I do try to catch the websites, ferinstance I see that this business being mentioned - SES - is involved with the change of TV operator for TT coverage, and official sources have put the 2017 TT-derived contribution to the Treasury at £70m.

The problem is that new editors are wanting to contribute by copy-pasting contrived rhetoric and trendy jargon from government-created documents, which are ineligible as a sole basis for Wikipedia articles. The same enthusiastic approach sees keyword-searching returning multiple hits, ostensibly driven by content of the same press-release (as shown in the reflist above) - this is covered in WP:MASK, characterised as where newbies, ferinstance, strive to include as many sources as possible, thinking it re-inforces the presence of notability, whereas the opposite is often the case.

Naive newbies are not likely to deliberately mask an article, as they are less likely to know about notability; they are more prone to believe that an article which is well-written and has plenty of reference tags is on a notable subject simply by how it looks.

New editors submitting articles through Articles for creation often react to notability challenges during the review process with citation overkill in an attempt to make the subject appear more notable than it actually is.

The use of numerous, often unnecessary references, known as bombardment, can give a good impression and make an article appear notable. In many cases, these could be sources that do not reference the main point of the subject, but rather trivial details that may not even belong. But the number of references does not matter when these sources do not meet the requirements for establishing notability

I hope that is regarded as help and not more criticism - I am actually trying to be of help in explaining Wikipedia fundamentals; it should be remembered that en.Wiki requirements are not just embodied in relation to English counties and press - it equally applies to the wider English-speaking countries of US and Canadia.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)