User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Shawn Welling

Note
There were issues raised at the 2nd AFD on Shawn Welling that the article suffered from COI because it relied partially upon articles written by film critic Nick Nichlson who in 2011 held the position of associate producer on one of the Welling projects and who had a minor acting role in a 2012 project, and because some of his WorldFest Awards were cited to the organization itself. Toward clarifying WP:SELFPUB and WP:COI, it must be noted that  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:COI is about Wikipedia editor's personal conflicts when contributing to article topics here which are too-closely connected to themselves. It does not, and is not intended to, address real-world reporters or film critics writing about things about which they may themselves have a personal knowledge or interest. While unacceptable for a Wikipedia editor, personal knowledge is not verboten for real-world writers.
 * 2) WP:SPS instructs that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."  A problem with WP:SPS is that we are not considering Nicholson's personal blog, but instead his reports in otherwise reliable sources about a topic in which it is felt he may have too much personal knowledge or affiliation or financial interest. While Nicholson's real-world editors might have concerns with his neutrality, his personal knowledge being reflected in his writings in reliable sources is not contrary to our policies or guidlines.
 * 3) Nicholson does not own any of the media cited. And despite a feeling it must be so, it is not WP:SELFPUB when an author's work is subject to editorial oversite by another. It is by having editorial oversite, no matter the author of the work or the work's topic, that the reliability of a source is determined... and not by personal knowledge of the author or how it was accquired. See Investigative journalism.
 * 4) An "associate producer" (two uncited lines in all of Wikipedia) does not have the financial interest in a film project as might a producer or executive producer. In low-budget non-union independent films, many APs perform duties as volunteers or might even get a quite-low day rate... and even union-protected APs have no financial interest after a film is completed and screened, or any financial interest in whether or not it makes money at the box office (and no film makes money at a film festival). For such APs and actors, any alleged "direct financial interst" ends when filming completed and their services are no longer needed.  When receiving no post-release remuneration they have no financial interest in a film's success or failure.  Journalists ARE expected to KNOW of those things they write, even if knowledge is intimate to themselves. In serving a reader's wish to be informed, we do not simply ignore or disregard information coming from an established expert in the field, simply because he might have received a few bucks for grunt work of being an AP on a project or because he might have gotten a low day-rate for being a minor supporting character in a low-budget, non-union, indie film, for which he receives no after-release residuals, and has no vested financial interest. If Nicholson's articles were bragging about himself and the work HE did in the film, then I'd have the same issue with him as a self-serving source just as do other editors.
 * 5) As for the issue with WorldFest sources not being able to be used to verify their awards...  such verifiability herein is common practice. It is understood and accepted that not every award or nomination for a film festival makes headlines of receives wide coverage. Thus it is accepted accross Wikipedia that winner and nomination lists from the events themselves (IE: Sag or DGA or Cannes or The Academy or Sundance, et al.) are specific instances of SPS acceptable as verifibility of those awards.
 * 6) A notability claim could be self-serving if it is in the author's financial interest, sure... but if it is not in his finacial interest, then it is not self-serving, and simply becomes reporting of facts.