Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Matthew Kenslow

Sourcing rundown
I'm placing this here so I don't bog down the main AfD page, but I wanted to do a rundown of the sourcing listed in the discussion. Before that, however, here's a very, very basic explanation of sourcing and what can or can't establish notability:


 * Primary sources: These are sources written by the person in question or by people or organizations affiliated with him. These do not give notability. For example, something written by Kenslow himself would be a primary source. He's writing about himself so even if it's published in say, Newsweek, this would still be him writing about himself. The same would go for an article written by a friend, family member, or someone who has worked with or taught him. Press releases are the same, as they were written by people involved with him. Organizations are typically considered to be primary sources if they've worked with him. There are some exceptions as far as organizations go, but they're pretty specific.
 * To establish notability we need to show how others have written about the person in question.


 * Secondary sources can be used to establish notability if they are independent of the topic (Kenslow) and are considered a reliable source themselves. By secondary I mean that they're removed from the topic by at least one degree. An example of a notability giving source would be a book review published in the New York Times. It would be independent of Kenslow and secondary. However if the NYT posted an article that just lightly rewrote something Kenslow said or wrote (or something like a press release), that wouldn't be seen as independent.
 * Blog sources are typically not usable on Wikipedia because they are self-published sources (SPS). Many undergo little to no editorial oversight. To show where SPS are usable as sources you would need to show where the source has been routinely cited as a reliable source by other reliable sources, especially academic and scholarly sources. It's very, very difficult to establish SPS as sources, honestly. Part of the issue is that anyone and everyone can have a blog, as places like WordPress and so on make it very easy to do so. I mean, I had/have a blog. (Fun story: Someone unsuccessfully tried using my blog as a RS on here once. I was too embarrassed to say that it was me, plus at the time I wanted to keep my personal life separate from Wikipedia.)
 * Avoid sources that sell article space, reviews, and the like. If they allow people to pay to get coverage, then they're not going to be seen as reliable. To be seen as an exception to this the source has to basically have a sterling reputation and be extremely well known for their quality. To be honest, I wouldn't recommend using any pay to play source in an AfD discussion because they're so hard to defend. Using them usually does far more harm than good, as it gives off the impression that there are no stronger sources.
 * Be careful of human interest pieces. It's not that they can't be used, just that it's easy to argue that they're used as color pieces and don't go into a whole lot of depth. They're more aimed at warm fuzzies than reporting. For example, my little sister was the focus of a local color piece in her teen years, as she was extremely into the Beatles.
 * Pay to play awards should be avoided as well. There are a lot of pay to play and vanity awards out there. These are almost never going to be usable to establish notability. Part of the issue with P2P and vanity awards is that they often give out a ton of awards on a fairly frequent basis, to the point where essentially everyone gets an award.
 * Be careful of awards. This is in general, not just for P2P deals. Very few awards establish notability on Wikipedia, let alone show where someone is notable enough to establish notability on that basis alone. Honestly, I'd say that less than 10% of any award given, regardless of topic area (sports, literature, etc) count towards notability. Of those, less than 1% are enough to establish notability on that basis alone.
 * Sources only "count" once if they're usable. If a source can establish notability then it's considered to be just one source. If someone else reprints that source elsewhere, that doesn't make it two sources. This is something good to keep in mind when you have journalists whose work appears in multiple newspapers, for example.

What you should be looking for are sources that are independent and secondary of Kenslow and are considered to be reliable sources as far as Wikipedia is concerned.


 * 1) Newsweek. Primary source, as it's written by Kenslow himself.
 * 2) Medium. This is a self-published source, as Medium accept submissions from anyone. You'd have to establish where Yitzi Weiner or Authority Magazine is a RS, which would be difficult to do. Not helping the case is that the magazine offers pay to play articles as part of a mentoring program.
 * 3) Spectrum News. This is good. Spectrum News (formerlyTime Warner Cable News) has a presence and the article is about him, with a particular focus on his book. It's only a few minutes long and marked as human interest so it's not the strongest source, but I'd say it's generally usable.
 * 4) WSAZ. This is an interview. Many view these as primary sources as it's the subject directly answering questions and as such, can't establish notability. I don't fully agree with this since there has to be interest in the person to hold the interview, especially if it's a non-local outlet, but it's a pretty common mindset.
 * 5) e27. Written by Kenslow, so it's primary.
 * 6) The Table Read. This is a pay to play outlet. Its page on that essentially tells people that free articles will take forever and a day, while paying a small fee will get you bumped up the list. Unless you can show proof that the site is routinely seen as a RS in places like academic and scholarly sources, you're not going to be able to establish notability with this source.
 * 7) CHVN-FM. This is an interview. It has accompanying text, however it relies heavily on the same text posted elsewhere and in another source on here. This implies that the text is heavily based on a press release. This brings up questions of how independent it is of Kenslow.
 * 8) Kost. Another interview on a radio station, same issues as with the other interview.
 * 9) Blog post. This is a SPS and there's nothing to indicate that it would be seen as a RS per Wikipedia's guidelines.
 * 10) 360wise. This looks to be a press release.
 * 11) Art of Autism. This is a primary source since it's written by Kenslow. It mentions an award, however we need to establish that it's major enough of an award to show notability and that it's not pay to play. Book Authority says that they aren't pay to play (they do collect money through click throughs but honestly, just about everyone does that so I'm not counting that against them), which is good, but we still need to show that the award is notable/major enough to count towards notability. It's difficult to find info about the award and it's not exactly called an award in what I can find mentioning the book so I would say that this likely wouldn't count towards notability.
 * 12) Blog. Another blog.
 * 13) Vanguard. Primary source, as it's written by Kenslow and he attends Vanguard. It's also the same as the Art of Autism source.
 * 14) Press release. PR is considered to be primary sources at best.
 * 15) Join Our America. Primary source, as it's written by Kenslow.
 * 16) OC Register. It's a local source, but I generally count local sourcing unless all you have are local sources from around the same brief point in time. OC Register is also a major enough news outlet to where I'd say the local thing shouldn't pose an issue.

Running through these sources, I really only found two good sources, the OC Register and Spectrum News. That's not really enough to firmly establish notability on that basis alone. If Book Authority was seen as more of a RS then that would be good, but still not really enough to establish notability at AfD. I'll try to look later to see what I can find, but so far it looks like this is a case of someone who is known and is popular on YouTube, but not really covered enough in RS to establish notability. It's honestly a pretty common story, especially if you fall into anything even remotely considered "not mainstream" by the media outlets unless you have a big fan following. (Words cannot fully establish the disgust and disdain I feel as far as that goes.) ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  19:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)