Wikipedia talk:Ipso facto

I've created WP:BRIGHT pointed here. Another case is WP:ANYBIO where winning a major award is notable. Legacypac (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:SmokeyJoe - Yes, but what is a major award? There are a few cases, such as Nobel Prizes, that speak for themselves.  Otherwise, if the claim is based only on the award, reasonable editors can argue at AFD either that the award is major, or that the award isn't major.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Robert, I thin this essay is a good idea. Bright lines can be hard, and this is straying into the debateable. However... my contention is that a major award is a Wikipedia-notable award. The award is named in either an article title, or an article section title.  Eg Grammy Award, César Award for Best Supporting Actor. Bluelinks are not good enough because redirects are cheap. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That is an excellent way to deturmine what is a major award. That could be enshrined at WP:ANYBIO Legacypac (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Deprecated Sources
User:SmokeyJoe - You added a comment about unreliable sources, with which I agree, but think is outside the scope of this essay. Your rule that states that unreliable sources are deprecated when a claim is based on general notability. This essay is not about general notability, but about specific cases that bypass general notability. So my question is whether a claim of ipso facto notability should be denied when it is based on a deprecated source. I think that it should be denied even then. That is, if a supermarket tabloid says that someone received the Medal of Honor or game in third in an event in the 2006 Olympic Games, is that a valid bright-line statement of notability? My thinking is that it is not, because anyone can claim to have received a medal, but if the Los Angeles Times states that they received a medal, we have reason to believe that the person received the medal. If that is what you meant, the wording needs to be changed, because unreliable sources do not even establish a bright-line claim, let alone general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You’re right. However, I think use of deprecated sources, exclusively, needs to somehow get a mention.  Self promotion based entirely of Facebook and YouTube for example, I already argue that squarely meets G11. Getting away from mentioning it is reference to “notability” would probably be good.   —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)