Talk:Suzzan Blac
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Theroadislong in topic What seems to be the problem?
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What seems to be the problem?
editEverything in this article has been cited. I don't see why there should be a problem with notability.
- In general, notability is an attempt to assess whether the topic has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic. The article so far comes no where near meeting this criteria.Theroadislong (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK. but i would question the idea that this article comes "no where near" that criteria. it states that a secondary source should "exercise some form of editorial control." sources include published magazine articles, and independent on-line articles. also if you google the term "suzzan blac" you will get over 9000 hits. i will in time present more evidence in the article. but in the mean time i will have to ask you to show me which part of the criteria this article does not meet. secondly, i see that you have put up a tag on the page stating that you believe it to be bias, please can you state in what way it is so. Saxon-hall (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- The tag sates "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." I see no mention of bias? The references include the artists own website a "twitpic" and numerous blogs, these are not considered reliable third party references.Theroadislong (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK. but i would question the idea that this article comes "no where near" that criteria. it states that a secondary source should "exercise some form of editorial control." sources include published magazine articles, and independent on-line articles. also if you google the term "suzzan blac" you will get over 9000 hits. i will in time present more evidence in the article. but in the mean time i will have to ask you to show me which part of the criteria this article does not meet. secondly, i see that you have put up a tag on the page stating that you believe it to be bias, please can you state in what way it is so. Saxon-hall (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)