===[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TJMSmith|TJMSmith]]===

 

====Nomination====

#:::{{tq|[A]s substantiated through reliable sources}} - Ctrl+F that will ya? I didn't mention GNG, I cited N (and RS and OR, which you've both conveniently ignored), which cites and applies to both GNG and SNG. So you're arguing with a phantom-man. Specifically, {{tq|[i]nformation on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article}} which is the lede of N, not a part of GNG. [[User:Mr rnddude|Mr rnddude]] ([[User talk:Mr rnddude|talk]]) 12:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

#::::If you believe [[WP:NPROF]] and [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] and [[WP:BLPPRIMARY]] should not exist, you're welcome propose undoing them at [[WP:VPPRO]]. The candidate has not erred in applying them. You, however, err in applying the policies and guidelines you cite, to attempt to invalidate NPROF and ABOUTSELF and BLPPRIMARY. As we learn from [[WP:P&G]], [[WP:CONSENSUS]], [[WP:WIKILAWYER]], [[WP:GAMING]], [[WP:COMMONSENSE]], etc., all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are to be interpreted as intended, as an interoperating system. If you think you can force one of them to invalidate another, you do not understand the policies and guidelines. Whether it was a good idea or not for the community to treat sourcing standards with regard to academics as requiring less independence from the subject is an open question, but the fact is that this has been done, and the candidate is not at fault for having operated within this consensus decision (which has been tested many times). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 04:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

 

=====Neutral=====

*From what I am gathering, NPROF sounds like a pretty shambolic guideline. Regards, [[User:Willbb234|Willbb234]]^{[[User talk:Willbb234|Talk]]} <small>(please &#123;&#123;[[Template:ping|ping]]&#125;&#125; me in replies)</small> 11:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

*:You are hardly alone in that assessment. However, it does remain a guideline and no one is at fault if they follow it (properly – see, e.g., discussion above about an academic's official just-the-facts CV versus glowing material written by a university's PR department; "it came from the subject's university" isn't a free pass for all potential source material). Basically, the community has a choice: be a bit lax about sourcing for (non-controversial) claims about academics, or have way fewer articles on academics, even the most influential ones. The community has chosen the former, despite many of us arguing for the latter when the choice has been re-raised several times. Part of the "survivability" of NPROF probably has to do with WP:V being less hardcore than people think it is. It does not require that everything be reliably source{{em|d}}, just source{{em|able}}; a claim must be source{{em|d}} only if it has been controverted or is likely to be controversial. This provides a fair amount of wiggle room, in various ways. E.g., it's also why we have so many thousands of miserable stubs with noting but primary sourcing, or no sourcing at all, but which are probably not actually saying anything false. The community has been tolerant of them, as long as they're not blatantly promotional and the subject is likely to actually be notable. Attempting to AFD them usually results in lots of [[WP:BEFORE]] finger-pointing, followed by people coughing up enough RS to make the central claims source{{em|d}} and keep the article. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 04:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)