Talk:Ekaterina Rubleva

2009 European Championships

I noticed that this information has been deleted previously. Hopefully, the seven sources I provided are enough to demonstrate notability, particularly the first one, which indicates that numerous Finnish newspapers covered the incident at the time. I realize that some of these links might not necessarily constitute reliable sources under normal circumstances, but the numerous pictures of the incident should at least provide ample evidence that it actually happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.96.189 (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand why some might not see this incident as notable, but according to the guidelines as I read them, anything published in a secondary source qualifies as notable. It's true that the most readily available information regarding the event is from sources which may or may not be physically published, but I see no reason to doubt that, as was attested in several of the sources linked, it was covered directly by several publications in Finland. Would you care to discuss your reasoning for deeming the incident non-notable? If you're concerned about the characterization of the publications in question as "tabloids", I would point out first of all that the notability guidelines make no distinction between publications based on their quality or perceived quality, and second, that the usage of the word tabloid to refer specifically to low-quality newspapers focused on sensational and unverified topics is not necessarily absolute. As I understand, the term technically refers only to the physical dimensions of the newspaper, and therefore its additional meanings may not apply to every publication described as such. I'll give you a chance to respond here before adding the information again. EnragedFilia (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to respond to the following revision comment: (rv, 1) tabloids are not reliable sources, 2) it's a non-notable trivial incident, 3) undue weight, especially in a stub article, to have an entire section) First of all, I would like to point out that from what I can tell, the definition of a "tabloid" publication can just as easily be based on its physical dimensions as on a (necessarily subjective) judgment regarding the quality or accuracy of its coverage. What's more, even given that the common usage of term often indicates that such a publication is likely to contain "junk food news", that in and of itself does not appear to make such a source unreliable under the criteria relevant here. To quote these guidelines: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking." Given that pictures of the incident are available very readily from any number of sources, the facts are not at all what is at issue here. As such, the lack or perceived lack of credibility commonly implied by labeling a publication a "tabloid" does not necessarily invalidate it as a valid source, but merely as a source for facts, as indicated by the guideline quoted above.

Now for the characterization of the incident itself as "trivial", I would first point out that this is a necessarily subjective statement, and that for one thing, it was clearly not trivial enough to be ignored by any of the sources which covered it, nor did it have a trivial effect on the name recognition of the article's subject. To demonstrate, one can simply perform an internet search for "Ekaterina Rubleva", then one for "Ivan Shefer", and compare the number of responses to each query: 131,000 and 13,600, a ratio of about 10:1. While certainly less than ideal, this simple method may give a decent approximation of the magnitude of the two individuals' current relative fame. If one were then to the next logical step and presume that at least some portion of that fame is a result of the incident in question, there can be little doubt remaining that a great many people, including Miss Rubleva herself, would hardly consider it a "trivial" incident.

I will admit that the creation of an entire section (or to be precise, a section heading) for the incident was likely unwarranted. I had intended to separate it visually and conceptually from the preceding information about the duo's competitive standings. Unfortunately it achieved neither, and it seems that the header was counterproductive. However, I would hold that the guideline regarding undue weight does not support the exclusion of what may rightly be considered ancillary facts or viewpoints from an article. Note that the guideline states: "in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." As I indicated earlier, I would contend that the world as a whole(certainly the vast majority of online sources and the relevant Finnish publications) would in fact considers the incident in question the single most significant fact in this article. That being said, perhaps additional information regarding the pair's performance in the 2009 European Championships would serve to clarify matters. Specifically, the extent to which the incident itself is in fact ancillary to the subject's career in the first place. Once again, I hope you take the time to read this, and I will wait a little while before editing the article again, to give you a chance to do so and to avoid any perception of an edit war.EnragedFilia (talk) 07:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ekaterina Rubleva. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316223845/http://www.figureskating-online.com/rubleva-shefer.html to http://www.figureskating-online.com/rubleva-shefer.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)