Talk:Sam Coates

Notability tag

The currently cited sources are all either primary or routine, and thus do not comprise a case for notability. Searching online, I did see some signs of additional coverage, and am left uncertain as to whether the subject meets WP:GNG or not. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I've added some additional sources (particularly in regards to TV appearances whilst at The Times, but also a few Sky News related things). Tvcameraop (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing any significant secondary coverage; the closest to such coverage would be this article that refers to "Sam Coates' fantastic scoop for Sky News", but provides no other information about Coates. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do get where you're coming from. I've added some more which improves the secondary coverage but whether it is significant or not is debatable. I was wondering how one should mention that articles by Coates have been "widely cited by peers" (per WP:JOURNALIST) without just saying "His work has been widely cited" and giving loads of otherwise random references? Tvcameraop (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

IMO, you shouldn't unless a secondary source has specifically said that (or an equivalent). Judgments of impact should be left to reliable secondary sources. Looking at as slew of publications and deciding that it's enough to say "widely cited" is original research. The one thing that would be more permissible would be to identify some of the top published articles of Coates' career and list those in a selected bibliography section. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)