Talk:Ellis Lankster

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

No mention of his stuttering? check him out on you tube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.170.143 (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this should have a reference to the meme in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.186.85.180 (talk) 04:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It has nothing to do with Lankster himself, and since it has not been covered by independent, reliable sources, it does not meet the criteria for verifiability. Chick Bowen 14:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
300k+ views isn't bad, but I have no idea what the threshold his for notability. I assume its over a million. --Bobak (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only threshold is reliable sources. If they cover it, we do. If they don't, we don't. Chick Bowen 16:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No blogs as sources[edit]

Since this continues to be a problem, let me quote the Biographies of living persons policy: "Material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used anywhere in the article. [. . .] Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person." Chick Bowen 02:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fail Blog doesn't really constitute a blog in the traditional sense - it's just a name. It's a popular internet site that has its own wikipedia article (my blog somehow never did) and is clearly a reliable source in this case.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly is a blog; please read reliable sources, which makes clear that a reliable source must have a clear editorial policy, which Failblog certainly doesn't. In any case, I have requested a third opinion at WP:BLPN. Chick Bowen 02:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're simply wrong. What exactly about FailBlog makes it a reliable source, when it is 100% verifiable from the video that it is indeed a press conference from Lankster's rookie season. I don't care if it's on the website of a three-year old's blog primarily devoted to puppies - it's a factual video. The location of the video is irrelevant.►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Chris, you're wrong. First of all, Failblog does not constitute a reliable source, as the majority of the content is user-generated (like Twitter, iMDb, Youtube, etc.) and there's very little editorial oversight. Additionally, this piece of "criticism" is not relevant to the subject's notability, as it has not been covered in other reliable sources (at least as criticism) and is right now the view of a tiny majority (one website). So per BLP, your sentence absolutely cannot be permitted. You might want to read WP:BLP and WP:RS for the relevant details. Cheers, Live.love.laugh.dream (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only came to this article because of the popularity of his "like um" interview, and the fact Howard Stern was playing so many clips of it on his show, and I wanted to see if the guy was retarded or had a learning disability or something, and isn't this the purpose of Wikipedia? I am here to learn about the guy and you morons are blocking the information I seek. Wikipedia nazis, great.James Dylan (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No way. The host of the video is irrelevant because the original video is from a CBS news broadcast, which is obviously reliable. Secondly, Lankster's never gotten more attention in his life, and therefore this is one of the biggest things to have happened in his young career. A google search of Lankster has have the results on the first page relating to this video, including an article from the high-profile NFL website ProFootballTalk.com. Like it or not, this video is relevant to his career, and some might even say it's defined it to this point.►Chris NelsonHolla! 20:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what if the original is on CBS, are there any reliable sources to show that this video is notable itself. Just because a blog hosts a video of an interview, does not make that interview notable. Also there is a lot of WP:UNDUE weight on calling him a failure by just having this vid in his "personal" section. Martin451 (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's been discussed and shared on the internet to the degree it has (plus talked about on sites like PFT) proves its notability. And I put it in personal because it's primarily non-football related. If you got a better idea, go for it.►Chris NelsonHolla! 00:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let us be clear here. There are quite a few reasons not to link to the failblog entry. They are:

  1. No reliable source has even been put forward demonstrating notability, only blogs and websites with no editorial policies.
  2. The youtube video is itself a copyright violation, and violates the external links policy.
  3. No source, reliable or otherwise, has ever suggested this is a notable event in this man's life or football career. Chris's argument only suggests that the internet meme is notable, barely, by internet meme standards, but that doesn't counter the fact that the undue weight clause requires that something be notable relative to the subject of the article, not relative to the factoid to be included.
  4. The failblog entry exists only to mock the subject; it contains absolutely no information about his life or career.

What's more, I cannot imagine any reason that we would link to it. To participate and further this inane and cruel meme? No thanks. Chick Bowen 01:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add, Chris, you absolutely need to get consensus to add this before adding it. I will full-protect the article if necessary. Chick Bowen 01:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can think it's not reliable or relevant, but it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. This is pretty much the most notable thing to ever happen to Lankster, although if undue weight is a problem the article can always be expanded to minimize the meme's prominence in the article.
I fail to see how the purpose of mocking him is relevant to this. It seems to me that all notable events in his life, good or bad, should be included for the purpose of completeness.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to mock people or even to repeat worthless mocking. So he says like em a lot, ho ho ho, yea put that in that is enyclopedic and valuable for readers everywhere. Off2riorob (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just came here to say how unbelievable it is that Lankster's page contains no mention if his notorious press conference. How can Wikipedia purport to "create a summary of all human knowledge" while knowingly omitting the most notable incident in a person's entire career? What else are Wikipedia editors willfully leaving out because they arbitrarily decide it isn't notable? I usually stick up for Wikipedia, but this is absolutely absurd, and the admin responsible should reassess his/her performance in relation to the original goals of the Wikipedia project. 98.66.182.93 (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ellis Lankster. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ellis_Lankster&oldid=1214280836"