Talk:Anti-Pearlman Permanent Poster League
Latest comment: 23 days ago by Drmies in topic inquiry into removal of cited material
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
[Untitled]
editThe title and the first sentence give different explanations of the acronym PeterLFlomPhD (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
inquiry into removal of cited material
edit@Drmies I see that you are an experienced editor but I'm somewhat confused on why the Chronology was removed outright, as they were cited and seem to be actually relevant. Could they not have been reworked instead? Akaibu (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Eh, I don't know, but what we had was a long list with many unverified details of individual posters with tiny little write-ups in the local papers, for whom this seems to have been a running joke. First of all we're not doing catalogs here, and second, we're looking for things that have more than local coverage. I actually looked for material, but there is nothing in Google Books, nothing in Google News (outside of those little things), and nothing in JSTOR--so I actually question whether the topic as a whole is notable. If you can take those little newspaper notices and generate proper text about the group, you are welcome to do that, but such lists are really Wikia material. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Drmies hmmm, I kinda get what you mean vibe wise, but I think this probably qualifies as notable under WP:SUSTAINED given this was a group, if local (covered under WP:TOWN), active over 5 years who got sufficient coverage. As for adding the content back in, I typically don't like adding/restructuring content like that, I guess one would be called a WikiGnome. I'm just slowly working through this list i generated of pages created in 2005 or before that I consider needing work, and was on the list. Akaibu (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well, Akaibu, I have no intention to nominate for deletion or anything like that, though I must say I was surprised to find no coverage at all in scholarly sources. And that's another thing--if there is so little verified content (and I think you saw what I did--pruned poorly written and unverified content, and moved a reference from that list to provide some verified stuff), and then SUCH a long list, that's really undue in my opinion. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Drmies hmmm, I kinda get what you mean vibe wise, but I think this probably qualifies as notable under WP:SUSTAINED given this was a group, if local (covered under WP:TOWN), active over 5 years who got sufficient coverage. As for adding the content back in, I typically don't like adding/restructuring content like that, I guess one would be called a WikiGnome. I'm just slowly working through this list i generated of pages created in 2005 or before that I consider needing work, and was on the list. Akaibu (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)