| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Beno Dorn article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Beno Dorn. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Beno Dorn at the Reference desk. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 31 January 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Sources
editHere's a cool tool for finding reliable secondary sources: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Deleting material
edit(moved from my talk page here, where it belongs) Staszek Lem (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed you mass-deleted important information from Beno Dorn, an article which I've been helping to improve in the last two days. The material was previously added by user Willesden Green. I believe the information you deleted didn't "appear to be false or an expression of opinion" (the only criteria in WP:NOCITE for deletion). Although uncited in the article, much of what you've deleted could be easily verified using a simple Google search, and citation could be added as the article is improved. I recommend you seriously consider adding the material back to the article. Thanks. -- IsaacSt (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- @IsaacSt:. Sorry, disagreed. The only thing that can be thoroughly verified is association with the Beatles. None of personal detail is verifiable. If I miss something, please fill in, with references. Out of courtesy, I left the awards (tagged), which can probably be verified by some local press (I failed to find, though). However I highly doubt that birth/family info and career details are covered anywhere. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Since you mention that example, do the birth and death dates that you deleted fall under "appears to be false" or "an expression of opinion"? -- IsaacSt (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- @IsaacSt: - they fall under "unverifiable from published reliable sources" As I see, you are infrequent wikipedia editor, therefore please get a better knowledge of our major policies about content: WP:V and WP:NOR. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Please move the discussion back to its original location. Per WP:RTP, "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." Also, I suggest we do not make it personal, as you have started. I know the policies well. The vast majority of the material on Wikipedia is yet uncited. Mass-deleting material in an article that is obviously currently being edited is disruptive. This is my last post on this thread, regardless of what you reply, unless I have something new to say, since obviously this isn't going anywhere, and I want to avoid a WP:REPEAT -- IsaacSt (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, no moving back. Article content must be discussed in article talk pages, where other editors may express their opinions. This is not just between you and me: this discussion is about the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- re:
The vast majority of the material on Wikipedia is yet uncited
-- this is an invalid argument. A mess somewhere else is not a reason no keep mess anywhere else. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Please move the discussion back to its original location. Per WP:RTP, "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." Also, I suggest we do not make it personal, as you have started. I know the policies well. The vast majority of the material on Wikipedia is yet uncited. Mass-deleting material in an article that is obviously currently being edited is disruptive. This is my last post on this thread, regardless of what you reply, unless I have something new to say, since obviously this isn't going anywhere, and I want to avoid a WP:REPEAT -- IsaacSt (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- @IsaacSt: - they fall under "unverifiable from published reliable sources" As I see, you are infrequent wikipedia editor, therefore please get a better knowledge of our major policies about content: WP:V and WP:NOR. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Since you mention that example, do the birth and death dates that you deleted fall under "appears to be false" or "an expression of opinion"? -- IsaacSt (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Notability problems
editSo far, the notability claim is based on two things: (A) suits of the Beatles and (B) tailoring awards.
Claim A is questionable because notability is not inherited. Claim B is questionable, because it does not look like these are major industry awards.
In addition, it seems there is no significant coverage of these persons. All sources I see simply mention that the Beatles got their first suits from Dorn. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)