Placepromo
Biographies
editI have put up two of your articles for deletion at AFD, and noticed you seem to be working on a larger project with the family. Individual articles for each person can only be kept if each one can independently demonstrate notability, per WP:N. An obituary alone isn't sufficient to demonstrate this as being "significant coverage" per WP:SIGCOV. You might instead work on sourcing the individuals with the obits in the primary article on the cemetery, which itself may be notable. This would be a better way to incorporate all the material instead of scattering it in 30 different articles that are prone to be deleted. It also makes the information more usable. You can also make a direct for each name that points to the names in the main cemetery article. If you need help with this, I would much rather spend my time helping you do this than nominating a bunch of articles for deletion, so feel free to ask on my talk page. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- I also see where the nominator gave a brief but informative explanation, to start with 3rd party sources that weren't obits. Two of us tried to work with you. I might not have taken it to AFD quite as quick as Toddst1 did, but I was trying to work with you by getting you to focus on one article at a time, demonstrate notability on that one, then to branch out. You never replied to my offer of help, and I left a detailed explanation and open ended offer of help. I also see that your comments on his page weren't deleted, they are still there. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ok. Thanks. This is now beginning to take the form of a conversation. I apologize if I misinterpreted your efforts with those of other editors who I felt were quick to go the RFD route. Having said that, I'm still wondering what direction to go? As I see things, progress has been made to improve at least one page for John Torboss Underhill where the RFD has been lifted. Substantial improvements have been made to the Estelle Skidmore Doremus page though the RFD is still there. A show of good faith in my opinion would be to lift the RFD from the Underhill Society of America page. Then we can take on the others on a case by case basis. I want to get this right. It is important to remember though that for new contributors like myself, to get a slew of RFD's so early on can be deeply disenchanting and scare away people with potential to become very good contributors. I don't know if there is a way to look at the history of all the contributions I've made to-date, though if you did, it would show I've helped to improve a number of pages outside of those that deal with Underhill descendants. I'd like to do more work, though need to have people come half-way. Thanks again and looking forward to working with you and others. Placepromo (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- To be honest, one of the best places to get started is in your sandbox. Familiarize yourself with starting an article in its own Sandbox, meaning a subdirectory of your own user page, outside of main space. This means it won't be subject to AFD (assuming it isn't hate speech or other things that violate policy, which obviously you wouldn't). You start them there, you develop them one at a time, you recruit help, and once they are "ready for prime time", you move them over to 'mainspace'. This is how most of us do it that have been here a while. Articles done this way almost never see AFD or get any hassle. You've bitten off a lot, maybe more than you can chew, with all these articles. I am open to the idea that some may be notable, in particular, the ones about the places rather than the individuals, but it hasn't been verified and I wasn't able to. It may take a lot more time to get it to pass criteria. You can always ask to get the article moved to your user space, and work on it there, read up a bit on the criteria, then move it when it is ready. Right now, it isn't ready for mainspace, and it might never be, but in your own userspace, you could at least work on it and try without worrying about it getting deleted. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- My preference now that these articles are here, is to make them work. Having the John Torboss Underhill RFD lifted was a positive step. As said before, lifting the Estelle Skidmore Doremus would be an improvement too. That will then let me focus my efforts on Underhill Society of America. Honestly, as a new contributor, I have no idea of knowing what people will accept or not without posting it for others to review. Also, at this point I have no idea of who to contact that might have interest in this subject matter. If you could help making those connections I'd appreciate it. Meanwhile, I'll keep plugging away. Placepromo (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- To be honest, one of the best places to get started is in your sandbox. Familiarize yourself with starting an article in its own Sandbox, meaning a subdirectory of your own user page, outside of main space. This means it won't be subject to AFD (assuming it isn't hate speech or other things that violate policy, which obviously you wouldn't). You start them there, you develop them one at a time, you recruit help, and once they are "ready for prime time", you move them over to 'mainspace'. This is how most of us do it that have been here a while. Articles done this way almost never see AFD or get any hassle. You've bitten off a lot, maybe more than you can chew, with all these articles. I am open to the idea that some may be notable, in particular, the ones about the places rather than the individuals, but it hasn't been verified and I wasn't able to. It may take a lot more time to get it to pass criteria. You can always ask to get the article moved to your user space, and work on it there, read up a bit on the criteria, then move it when it is ready. Right now, it isn't ready for mainspace, and it might never be, but in your own userspace, you could at least work on it and try without worrying about it getting deleted. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ok. Thanks. This is now beginning to take the form of a conversation. I apologize if I misinterpreted your efforts with those of other editors who I felt were quick to go the RFD route. Having said that, I'm still wondering what direction to go? As I see things, progress has been made to improve at least one page for John Torboss Underhill where the RFD has been lifted. Substantial improvements have been made to the Estelle Skidmore Doremus page though the RFD is still there. A show of good faith in my opinion would be to lift the RFD from the Underhill Society of America page. Then we can take on the others on a case by case basis. I want to get this right. It is important to remember though that for new contributors like myself, to get a slew of RFD's so early on can be deeply disenchanting and scare away people with potential to become very good contributors. I don't know if there is a way to look at the history of all the contributions I've made to-date, though if you did, it would show I've helped to improve a number of pages outside of those that deal with Underhill descendants. I'd like to do more work, though need to have people come half-way. Thanks again and looking forward to working with you and others. Placepromo (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- In addition to what Dennis Brown has said, #2 under WP:NOTEVERYTHING is highly relevant here. Toddst1 (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. I reviewed the WP:NOTEVERYTHING closely. The one item on the list that seems to most strongly apply is #2. This would not apply to the Underhill Society of America, because this is a lineage society and not a biography of any particular family member. As for the family member bios, they each have notability in their own respect I would argue. Part of the disconnect we are having here is that I have the impression you don't view people you have never heard of as having notability, whereas I do. Placepromo (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- No. It's about WP:GNG and WP:CORP - not my opinion. Toddst1 (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have an opinion on NOTEVERTHING, but I think what matters here most is 3rd party references. Nothing else clearly demonstrates notability like actual references. It isn't about what you and I think is "notable", it is the guidelines here at Wikipedia. While it isn't supposed to be a "numbers" game when it comes to references, numbers certainly don't hurt. Because of the age of the society (and it being a little obscure) there is a chance they exist but aren't easily available on the web, which is a problem with many articles of this type. References that are not on the web are just as good as ones that are, we don't discriminate based on ease of access, just quality. And yes, the guidelines say quantity isn't important, but the humans !voting tend to give extra weight to quantity. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. I reviewed the WP:NOTEVERYTHING closely. The one item on the list that seems to most strongly apply is #2. This would not apply to the Underhill Society of America, because this is a lineage society and not a biography of any particular family member. As for the family member bios, they each have notability in their own respect I would argue. Part of the disconnect we are having here is that I have the impression you don't view people you have never heard of as having notability, whereas I do. Placepromo (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- In addition to what Dennis Brown has said, #2 under WP:NOTEVERYTHING is highly relevant here. Toddst1 (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Harris Underhill.he's documented by an editorial obit in the NYTimes, and we have always without except considered that as notability. Even in the 1920s. I think such an article warrants a strong defense, not because of any interest I may have in him, but in maintaining the principle. One unquestionably RS for notability like this is enough. I will check the other articles tomorrow. Ifthey have equal sourcing, they;'re notable; if more than one of the Underhills are, so may be the society, though that's a harder call. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nominations of the two I sent to AFD, per DGG's rationale. I guess I learn something new every day. I might suggest DGG take a look at the other Underhill articles since he is familiar with the policy, and the rationale for other AFDs will likely be the same. My apologies to Placepromo about the inconvenience. I was mistaken in bringing them to AFD, even if I acted in good faith based on my (then) current guidelines of Wikipedia. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
editHi. When you recently edited Saint Nicholas Society in the City of New York, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Samuel Jones, Edward King and William Jay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Familypedia
editCome register for the genealogy wiki and safeguard copies of your biographies there. I moved one: here already. You can just copy and paste from Wikipedia and add {{copywp}}. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of John Torboss Underhill for deletion
edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Torboss Underhill is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Torboss Underhill until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)