Jump to content

Talk:Ben Hayslip: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Untitled: Better late than never...
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 4 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)}}, {{WikiProject Tennessee}}, {{WikiProject Country Music}}.
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Old AfD multi|page=Ben Hayslip|date=19 April 2010|result='''nomination withdrawn'''}}
{{Old AfD multi|page=Ben Hayslip|date=19 April 2010|result='''nomination withdrawn'''}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|listas=Hayslip, Ben|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=start|auto=yes|listas=Hayslip, Ben|musician-work-group=yes|musician-priority=low}}
{{WikiProject Biography|auto=yes|musician-work-group=yes|musician-priority=low}}
{{WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)|class=start|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Tennessee|class=start|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Tennessee|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Country Music|class=start|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Country Music|importance=low}}
| blp=yes
| blp=yes
}}
}}
Line 16: Line 16:


:First, please sign your comments. Searching through the history section, it appears you did sign the above comment but it somehow disappeared. It appears that you are [[User:Eudemis|Eudemis]]. As for this article, perhaps you have access to information I could not locate even after hours of research, but my efforts reveal that there is, in fact, '''''very little''''' information about this man that has been published by reliable third-party sources that would be acceptable by Wikipedia standards. In response to the two sources you provided, the first is a fan-based source that is unacceptable by Wikipedia standards and the same goes for the second source you referenced, which is a high school web page that is apparently created by students with an admission at the bottom that it is in no way affiliated with the official school system. Not only would the fan-based site be rejected as a reliable secondary source, the link you provided led me to only a landing page that screamed "'''Hello Fanbase'''!" with almost no additional information on it. Last, I would like to mention something that might seem minor but is actually very important. You wrote that you were glad that another editor was "''interested in improving the Hayslip bio''." This is '''not''' a biography. '''It is a Wikipedia article'''. The importance of understanding the difference is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia articles are written in encyclopedia style, which is a very specific style that is wholly different from the style of magazines, biographies, website content, press releases - you get the point, I'm sure. You are correct and I couldn't agree with you more that editors "''should try to use only information from reliable secondary sources with a history of fact checking consistent with wikipedia <sic> policies...''" It is also important that editors understand what constitutes "''reliable secondary sources''." I realize it has been more than a decade since you wrote here, but I am just now getting to the party. I do want to thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia and wish you all the best. [[User:MarydaleEd|MarydaleEd]] ([[User talk:MarydaleEd|talk]]) 01:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
:First, please sign your comments. Searching through the history section, it appears you did sign the above comment but it somehow disappeared. It appears that you are [[User:Eudemis|Eudemis]]. As for this article, perhaps you have access to information I could not locate even after hours of research, but my efforts reveal that there is, in fact, '''''very little''''' information about this man that has been published by reliable third-party sources that would be acceptable by Wikipedia standards. In response to the two sources you provided, the first is a fan-based source that is unacceptable by Wikipedia standards and the same goes for the second source you referenced, which is a high school web page that is apparently created by students with an admission at the bottom that it is in no way affiliated with the official school system. Not only would the fan-based site be rejected as a reliable secondary source, the link you provided led me to only a landing page that screamed "'''Hello Fanbase'''!" with almost no additional information on it. Last, I would like to mention something that might seem minor but is actually very important. You wrote that you were glad that another editor was "''interested in improving the Hayslip bio''." This is '''not''' a biography. '''It is a Wikipedia article'''. The importance of understanding the difference is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia articles are written in encyclopedia style, which is a very specific style that is wholly different from the style of magazines, biographies, website content, press releases - you get the point, I'm sure. You are correct and I couldn't agree with you more that editors "''should try to use only information from reliable secondary sources with a history of fact checking consistent with wikipedia <sic> policies...''" It is also important that editors understand what constitutes "''reliable secondary sources''." I realize it has been more than a decade since you wrote here, but I am just now getting to the party. I do want to thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia and wish you all the best. [[User:MarydaleEd|MarydaleEd]] ([[User talk:MarydaleEd|talk]]) 01:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

:Your tenure as an editor here was brief as you have retired since I last viewed my notifications. This article is a "biography" for purposes of following the guidelines Wikipedia uses for biographies of living persons and you'll note the article is tagged as such. The two references I provided were ones I had noted from the article as improperly sourced. "Wikipedia guidelines" is the term used by Wikipedia in its official project pages. "This list of Wikipedia guidelines..." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines], but I'm sure no one will object to your referencing them however you like. [[User:Eudemis|Eudemis]] ([[User talk:Eudemis|talk]]) 15:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


== Poorly written and utterly lacking in respectable third-party sources ==
== Poorly written and utterly lacking in respectable third-party sources ==

Latest revision as of 06:15, 15 February 2024

Sourcing

[edit]

Untitled

[edit]

To 174.49.4.11, I'm glad you are interested in improving the Hayslip bio. There is a lot of information out there about Ben Hayslip - a baseball past [1], three sons [2]. Since the article has survived one AfD, I think we should try to use only information from reliable secondary sources with a history of fact checking consistent with wikipedia policies. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" WP:SOURCES This unfortunately means not including some information that is true about him but hasn't appeared in the press.

First, please sign your comments. Searching through the history section, it appears you did sign the above comment but it somehow disappeared. It appears that you are Eudemis. As for this article, perhaps you have access to information I could not locate even after hours of research, but my efforts reveal that there is, in fact, very little information about this man that has been published by reliable third-party sources that would be acceptable by Wikipedia standards. In response to the two sources you provided, the first is a fan-based source that is unacceptable by Wikipedia standards and the same goes for the second source you referenced, which is a high school web page that is apparently created by students with an admission at the bottom that it is in no way affiliated with the official school system. Not only would the fan-based site be rejected as a reliable secondary source, the link you provided led me to only a landing page that screamed "Hello Fanbase!" with almost no additional information on it. Last, I would like to mention something that might seem minor but is actually very important. You wrote that you were glad that another editor was "interested in improving the Hayslip bio." This is not a biography. It is a Wikipedia article. The importance of understanding the difference is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia articles are written in encyclopedia style, which is a very specific style that is wholly different from the style of magazines, biographies, website content, press releases - you get the point, I'm sure. You are correct and I couldn't agree with you more that editors "should try to use only information from reliable secondary sources with a history of fact checking consistent with wikipedia <sic> policies..." It is also important that editors understand what constitutes "reliable secondary sources." I realize it has been more than a decade since you wrote here, but I am just now getting to the party. I do want to thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia and wish you all the best. MarydaleEd (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your tenure as an editor here was brief as you have retired since I last viewed my notifications. This article is a "biography" for purposes of following the guidelines Wikipedia uses for biographies of living persons and you'll note the article is tagged as such. The two references I provided were ones I had noted from the article as improperly sourced. "Wikipedia guidelines" is the term used by Wikipedia in its official project pages. "This list of Wikipedia guidelines..." [3], but I'm sure no one will object to your referencing them however you like. Eudemis (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly written and utterly lacking in respectable third-party sources

[edit]

I don't know how this article made it past the stub phase. I could not find one valid source in the first couple of sections of this article. I finally found a couple of sources that could be used, so I added them and in some spots corrected inaccurate citations. However, this article is a bit of a mess. Someone has added scads of songs attributed to him. We need valid sources to confirm this man's authorship of those songs. This article needs proper sourcing all the way around. Unfortunately, I can find only one, maybe two, published articles about him. It appears he is either early in his career and has not yet attracted the attention of the working press, or his career has not gone as he might have wished. I had never heard of him until I was working on another article today and stumbled upon his name and link, but I am not into country music, so that is probably not unusual. I encourage other editors to join me in enthusiastically and aggressively seeking proper, valid, third-party sources for the information provided. This article needs help. All the best. MarydaleEd (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]