Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Everett Graham: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
::One is perfectly capable of finding a closely related cluster of articles that all suffer from similar quality issues, doing the before work on all of them in one shot since one would have to look in the same places anyway, and ''then'' doing the nominations all in one shot ''after'' failing to find any sources that would have made a meaningful difference. In other words, it is ''entirely'' possible to go "refcheck refcheck refcheck refcheck, nom nom nom nom" instead of "refcheck nom, refcheck nom, refcheck nom, refcheck nom". So no, you're ''not'' getting a "nominator did not do due diligence" argument to stick to ''me'', of all people. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 21:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC) |
::One is perfectly capable of finding a closely related cluster of articles that all suffer from similar quality issues, doing the before work on all of them in one shot since one would have to look in the same places anyway, and ''then'' doing the nominations all in one shot ''after'' failing to find any sources that would have made a meaningful difference. In other words, it is ''entirely'' possible to go "refcheck refcheck refcheck refcheck, nom nom nom nom" instead of "refcheck nom, refcheck nom, refcheck nom, refcheck nom". So no, you're ''not'' getting a "nominator did not do due diligence" argument to stick to ''me'', of all people. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 21:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
:::I responded to this cut and paste already at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmond Stanislas Aubry]]; despite the assertion, there is no attempt to do anything personal here, I'm simply noting that the nomination contains no evidence of a *complete* BEFORE process. Regards, --[[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 04:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC) |
:::I responded to this cut and paste already at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmond Stanislas Aubry]]; despite the assertion, there is no attempt to do anything personal here, I'm simply noting that the nomination contains no evidence of a *complete* BEFORE process. Regards, --[[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 04:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
::::No part of the Wikipedia process requires every AFD nomination to contain a painstakingly detailed list of every individual research step they took to determine whether better sourcing could be found to salvage the article with. Nomination statements are supposed to be as ''brief'' as feasibly possible while still covering the major points that need to be considered, not Russian novels. If [[Joe Biden]] or [[Justin Trudeau]], who very obviously have strong sources out there, somehow had Wikipedia articles that weren't actually citing any of them, and thus somebody nominated ''them'' for deletion on the grounds of failing [[WP:GNG]], ''then'' there would obviously be a credible argument that the nominator clearly hadn't even attempted to do any [[WP:BEFORE]] work — but AFD nominations are not required to contain comprehensive bulletpointed lists of every individual research database the nominator checked, so on a topic like this your grounds for a "nominator didn't do any BEFORE" argument would be "I did my own research and look at all these solid sources I found", not "nominator didn't explicitly document every step they took". [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 12:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC) |
::::No part of the Wikipedia process requires every AFD nomination to contain a painstakingly detailed list of every individual research step they took to determine whether better sourcing could be found to salvage the article with. Nomination statements are supposed to be as ''brief'' as feasibly possible while still covering the major points that need to be considered, not Russian novels. If [[Joe Biden]] or [[Justin Trudeau]], who very obviously have strong sources out there, somehow had Wikipedia articles that weren't actually citing any of them, and thus somebody nominated ''them'' for deletion on the grounds of failing [[WP:GNG]], ''then'' there would obviously be a credible argument that the nominator clearly hadn't even attempted to do any [[WP:BEFORE]] work — but AFD nominations are not required to contain comprehensive bulletpointed lists of every individual research database the nominator checked, so on a topic like this your grounds for a "nominator didn't do any BEFORE" argument would be "I did my own research and look at all these solid sources I found", not "nominator didn't explicitly document every individual research step they took". [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 12:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 12:59, 25 November 2021
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Charles Everett Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of a mayor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. To be fair, this was created at a time when our inclusion criteria for mayors was "inherently notable if the city has crossed the 50K bar in population", but that was deprecated several years ago -- in 2021, the notability bar for mayors requires a substantial and well-sourced article that establishes the significance of their mayoralty by addressing specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects they had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this basically just documents that he existed as mayor, and is referenced entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, which is exactly the kind of article about a mayor that caused us to deprecate the old "50K = free pass" standard. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the referencing from having to be considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Might be hard to find any news articles from back then, so maybe the requirements should be less stricter on this one.Jaxarnolds (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- Archives of newspaper articles this far back definitely do exist and are accessible to Wikipedians, so mayors from this era aren't exempted from having to pass WP:GNG just because it might take a little bit more work to find sources than it would for the current incumbent. Either enough sourcing is shown to exist, or the article goes away, period. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Cut and paste nomination with precisely same text as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmond Stanislas Aubry, nominated for deletion 41 seconds later; it's not unreasonable to consider a significant lack of BEFORE here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- One is perfectly capable of finding a closely related cluster of articles that all suffer from similar quality issues, doing the before work on all of them in one shot since one would have to look in the same places anyway, and then doing the nominations all in one shot after failing to find any sources that would have made a meaningful difference. In other words, it is entirely possible to go "refcheck refcheck refcheck refcheck, nom nom nom nom" instead of "refcheck nom, refcheck nom, refcheck nom, refcheck nom". So no, you're not getting a "nominator did not do due diligence" argument to stick to me, of all people. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- I responded to this cut and paste already at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmond Stanislas Aubry; despite the assertion, there is no attempt to do anything personal here, I'm simply noting that the nomination contains no evidence of a *complete* BEFORE process. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- No part of the Wikipedia process requires every AFD nomination to contain a painstakingly detailed list of every individual research step they took to determine whether better sourcing could be found to salvage the article with. Nomination statements are supposed to be as brief as feasibly possible while still covering the major points that need to be considered, not Russian novels. If Joe Biden or Justin Trudeau, who very obviously have strong sources out there, somehow had Wikipedia articles that weren't actually citing any of them, and thus somebody nominated them for deletion on the grounds of failing WP:GNG, then there would obviously be a credible argument that the nominator clearly hadn't even attempted to do any WP:BEFORE work — but AFD nominations are not required to contain comprehensive bulletpointed lists of every individual research database the nominator checked, so on a topic like this your grounds for a "nominator didn't do any BEFORE" argument would be "I did my own research and look at all these solid sources I found", not "nominator didn't explicitly document every individual research step they took". Bearcat (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- I responded to this cut and paste already at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmond Stanislas Aubry; despite the assertion, there is no attempt to do anything personal here, I'm simply noting that the nomination contains no evidence of a *complete* BEFORE process. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- One is perfectly capable of finding a closely related cluster of articles that all suffer from similar quality issues, doing the before work on all of them in one shot since one would have to look in the same places anyway, and then doing the nominations all in one shot after failing to find any sources that would have made a meaningful difference. In other words, it is entirely possible to go "refcheck refcheck refcheck refcheck, nom nom nom nom" instead of "refcheck nom, refcheck nom, refcheck nom, refcheck nom". So no, you're not getting a "nominator did not do due diligence" argument to stick to me, of all people. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)