Talk:Jablonski
 | Anthroponymy Redirect‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Edit war
IContent that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wim. Which I interpret as meaning that they should not contain items that do not have articles. I researched the three dead links on this page, and found that all three had all been deleted for notability re
- Just a quick note, the MOS does actually permit red links, although a link to an existing article should (does not mean must) accompany it. As I see it, they might be borderline okay to include. A quick google search[1] for the author (Edward Jablonski) results in ~22400 hits, the topmost being articles about him as an author. Linking to the examples given would bring this inline with the MOS. He also results in some 200 books on AmazonContent that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions./104-7002595-9619915?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=%22edward+jablonski%22&x=0&y=0, the first two pages (~25 books) were published before print-on-demand was possible, so he is likely to have been published by someone, and thus in my opinion notable (at least with this many non-fiction books).
- As for Leon Chester Jablonski, a quick search for the dispencer end up with a reference to the US Patent Office[2]. Although patent holders aren't notable by them selves, this might be an indication if someone feels like digging at a decent library. The patent is from 1966, so you cannot necessarily rely on online sources for this. I'd say that these two could be listed, while the third one should be left out until someone can find a source for him. Bjelleklang - talk 20:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for your comments, I think you and I are thinking along the same lines here. I actually left Edward Jablonski in the article because I did the same research as you and determined that he might indeed be notable. Another editor axed it when they got involved in this edit war. I removed Leon Chester Jablonski and Thomas Edward Jablonski because I couldn't find info on either of them, except for that patent you mentioned, which doesn't by itself establish notability. My preference would be to leave these two out for now (pending other content that establishes notability) and to leave Edward. Steve CarlsonTalk 21:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- If someone is notable then an article should be created for them before adding them to the disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages are for navigation so it does not help to have red links. The manual of style states that "A link to a non-existent article should only be included on a disambiguation page when another article also includes that red link" and "Red links should not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, so that a reader (as opposed to a contributing editor) will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information." So unless something else (not a disambiguation page) links to a non-existent page and there is a link to a related existing page then the entry should not be included. swaq 21:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- I went ahead and created the article on Edward Jablonski. But I don't really see the harm in having a red link to someone who would appear to be notable, as this might encourage other users familiar with them to create the articles. Bjelleklang - talk 21:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Red links in a normal article can be good to encourage someone to create the page. It is discouraged on disambiguation pages though unless a normal article already links to it. swaq 15:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- I went ahead and created the article on Edward Jablonski. But I don't really see the harm in having a red link to someone who would appear to be notable, as this might encourage other users familiar with them to create the articles. Bjelleklang - talk 21:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- If someone is notable then an article should be created for them before adding them to the disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages are for navigation so it does not help to have red links. The manual of style states that "A link to a non-existent article should only be included on a disambiguation page when another article also includes that red link" and "Red links should not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, so that a reader (as opposed to a contributing editor) will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information." So unless something else (not a disambiguation page) links to a non-existent page and there is a link to a related existing page then the entry should not be included. swaq 21:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for your comments, I think you and I are thinking along the same lines here. I actually left Edward Jablonski in the article because I did the same research as you and determined that he might indeed be notable. Another editor axed it when they got involved in this edit war. I removed Leon Chester Jablonski and Thomas Edward Jablonski because I couldn't find info on either of them, except for that patent you mentioned, which doesn't by itself establish notability. My preference would be to leave these two out for now (pending other content that establishes notability) and to leave Edward. Steve CarlsonTalk 21:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions.