|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Improperly closed by a non-admin: the discussion had not run for a full seven days, and consensus was not clearly a keep (with four keeps, one delete, and three redirects). The closing editor seems to have jumped on a few AfDs today possibly due to an active RfA. While re-opening the AfD may or may not be worth it for one more day (my preference would be to reopen and relist for an actual consensus), it should at the very least be changed to "no consensus" in order to avoid prejudicing any potential future revisits. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 00:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I originally closed this AFD as delete based on the analysis of the sources but was subsequently contacted on my talk page and offered a decent set of additional sourcing that I felt was compelling enough to void the AFD and undelete the article. Some of the delete proponenets remain unhappy with the sources. I am therefore raising a DRV to review my actions. Further discussion can be found here. Spartaz Humbug! 14:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Refutation of arguments already used as to why sourcing is not compelling DC’s points. (1) DC lists three websites together and says that they suggest an agenda. This point is outside the brief, but at least two of the three users were actually associated with vandalism, as WP know, and their vandalism led to Hagger’s being unjustifiably tagged as a vandal, according to a WP administrator. Citing outside vandal activity outside the brief and wrongly suggesting an agenda does not make the sourcing uncompelling. (2) DC’s point about the Nexus sourcing I dealt with on 15 January. DC now claims that Nexus “contains a review of one of Hagger’s poems”. In fact the two Nexus reviews are on The Light of Civilization and The Syndicate, both prose works and full-length books, as he would know if he had read the article. Wrongly suggesting that the Nexus reviews are “of one of Hagger’s poems” gives a misleading impression on this page and diminishes the calibre of the source, but does not make the sourcing uncompelling (3) DC claims that “entries in Who’s Who and related guides are generally paid for”. Hagger’s entries in the encyclopaedias listed in reference 1 are not and never have been paid for. The initial approach was from the encyclopaedias, some nearly 20 years ago, and entries are updated each year by the encyclopaedias. DC wrongly gives a misleading impression and it does not make the sourcing uncompelling. (4) DC says that “an article about the subject’s home does not make the subject notable.” The Independent article cited in reference 8 describes the working of a historic house open to the public and substantiates the four visits by Globe Theatre casts. The Tudor historic house in question was open to the public with staff and guides, and four groups of about 50 Globe actors came to be stay and rehearse there for three days at a time in four successive years. One of the reasons the Globe came was because Hagger was known at the Globe as a verse dramatist, which is actually an argument for notability. As there has been confusion about this historic house – for example, DGG, taking up DC’s misleading impression that there was not a public dimension to the running of the historic house, refers to the notability of the building and not the person – I have added ten more articles to reference 8 (one from the Daily Telegraph, two from the Sunday Telegraph and the other seven from the daily East Anglian Daily Times, most of which are two-page spreads focusing on Hagger and his books). I was holding these back but in view of misunderstandings feel these should now be added to the sources as they are about the person as much as, and in some cases more than, the building. One of them, entitled Overlord of the Manor has three columns about Hagger’s first epic poem Overlord, and one of the others covers his stories and one of his verse plays. DC wrongly says that the press interest was about a home rather than a historic hall open to the public and that it was not about Hagger, but he does not make the sourcing uncompelling, especially now that new sources have been added.
(5) DC states that “a personal letter praising the subject’s poem does not make the author notable”. The Barker 20-page review of six of Hagger’s books, not “a poem”, was sent to Acumen. It was not a letter but a review, a signed copy of which was supplied to the publisher for comments to be extracted. The Poet Laureate Ted Hughes chose his correspondents very carefully and initiated the correspondence, and his six-page letter about five of Hagger’s books was later published as he knew it would be one day. By suggesting that the sourcing covered by Barker and Hughes relates to “a poem” and not several books is wrong and misleading, and does not make the sourcing uncompelling.
(6) DC says that the content of the article is “poor”. This is outside the brief, which is focusing on sourcing, but it is an opinion and in view of the above may be misleading. DC’s first five comments are all factually wrong and have the effect of diminishing the sourcing. They show a huge lack of understanding of Hagger’s work and give a misleading impression. This is disappointing as editors are supposed to be factually accurate, objective and fair-minded and not to give the impression that they are conducting an “edit war”.
(1) DGG says that private letters and book jacket comments may be matters of politeness. But see DC (5) above, these were not private comments, they were public comments, made knowing that they would be published with the notable authors’ names attached. Men of letters are just as particular about their letters and comments as their reviews when they know they will one day be published, and they are reluctant to put their good names to anything they do not agree with. As to these references, the six-page Hughes letter is full of questions and sets out his own point of view very honestly, and is self-evidently not governed by politeness. I have said that Barker’s 20-page review was copied to the publisher for comments. The others had been asked for public comments and knew what they were putting their names to. The public, as opposed to private, nature of these particular comments makes this sourcing compelling rather than uncompelling. (2) DGG suggests that the article is promotional. The brief is to focus on sourcing, but the article was not intended to be promotional. It is about the books and anything else is a sub-theme. It does not promote the historical hall, which Hagger sold in 2004, and merely mentions the schools. Should I have ignored the fact that he founded a school? I’ve cut out that it’s one of the most prominent in the area in case that could be considered promotional. Hagger’s founding of a school while he was writing his study of 25 civilisations, The Fire and the Stones, surely has a place in an article about his books. His work as an educationalist is mentioned fleetingly but should surely be included, just as Matthew Arnold’s work as an Inspector of Schools should be included in an article about his books. The article is not promotional, and this point does not make the sourcing uncompelling. (3) DGG suggests that the article should be more modest. I take this to refer to Hagger’s prolific output and the comments of the notable sources. Hagger’s cross-disciplinary prolific output is one of the things that should be covered in an article. His writings are outside the brief, but what am I supposed to say? Should I have ignored his two poetic epics, thousand stories, and challenge to modern philosophy on modesty grounds? And should I have ignored the comments of the notable sources, not provided evidence for notability in the interests of modesty? In the article I have stuck with the facts and have cut out anything not factual to make a tighter piece, and any appearance of immodesty is an accidental and unintended consequence of this process. I would point out that no mention was made of the notable sources until I was pressed for evidence of notability. The same applies to the expansion of reference 8. This point does not make the sourcing uncompelling. I would like to thank S Marshall, Uzma Gamal, Weakopedia and Bsherr for the balance in their thoughtful, judicious contributions. Strengthening two references Besides strengthening reference 8 with nine new broadsheet newspaper sources, I have strengthened reference 20 by adding new material which I have to hand: 25 US radio sources. I have held these back but feel it is now right they should be included in view of comments. These two references now read: 8. The Independent, ‘A House with a Dramatic History’, Wednesday 27 August 2003, http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/house-and-home/property/a-house-with-a-dramatic-history-537264.html refers to the four visits by the Globe. For references to Hagger and his books also see The Daily Telegraph, 21 June 1997 (‘Alas poor Gosnolds’, references to Overlord and The Fire and the Stones, picture of Hagger sitting in garden); The Sunday Telegraph, 10 May 1998 (‘Licence to Snoop in Suffolk’, which includes interview with Hagger about his creation of a knot garden) and 14 September 2002 (‘A Very Special Relationship’, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/search/?queryText=massingberd+otley+hall&Search= , with reference by Hugh Massingberd to The Fire and the Stones and its seven-foot long chart of 25 civilisations); and the East Anglian Daily Times of 20 March 1997 (‘Overlord of the Manor’, two-page spread, interview with Hagger and three columns on his epic poem Overlord), 1 October 1997 (‘Bridging the Cultural Divide’, interview with Hagger about a revolution in thought and culture), 13 May 1998 (interview with Hagger on Shakespeare), 24 April 1999 (‘Otley’s Owner Set on a Tudor Flourish’, interview with Hagger covering volumes of his stories and one of his verse plays, The Tragedy of Prince Tudor), 22 April 2000 (‘Dates with Destiny’, interview with Hagger on Bartholomew Gosnold), 13 October 2000 (‘Re-Writing History’, interview with Hagger on the founding of America) and 3 May 2001 (‘Raising the Star-Spangled Banner for a Suffolk hero’, interview with Hagger on Gosnold, pictures of Hagger with Jamestown discoverer and archaeologist William Kelso and Virginia’s First Lady Roxanne Gilmore). 20. Jay Weidner (daily trade US radio interviewer) conducted four radio interviews with Hagger in depth on The Secret Founding of America and other works of his on 18 November 2009, in 4 parts, http://jayweidner.com/blog/2010/04/the-secret-founding-of-america-part-1/ (leads to other 3 parts). There were 25 live interviews with Hagger regarding The Secret Founding of America on US radio in 2007, by: Reid Howell of KYMO-AM/FM East, 10 mins (7 May); Jack Roberts of Cable Radio Network – CRN National National, 10 mins (8 May); Jan Mickelson of WHO-AM Des Moines, 25 mins (8 May); Greg Berg of WGTD-FM Milwaukee WI, 30 mins (8 May); Brad Davis of Talk of Connecticut Hartford Regionally Syndicated CT, 10 mins (9 May); Jeff Schectman of KVON AM San Francisco, 30 mins (9 May); Pat McMahon of KTAR-AM Phoenix AZ, 30 mins (9 May); Brian Thomas/John of WKRC-AM Cincinnati, 15 mins (10 May); Mike “Silk” Casper of WMDC Mayville WI, 10 mins (10 May); Bill Meyer of KMED-AM Medford OR, 20 mins (10 May); Eric Von Wade of KEYS-AM Corpus Christi, 30 mins (10 May); Paul Miller of WPHM-AM, Detroit MI, 10 mins (11 May); Charles Goyette of KFNX-AM Phoenix AR, 25 mins (11 May); Jean Dean of WRVC-AM, Huntington, 30 mins (11 May); Peter Solomon of WIP-AM Philadelphia PA, 30 mins (13 May); Thom Hartmann of Eastern Air America Radio, The Thom Hartmann Show, National Syndicated, 15 mins (16 May); Quinn of WHJY-WWDG-WHEP-WGIR-FM Providence, 15 mins (17 May); Tommy B of KBUL-AM Billings MT, 30 mins (21 May); Mancow of Fox Radio News Network, 20 mins (22 May); Tron Simpson of KCMN-AM Colorado, 10 mins (24 May); Mike & Amanda of WKWS-FM, Charleston WV, 10 mins (24 May); John Cook of KMBH-FM Brownsville, 30 mins (29 May); Sonja Harju & Fred Bremner of Lifeline Universal Media Statewide Oregon, 60 mins (4 June); Don Lancer of KYW-AM Philadelphia PA, 10 mins (8 June); and Sharmai & Keith Amber of Hawaii Radio, 60 mins (15 July). More generally This sourcing more than fulfils Spartaz’s criteria of two reliable sources and WP’s BLP of at least one. Can the following tags now be removed in view of all the changes and the discussion (including S Marshall’s second paragraph)? • This biography of a living person needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since January 2011. • It may have been edited by a person who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter. Tagged since January 2011. • It may contain improper references to self-published sources. Tagged since January 2011. Regarding the procedural debate as to the way forward, if a broad consensus has emerged that the sourcing is not uncompelling and that the debate on sourcing has run its course, and that no useful purpose is served by prolonging it any further, it would be good if a way can be found to avoid another week of going over the same ground and repeating all the same arguments in a different forum, even though they have now all been dealt with in this forum, and perhaps wasting time. With thanks, Sanrac1959 (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
(1) DC says that my first point has “no relation to anything I wrote”. He wrote on 15 January that single-purpose accounts (User:GardinerNeDay, User:Livindabedaloca, & User:George199329) “suggest an agenda and that we should look closely at sources offered”. My first point about single-purpose vandals does relate to what he wrote, and he is being misleading. The underlying issue before he came on the scene was that a vandalism tag had been attached to the name Hagger and that my user name had an unjustified vandalism tag attached to it, which blocked me, as WP will confirm. (2) DC says (on 17 January) that “argument about the sources” is “not what DRV is for”. Oh, really? This DRV is exclusively about sources. On 13 January DC had written, “The sources haven’t swayed me.” On 14 January he wrote, “The sources added are hardly compelling.” Spartaz wrote on this page on 15 January, “Some of the delete proponents remain unhappy with the sources. I’m therefore raising a DRV to review my actions.” On his User Talk page on 15 January Spartaz wrote, “What would be most compelling in the discussion is for proponents of either side to review the offered sourcing and provide analysis of why they think it is/isn't compelling.” To which DC replied, “Thanks. I'll work with that.“ The brief was very clearly “to review the offered sourcing and provide analysis of why [both sides] think it is/isn’t compelling.” On 17 January I refuted DC’s arguments very fully and expanded two sources. Now he says that the DRV is not about argument regarding the sources. This is misleading and does not carry forward the brief as to whether the sourcing is/isn’t compelling. (3) DC says (on 17 January), “I only raised the sources directly since Spartaz based their re-closure on them without first having them added to the article.” But this is untrue, as his statements on 13 and 14 January (above) indicate. DC’s inability to address the points in my posting of 17 January means that he has in effect conceded that the sourcing is compelling and effectively brings this DRV to a close. Please can we not waste any more time on this analysis, as one side is analysing the proffered sourcing and providing analysis of why they think it is/isn’t compelling, and the other side, although promising to “work with that”, isn’t. With thanks Sanrac1959 (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Overturn Courcelles' decision to delete. I would like to further substantiate the article with newly researched sources and the sources I mentioned in the AfD discussion, replace any insignificant sources, and further explore notability if need be. I do not think my arguments in favor of the subject's notability were adequately answered. Specifically, Alan Liefting's statement that ' "non-famous and/or small organizations" are by definition non-notable' directly contradicts WP:CORP in that ' "Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance" ' and "smaller organizations can be notable [...] arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." For these reasons, I request that the deletion be overturned. Thanks very much. -- Synthality (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I posted a new version of the MotionX page for consideration at User:Arthbkins/sandbox. I have discussed this with the administrator User:RHaworth who deleted the page. Please let me know if more information would be useful. Arthbkins (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |