Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Agent 86 (talk | contribs) at 01:48, 30 July 2006 (→Kitty May Ellis: endorse deletion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 July)

22 July 2006

Kitty May Ellis

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

After DRV's previous decision to overturn the keep result in the AfD for Kitty May Ellis and delete the article, the article's primary composer reposted the content at Kittie May Ellis. Judging the content substantially similar, I speedy deleted this as a G4 repost, and protected both pages, in an effort to get this matter resolved through a new appeal to DRV. The article's composer has taken exception to this deletion, leading to a long discussion on our respective talk pages regarding the reasons his article was ultimately considered not verifiable.

He presents the following points below, affixed with his signature. I have posted this DRV for his ease. Xoloz 04:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• The opinion of an editor who has no knowledge of a source, as it whether it is a WP:RS should not be the basis for deleting an article. A grading of a source as a WP:RS should be based on other WP:RSs, not on editors opinions. If an editor feels that a source is not a WP:RS they should obtain a citation which states that. If during an Afd or Review, there are opinions stating that something is not a WP:RS the closing admin should disregard those *unless* the poster can confirm their opinion using a WP:RS.
• A newspaper reporter, reporting events, that he/she was not an eye-witness to, should be considered a secondary, published and WP:RS
• Extracts of government documents, published by third-parties should be considered as secondary, published, WP:RS.
• This article was deleted based on a claim of non-verifiability, without any attempt being made to determine whether the sources were actually verifiable. The mere fact that some sources are hard to verify, should not preclude their being used if they are the only or most pertinent sources available for the task.
• This article was marked {hangon} and {underconstruction} with active editing at the *time* it was deleted. No attempt was made to allow me time to correct the stated flaws. The main complaint was that I was citing to the online diary, when I should have cited to the published secondary sources. I was in the middle of making those changes when the article vanished.
• And finally WP:AGF should dictate that I was making an attempt to make the article *more* verifiable and it should not have been deleted.

Wjhonson 04:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I feel a bit sad for the author of that article. Even though I haven't read it, I think I get the picture from the AFD and DRV. I think the solution is for the author to submit the article (or a revision) to some appropriate historical journal, along with copies of any necessary source materials needed for the journal's referees, instead of trying to put it in Misplaced Pages. That puts the RS question into the hands of professionals, and those referees can accept types of source material that's not accessible enough for Misplaced Pages. If the journal publishes the article, Misplaced Pages can then use the article as a source. If the journal rejects the article, well, they're professionals and we have to assume that they know what they're doing. Phr (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion with regret. Perhaps a sister-project? The cited source is primary, the subject is unverifiable from any secondary sources. Just zis Guy you know? 11:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The question of verifiability was not for the trivial facts of her life (to which refer e.g. the "extracts of government documents"), but for the assertion that she warranted inclusion because as a diarist she is a notable source for historians. No source was given that could pass WP:V for this claim, only links to the local newspaper and a privately published document. The article fails both WP:BIO (a guideline), and for her weak claim to notability, WP:V (a policy), and has thus no reason to be included in Misplaced Pages. Fram 12:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The article has already been published, in a historical journal, along with source material. Wjhonson 18:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Fram has been a consistent mis-characterizer of the statements I made. Fram claims no notability based on no verifiable sources. These claims have been refuted many times. I have posted the WP:RS which are WP:V and these claims have been taken to the talk pages of those guidelines and policies where they agree with my position. A newspaper on microfilm *is* verifiable and a non-eye-witness report is WP:RS. If anyone can find where I'm mistaken, please inform me. The relevant policy pages say that I'm not mistaken on this point. Wjhonson 18:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The events of her life are not sourced from the diaries, they are sourced from newspapers, historical journals, and government documents. All verifiable, secondary, published sources per WP:RS. The diaries only serve to support and back-up the events cited from the secondary sources. Wjhonson 18:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson, for the umpteenth time, I'm not discussing the events of her life, I'm discussing the notability of her diaries as an important source for historical research, as indicated by verifiable publications by reputable publishers. First, wjhonson: you say that "the article has already been published in a historical journal, along with source material". Could you tell us when and where? It may strengthen your case. Second: I am not claiming that you can't use the census or a persons obituary to gather facts about her life. They don't give any notability though, and aren't under discussion here. In the article (version: User:Wjhonson/Ellis), the only source that may be what is needed is "Clearview Pioneers", which you cite as evidence of two dates and places. Is this a work published by a reputable publisher? Does this work claim that the diaries of Kitty May Ellis are an important source for the historical knowledge of Clearview and other places? Or is she just mentioned as a pioneer who indeed lived there for a while? Fram 16:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

One I didn't say you were discussing the 'events of her life'. One of the objections to the article was that it was cited to the diaries. That is the only thing I was addressing in stating that each statement is made from secondary sources, and *backed-up* from the diaries. Two yes, her diaries are notable as an important source for historical research, as indicated by verifiable publications by reputable publishers. Three, you may not be claiming that I can't use the census, and other government documents, but another editor did, I took that to WP:RS and they said no, you can. Four, an obit does give notability, if the obit is writen as an actual news story by a reporter, gleaning information from multiple sources and editing it together into something newsworthy. That is what occurred in this situation. That would be in-contrast with an obit submitted, paid-for, and writen in-whole by a funeral home or family member, which is *not* what occurred in this case. Fifth, yes, each place where she has appeared, they have noted that not only is she a newsworthy individual herself, but also that her information, backs up and fills-out many newsworthy events from the various pioneer communities in which she lived. Hopefully this is more clear now. Wjhonson 20:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Where and when is the article published, as you claimed it was? You did not respond, so I ask it again. Fram 21:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Notability of the person is not established. My daughter writes a diary too. And she even won some prize from the school district. So what? `'mikka (t) 22:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Not again! It's because of this stupid article that I'm taking a Wikibreak from closing contentious AfDs. Regardless of the results of this DRV, I strongly urge the author to please accept the final result and not waste any more of Misplaced Pages's time. --Deathphoenix ʕ 11:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I understand that the article creator has done a lot of work putting this together, and the subject is interesting, but she just doesn't meet the standards of notability given in WP:BIO. Whatever the result of the DRV, Misplaced Pages is not a battleground, so please let the issue rest. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 18:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Why would we assume good faith in wjhonson when he violates WP:MEAT by soliciting meatpuppets like here? Fram 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorsed Dairies do not make for good verifiability. (That's why primary sources aren't liked). Previous DRV and 2nd AfD already ended this. Also, my good faith is indeed burned by fram's link encouraging 'vote-stacking' on what is a non-vote anyways. Kevin_b_er 23:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I must disagree here, there's a dairy very near my house and its existence is easily verifiable by the sound of mooing. --Daduzi 02:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • And the smell of censored. (I lived near one in 1999–2000. I think the freeway route was selected so as to destroy it, making it notable in retrospect.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, process was followed, insufficient new information cited to verify that the article subject is notable enough for a general encyclopedia. Probably useful to a very very very few people, and might belong somewhere else, but not on Misplaced Pages. Barno 06:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The original article and the recreated article have been thoroughly considered (including on various talk pages). While the process might have been a bit questionable for some, there was ample opportunity for plenty of discussion. Agent 86 01:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)