Talk:Financial costs of the American Revolutionary War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copyedited by Slon02, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on November 21, 2011. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 

Is this notable?[edit]

On 14 November 2011, User:Night of the Big Wind (below, NBW) added Notability and Copy edit warning flags to this article, with the edit summary: Added {{copy edit}} and {{notability}} tags to article (TW).

On 14 January 2012, User:OKelly asked NBW about this. I noticed the question, as I happened to be awaiting an answer from NBW about a similar issue concerning a poor article on the eminent (if war-unrelated) linguist Hans Marchand. Here is the resulting discussion. (Note my questions toward the end.)

NBW's response to the questions was to delete them. (As was NBW's right, of course.) I judged that notability (even in Wikipedia's strange use of the word) was blazingly obvious and therefore removed the notability warning, saying why. NBW replaced it, with the edit summary Undid revision 471291914 by Hoary (talk). User:Ykraps removed it, with the edit summary Please explain why the financial costs, the burden of which directly contributed to the revolutions in France and America, aren't notable.

Like Ykraps, I should be most interested to learn, whether from NBW or anybody else, how the financial costs are not notable. -- Hoary (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

*sigh*, its American, so it always notable. Have it your way, guys! But I still think this could better me merged in American Revolutionary War instead of being a stand alone article. Night of the Big Wind talk 13:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
But the costs were not all American. (And as for the instant Wikipedia-style ersatz "notability" of all things American, no, this is instead all things on American prime-time TV or video games.) In general, if you think that one article should be merged with another, you use merge-related templates -- but anyway, do please say how/why a merge would be better. -- Hoary (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This article should be merged into the American Revolutionary War article. I agree it is not notable. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Precisely how does it fail to meet GNG? -- Hoary (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Please elaborate on your comment, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, please say why you think it isn't notable. Also please see my comment on British colonisation of Tasmania. OKelly (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
An article is deemed notable if it has, "....received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and I would suggest this satisfies that criterion. If the suggestion is to merge the article then initiate a merge discussion, don't tag it as not notable.--Ykraps (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)