Jump to content

User talk:Glenfarclas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Adamlankford (talk | contribs) at 21:01, 2 June 2010 (→‎Thanks: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


This editor is an Experienced Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Deletion of Michael Schmidt entry on Usenet Celebrity article

You deleted the Michael Schmidt entry based on "unclear notability". What's unclear to you? A 13 year Usenet history clearly referenced, which has inspired comedic parodies and off-Usenet websites which are referenced. What's your standard of notability, an expose' on Nightline and their own exhibit at the Smithsonian? They're a notable "eccentric personality" if ever there was one. I've been looking at Usenet for around 10 years and of the others mentioned in the article MI5 victim is the only one I've heard of outside the Wikipedia article.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the problem falls under the issues of reliable sources, verifiability, and original research. Basically, it sounds like you frequented these newsgroups and said to yourself, "Hey, that guy's a minor celebrity! I'll put it on Wikipedia!" That would be original research. In short, Wikipedia's policy on verifiability says that claims "must be attributed to a reliable, published source." You can check Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources to learn about that topic, but newsgroup postings generally don't count. In other words, although it's impossible to give specific criteria, we'd probably be looking for something along the lines of being mentioned in a magazine, newspaper article, book, on a TV show, etc. Those are the most common kinds of sources. And we'd be looking for a source that says, roughly, "Michael Schmidt is a Usenet celebrity" -- not a source that just provides a bunch of facts from which the seasoned observer could deduce that he is likely a Usenet celebrity; that falls under Wikipedia:SYNTH.
Hope this explanation makes sense; please let me know if you have any more questions.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we" as in "we'd be looking for a source..." Are you referring to yourself as an assimilated part of the great Wiki-borg?
You're apparently selective regarding how you apply the criteria you've outlined. Many of those mentioned in that article are referenced with essentially the same credentials as the Schmidt entry.
The very first - Alexander Abian - one reference to a Usenet post about his death. There's a claim of being a "Usenet legend" the basis for which appears to be solely from within Usenet. Robert E. McElwaine - sole reference is to an archive of his Usenet posts. Valery Fabrikant - notability seems to be that he ultimately went on a killing rampage, not his Usenet activity. The sole reference documenting his Usenet activity is a dead link to his now non-existent Geocities home page. B1FF - some references to blogs, some Usenet references.
Some seem to have some notability outside Usenet for example in academia, however the fact that they've posted on Usenet merely a happenstance, not the source of their notability. Seems to me you either need to cull a number of the existing entries or stop being an impediment to this one.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"We" as in Wiki-borg? Yeah, I -- er, we -- think that's about right ;) As to the rest, your way of thinking is very common and completely understandable, but a classic Wikipedia fallacy. If your problem is that existing content isn't up to standards, the answer is to delete or fix it, not to use it to shoehorn in additional content that is similarly problematic. When it comes to new articles ("Hey, my web business is more notable than these other businesses that already have pages!") I link to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:ALLORNOTHING, which lay out the general view on this issue. In short, each piece of content is to be evaluated according to its own merits. Did you find some content that doesn't belong here? WP:SOFIXIT!
As for me, I reverted some vandalism on Usenet celebrity with Twinkle once, which leaves the page on my watchlist. I therefore noticed your new changes, although I hadn't similarly scoured the article's existing text. Looking over it now, I can say that as regards Alexander Abian specifically, if he's notable enough for a standalone article (which I'll presume, since he has one) then he's notable enough to be mentioned in this article. And if you click on his name, you'll see that his notability actually is referenced to articles in People Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My "way of thinking" is you're being inconsistent both with your editing and your standards. "...if he's notable enough for a standalone article...then he's notable enough to be mentioned in this article." - You're conflating issues. The article is about Usenet celebrity which you proclaim needs to have a certain type of documentation. Someone may have an article but is their Usenet notoriety per se documented per your assertions? In many cases the answer is clearly no and in many cases they have neither article notability nor the type of referencing you assert, yet they've been considered a good fit in the article for some time until you came along. But now you seem to be saying - "well, if they're famous they belong in the article" whether that fame is particularly based on their Usenet activity or not and meet the standards you claim are required. The fact is, Usenet is something of a "niche", and most of these people are in sub-niches. I've never heard of most of them. However, I have no doubt like Schmidt they're quite well known to those who frequent those areas. Saying the New York Times or whatever has to publish an article about someone's Usenet activity to make it "notable" within that milieu is ludicrous. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're quite right, that was slightly loose writing. I meant, if he's notable enough as a Usenet celebrity for a standalone article, which he does appear to be, given the referenced statement in his article that his theories, "made in thousands of Usenet posts during the last portion of his life, gained Abian mention (not entirely favorable) and even interviews in such publications as Omni, People, and The Wall Street Journal." Obviously, you know, Wolfgang Mozart and Chiang Kai-shek are notable enough for their own articles, but don't belong in Usenet celebrity. And you're correct that claims don't all have to be sourced to publications as prestigious and the Wall Street Journal, but they do need to be sourceable to some reliable source.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the info. I guess I was just trying to keep the guy honest. It won't happen again. Adamlankford (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Glenfarclas&oldid=365707658"