|This page was nominated for deletion on 28 June 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Health effects of radon.|
|WikiProject Biography||(Rated Redirect-class)|
|WikiProject Pennsylvania||(Rated NA-class)|
Thank you for removing the template that said that this person is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about him. Anyone thinking about putting it back, please consider Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. some page -- TurtleBoy0 23:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- This article isn't a biography, its an article about a radon-related indicent. It should be a redirect to a section of the relevant radon article (or some other health/safety article). There is nothing more to say about this person than this incident, thus there should be no article on his name. It's not a question of the material that wikipedia is made of, it's an issue of keeping the encyclopaedia free of incorrect, misleading, or libellous information. Right now this article is a barely noticed corner, ready to attract harmful trash. At worse Wikipedia would be no worse off with it merged, though that wouldn't help the much vaunted article count. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion
I've nominated this article for deletion. Subject is notable for a sinle event in which he was apparently a completely passive participant, and the entire story is already given at health effects of radon, which is a far more appropriate context. EEng (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The article's been changed to a redirect to health effects of radon, but honestly I think it should be simply deleted. I wouldn't bother except that there's a BLP problem naming Watras when, at least offhand, I can't seen any reliable sources telling his story -- if they're there, they're lost in an ocean of somewhat conflicting blog posts and so on. EEng (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Oops, I thoughtlessly re-added the prod, which is a no-no -- the more elaborae AFD process would be needed now, and I haven't got the energy. But for the BLP issue alone, I think deletion is best -- it should not exist even as a redirect. EEng (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete it, keep it, or direct it to an article that actually mentions Stanley Watras
It is inappropriate and a waste of readers times to redirect the page to something that doesn't discuss Stanley Watras in anyway. I'm going to redirect it back to the last good version within 24 hours unless I hear a damned good reason not to. Either way, it shouldn't be redirecting to health effects of radon any more than it should redirect to radioactivity or Nuclear Reactors - unless those articles are changed to include information about Mr Watras.
One of the most infuriating aspects of Wikipedia are the number of times you click on a subject and end up redirected to something whose connection with the link are barely discernible, but at least NORMALLY the editor who changed the redirect actually did so at a time when the article the reader was being sent to had the same information. I'm struggling, to be honest, understanding the mindset of those who thought it was a good idea, and, given only one person ever said it was a good idea on this page, understanding the mindset of the editor who slandered me as a "vandal" on my talk page and who claimed it was the "consensus". --188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Stanley Watras doesn't meet the Wikipedia guidelines on notability. As mentioned in people notable only for one event, in general the event should be covered, not the person, depending on their level of the individual's role in the overall issue (which is really the health effects of radon. This redirect shouldn't even exist, as Mr. Watras doesn't seem to fall under the guidelines for notability as mentioned before. If you want to add a mention of Mr. Watras's involvement in making the health effects of radon known, be bold and add it directly to the Radon article yourself. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
No no no, hold on a moment. It's one thing to say "The article shouldn't exist" or "The article's notability is questionable", it's another to turn it into a redirect into an only peripherally related article, and then suggest that I, who has nothing to do with the article, fix that article, because somehow that article is now wrong on account of it being redirected to.
If you're going to change it to a redirect, make sure the redirect contains relevant information so the user knows why they were redirected there. Don't just randomly change it and then expect random people who notice the link goes into a black hole to fix your error (or the error of the person who changed it to that redirect)
If you just wanted it deleted, nominate it for deletion. At least then if someone sees a link, as they do currently in the Radon article, to "Stanley Watras's basement", they'll see a red link and know that the information isn't on Wikipedia. All you're doing right now is wasting everyone's time.
As I said above, one of the most infuriating aspects of Wikipedia are the number of times you click on a subject and end up redirected to something whose connection with the link are barely discernible, but at least NORMALLY the editor who changed the redirect actually did so at a time when the article the reader was being sent to had the same information. I knew enough about Wikipedia to know there was a chance that the information about this guy might be available by clicking on the "Redirected from..." link and then following the article history until something useful came up. That hardly makes me an expert on Stanley Watras, or his basement, or the incident that you guys think is notable enough to be what the article is really about, but are somehow totally unable to actually add to the article you think the information should be in before, or indeed after, changing it to a redirect.
If you break it, the only fix you can expect from complete strangers is a revert to the last unbroken form. If you're expert enough to know why the current article isn't ideal, then either you need to implement a proper fix, or you need to leave it alone. Breaking it because it's not ideal is the last thing anyone should be doing.
And right now, by redirecting to an article that doesn't in any way, shape, or form, mention, describe, or explain the topic of this article, it's broken. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- In the name of Julius Caesar, what are you so excited about? Wikipedia is imperfect, its editors are imperfect, and mistakes happen. How are you a helpless "complete stranger" from whom the "only fix" to be expected is "a revert to the last unbroken form"? You're an editor too. Since you obviously figured out what's going on, why didn't you fix it, really fix it, in a way that moves things forward instead of backwards? I did it, and I knew nothing about radon, or Watras, before this all began. "Way, shape, or form" -- Jeesh! EEng (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Salvagable material already moved to Health effects of radon
As I mentioned at the delete/merge debate, I've already moved any salvagable material to Health effects of radon. I've now changed the article content here to a redirect, but I can't remember at this late hour what other formalities are required to complete the merger. Also, the redirect seems to be acting as a soft instead of hard -- can't figure it out -- Mind... running... down... Time... for... bed... EEng (talk) 04:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)