Jump to content

Talk:Walnut Ridge High School (Columbus, Ohio)

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

COMMENTS


The Notable Alumni section should be used for those who have made some kind of contribution to society that is recognized by a legitimate authority, such as scholar publications, and industry recognition. This does not mean only sports figures. There are many other capacities that rise to that level, although sports is the most common.

Please do not add/delete these entries based solely on you personal opinion. That does not send the right signal to the kids being educated at the school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CC8C:6250:79CC:E238:7178:40A8 (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of notable alumni are covered under WP:NLIST. General consensus is to only list those who have articles. If you wish to add names to the list, consider writing an article about the person first, then adding them. Deunanknute (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not mandatory to have an article on Wikipedia to be notable on a high school Notable Alumni page. There are many high school pages that have notable people that DO NOT have wikipedia pages. Richard Sillman DOES NOT want to have a Wikipedia page at this time for various reasons.

Here is the guidelines published by Wikipedia:

(Notability on Wikipedia is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of note or notice; remarkable"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary.)

"worthy of note or notice or remarkable is first. Then if they are famous. Certainly being the youngest cable TV director in the United States is notable. True, most have Wikipedia pages, but some choose not to have a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CC8C:6250:79CC:E238:7178:40A8 (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People don't choose not to have a Wikipedia page. If someone makes one, properly, there will be one. Deunanknute (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are changing "C" to "c" for one but not all.  Huh ?  this is destructive behavior that should be reported if you continue.

True, people don't choose, and if you contact the Cable Television Museum in Denver Colorado, the executive management will tell you that Richard Sillman expressly indicated that he did not want anyone to make a wikipedia page on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleted (talk • contribs) 16:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After looking into it, I don't think he is notable. One mention in a non-notable book, authored by a likely non-notable, does not make someone notable. What do you mean by ""C" to "c""?

You changed on Greg Cox "Class of '84" to "class of 84" while all the rest are "C". And it isn't just one mention in a non-notable book by a non-notable. If you look into the author, he was Chairman of the Journalism department at the University of New Mexico for many years and a previous professor at the University of Iowa, and is a known leading authority on the subject of Media and Management. Also, the President of the Cable Television Museum has information on Richard Sillman. You don't have to be everywhere and known by many to be notable. Look up the definition. "notable" also means someone of distinction, not just a person who is famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleted (talk • contribs) 16:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The change if "C" to "c" was accidental, I simply reverted to the previous version. I called the author "likely non-notable", as I didn't find anything in a very quick search, he may be notable. Wikipedia's "definition" of notability for people is located at WP:PEOPLE. I'm not seeing "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." for Sillman. Or any of the other criteria as listed on that page. If you can show notability, then I have no problem with him being listed. I agree with you that many notability lists for schools are dominated by sports figures, and it is better to have different types of people. But, that alone is not reason enough to add someone. Deunanknute (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are other sources, but not on-line, i.e. the President of the Cable Television Museum (certainly a reliable source) and the Chairman of the Harvard Business School sent Richard Sillman and e-mail recognizing this. I will try to see if I can find something on-line to reference, but I know Richard Sillman wants as little information about him on-line as possible, for various reason. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleted (talk • contribs) 16:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just being the youngest isn't notable, it's trivia. If there was an article written about him in a newspaper/magazine because of it, or that mentioned it, that would be enough. Deunanknute (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be satisfied if the President of the Cable Museum wrote a letter indicating this about Richard Sillman ? Also the Cable Museum archives/library has mentions this but it is not on-line. You have to call and ask the librarian. You don't have to be in a newspaper/magazine or in the mass media to be "notable". Again, notable also means "of distinction" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleted (talk • contribs) 17:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that he was the youngest, but being the youngest is not notable per Wikipedia guidelines. Notability is established by those not involved, not by acts, or properties. If he is notable, he will have been written about in depth by reliable independent parties. If he has not been, then he is most likely not notable. I understand the dictionary definition/common usage of the word "notable", but that is not exactly the one used by Wikipedia. Deunanknute (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have to be written about in depth and there are independent reliable parties. Under your logic as your interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines, let's say the President of the United States recognized you for being an unsung hero for something, and no one wrote any newspapers articles about you, and nobody wrote any magazine articles either. In fact no one at all, except the President, recognized you as a hero (except maybe your mom & dad), you would say you are not a notable person ? Obvious you would be.

To satisfy you, I've included another reliable independent party on the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleted (talk • contribs) 18:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia guidelines, WP:Special cases (Ask the article's editor(s) for advice on where to look for sources. ... editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online = Cable Museum archives/library). There must be at least TWO verifiable reliable independent references in order to have a Wikipedia page and be considered notable. And there ARE 2 listed here for Richard Sillman. If you look at any of the Notable Alumni already on the page, and the respective Wikipedia pages, 2 of the current Notable Alumni do not EVEN HAVE ANY references on there page to verify reliable. So if you insist on deleting Richard Sillman, YOU MUST delete the other two as well that have NO references! External links are not references although they do lead to a source. Mr. Sillman's work for over a year is not simple "Trivia.", like "Who's the tallest man in the world". He contributed greatly to the development of what we all enjoy with live cable broadcasts today in the United States. He had no idea he was making history at the time but certainly the library documents at the Cable Museum attest to that, as well as the college textbook reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CC8C:6250:28D6:CF69:4AAC:2E6A (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Walnut Ridge High School (Columbus, Ohio). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Walnut_Ridge_High_School_(Columbus,_Ohio)&oldid=1202494199"