*:Also, all of the links Dclemens1971 has sent are all broad, they don't really lead anywhere specifically and I think since this person is living, more precise sources are needed. Normanhunter2 ( talk) 20:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Normanhunter2 They're books. You can't upload full copies of books online, as that is a copyright violation. I accessed them and determined most of them constitute SIGCOV. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand they're books, but WP:BLPS have strict sourcing when it comes to living persons, and as I said in my vote, I don't think I am comfortable with this article on Wikipedia. Normanhunter2 (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Normanhunter2 Your argument makes no sense. Most of the provided sources are high quality academic books - what exactly is unreliable about them? They're far more reliable than say, newspaper articles. Those are the best kinds of sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just a link to a cover of a book, not whats within it. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Normanhunter2....??? Do you expect people to commit copyright violations to prove it to you? I checked the books myself, they contain sigcov. You can't link anything else besides say, Google Book listings, or you would be committing a crime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, to a limited extent, you can search within the book. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely, you would know WP:DBTN wouldn't you? I'm merely suggesting that since it's a link to a cover of the book, it wouldn't be considered a source because to me, it's not reliable and it clearly says in there that the piece of work itself can affect reliability, which is my main argument here. Normanhunter2 (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Normanhunter2 Those are all links to Google Book listings for the page that 1) show you what book exists, who published it, when, enabling someone to search it out 2) a searchable version of the book's contents, which can verify the information. What is your issue with it?
- The link doesn't matter. Offline sources are perfectly fine. The Google Books link is merely a helpful way to find if a book discusses a topic: I have verified that at least three of them do. This is enough for GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to @PARAKANYAA for doing the source analysis below. I'll be honest, @Normanhunter2, your assertion that the "none of the sources are reliable sources" is quite strange. The Atkins book is a standard reference work on extremist organizations published by Bloomsbury Academic, a major academic press. The Kinsella book is published by Harper Collins. Both contain significant coverage of Long, which you can see with the in-text search. Bartley is a respected professor at a major Canadian university and his book has sigcov of Long on pages 248-271. Sherren is a prominent journalist who discusses Long in his memoir. And Perry & Scrivens mention Long on four different pages of a book from a respected academic press. Telling us that "they don't really lead anywhere specifically" and that "it's just a link to a cover of a book" suggests that you didn't bother to evaluate the sources. Finally, no one here is attempting to bite the newcomers. I've been active on Wikipedia for years but started engaging in AfDs only about six months ago, and I spent a lot of time observing and learning. I made some mistakes along the way, and I still do now and again, but learning from other participants and taking their proposed sources and analysis seriously has made me a much better editor. For a new editor who's very, very quickly gotten involved in AfD discussions, I would invite you to be a little less dogmatic and a little more open to the sources that your fellow editors turn up as part of this process. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's significant coverage in the books you're researching, then there should be no problem gathering the information off of the book and placing it into the article. Now, I've scanned through the sources, and find it strange that most of the sources come from books, which are written by ideas of people. As for the articles content, I suggest going over WP:ONEVENT, some text inside of it states: 1. "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." 2. "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed." You might ask me, what are you trying to prove here? The answer is, the amount of content on the page, and the single event on the article, I don't think it's notable enough to be on Wikipedia. In the simplest terms possible, if the article has only one notable, highly significant event possible, then the article should be included. In this case, looking at the event in the article, there is a tiny, minuscule event there without any information. I know the Wikipedia guidelines are different then what other people think when they read the article, but to me, when I am viewing the article, In the 1980s and early 1990s, he led Aryan Nations's Canadian branch and staged a major rally and cross burning in Provost, Alberta. doesnt..quite make sense to me. There is no aftermath of the rally, no pictures of the rally or the person either. We only know this person exists through text. Normanhunter2 (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot about WP:CONTN, disregard the message where it includes the articles content. Normanhunter2 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Where to start with all these ideas!?
- There is nothing that requires an editor to add the content to the article if he or she supplies it in an AfD as evidence of notability. (I have my own editorial priorities and limited time to participate in Wikipedia.)
- You "find it strange that most of the sources come from books." Read WP:RS -- the kinds of books I have suggested here (academic books and books published by major publishing houses) are, depending on the context, generally considered high-quality sources. Plus, I have mentioned newspaper sources (several in the article and more here along with book texts you can evaluate with a free archive.org account: https://archive.org/details/texts?tab=collection&query=%22terry+long%22+%22provost%2C+alberta%22&sin=TXT.
- The presence of pictures is not an indicator or notability, nor is their absence evidence of non-notability.
- Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You mentioned the guideline WP:RS, what inside of the section should I be looking at here to get a better understanding of your argument here? I'm sure you know that there needs to be multiple, reliable sources on here. Could you explain how the book sources are reliable? It would be helpful if you provided enough information on the books to establish readability on the sources to make sure they're books, otherwise, it could potentially be deleted. Could you also explain to me how those sources fit into the article, and also reliable as well? I'm still sticking to my WP:ONEEVENT point, because it is true that there's only one event on that article (unless if you find another event). Normanhunter2 (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Normanhunter2 Why is any source reliable? They're published from qualified major publishers with a reputation for fact checking. What information do you have that they're unreliable? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Newspapers are usually significantly worse sources than books, FWIW: if there's a reliable book source I would almost always rather use that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like you've answered your own question at the first part of your sentence. What information do you have that they're reliable? I should be asking you that contradictory question here.
- 1. For this sentence "Terry Long (born May 1, 1946) is the former leader of Aryan Nations in Canada" there's 3 sources that apparently connect to the source, almost a WP:CITEKILL and a WP:REFBOMB.
- 2. For the sake of it, I did some research on the authors (obviously using google), and i found some that are deemed not notable. See here, and here.
- 3. For the 4th footnote I couldn't find anything about that, and no link has been provided for the newspaper source, that's a little problem here. (If you could provide me the link to that newspaper link then I would go over and read it, but otherwise I wouldn't consider that a source at all).
- 4. I went to archive.org and looked at the sources, turns out that it does mention the subject. But still, based on what I've seen here, it's not a notable event. Read WP:BLP1E, it states: "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.", which it does on the newspaper article here. The second reason according to the guideline The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.". As mentioned on the article, the person is only recognized for one event, which kind of makes this a low-profile individual. Last one here: "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." On the newspaper article, it does not thoroughly explain his mention of organizing a white-supremacist group and what he did specifically in that event. All it says is In 1990, the Canadian Aryan Nations’ leader, then Terry Long, organized a white-supremacist gathering in rural Provost, Alberta, that made for the first time that Canadians felt that hate was sprouting from their soil. (it also briely explained that they burnt down a cross and displayed swastikas at non-racism protesters) So this also fails WP:BLP1E too, not enough in-depth coverage at all. In fact, this event has very little significance.
- 5. Just a side note here, I would vote on even a weak keep here, but I think delete is the best option here. If the article had more information about the event, I'd gladly change my vote here. But otherwise, I am sticking to my nomination here. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Normanhunter2 The NOTABILITY of an article topic is unrelated to the state of the article. Sourcing exists. I volunteer to improve the article should it be kept with the available sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- And what is the "one event"? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see what you mean. That is irrelevant to the general notability of the article: notability does not depend on the current state of the article, it depends on the existences of sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think they're reliable sources? Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, because they're published by reliable authors and publishers. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- How are they reliable when I couldn't find them by doing a simple google search? Even on the books section too. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Normanhunter2
- "how are they reliable when i couldn't find them on google"
- oh my god.
- Google is bad. Google has no determination on source reliability. Google does not show you the most reliable sources. Most of what you find on Google nowadays is AI generated spam nonsense that is less than worthless.
- Best sources are academic books and journals, neither of which you will find on Google. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- But if Google is bad, then wouldn't Google Books or Google Scholar be bad too because they branch off of it? There's also AI generated spam for books and even scholars too, it's everywhere. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Google, the search engine, is not good for searching for serious academic treatment of topics. Google Books and Google Scholar aren't perfect but are OK for books and journal articles respectively. They contain some garbage but good stuff too. Google, be it books/scholar or the search engine is nothing but a venue for which to search for sources. Source reliability does not depend on popularity - the Daily Mail is plenty popular, but is one of the least reliable sources imaginable, but a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- They never sourced the Daily Mail on the article. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Normanhunter2 ... I don't even know what to say at this point I think this might be a CIR issue PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's certainly not a CIR issue, and you probably knew I was kidding about that. If you didn't, I apologize for that. On the article though, they sourced The Ottowan Citizen but I can't find the page or the year of the release where it says that information. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Normanhunter2 The sources currently in the article don't matter. IIRC the Ottawa Citizen is on newspapers.com so I can go check that later. We have plenty of book sources listed below that are much more reliable and significant than what newspaper coverage is there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Good to know. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BLP1E, there's only one event on the article. I'm not saying "significant event' because it barely has any coverage of it right now. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Normanhunter2 What is in the article right now has no bearing on notability. That is not what BLP1E means. Read WP:NEXIST PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one small event exists in the article, that's my problem here. Not enough significant coverage on it. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Normanhunter2 What exists in the article at the moment is completely unrelated to its notability, given the capacity for improvement with existing sources. WP:NPOSSIBLE. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's based on it's reliability. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Normanhunter2 ... of the sources that exist, yes? Which we have repeatedly established. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well..I mean the reliability of the source. If it's a strong one, or a weak source, or a source that doesn't related to the subject at all. That's why I did my inital research of the sources on the article to make sure they were correct.
- Even if they were correct, they still are written by people with their own ideas and perspectives of things in the real world. I believe that only notable authors can be accepted as reliable and not unknown authors. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Normanhunter2 The idea that only notable authors are allowed as reliable sources is absolutely ludicrous and under this standard 90% of articles on wiki are not notable. There is not a single aspect of policy that reflects this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I think I've said enough about this nomination. We'll see what people think about this. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
