User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive 10

This is my most recent archives.

Iris Peterson

The most recent source we have on Iris Peterson is from 2007, which makes it 14 years old. She is about 99. We need better sourcing to show she is alive. I also have to admit I am unconvinced that the sourcing we have adds up to notability. The article also engages in a lot of coatracking, where it talks about changes in regulations on flight attendnants for example without showing in any way that anything Peterson did had any impact on such regulations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Jadresic

I have just noticed that you "removed Category:Chilean people of Croatian descent" from the article on Alfredo Jadresic. Why did you do that? Do you doubt that he is a Chilean of Croatian descent. I can assure that he is. The name Jadresic is obviously Croatian, and he is a Chilean who lives in Chile. What more is needed? He is in the final stages of a probably terminal illness, so quite soon "is" will need to be "was". Athel cb (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do not categorize people by the etymogy of their surname. We categorize people by the publicly stated origins of their ancestors and to include these in categories they need to be first mentioned in the article. The best is when you can state that a parent or grandparent emigrated from the place in question. If not that at least a reliable source that says what their ancestral origin is. There are ways people end up with last names that do not reflect their ancestral origin through name change. There are also lots of people for whom their most defining ancestries are not in the main paternal line. For some the main paternal line goes so far back it is not defining. For this reason we do not categorize based on assumptions about last name origin but instead based on explicit statements directly about a person's ancestry. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you haven't answered my question "Do you doubt that he is a Chilean of Croatian descent?" You seem to be applying to Alfredo Jadresic criteria that you do not apply to other people in the list. If you want to be consistent there are many others you need to weed out, for example Luis Advis, Giovanna Arbunic Castro, Paz Bascuñán, Teresa Marinovic. Anyway, this may be academic, because I shall not be surprised if in the next weeks or months there is an obituary in El Mercurio that can be cited. Athel cb (talk) 08:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Athel cb: it doesn't matter whether anyone "doubts that he is a Chilean of Croatian descent" or not. The key point here is WP:V. If there are no sources cited which explicitly that this person is of Croatian descent, then statements or categorisations to that effect are original research and do not belong on Wikipedia.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially what Amakuru said. Verifiability says that we need clear sourcing that clearly shows that X person belongs in Y category. Due to the immense size of Wikipedia (over 1 million articles just on living people, over six million articles total), it is very hard to consistently apply all categories. It is enough for editors to apply rules like verifiability to the articles they find. Other editors are free to weed out other articles from categories, but there is no obligation when you find one article in one category that does not meet verifiability to systemically go through the category and identify all other articles that do not meet it there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just created Archive 9

I just created archive 9, which is where I put everything not currently here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back

Hi @Johnpacklambert: Good to see you back. scope_creepTalk 13:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almost done with Category:1922 births

I am almost done with the category Category:1922 births. I am planning to move on to Category:1921 births. This will probably happen sometime this week. I am not sure if I need explicit permission to move on to Category:1921 births. It might be a few more days, but it is coming up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, JPL, for my part its fine to move on, good of you to check. Herostratus (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mark Petersen (geologist)

Notice

The article Mark Petersen (geologist) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We got this one JPL, it has been unPRODded since it does contain one source. However, if sent to AfD it will probably not survive. But in any case, just let it go and keep working on what you're working on. Herostratus (talk) 07:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mark Petersen (geologist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mark Petersen (geologist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Petersen (geologist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How are you doing?

Checking in to see how things are going. Have you completed 1922 Births yet? What do you plan to do next? --ARoseWolf 14:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I completed 1922 births. I have moved on to 1921 births. I plan to go to 1920 births after that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear. Always set goals out in front of you. :) --ARoseWolf 18:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expatriate v. Emigrant

Sometimes it is very hard to sort these two categories out. Arne Dørumsgaard is one example. He moved from Norway to Italy and then lived in the latter place for decades. Still there is no evidence he ever tried to end his connections to Norway or formally gain recognition as a citizen of Italy. I put him as an expatriate, but I can see him being categorized either way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Katie Millar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Katie Millar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Millar until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

As you created the page in 2009, I wanted to let you know. Jacobkhed (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Steven D. Bennion for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steven D. Bennion is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven D. Bennion until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

schetm (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move on to 1920

I am getting near the end of editing the 1921 birth category and will fairly soon move on to 1920 births.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across Category:Living people on EN wiki who are dead on other wikis and looked into what were the newest and oldest cases there, one of which I was able to update. You may be interested in researching those cases, especially if you use Google Chrome or another browser that can do automatic translation. – Fayenatic London 10:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American reggaeton artists has been nominated for renaming

Category:American reggaeton artists has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Greg Selkoe

Hello, Johnpacklambert. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Greg Selkoe".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 20:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, John,
I just wanted to explain this notice. You set up a redirect on this page back in 2009 and a now long-gone editor turned the redirect into an article. Later it was moved to Draft space and, after 6 months of non-activity, it got deleted as a CSD G13. Twinkle just posts a notice on the talk page of the original page creator so bingo!, you received this notice for an article you didn't create. Hope this explains things. Liz Read! Talk! 20:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does. I was confused by this. I do not recall who Selkoe is at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: that template is a little misleading, isn't it, in that it pipes [[Draft:Greg Selkoe|Greg Selkoe]], showing a red link for "Greg Selkoe", even though someone else has recreated the redirect at Greg Selkoe?
John, I am willing to do a history merge at the redirect to reinstate your original redirect at that page, if you would appreciate it. – Fayenatic London 15:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Warko

I am trying to figure out why we have an article on Gerda Warko at all. It may well be the oldest article as to time of when the news comes from I have seen yet that seems to fail the not news test.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; PRODded. Very likely the same person as Gerda Markov who is mentioned in the article Helene Sensburg, perhaps her maiden name, but I am not going to state that without verification. – Fayenatic London 10:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Marie Auberson

How has an article like Jean-Marie Auberson existed for 12 years with no sources? No wonder we have articles exist over 15 years as hoaxes. With no sources how in the world do we differentiate the real articles from the hoaxes?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aring Bautista

I am think Aring Bautista probably does not meet inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. – Fayenatic London 10:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howard McNeil

I am really struggling to see any real indication that Howard McNeil is notable. I am reminded of the fact we no longer have an article on Sonny Eliot. Clearly, at a minumum we need more articles on McNeil.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Niemczyk

I am not seeing how Julian Niemczyk actually meets inclusion criteria. Ambassadors are not default notable, and we have the absolute barest of sourcing on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Josep Pallach i Carolà

The article on Josep Pallach i Carolà has no sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It lacks inline citations, and I have tagged it accordingly, but see above reply re #Jean-Marie Auberson. – Fayenatic London 13:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Armand Pien

What is it with us having virtually not sourced articles on weather reporters? Armand Pien has been notified as lacking any sourced for over a decade.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1946 establishments in Sarawak

A tag has been placed on Category:1946 establishments in Sarawak indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 17:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sis Pal Singh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punjab Province.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Stibbe

Looking at the article on Jacques Stibbe there do not seem to be independent sources. His one claim to recognition is his distinguished stamp collector award, but the only sourcing for that is a publication of the organization that gave him the award. To show that someone is notable for an award we would need sources independent of the award giver covering the award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citation added for his being President of Fédération Internationale de Philatélie. – Fayenatic London 14:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heinz Tetzner

The heading on the article on Heinz Tetzner says it relies too much on primary sources. This is the understantement of the year. The one source is buried in the info box, and is the person's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of that article, the entire content can be verified from the US Library of Congress link (or others) in the Authority Control box.
I have tagged it to be expanded from the substantial article in German wikipedia. – Fayenatic London 14:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Watson (United States Army Air Corps)

The article George Watson (United States Army Air Corps) seems to be incorrectly named. It was the US Army Air Forces when Watson served, not the US Army Air Corps.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent J. Whibbs Sr.

I am not seeing from the article on Vincent J. Whibbs Sr. that there is enough sourcing to justify having this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1919 births

I will probalby move on to editing Category:1919 births either today or tomorrow.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Camelia (actress)

As best I can tell this is primarily an ethnic issue, but it has religious implications. Having read the article on Camelia (actress) there are two big issues. 1-the article seems to border on an attack article in how it discusses her Christianity, portraying this as essentially a deception, which I do not think is merited by the sources. 2-from what the article says it is A-not 100% clear that Camelia had Jewish ancestry, B-clear that she did not publicly identify as a Jew, and so it would seem she should not be categorized as such. The current article seems a very clear violation of ERGS rules in how it is categorizing her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expatriate

If you look at the definition it is someone who lives in another country Bawa travelled around Europe but never settled in any one country returning to live his entire life in Sri Lanka. Using your explanation anyone who travels to another country is an expatriate which is nonsense. Dan arndt (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Bawa

@Herostratus: and @ARoseWolf: a user has now double reverted my edits to add Geoffrey Bawa to Category:Sri Lankan expatriates in the United Kingdom and Category:Sri Lankan expatriates in Italy. This is a person who the article says "by the time he was 28 he had spent a third of his life outside of Sri Lanka. Clearly as a regular student in London he was an expatriate in the United Kingdom. The Italy one is a bit more of an issue, but it seems he spent enough time there to count as an expatriate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, if they reverted your edits, per WP:BRD you have to persuade them at the article talk page, and if you can't, let it go. Herostratus (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, make your case on the article talk page and let it go. --ARoseWolf 12:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect place comparisons

Place comparisons need to compare like places. I have seen one too many list that is something like France, Germany, China, India and Africa. We need to word to root out false equialancies and other writing styles that treat or imply that Africa is anything other than a contient.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wm. Theodore de Bary

The MOS specifically says we should not use the old name abbreviations, Wmm Geo, Jno. This, Wm. Theodore de Bary article title seems to be a clear violation of that guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Periodic reminder against overcategorizing

Hello. You seem to have recently been applying broad categories like emigrants to people who merely left their home country, and expatriate categories to people who simply studied in another country. Your talk page archives contain many discussions of overcategorization, and you yourself have bemoaned the amount of categories, while also defending your methodology for applying expatriate categories. I fundamentally disagree with your final statement there: "What is clear is there is a huge amount of work to do in categorizing expatriates." We should not categorize merely for the sake of categorizing. Regardless of whether someone technically meets your or my or Merriam Webster's definition of expatriate or emigrant, for Wikipedia the dominant criteria is definingess of the trait, not mere verifiability. Please review WP:COPDEF, WP:NONDEFINING, and WP:DEFINING. Very few foreign exchange students or overseas soldiers are referred to as expats, immigrants, or emigrants by reliable sources, and thus we should generally not apply such categories unless they are integral to the subject's notability. Ernest Hemingway as a member of the Paris expat community is discussed at length in his article, and by scholars. The verifiable fact that his mother taught him cello as a child however does not warrant his placement in American cellists. For people who were educated in a foreign country, categorizing as an alum of the school is generally sufficient. Ditto for diplomats holding ambassadorships (the post is defining, residence in the country is not); troops stationed abroad (military service is defining, where service took them often not), etc. Don't give yourself the burden of trying deciding whether someone's 2 year work visa for a multinational company merits them a temporary expatriate, nor whether every foreign national working in another nation belongs in expat and emigrant categories. Your efforts are better spent elsewhere. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We already place diplomats and some dedicated foreign student cats as subcats of expatriate categories. I have tried to avoid categorization of those who only travel to a place, or are just passing through. The students being categorized for example are in general degree seeking long term students, not just short term exchange students. With performers I seek to ensure the people took up residence there, not that they were just there for a tour. If someone is a multiple year resident of a country other than where they are a national of this is going to be defing to them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The cellist example is a horrible analogy. If someone was raised in Paris by American parents who took them to the US every summer, and then they were in the US from age 18 on they would clearly be an American expatriate in France. Cellists for our purposes are people who either performed cello professionally or in an amateur way that received large coverage. You can not apply this type of guideline to movement and displacement categories. We will categorize as Turkish immigrants to the US a child who comes at 4 months, and an adult who comes post-careeer as 80, atheist if the later comes under an immigrant visa. Clearly not every national of one country who goes to another country short term counts as an expatriate there. However we have a whole tree of sport based expatriates that we give basically to anyone who is a foreigner on a team in that country. As long as the residence is of a significant time we should probably categorize by it. How long a professor has to be teaching in another country to meet this requirement may need some individual consideration. However it does not have to be what the person is known for. The rules for non-employment related cats do not generally exclude anyone. I have tried to limit my application to cases of clear residence. I will moving forward try to be more discerning on this manner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Lithuanian emigrants to Cuba

A tag has been placed on Category:Lithuanian emigrants to Cuba indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 20:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Sudanese emigrants to Israel

A tag has been placed on Category:Sudanese emigrants to Israel indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 18:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foy Evans

I have serious doubts that Foy Evans meets notability. He was editor of a paper based in a community of then roughly 40,000 and mayor of the same community when its population was about that. The one source is a newspaper from the county where he lived, and even then it is not clear exactly what from the newspaper is being sourced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Fassler

Jean Fassler is another mayor who does not seem at first glace likely to meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

José Benetó Ferrús

José Benetó Ferrús was mayor of a place with less than 10,000 people. In this case the article is also without any sources. It is crazy that I have come across so many margnially or non-notable mayors just going through Category:1919 births.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francis C. Florini

Here is yet another very borderline mayor Francis C. Florini. His death is from an obituary in a local paper. Both sources are actually the same source. I see no evidence that he meets notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saleh Z. Habal

The article on Saleh Z. Habal lacks any independent sources. One is a work by him, the other a link to a website from his employer, although I cannot see any mention of him there. If there is, it is buried deep in some sub-page, and so as it stands the link actually tells us nothing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Holloway

This article Vernon Holloway lists "his son" as a source. That indicates the article is based on original research, which is not in line with our polities. The one listed obituary is clearly not enough to show notability on its own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth S. Kleinknecht

Kenneth S. Kleinknecht is an example of an article too reliant on primary sources. His birth is allegedly sourced to the Census, although exactly how that works remains unclear, especially since the census only gives an age at taking, and those who know the census well know that people often age irregular amounts from census to census.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin L. Manfull

We have not held that ambassadors are default notable. Melvin L. Manfull unless someone can find better sourcing, does not seem to meet notability guidelines at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Morris

Stanley Morris is one of several examples of under sourced articles on a painter who had his works shown in the Olympics Art competition. I am not convinced that being in the olympics art competition makes someone notable. This is not the regular olympics, although the organizers wanted it to be, but gave up because it was not being treated as a key insternational event. So I do not think it qualifies under normal SNG criteria, it would not seem to meet actual artists notability, and the one source is not really independent of the Olympics, so it does not even seem to a GNG pass.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on whether more living of dead people have articles

I previously analized that there were probably more articles in Wikipedia than on the dead, by adding up all the deaths per year from about 1600 on. I just however came across Rachmat Muljomiseno who was when I found it in no death category at all. If there are many other such article, my numbers could be off. I still suspect we have more articles on the living than the dead though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Close to being done with 1919

I am at the Rs in Category:1919 births. I will probably complete 1919 births this week.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harish Patel

I am still under the year by year editing guidelines. However I was looking at other information and noticed that Harish Patel has his place of birth listed anachronistically. His birthplace should be listed as Bombay State, not Maharashtra, since that later was not formed until he was 5.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done.– Fayenatic London 23:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Malagasy writers in French

A tag has been placed on Category:Malagasy writers in French indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcela Mitaynes

Marcela Mitaynes needs to be added to Category:Peruvian emigrants to the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Carrillo

Wendy Carrillo needs to be added to Category:Salvadoran emigrants to the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kayse Jama

Kayse Jama needs to be added to category:Somalian emigrants to the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Acereda

Alberto Acereda needs to be added to Category:Spanish emigrants to the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, and the three above. – Fayenatic London 23:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin L. Warner

the article on Marvin L. Warner implies there is disagreement whether he was last US ambassador to Switzerland in 1979 or 1981. I am thinking that there should be official sources that can show definitevely what year he left this office, and if we can determine this definitevely we should not give voice to sources that give a false date.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Wood (painter, born 1919)

Robert E. Wood (painter, born 1919) is sourced only to a website run by his grandson. Unless someone can find better sources it would seem we ought to delete this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Robert E. Wood (painter, born 1919) for deletion here. --Kbabej (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been deleted. —Kbabej (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Bozhen

Yang Bozhen is an uncited article. As a diplomat he is not default notable, so we need at least some sources to show notability. Well, we need sources period, but we need sources at least at a level to fully pass GNG in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moyses Chahon

The article on Moyses Chahon is without sources. It has had a tag indicating this almost 14 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States XXX personnel of World War II

Hi. Great work on cats. Please consider this cat series is non-diffusing. When adding, they should be in addition to "Category:United States XXX officers" or .... enlisted "(solders, sailors or airmen)". Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we getting fewer entried in Category:2021 deaths?

I periodically check the size of Category:2021 deaths. It seems that the size of the category has fallen below 9,700 over the last few days, unless I am incredibly confused. Maybe I need to go to writing down its size so I can compare past numbers with present ones without the falibility of memory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Wol-ha

Kim Wol-ha is an article where the opening paragraph is not in English. I am not sure what langague it is in, but it needs to be edited into English.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was just the result of some rather vulgar vandalism, which I've reverted. Thanks for pointing it out. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Immanuel J. Klette

I am not sure that the one source on Immanuel J. Klette would pass GNG requirements. The link no longer works so I cannot evaluate it in depth. It is not even clear that it is a secondary source. We would need more to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Loeks

The article on Jack Loeks lacks anything that is really a reliable, secondary source. It has sourcing basically to his company, and one source that is a hyper local article more about a movie theatre he once owned than him. Some of the material in the article to stay would need better and clearer sources. There is no indication that he is notable. Being the operator of a local chain of movie theatres/a bunch of different movie theatres (it is less than clear from the article which one) is not a default claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Marie Loret

I have rarely seen an article that says so much with so little sourcing at Jean-Marie Loret. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing, and this article amounts to very extraordinary claims with no sourcing to a lot of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Catholic University of Valparaiso alumni

A tag has been placed on Category:Catholic University of Valparaiso alumni indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 18:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Renato Mondolfo

It does not appear there are any actually indepdent sources in the article on Renato Mondolfo.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May Nickson

May Nickson was a city council member with our only article source being an obituary published in the paper of the city she was on the council of. This is not looking to me like it meets inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1918 almost done

I am into the S in going throuhg Category:1918 births. I will soon move back to 1917 births.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Sellers

Frederick Sellers is another stamp collector who seems to lack any indepdent coverage. A stamp collecting organization's own publication on those who have received an award it gives out does not seem to pass the independent of the subject prong of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul F. Sharp

Paul F. Sharp is on the surface a good article. It covers fairly well the subjects work. However it is a truly shallow article. It does not cover his education, we learn not at all where he got his degrees. On the other hand, he was head of 4 different institutions of higher learning. We have not a word saying anything he did as head of any of these. The article is only maybe a 3rd of what it should be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khadijah Sidek

I think Khadijah Sidek would better fit in Category:Immigrans to British Malaya but that category does not yet exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ólafur Jóhann Sigurðsson

Ólafur Jóhann Sigurðsson is only 3 months shy of having existed as an article for 15 years. The article seems to never have had any sources in all that time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Lemos da Silveira

Francisco Lemos da Silveira is an article sourced only to the website of the organization that gave him an award. The linked source is only a list of recipients of the awards, providing only their names. So even the information we have in the article is in no way backed by the listed source. Stamp collecting seems to be a case where we have a lot of stamp collecting sources behind articles but no outside sourcing at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Small

The article on Bernard Small is sourced only to IMDb. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources that show some selectivity in inclusion. IMDb is ruled not reliable, and has no selectivity of inclusion at all, aiming to include every person in the industry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Streidl

Jack Streidl does not seem to actually meet inclusion criteria. He was a long serving high school football coach. However the coverage we have is not the type that would add to passing GNG, it is a source from his employer and a local town obituary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. Stevenson

We have never agreed that every ambassador is notable. I really fail to see how any standard less inclusive than that would show that Robert A. Stevenson is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Tilton

Liz Tilton is an article sourced only to a brief mention in a published website biography of her sister. Even that source I am not sure is independent and reliable, but it does not add to in-depth coverage either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turab Tula

The article on Turab Tula has gone over 12 years without sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Findley Burns Jr.

The article on Findley Burns Jr. has existed for 13 years with no sources at all. Ambassadors are not default notable because they exist, we need reliable sourcing to justify an article. With no sourcing we do not even have actual verification of existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G. Edward Clark

G. Edward Clark is not quite as bad since we have a source. However I would question this source truly being indepdent. One source is not enough to show notability or pass GNG, and with ambassadors we have to do the latter because they are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Collins (cartoonist)

The article John Collins (cartoonist) has only one source. This is something published by his one time employer. This does not seem to by any reasonable measure be enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Colmes

Walter Colmes is only sourced to the unreliable IMDb. We need reliable sources to show notablity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henry R. Hall

Both sources on Henry R. Hall are scouting publications. Hall was a scout, so these do not seem to fully meet the independent source requirement. If he is truly notable we should be able to find sourcing on him that is not internal to scouting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard A. Hennig

Bernard A. Hennig is a stamp collector only sourced to items published by a stamp collecting organization that gave him a recognition award. I think it is hard to state that he in any way passes GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

broader editing privalages?

Start of thoughts on a request

@Celestina007: I am thinking I want to explore how to now expand what I am allowed to edit on Wikipedia. It has been well over 2 months since I was allowed to begin editing again going back starting with the contents of Category:1922 births. I am hoping I can for the time being convince people to allow me to edit in any way as long as it does not go outside the very broad religion topic editing ban. I am not sure what the best way to approach this is, and considering how some editors use any discussion of my editing allowances as a excuse to engage in attacks on me with their misrepresentation and malicious description of actions I took in the spring of 2013, I am in some way hesitant about opening up the discussion at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women songwriters has been nominated for renaming

Category:Women songwriters has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 10:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Kennis

The article on Dan Kennis is only sourced to the unreliable IMDb. As a movie producer we actually need sources showing notability, producers are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rae Kidd

The article on Rae Kidd is only sourced to IMDb, which is not reliable and in no way enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong birth years

Wikipedia has many people in the wrong birth year. Some of these are because some individuals are placed in 2 birth years. This comes from being more precise than we can become accurate. No one is born in 2 years. We should only place people in the most precise category we can say is accurate. If we have conflicting statements on being born in 1915 and 1917 than they should be in 1910s births, if it is 1919 or 1922 the person should be placed in 20th-century births.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Quinn (actor)

Joe Quinn (actor) is an article with no reliable sources. A review of his roles seems to suggest that none of them in notable productions were significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melba Rae

Melba Rae appears not to belong in Category:1917 births. She appears to belong in Category:1920s births since the article states that she was born in 1921 or 1922. I am refraining from editing the article because of how broadly the religion topic ban written.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Rebeyrol

The article on Philippe Rebeyrol does not support notability. Ambassadors are not default notable. The sourcing is only from a publication capturing the unpublished correspondence of a notable person who he wrote to. This is not enough sourcing to show notability in any way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerceida E. Adams-Jones

Adams-Jones exemplifies the extremes to which we see the first x to do y taken. She was the first African-American women to receive a degree in physical oceanogrpahy in the United States. This is not a common degree period. It almost reminds me of most absurd first claim I have ever seen, listing Ella Fitzgerald as the first Afircan-American to win a Grammy Award. This may be correct, but only based on the order in which the awards were given out, there was another African-American who won a Grammy in the same award ceremony. That was the first Grammy Award Ceremony period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darlene Rose

The article on Darlene Rose never gives her date of birth. Someone either needs to find it in one of the sources and add it, or to delete it as a category. I am trying to abide by the very broad religion topic ban I was put under, and she appears to be someone who would be classified as falling under that topic ban.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 deaths

We are now at 9,904 articles in Category:2021 deaths. It appears we will not make it to 12,000 deaths, or an average of 1,000 a month. Although I may be underestimating how many people have had their deaths missed this year who have articles, so maybe by the end of 2022 we will be that high. It looks like 2020 will hold the record as the year with the largest number of articles categorized for the subject dieing that year into 2022, but I could be wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrud Seele

I am really not seeing how Gertrud Seele passes any notability guidelines. Clearly a reference in 1 book that only is on one page is not going to pass GNG. It may not even be in depth enough to add to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vemulapalli Srikrishna

The article on Vemulapalli Srikrishna has existed since 2012 but has no sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 deaths revisted

We are now to 10,083 articles in Category:2021 deaths. We are still below the level of 1000 new articles a month.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK and thanks for your work. Be sure to avoid overcategorizing. Herostratus (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Waite

The article on William Waite has what appears to be no independent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Myra Tanner Weiss

The article on Myra Tanner Weiss has no actually published sources listed. Being an extremely minor party candidate for public office is not default sign of notability. We need actual published sources to show that someone is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Wendt

If I am reading the article right, the only source we have on Erika Wendt is a work she wrote. This is clearly not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on to 1916

I am almost done with Category:1917 births and will probably move on to category:1916 births today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orlandus Wilson

I am not actually seeing any reason we have a seperate article on Orlandus Wilson. It seems to me this article should be merged to the one on the quartet he was part of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point. I PRODded it as there's not even anything to merge in, really. Herostratus (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added the lengthy obituary from The New York Times. Appears to be clearly notable. Cbl62 (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James DeVoss

James DeVoss only is sourced to publications of the organization that gave him the award which may or may not lend towards notability. This does not at all look like it has any sources that would count as indepdent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a 1974 New York Times article that discusses the book that he co-edited. Cullen328 (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added it as a source. I am still not sure that it is enough to establish notability, but it is far better than before.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Matejka Jr.

The article on James J. Matejka Jr. also seems to suffer from no truly independent sources, only ones from within the stamp collecting community. OK, only one source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James F. Brennan (mayor)

All the sourcing on James F. Brennan (mayor) is from a newspaper where his location as mayor would count as local coverage. I am not convinced we have anything that would suggest he actually meets notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Feng (diplomat)

Chen Feng (diplomat) is an unsourced article on an ambassador. Ambassadors are not default notable, so we need substantive sources to show notability. We should have no unsourced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Davis (philatelist)

Gerald Davis (philatelist) does not seem to me to have articles on a level to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dorcas Drake

Dorcas Drake does not seem to be notable. The coverage seems to be very local, and more about an event she was involved in starting than about herself. The article also coatracks a lot about the event. I am not seeing clear indication that she meets notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birdie Draper

The article on Birdie Draper seems almost entirely built on primary sources. The closes things to a secondary source that would pass GNG is mainly about another person, who we lack an article on. Nothing as far as I can tell suggests we should actually have an article on Draper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J. Walter Duncan

J. Walter Duncan seems to only have a claim to fame of having been a majority-owner for one season of a football team in a league that only existed for 4 or so years. The coverage we have of him seems to more focus on who he sold it to, and even that is only one article. The person who he sold it to was already notable in the 1980s, although he had become far more notable since then. I see no reason we need an article on Duncan at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Tillson Filer

As best I can tell we have a local article on Alexandra Tillson Filer being the first woman in a particular course at Pennsylvania State University. The first woman to graduate in X major at Y university is not enough to show notability. Everything else is about other people, or primary sources, or marriage announcements in a paper. None of this adds up to the level of coverage on Filer to show that she is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just to illustrate what I mean this is one of the sources [2] is about two young women getting their golden eaglet, which I gather was the highest award in American girl scouting at the time. I know we can find articles on young men getting their eagle, and no one would ever argue such an article shows the person is notable. It gets better though, Ms. Tillson as she was then known is not one of the young women getting her golden eaglet. No, you have to go down several paragraphs to the point where they list the whole set of young women getting other awards, and Ms. Tillson is listed among say 10 of so recipients of the athlete award, in a paragraph that just keeps dropping names. A source like this does not add to passing GNG for anyone, let alone someone listed in a long list of names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: you may want to have a look at this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Fransen

The article on Roy Fransen is sourced to two clips from Youtube. This is not anywhere near to the level of sourcing we need to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nils-Olof Franzén

Nils-Olof Franzén is an article with no sources at all. It has been tagged with this issue for nearly 15 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Griffin (aviator)

I am not seeing how Tom Griffin (aviator) actually meets the notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

H. W. Griffiths

The article on H. W. Griffiths has been tagged both with a one source notice and that it may not meet notability, among other issues, for over 8 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Emigrants from the Ottoman Empire

Category:Emigrants from the Ottoman Empire is listed as a container. It currently has 2 direct articles. Each of them are on people who left the Ottoman Empire and migrated to a different place, so they belong. Each article at present is on a person going to a different other country. I am not sure we really want to mandate creating such categories in all possible cases, because it is quite possible in some cases we will only have one example of such migration that involves someone notable enough for an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stig Guldberg

The only source we have on Stig Guldberg is the website of the organization he founded. In fact, I am not sure that the direct link we have even presently leads to a page that even mentions Gulberg. Clearly we need better sourcing to justify keeping the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chitaman Gupte

I have to admit I think we need to stop including article on people like Chitaman Gupte who made one apparance in one game. If one significant role in a notable production is not enough for an actor, I do not think one apparance in a sporting event should be enough for a sportsman. I also think we need better sourcing than the one source that is present with this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Handlen

The sourcing we have in the article on Frank Handlen is not enough to pass GNG. One of is a very local article on the occasion of his 100th birthday, and that is about all we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • The kporthistory.org link is not very clear what it is, it seems broken now. I am less than convinced it is fully reliable. His own website clearly does not add towards passing GNG. I have even graver doubts he meets any of our notability guidelines for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Len Harris (cinematographer)

The sources on Len Harris (cinematographer) do not in either case seem to constitute the substantial coverage needed to pass GNG. IMDb is one of them and it is not considered reliable either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20th-century African American people

I am beginning to wonder if Category:20th-century African-American people and Category:20th-century African-American women as well as several other categories of these types do not too often lead to category clutter when applied to individuals. Basically they sit along side existing categories by the intersection of occupation and ethnicity, as well as a slew of other categories the person is in, and do not do much. At the same time, because they are not explicitly connected to a career as are by occupation categories, they have a much higher chance of being interpreted to put everyone in any category for a century in which they lived, which means a whole lot of people end up in both the 20th and 21st century categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy Homburger

Freddy Homburger is not shown as notable from the sources we currently have. The one source we have at present is a deposition given by him. This is a primary source, and he is the creator of it as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Brave One (1956 film)

So in the article on The Brave One (1956 film) it lists the cast. My agreement to just edit biographical articles in given years means I cannot directly edit this. I came across it when I came across the biography of one of the actors in the film. So another actor in the film was Carlos Navarro. The linked article on Carlos Navarro is not the right article though. The linked Carlos Navarro was born in 1980. The film came out in 1956, 24 years before that person was born. This is what happens when people mass link cast lists, creating many red links, and no one ever comes back along to make sure false links do not develop.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1939 establishments in Oman

A tag has been placed on Category:1939 establishments in Oman indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkltalk 21:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

was Gustav Hrubý an emigrant?

So Gustav Hrubý was born in Vienna and was a representative of Czechoslovakia in the Olympics. However when he was born everything that would become Czechoslovakia was de jure (and probably de facto) part of Austria-Hungary. The split does not effectively happen until he is about 3 or so (dating the split precisely is probably not doable or accurate). We have two questions that may or may not be answerable, but they will mean he may or may not belong in one of two new categories. One possiblity is that Hruby and his family were out of Vienna and in what became Czechoslovakia by the time the split occurred. In that case we do not need a new category. A second possibility is that Hruby and family stayed in Vienna or elsewhere in Asutria well past the split, but still viewed themselves as Czechoslovak workers abroad. If that is the case than he would belong in Category:Czechoslovak expatriates in Austria. The third possibility, considering out next data point is in 1948, is that Hruby and family remained a decade or more in Austria after the split, and so when he came to Czechoslovakia he was essentially an Austrian immigrant, so he might belong in Category:Austrian emigrants to Czechoslovakia. Of course is he left after the Anschluss this might be an even more complex thing to categorize. We would need someone to deeply explore sourcing to both date the move and see if there is any evidence on Hruby's nationality at the time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Winson Hudson

The article on Winson Hudson is almost entirely built on her autobiography. Articles in Wikipedia are supposed to be built on secondary sources, not on the person's own statements about themself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an editing issue and should be addressed, but Hudson is pretty clearly notable. Examples of WP:GNG include this, this, this, this, this, [ this], this. Cbl62 (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie V. Hunt

I am not seeing a passing or either academic notability or GNG and for certain not author notability for Valerie V. Hunt, unless there is more out there. The sources are a paid for obituary and an interview with her. Even if the circumstances of the interview might make it a rare interview GNG pass, one source is not enough on its own to pass GNG. Just being a professor is not enough to show someone is notable. The two books are not going to send her to notability either, unless we can find substantial numbers of reviews.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Humphrey Hunter

Humphrey Hunter was an amateur footballer. So he does not pass the Fully professional league prong for footballer notability. I am struggling to see that either of the two sources listed on the article add towards passing GNG. At least my first impression of the article suggests he does not pass either GNG nor our football notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kriton Ilyadis

Kriton Ilyadis is one of far too many articles in Wikipedia sourced only to IMDb, which is for Wikipedia purposes considered to be not reliable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Well, it's' not a WP:BLP situation, and it's already tagged. There are sources available -- here're some books mostly bare list entries so they're useful for info but not establishing notability. But one has "The Greek Kriton Ilyadis was one of the best cinematographers of the black and white period..." That is Gönül Dönmez-Colin writing and she's a legit scholar. He's Turkish, so English-language sources are going to be hard to find, but there are surely some. Here is a whole long article, but it's in Turkish and it seems to be a relative writing so I don't know how good that is. The IMDb list isn't really usable as a ref I guess, but it's surely mostly true and is impressive. So finding and adding refs would be in order, if you're up to it. Herostratus (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Konrad Grallert von Cebrów

Konrad Grallert von Cebrów needs to be placed in a category for his emigration from Prussia (or is it best called Germany by then) to Austria-Hungary. I am not sure if we even have a good category at present for his specific type of migration, and some of it depends on how we treat migration out of the sub-units of the German Empire from 1870 on. I think we should limit the sub-unit emigration cats to pre-1870 when these places were more clearly indepdent, but that is not actually how it is being done in all cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are University and College Presidents all notable

Recent deletion discussions about leaders of institutions of higher educations are getting me to think we need to have a major discussion on Academic notability point 6 "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Some have interpreted this to mean anyone who has ever been head of an institution of higher learning. B says if you were "president" or "chancelor" of a "significant" (this is a word that is going to meet a lot of issues, also is it significant when you are head, or significant ever?) then it says "college of university", is this only 4 year institutions? Can 2 year institutions be significant? The other interesting thing is we have both significant and accredited. Are there non-accredited institutions that are significant? Is every chancellor of a UC campus default notable, or are some campuses of the University of California not notable? What about California State University and its 22 campuses? Michigan has 15 state universities, are all presidents of all 15 such institutions notable? Reviseed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century Greek Americans

I just noticed we have Category:20th-century Greek Americans. This does not conform to its theoretical parent Category:American people of Greek descent. I say theoretical parent, because we got rid of almost all of the categories named per this pattern because it is not always clear to people whether a category like this is Category:American people of Greek descent or Category:Greek people of American descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is the descendancy specific ancestry category for 20th-century Americans. We do have Category:20th-century African Americans and Category:20th-century Native Americans, but those are called in the US "race", but clearly functional ethnicity categories. In the case of Greek Americans, like most other especially European derived Americans of x descent categories, we often get very high overalap with other categories (with Native Americans, we have a seperate Category:Americans of Native American descent category, but I have to admit some people placed in that category might still be open to dispute), so I can see this as a road to craziness more so than Native American and African American categories, at least enough that I would not suggest linking the fate of the 3 categories. There are also huge historical reasons to consider centuries with Native Americans and African-Americans, although those reasons more justify seperate categories for 19th-century and 18th-century (does it make sense to call anyone an American pre-1776?, does Native American imply a connection to the US that is ahisotircal to many people who did before 1830?), the reasoning to seperate 20th-century Native Americans and 20th-century African American from 21st-century members of these ethnic groups (we categorize by ethnicity, not by race, in some cases they may be almost functionally the same though, at least if we control enough by time and place, although I have to admit that I am less than convinced that Alex Boye is ethnically African-American, he is a US citizen of African descent, but he was born to an immigrant mother from Nigeria (his father never even left Nigeria) in Britain, and lived in Britain until he was about 25), yes he has taken parts in plays and maybe films (I think he was in the cast of "I Am Green Flake") that involved him doing roles of historical African-Americans, but even if you go full method acting, acting roles do not change your ethnicity. Of course we may on the other hand be able to find places where Boye self-describes as African American, we clearly can find it for some US politicians who have not much stronger claims to be part of the historical African-American ethnicity. So categorizing people by ethnicity is not a simple task, we maybe could argue that ethnicity and race are functionally the same in some areas. To make things more fun I have heard it argued that "ethnicity" in China is best understood as like race in the US in some matters, especially since in some cases some people are considered part of an ethnic gorup even though the majority of their heritage is from another. I believe many who are classed as Manchu actually have majority Han Chinese ancestry and outwardly are hard to distinguish from the Han Chinese.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am thinking someone may want to take a general look at our various by century categories, especially in the 20th and 21st centuries, and see if we really need all of them. In general we should not have century categories that can only have 2 categories, and 20th/21st century splits will not make sense if a significant portion of 20th-century category members end up in the 21st-century category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization by century

On category:20th-century American people it says the category onlyapplies to people notable for actions in the 20th-century. I do not think we can actually apply that rule as written. For example James R. Fouts is in Category:20th-century American politicians. He served on the Warren City Council from 1981, and was an unsuccessful Republican candidate for the Michigan State House of Representatives in 1976. He was also my high school government teacher in Fall Semester of 1998-1999 (our semesters in high school ended in January. I would not that the article refers to him as "Mayor Fouts" a lot in the text, when it should just refer to him as "Fouts". It may also over cover recent events. He has been mayor of Warren since 2007. Was he notable for being on the city council? Our current article has no pre-2007 sources, but at one point there was a source from the AP that mentioned Fouts in the 1980s. I know he made at least one appearance on a cable TV news show in the 1990s, possibly connected to an idea he proposed to allow some people under 18 to vote in Warren City election that never got support from others. He was president of the Warren City Council for part of the 1990s, and at least the Macomb Daily would have a huge number of articles covering him, Warren had by far the most colorful politicis of any city at the time. I am pretty sure you could find articles that would be saying significant amounts about Fouts' actions from the Detroit News and Detroit Free Press. More to the point I do not think "notable for their actions in that century" is going to make sense applied to a category like 20th-century American politicians. Much easier would be to include any person we have an article on who was an elected, and at least a nomination winning candidate during that time. This would especially make sense because a person could have never been notable for being a politician, but still be notable, but if they were an elected member of a city council it would not make sense to exclude them from the politician category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think we want to use phrasing something like "notable or a public figure for actions in the 20th-century". So we can capture cases like Fouts, where they may (or in his case may not, but there will be other politicians where the case is much clearer) have only become notable in one century even though they served in public facing elected office for many years in another century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Fouts

I noticed James Fouts is in an info box which lists his party affiliation, as well as that of other mayors in Macomb County. The problem is that Michigan has non-partisan city elecitons (oddly enough Township elections are partisan), which means that party affiliation has nothing to do with how these people are elected. I think baking it into an info box is treating it as more meaningful than it needs to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Over categorizing American by political party affiliation

I think someone needs to review the party affiliation categories we have for American who were never elected to partisan public office or holders of positions within a political party, or candidate for a partisan public office. Some may still be justified in being placed in a category by party, but we need to look more closely at how often we do this. American political parties do not actually control their own membership, and effectively cannot exclude people from them. Thus really the only way to show a meaningful membership in a party is running for office, being a party official, or doing work for campaigns, but in the last case we need to make sure to not confuse supporting an individual with supporting a party. I volunteered on a campaign once for a person in a political party that I did not like, because I felt he had a good chance of ousting the incumbent in the primary (he did not, but that is another story) and I felt anyone would be better than the incumbent. Party affiliation is not something like religion where you have actual defining activities and events at the person and local level. There are some non-elected officials who were not officially part of a party for whom this is defining, but I think we may have categorized far too many people by this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Batavia, Illinois

Why do we not have the 2010 census figures for Batavia, Illinois? I am not sure detailed breakdowns for the 2020 census are out yet, but they should be pretty soon (2000 was out by summer 2002). We need to stop using such outdated figures. Keeping the 2000 figures for historical perspective might be justifiable, but lacking more recent figures is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC) I was able to pull this up [3] without much difficulty. The change that I noticed fasts was Batiavia went from 5% Hispanic/Latino in 2000 to 8% in 2010. Until I get released from the year by year biographies editing agreement I am not going to add this directly, but I hope someone does. I know it may seem odd to add it now when the 2020 data will be released in just a few months, but I say having the 2010 data being there is better than it not being there. The big question will be when we put up 2020 data, do we want to remove the previous 2010 and 2000 census data, do we want to leave it to make historical comparison easy, or do we want to pare it back so that the article does not get too long but still leave some of the highlights? The article getting too long may or may not be a major problem, since Wikipedia is not paper. Still, we are an encyclopedia, so that means we summarize things, we do not include every thing that can be said on a topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

8-Bit Christmas

The article on 8-Bit Christmas includes a link to Tom Rooney. That is actually a redirect, and it seems unlikely any of the targets there are the person who was the actor, one of them is long dead so unlikely to have a role in a 2021 film (that person died in 1939), the other two are politicians who there is no evidence have appeared in films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Jennings

Clyde Jennings is yet another stamp collector for who our only source is the internal publication of the stamp collecting hall of fame that admitted him to their list of people to recognize. I am not convinced that such a source meets the independent requirement of GNG, and anyway one source is never enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Knud W. Jensen

On Knud W. Jensen only one of the sources is either indenedent or indepth enough to possibly add towards GNG, and not knowing Danish I am not 100% sure if it is, and cannot really figure out if that source is reliable either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CNNRC

This stands for Common nickname rule compliance. In the MOS of biographies it says we should not give extremely common nicknames for birth names in quotes. The example given is use "William Henry Gates III" not "William Henry "Bill" Gates III". This is despite the fact that article is under "Bill Gates". This rule is not widely followed. In fact it may be the most commonly violated point in MOS. I have been trying to bring articles in compliance with this guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jordan (artist)

Paul Jordan (artist) is already tagged as relying on a single source. That source is the subject's own website, so we not only have only one source but it is by no stretch of the imagination an independent source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban violation

Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1079#Johnpacklambert you are indefinitely topic-banned from articles focused on, and edits related to, religion or religious figures, broadly construed. I know that you know this. You however went and violated this ban with this post.

You must have been aware that this person is the "president of Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary in Owensboro, Kentucky" which very much fall into religious figure, broadly construed.

Since this seems to be the first enforcement of your topic ban I will only block you for 1 week. However future violations will likely result in longer violations.

The community has made the decision that you are not to interact with this topic anywhere on Wikipedia, you need to respect the decision of the community. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Celestina007: , @Herostratus: and @ARoseWolf: I really thought since my comments were actually about the issue of whether all heads of tertiary institutions of education were notable they would be OK.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HighinBC: The comment was not really about the specific case at all. It was really about the broad issue of whether in general all heads of universities and colleges are notable. I will be more stringent in the future and make sure not to mention by name any religious leader, broadly construed, anywhere, including in my talk page. I think I grasp the importance of following the community guidelines on this. I think as this is the first time this has come up, a full week of blocking editing is excessive. I respectfully ask you to please reconsider, and to lessen the length of the editing block. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
John, whereas I agreed with you on the subject of Mia Love, a political figure who happens to be religious, I agree with @HighInBC in this case. The topic ban includes your user talk page. Personally I think a week long ban may have been too harsh but you did violate the topic ban as it is worded so use this as a wake-up call. John, be more careful. You know that you are on thin ice at all times with a lot of editors/admins here so you need to make sure you are not skirting it too close. My advice is to stay miles away. Now, to your point on notability of heads of institutions of higher education, if you feel that is an issue then pursue it. There are many, many of such articles about heads of institutions that are not religious institutions on Wikipedia. But please check, verify, reverify and ask for assistance if needed to evaluate the institutions first. In this case it was a seminary which is clearly a religious institution. But there may be more ambiguous ones like that of Baylor University which is technically owned and operated by the Baptist as well. It is incumbent upon you to follow the topic ban to the letter. --ARoseWolf 14:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this. However, I really said nothing substantive about the person in question in the post. The whole post was about how broadly university and college presidents are notable. I never made a statement about the specific case, or whether it was a substantive post. I see now that I should have named the post differently, and avoided any mention of the specific case. The full week of total editing ban seems an extreme reaction to just posting a name, without saying anything substantive about that specific case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
John, broadly construed means exactly that. What you said in the post wasn't the violation, per se, in that you never mentioned anything specific to your topic ban or discussed it but the subject of the discussion, in particular surrounding the head of this institution, was a violation. That's the broadly construed part. I knew this would be a proverbial minefield that you were going to have to navigate or it may blow up in your face around every corner. In this case you, whether intentionally or not, stepped directly on one by mentioning this particular head of this particular institution in your discussion. This is one you should have seen from a mile away. I'm more concerned with those on the periphery and thus my advice to steer clear and verify/reverify the subjects going forward. --ARoseWolf 14:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, the actual subject of my discussion was whether all heads of institutions of tertiary education were notable, or if the criteria was more stringent than that. I placed the specific name as the tag, but what I said in the actually post did not discuss anything about the specific person at all. I really do feel that total editing ban for a week is a very extreme reaction in light of what I actually said. Looking back I can see I should have named the section differently, and I should have avoided mentioning the person in question at all. Still, a total editing ban for an entire week seems an extreme over reaction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that it was probably a bit excessive but it was a violation and you open yourself up to these when you violate. You were in control of your ability to edit prior to the community sanction and even after that to the extent that you could still edit subjects outside the topic ban but when you violate it then it falls to an admin to step in and they then control your fate regardless of how you or I feel about it. You can, ofcourse appeal but I don't know how that would end up. --ARoseWolf 16:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @ARoseWolf: I personally think this is stretching the limits of "broadly construed" beyond their limits. The only reason JPL's post is being even considered as problematic is because he included the name of a religious figure who's currently up for deletion in the subject header. Other than that, it's a completely general observation on the notability guidelines. Now of course, JPL is banned from participating in that AFD, given the topic ban on religious figures. But the observation on notability for academic heads was made in a purely general way, nothing to do with religion, and if JPL really has to tread on egg-shells to the extent that you're implying, on each and every topic, then you might as well just ban him outright immediately because there's almost no area of the Wiki that can't be linked to religion or religious figures if you're going to be as "broad" as you're being here.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, that was actually part of my concerns with the topic ban in the discussion prior to the community decision and its implementation. You and I agree in principle, however, I feel John can contribute and has a lot to offer the encyclopedia and I want him to stick around and be able to edit. I think he has adapted his user talk page in a way that benefits him in this regard, contrary to others opinions about it. I believe he is trying to adhere to the topic ban as best he can and its going to be difficult if not nearly impossible. My words to him are not a criticism or admonishment. They are words of caution as I really do want him to succeed and hopefully have the topic ban revoked at some point in the future. That is really dependent on him and I want to be to see him succeed. I tried to broach as many scenarios as I could when it became evident a topic ban would be supported by the community. Even linking to an article of a religious leader is a violation of the topic ban as it has been implemented, broadly construed, no matter how big a stretch we may feel it is. The fact is that John does have to walk on egg shells if he is to continue to edit here and I hope he chooses to. --ARoseWolf 16:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm in with the others, Johnpacklambert. On the one hand, I think the main cause of topic ban was based around Mormon figure in particular (I think). On the other hand, you got a special dispensation so just be super-careful, if you find out a person is a religions figure just drop it like a hot potato. Whether that's fair or not I don't know, but it is the reality of your situation. Herostratus (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked as time served

I have unblocked your account as I feel you have gotten the message. To be clear in the future:

  • You cannot discuss the topics of your topic ban anywhere on Wikipedia, not your talk page, a sandbox, not anywhere else.
  • You cannot edit pages or participate in discussions that are about your topic ban.
  • Topic bans are strictly enforced.
  • "Broadly construed" means if there is doubt then you should stay away from it.
  • This is not a "broadly construed" case, you directly mentioned a religious figure.
  • Your topic ban covers articles focused on, and edits related to, religion or religious figures, broadly construed
  • Topic bans are not used lightly by the community. They are used as an alternative to removing someone from the site entirely.

A 1 week block was lenient, repeated violations can result in long term blocks or outright removal from the project. I am willing to accept that this was a misunderstanding though. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Topic ban limits on editing

As I understand it, you put that restriction on yourself? You can undo that restriction whenever you want. I would advise you to be careful and cautious but, speaking for myself, I don't feel like it's my place to tell you what and where to edit. So long as it's not a violation of your TBan then I feel it's open for editing to you. --ARoseWolf 15:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the restriction to people of a certain birth year doesn't seem to have prevented you getting in hot water over the issue above, it seems like it's probably not particularly useful at this point. I imagined that you would use the narrow topic restriction to edit purely in article space in those categories, something which the talk-page comment about academic leaders doesn't seem to be. As I said before, I personally don't think a block was warranted, as the mention of the religious figure was entirely tangential to the point you were making, but it looks like the community feels that the post was very clearly within the topic ban, so you'll just have to live with that. That means you can potentially edit in any area you wish, but that you must follow exactly the advice given by HighInBC and ARoseWolf above. You pretty much need to do a double check each and every time you hit the submit button, to be absolutely certain that nothing whatsoever in your post can be considered one of the topics that you're banned from. That's it really.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm MacDonald (composer)

This article is currently sourced only to what appears to be basically a blog post. No indication that it is a reliable source put through editorial oversight. However even at that the one source is about someone else. I skimmed through it and did not see Malcolm MacDonald (composer) named at all. I may have missed something, but it would have probably been a quote from MacDonald on the subject of the post, which would not be enough to show that MacDonald is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ghananand Mishra

So I searched for Ghananand Mishra on google and everything looks like Wikipedia mirrors. However if the stuff in his article is true, he is clearly notable, as a very important jurist in Fiji. This has been tagged as unsourced for 12 years but it clearly needs to be kept. We need some sort of reliable source for sure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am convinced we can verify him. This [4] search on google scholar with his name in quotes turns up 3 references. None are easy to find, and the one that I have a sense of what it says about him is a passing mention in a bio of someone else, but it does verify he was a Fijian high counrt judge, which means he easily passes notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking deeper at a google search with the name in quotes I am beginning to realize this is a semi common name among people in India and of Indian descent elsewhere. There is a 2017 court case in Bihar involving someone with this exact name, and I may have come up with mentions of 2 other people with that name. Considering there are over 1 billion people in India, and millions of Indian descent elsewhere, and that some people in Pakistan and Bangladesh which combined have over 300 million people, and maybe some in Nepal, will also tend to have names like those in India, finding maybe 4 people with the same name is not surprising. I am sure there are sources on this person, but I am not finding any good ones at the moment, at least not ones I can access and then incorproate in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This [5] article from The Fiji times mentions Timoci Uluiburotu Tuivaga serving with Mishra while in Fiji's Office of the Director for Public Prosecutions, and refers to Mishra as a "luminary" but does not actually say anything substantive about Mishra.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slight expansion of editing scope

Based on the above discussion, I have decided to slightly expand my editing scope. For now I will add categories that are logical to articles I come across in editing the by birth year categories that do not currently exist, and place categories in needed parents. So far I have created Category:20th-century African-American sportspeople. I believe as long as we have the parent Category:African-American sportspeople, and multiple African American categories that are the intersection with a specific sport, this by century break out category makes sense. I do worry that having too many triple intesection categories (ethnicity, occupation, century) or is this a quadruple intersection (nationality, ethnicity, occupation, century) we have opened outselves up to overcategorization. However this is not the first broad occupation break off from Category:20th-century African-American people, we also have singer and activist sub-cats. the other sub-cats we have are women, in World War I and in World War II. In theory we may want to create scientists, artists and writers categories as well. The 19th-century category has a sub-cat "Category:African-American politicians during the Reconstruction Era", so we may want more general African-American politician categories by century as well (post-reconsitruction there were still some African-Americans being elected to public office, including state house seats and even the US House, in some majority African-American parts of the US South until the late 1890s). Reconstruction ends in 1877, there were 6 African-American members of the US house elected to congress only after 1880 and before 1900. The next African-American elected to the US house was elected in 1928 from a south side Chicago district, so there clearly are at least in theory African-American politicians who were not reconstruction era who were 19th-century, it has been almost 30 years since I read "American Black Congressmen", and I did not go into detail on those 6, so they may all have been involved in politics before 1877. OK, I looked deeper. George Henry White seems to not in any way even have run for public office before 1880, so he does not fit Reconstruciton Era, when Reconstruction ended in 1877. I am going to go ahead and create Category:19th-century African-American politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I participate in CfD discussions if they clearly in no way are even close to the topic ban?

I was hoping to add my views to a CfD discussion. This one is about Category:English-language writers from Canada. Will that be OK?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your TBan was subject specific and even discussion about it on your talk page could be considered a violation. Please keep that in consideration. However, I do not see where you were banned from participating in any process outside one about the subject of the TBan or about a subject related to your TBan. --ARoseWolf 16:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does that include hypothetical discussions about the outer limits of the ban, such as asking if someone's history of being a secular subject professor at a specific univeristy who did not create any works that were focused on religion is still enough to place htem under the ban. Said person would also have no ther factor that would make them a subject of the ban. I actually do not have a person in mind, and it might as such depend on what specific institution of higher education such a person was at. I am more worried that someone will try to make even hypothetical asking about a very borderline case reason to punish me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Does that include hypothetical discussions about the outer limits of the ban" Yes. No discussion, either hypothetical or direct. "such as asking if someone's history of being a secular subject professor at a specific univeristy who did not create any works that were focused on religion is still enough to place them under the ban." You answered your own question in the beginning of this statement. "secular" and "did not create any works that were focused on" the subject. John, the community and admins are intelligent enough, as displayed in this last case, to decipher the purpose of a filing. You should not be concerned with it or even discuss it here or anywhere on Wikipedia. If you intend to pursue the professor or head of an institution thing then focus on those subjects not related in any way. If it even mentions anything in the article then run the other way, please. I don't want to see you banned or blocked further. I believe you are taking this serious and will pay better attention going forward but there is little gray area for you and even less elbow room. Just be careful. Ironically, I believe this will produce a better result in the end because it will focus you and get you into more positive areas that will truly help the encyclopedia. --ARoseWolf 17:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question WP:BANEX describes exemptions to bans. "Asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban" is allowed, just be careful that discussion is limited to this only. The best person to ask would be the admin who imposed the ban. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theron Newell

So as far as I can tell from the article Theron Newell one way to notability is his work was part of the literary event at the 1936 Olympics. My impression from having read about the art events at the Olympics is that unlike the sporting events they were never considered major international events. I am not convinced that being in the literary/art part of the Olympics is a default sign of notability. What do other people think?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Matthew E. Mason

Information icon Hello, Johnpacklambert. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Matthew E. Mason, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cornish emigrants to the United States

I see no justification for categorizing people by migrating from this county of England to the United States. I would nominated it for merger, but due to the broad scope of time involved not all the people currently in the category came to the US, some even died before the US was formed. Emigration categories are based on the country left, not the ethnicity of the people involved. I doubt we could show that all these people even self perceived themselves as of Cornish ethnicity, but that is not the issue implicated in these cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Besana

Bruno Besana seems to have his claim to notability as riding in the Tour de France. Is merely riding in the Tour de France enough to show notability?John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not advocating one way or another but see criteria #2 of WP:NCYCLING. Tour de France is considered a Grand Tour. --ARoseWolf 16:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, so this will take reconsidering of the topic notability guideline. If I am reading things correctly, the tour de France has 20 to 22 teams of 8 members each, which means 160 participants a year. This is a huge number of people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would be quite significant but I assume they are not all new riders every year so there will be quite a few duplicates over time. Still, the criteria is very inclusive of a fair number of individuals that may only be notable because they participated in a Grand Tour, not won but participated. I've advocated that all SNG's should be subject to GNG before but to no avail. SNG's have their own criterium and some of them run antithetical to GNG. --ARoseWolf 16:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Charles Bowser

William Charles Bowser was at a location where the collective people who were there, and its operation, seems to be notable. However looking at the article there does not seem to be evidence that he is notable individually.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Bridges (musician)

Henry Bridges (musician) is one of several jazz musicians I have come across where the article is sourced only to the New Grove Dictionary of Jazz. Is this a source that entry in it is a default sign of notability, or are these as such failures to meet GNG which requires multi-sources, and should we thus start trying to find additional sources on such articles?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grove is Oxford University. It is considered by some the gold standard of musical reference. Any entry found there inidicates a very strong likelihood of notability. I hope that helps. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does. I still think for purposes of not running into copyright violations, we should try to find additional sources. However this does seem to suggest such sources almost always will exist, and that it is worth starting with a deep search for sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Childress

Robert Childress may well be notable, but our current sourcing goes no where towards showing that. One source is an interview with his daughter, and the other is a summary of remarks made by his daughter. I did find this way better bio [6].John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William George Dolman

William George Dolman is a totally without sources article on a painter. It has been notified that it lacks sources for 7 years. Articles should not be able to last in such a poor state for so long.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Renán Elías

Renán Elías lacs any sources. The article says he fought in a war between Ecuador and Peru. It appears he died in that conflict. The Spanish version of the article seems to be sourced to a website, but it is not clear if that source is reliable or meets other GNG guidelines, and even if it is, 1 source is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

I entered a discussion about a school that lacked adequate sourcing that was nominated for deletion. On further review I realized there were some things about the origin of the school that made it so I probably should not comment on it. I blanked my comments out when I realized this, and am hoping that this will be enough of disconnecting from the matter, removing even an in discussion trace that I said anything about it. My comments that I did make did not interact at all with the nature of the schools governance, only with the fact it was a secondary school and the article was unsourced. I am very sorry I did not fully review all the matter of the institution, and am hoping the fact that I volunterily removed all my comments will be enough that people will not feel a need for other sanctions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • The closing suggested that if I realized a topic was on the out of bounds list after initially thinking it was OK, than a reversal of the edit would be enough. When I first encountered the school in question I thought it was one of a myriad of basically indepdent secondary schools in India. After rushing to make a comment I reviewed the matter further and saw that there were things about its governance that probably meant I should not comment on it. So I deleted out my comment so no record of it existing would remain. I hope this is proactive enough to not cause any sanctions to be administered against me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vilmos Énekes

Vilmos Énekes has sat for 9 years with no sources at all. It is sometimes very frustrating how many articles in Wikipedia exist with so little sourcing. I wish people would work more on creating articles that meet reasonable sourcing levels and less on mass creating articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So frustrating. Because all of these people are dead, they are immune to a BLP PROD as well. It scares me how many of these articles contain wrong information and how many are pure hoaxes and covert vandalism or spam. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I generally think that most of these articles are legitimate attempts at presenting accurate information, but some may reflect misreading of sources or misunderstanding sources. There have been hoaxes that have lasted on Wikipedia for over 15 years, but this is a rare issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Eriksson i Bäckmora

The current interpreation of politician notability guidelines is that if we can verify that John Eriksson i Bäckmora filled the mentioned position he was notable, no matter how poor the source we find is. At present though we have no source at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Childress, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Byrnes.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guilherme Figueiredo

Guilherme Figueiredo is a 3 sentence unsourced article in the English version. In the Portugese version it has footnotes, and runs 6 or so paragraphs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Praise

Hi John -- We have differed in the past on AfDs, but I wanted to say that I have followed your Talk page since the sanctions were imposed on you. I have been impressed with the way you use this page to communicate issues and concerns, and with the thoughtfulness of your comments. Keep up the good work and best wishes for a blessed holiday season. Cbl62 (talk)

I echo the above. You've really turned a corner. Keep going! Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Knedlik

There is only one source in the article on Omar Knedlik. It comes from Kansapedia. I looked at that article, and at the bottom it says "the author is solely responsible for the content." That line is not sounding like this is a secondary source with strong editorial oversight that we need to consider something a reliable source. I did find this source [7] but it admits it is getting its information for the source we already have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Lewine

The article on Sidney Lewine has no working sources. The one link goes to a 404 page. I found this [8] family generated obituary that seems to be on the same person, but says nothing at all about his life. I also found a LinkedIn article for a law clerk with the same name. I did find this [9] which seems to be saying he was made the president elect of the Ohio Hospital Association. This is a convention report that might not be independent enough of the convention to pass GNG purposes, and at any rare merely saying x person is y president elect is not substantial coverage. Him and his wife established an endowment fund at the hospital he worked at, or at least there is an endowment fund there named after them, as shown by this source [10] which is an unannoted listing of the endowment funds run by Mt. Sanai Health in Cleveland. Nothing here is jumping out to me as an actual pass of notability, but we might be able to find something with a less presentist scoping source than google.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Homer Nearing

This article is one of the oldest unsourced articles I have seen. It does not even have a statement on it of being unsourced. Homer Nearing has existed as an article in Wikipedia since 2006, that is 15 years. The "bibliography" is a listing of 2 books by Nearing. I did find this [11] which seems to suggest he was a real person. It is not even remotely close to showing notability. He seems unlike to pass notability as an academic, but may be notable as a writer. The totally unreliable Wikitree has this entry that may be the same person [12] sourced to a WWII draft registration card (a primary document) and Find a Grave (not reliable). There is a professorship that may be named after this person at Widener University. See here [13], I am not sure that this professorship is quite what was had in mind when the "named chair" academic notability guideline was created, but even if it is, one is notable for holding such a professorship, not for being the source of the name. Here [14] is the World Cat listing, which seems to have picked up works by Helen Nearing, who is not him. It also picks up 2 works from 1928, when he was 13, and since he is a Jr., I think those might actually be by his father, or may be by some other Homer Nearing. I strongly suspect that this Homer Nearing was not publishing anything at age 13. If he was doing so, the biography we have is clearly not comprehensive. Ok, so this entry on FamilySearch [15] seems to be on his father, who in the 1920 census was listed as a piano teacher, so my suspicion it was his father who was publishing music collections in 1928 seems supported, although this is clearly original research on my part. I did do so google book searches, I found this work where in note 75 mentions something Nearing wrote. I did also find this listing on google scholar [16], I have my doubts that that is enough to show Nearing was impactful in his field as a scholar. So it is his "mathematically themed fiction" that is probably going to make or break him, but so far I have found no reliable sources that say anything of substance about this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ngapoi Cedain Zhoigar

The English article has no sources on Ngapoi Cedain Zhoigar. It appears some other language articles do, but I cannot tell if those sources are at all reliable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

we really need to end the distinction of film and TV actors

For reasons that do not make much sense, we have seperate categories for movie and Tv actors and actresses, which leads to huge amounts of cross categorization. This is especially true since several actors have played the same role in both film and TV productions. It is also a cause of over cateogrization because no one knows how to categorize made for TV movies, and made for streaming works may muddle the field even more. Sierra McCormick and Brighton Sharbino were the two lead actresses in Christmas in the Heartland, a released to streaming, but maybe first made for TV production, we lack an article on. In one article it is placed under the film part of her career, in the other it is placed under the TV section. Having these two categories just leads to clutter since they overlap so much.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terry O'Sullivan

As far as I can tell Terry O'Sullivan is an article with absolutely no sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source added. Cbl62 (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Eduardo Paniagua España

Carlos Eduardo Paniagua España appears to be yet another diplomat lacking in sufficianet sources to show a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Papapolitis

Nicholas Papapolitis is just one month shy of having existed as an article for 15 years. It appears to have never had any sources. The article makes no statement that even if sourced would justify an article by just merely showing he existed. Papapolitis may well have been a significant figure in Greek public life, but he had no default notable position so to justify the article we will need multiple reliable independent sources giving in depth information.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis B. Patten

The article on Lewis B. Patten has no sources at all. How do we have so many such articles?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right about unsourced articles. I added a couple sources to this one, including his New York Times obit, though it could still use a good clean up. Cbl62 (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Pavek

Janet Pavek is close to a record of miscategorization by birth year. She was actually born in 1936, but for some reason had been categorized in the 1915 birth year category. This is one of the furthest off cases I have seen, espcially that cannot easily be explained by transposure of the year (a 1915 birth listed in 1951 for example) or confusing the birth and death year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Peters

We have a local obituary for Ken Peters about his being a school superientendant, and other coverage showing he was a bit part actor. None of the sources convincingly meet GNG, and school superientendants do not default pass politician notability, not even for large urban school districts, so I am very much less than convinced Peters is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Ferdinand Pfeifer

Carl Ferdinand Pfeifer is sourced only to the citations he got. These would not really count as independent sources. The direct documents granting an award are basically a primary source, showing an award is granted, not secondary sources showing it is a significant thing. His naval advisor position to the US president does not look to actually be notable, unless we can find a source, and I am less than convinced that his citations are at a level that makes him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This one looks kind of like a tribute page by a family member. The best I found in a quick search mostly consisted of announcements regarding speaking engagements: this, this, this, this, and this. Cbl62 (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vonda Phelps

Vonda Phelps seems to be an article built around mainly primary sources. We have a deep analysis in the sources of how she was listed in the 1940 census. We have mentions of her in a cast of 20 in a local stage production. It is less than clear that her film roles count as substantial. We also have a way too detailed description of a birthday party held for her. Just because someone is such that the society pages write up their birthday party, does not mean they are actually notable enough to merit an article in an encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yetta Barsh Shachtman

The article we have on Yetta Barsh Shachtman is if sourced at all only sourced to the eulogy delivered at her funeral. This is clearly a primary source. The article really does not even make a claim to notability on her part.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A eulogy by no less than Saul Bellow, but still my searches don't turn up anything to suggest that she passes GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Sharrow

Leonard Sharrow has an article sourced only to an obituary published in a Pittslburgh paper. GNG requires having multiple sources. I am not sure if he would meet any of the musicians notability guidelines. There may be more sources, but if so we should probably add them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Sonney

Dan Sonneylooks like a multi-source article, but when you look more closely you see that everything is really just sourced to IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan J. Stafford

Brendan J. Stafford is said to have been an Irish emigrant to the UK. This is porbably correct, but the article does not give enough detail to be sure. Stafford was born in the UK, but about 7 when where he was born split off to become a seperate Ireland. We need better details on where he was raised.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emigre and expatriate categories

Are these categories "defining" categories (as in WP:Defining)? For instance, you added Category:Canadian expatriates in the United States to Larry Thibeault. Thibeault was born in Canada and died in Canada. It is very likely that he resided in the United States at times in his professional career, but that is hardly noteworthy. I think that these categories should probably be used sparingly and only in cases where it is relevant to the person's notability. Any thoughts? Frangible Round (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the specific case of Mr. Thibeault he played for a total of 4 different teams in the US. His playing with the Red Wings seems to have been less than 5 games total, but his playing with some of these other teams was for much longer, and so I think in his case it is clearly enough to categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said emigration is always defining. However it is not always easy to detect. Some percentage of people die while traveling, or on short visits to another place. We also have a huge number of people, probably on the order of 10s of thousands of biographies, on people who were born in one country and died in another but who did not actually ever move across international boundaries. This applies to a huge percentage of our articles on Bangladeshis, many of whom lived in 3 countries without moving. On the other hand those who migrated from China into Hong Kong when it was under British control have an emigraiton category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definingness does not need to lead to notability. Virtually no one is notable for the year they were born, or the year they died. Basically once we have an actual category, there are very limited reasons we exclude people from it. 1-if the category is for a performing occupation, we exclude most amateur people from it, except when it is an action that really did get them lots of attention. 2-for sports, if someone only played in high school, we exclude them from the category, except if their high school sports career was itself defining. 3-we exclude some people from occupational categories if they only did the occupation a very short time. However if someone was a farmer for 15 years but became notable as a politician, we will still categorize them as a farmer. Even with sports, we will categorize people for college sports team membership even if we have no evidence they got any coverage while on that college sports team. With expatriate categories there is no easy limit. Generally if they were resident in the country, or had a defining part of their career in that country, we categorize them. For example, those Americans who fought in the Korean War are default categorized as American expatriates in South Korea. There is no easy way to decipher this. My general rule of thumb is if someone got a degree at a university their being there is defining, so if they were in a country other than where they were a national of it is defining, and they go in the expatriate cat. A mere mention of being a visiting student, or exchange student is not enough for categorization in most cases. I have not yet fully deciphered the limits on visiting professors. However in the case you bring up we have a specific category tailor made for Thibeault's case, and I have moved him there. These sport specific country to country expatriate categories can be huge.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are asserting that it is defining, but in what way is it defining? Is it something that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having? I don't believe that it is. Frangible Round (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being an emigrant? Almost any source will mention that someone emigrated from one country to another. Being an expatriate? If that is where they were educated, it will come up in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand what you are saying, if you read a source and it says so-and-so went to university in a country other than their own, you believe that they are therefore an expatriate? Is that correct? So you aren't looking for the words "emigre" or "expatriate" in the source, you are inferring that they are. Is that also correct? Frangible Round (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The exact words that various sources use to describe this thing will varry a lot. In many cases "emigre" means "emigrant", not "expatriate". Some sources will say that "x person was a merchant who operated for 25 years in what was then the Ottoman Empire on behalf of his British employer." Other sources will say "so and so played basketball for 1 years for a team in France". Can you find a source that says that Ghandhi was an expatriate in the United Kingdom? That he was an expatriate in South Africa? Is anyone going to reasonably question that these things are both clearly factually correct and clearly defining to who he was, especially his time in South Africa? The word expatriate means a national of one country in another country. We do not have to have sources that explicitly use this term, a whole slew of terms are used in different places and times for different reasons. Sourcing is not incumbent on using the explicit word used in our category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting that our article on Ghandhi omit that he spent time in various countries or what he did while there. I am suggesting that this is not defining of who Ghandhi was. Not every fact about a person needs to be reflected in a category. If so-and-so played basketball for one year in a foreign country, is this this worth noting in a category? Categories are meant to give us the broad, high-level facts about someone, not the trivial. Frangible Round (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ghandi being in South Africa is not trivial. It is defining to him, it is there where he stated his movement and methods. It was in Britian where he became a barrister, which is also defining to him. You cannot understand Ghandi without understanding this. These two large sections of Ghandi's life are not trivial, they are defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I am not disputing the fact that Ghandhi lived in places other than the country of his birth. I don't want to get caught up in a confusing linguistic argument about what the word "defining" means, so let's stick to what WP:Defining says. That page uses Caravaggio as an example. Notice that our article Caravaggio does not categorize him as an expatriate or emigrant. Should it? Frangible Round (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguably the most studied American expatriate group are American expatriates in Paris. Cateegory:American expatriates in France has 818 direct contents, there are a further 226in Category:American alumni of the École des Beaux-Arts. Yet Category:American expatriate basketball people in France has 1299. The first person in the latter category is Mustafa Abdul-Hamid who has been an expatriate player in 5 countries. In the case of France he played there for less than a full season. We might need to think about how we categorize expatriate sportspeople better. However it is extremely hard to say "yes, we have this category, but we are going to exclude lots of people who it clearly applies to from it." However Thibeault is a very strong case for categorizing, since he played multiple years on several teams while an expatriate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the case of expatriate artists, often their whole method of art is formed by where they studied and learned while abroad. There are arguements that I have heard that the nature of the American intellectual tradition in the early 20th-century was shaped heavily by the many American academics who had recieved advanced degrees in Germany, so there is an argument that such were broadly defining. In some places whole political movements have been born by people abroad in other places coming together and planning what they will do when they return to that country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The very heading of this is confusing. We do not have any categories that use the word emigre.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for my English. Feel free to change it to "emigrant" if that makes it easier for you to understand. Frangible Round (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Emigrant categories are totally different categories with totally different meanings. Emigrants are people who leave one country and become planned perment residents of a new country. Expatriates are people in one country who still feel a connection to the old country. However, there are lots of words for this used interchangebly. It also becomes complex because many people who come under immigration protocols still return to their home country. Beyond this, some people who at first look like they are X country emigrant to Y country, if you dig down further you realize were actually Y country expatriate in X country, they were by birth a national of the country where they lived most their life, and at birth a non-national of where they were born.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested in discussing if these categories are "defining" categories, not the words themselves. Frangible Round (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not think playing hockey for multiple teams in the US is enough to be defining for Thibeault I suggest you nominate the expatriate hockey player category he is in for deletion. If you do not think that Ghandhi belongs in the UK and SA expatriate cats, I suggest you start a discussion with an argument as to why on his talk page, but I gaurantee that especially the South Africa category you are going to be fighting an uphill battle. I do not think there is anything else that can be said on these matters on my talk page. For the record, I did not add Ghandhi to either of those cateogries, I only removed him from Category:Indian emigrants to South Africa on the argument that people should not be categorized as both emigrants and expatriates with regards to the same migration.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have little interest in the specific articles or the specific categories. This discussion is about whether these categories in general are defining categories. You are a prolific editor and frequently add these categories to articles. I will start a discussion elsewhere and alert you when I do. Frangible Round (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, you are saying that a person born in Canada who is a painter does not belong in the category Category:Canadian painters? Frangible Round (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying if they emigrated to the US when they were 1, became a US citizen by 10, and first started painting at 45 than yes. There may be few cases where it is clear, but there clearly are some. Maybe a better example would be someone born in one country who was only ever a politician in the country where they emigrated to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Over categorized

Clearly we have Ghandhi in too many categories. Do people think that his being in Britian per se is defining, or should we remove him from Category:Indian expatriates in the United Kingdom?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't an expatriot ("1. One who has taken up residence in a foreign country.

2. One who has renounced one's native land."). A good rule of thumb to be an expatriate might be that you have to have your primary residence in other country for at least ten years, generally to your death; or changed citizenship, or anyway explicitly and publicly renounced your native land. I would strongly recommend that you use this rule of thumb or something similar. Herostratus (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, but it's wrong IMO. Gandhi wasn't an expatriate. Rather than going along with that you should change it IMO. Anyway, I opened an RfC on the matter, here: Category talk:Expatriates#RfC: Proposal to change the definition of "expatriate" for the purposes of categorization.

ANI again

I closed the report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Johnpacklambert violates his topic ban again due to a technicality. Time will tell if that close holds. You have to stay squeaky clean because any problems will lead to sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Common name issues?

I added this comment to the article on John Peter Wakefield. "The full name to conform to Wikipedia MOS should be given as John Peter Wakefield. We only put nicknames in quotes when they are unexpected, for example if his nickname was Dave. Now a related question is, should the article be named John Peter Wakefield, John Wakefield, John P. Wakefield or Johnny Wakefield. I did this google search [17] and my initial impression is that the article should probably be named Johnny Wakefiled, because this seems to be the common way he is referred to in sources. However I did not do an indepth search of all the sources, so I may be rushing based on the top ones. I also did not try to do other searches that might come up with other results.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)" It appears to me that this may need someone to look at if we are using the common name. Wikipedia guidelines suggest that most often we use First plus last name, unless some other form is very common (such as John Quincy Adams or Rutherford B. Hayes). We do use Bill Clinton instead of William Jefferson Clinton or William J. Clinton or William Clinton, so if someone is universally referred to by their nickname we use that. However for authors we use the form of their name under which they published works, not what their friends called them. So if a writer always publishes his works as Robert A. Gaston, we would use that form, we would not title the article Bobby Gaston, just because that is what he is called in person conversation. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Hank a common enough nickname for Henry that it should not be in quotes?

I am trying to determine if Hank is a common enough nickname for Henry that we do not need to put it in quotes. Below is the relevant section of the Wikipedia biographies manual of style.

'It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. If a person has a common English-language hypocorism (diminutive or abbreviation) used in lieu of a given name,[a] it is not presented between quotation marks or parentheses within or after their name. Example:

I am trying to get some feedback on this. I am thinking Chuck is for Charles, people will call those named Charles Chuck almost instantly, and I am pretty sure Harry is for Henry, but I am not sure if Hank is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we always categorize those who served in the military?

I am wondering if everyone who we have statements that they served in the military should be so categorized, of if this needs to be in some way defining? I am leaning towards the former, especially considering how politicians will bring up service even if it is short, and the whole idea of honoring those who served as veterans.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Luming

Wang Luming has one source, and it is in Chinese, so I cannot say anything directly about its quality. However GNG requires multiple sources, so it is not meant. Ambassadors are not default notable, so we need to actually have a level of sources to show notability. There may be such sources, but they are not yet present in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Waronker

I suspect Simon Waronker is notable, but the one source we have is not enough on its own to show that. We clearly need better sourcing. The article was created in March of 2005 with no sources. I was actually expecting it to have been created in June of 2005 when he died and when the one source is from.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was able to find a seperatly written LA Times obituary by a staff writer. I strongly suspect we might be able to find other references from the 1950s and 1960s. Since he is the source for one of the names of the chipmunks in Alvin and the Chipomunks, we might be able to find a reliable source that mentions that and gives more details on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a total of 4 obituaries. 3 are now listed as sources, and I have mentioned the 4th on the Waronker article talk page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Wein

Albert Wein is an article with only one footnote. It has 2 other sources plus 2 external links, but they are not linked to the article itself as footnotes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Williams (basketball)

Jim Williams (basketball) has had a notice that it was unsourced since 2007. I just moved the article to 1910s births, since the lead says he was born in 1915 and the info box says he was born in 1919.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James G. Wilson

The article on James G. Wilson is very lacking in placing him anywhere. Mainly based on the sourcing for given in the article, I am suspecting he was American, but that is less clear than it would be good. I am also less than sure that the sources we have are fully independent of him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian P. Winkel

I am thinking that Adrian P. Winkel may have held a position that is default notable. Although this depends, was he more an administrator or an ambassador? The article at president has 2 sources 1-the Social Security death index, which I am not sure how you match that to be sure you have the right person, like using a census source it is a primary source that will not always make it obvious you have the right person. 2-the nomination of him to the office from government papers, also clearly a primary document. Wikipedia needs secondary sources, not primary ones, although do we make an exception for clear NPOL passing cases? Although, as I said, I am not sure how to think of his position, so I am less than sure if he passes NPOL by default.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Wolfe (actor)

David Wolfe (actor) seems to have been in a lot of uncreadited roles. The article is has 2 sources. 1 IMDb is not reliable. The other Internet Broadway Database people tell me is reliable, but if it is anywhere near as comprehensive as IMDb it would not seems inclusion is actually a show of notability. Beyond this Wolfe's article tells us nothing of him being in any stage productions, so IBDb is not functionally being used as a source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Esmond Wright

Esmond Wright seems to have studied in the United States using a named scholarship. If we categorize American Rhodes Scholars ultimately under Category:American expatriates in the United Kingdom, it would make sense to me if his studying in the US under a named schoarship would lead to his categorization in Category:British expatriates in the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on to Category:1914 births

I am 100% sure this will happen today, baring any major events. I have less than 67 names (all in Z) left in Category:1915 births, and a good many articles I just glance at, and do not even think about doing anything, so most likely I will be done before 11:00 Eastern Standard Time of the US, unless I come across something that needs major expansion or some other significant time using edit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Zipkin

I am wondering if people think that Jerry is a common enough nickname for Jerome that it does not need to be put in quotes? Jerry Zipkin is the article that prompted this question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pappammal

Pappammal was born in 1914, so she is almost certainly 107, and if not will be in a few days. the article still opens with "at age 105..." so it needs to be updated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Adams (artist)

Frank Adams (artist) is an article with 2 sources. The Library of Congress source mentions Wikipedia, and I have a sense the Library of Congress seeks to be extremely comprehensive in its holdings, and to have some information on any work creator it has holdings for, so this does not seem to be a source that would show notability. I am not 100% sure about Askart, but the poor formating and lack of spaces after punctuation in the entry makes me doubt this is a source with the level of oversight needed to show it is notable. This is an extremely common name, so searching might be difficult. We clearly need better sourcing if we are to keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eyvin Andersen

Eyvin Andersen has had a notice of no sources on the article for over a decade. How is it that no sources notices stand so long with no action taken?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stig Andersen

The only source on Stig Andersen is the publication of the organization that gave the award the receiving of which is basically all the article says about this person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leo August

At first glance the article on Leo August looks more substantial than several we have on stamp collectors, but the sourcing is for the article is very lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1914 and 1915 births categories

For reasons that do not quite make sense to me Category:1915 births has just under 6,900 entries while 7,545 entries. In general as we go further back from 1989 each year has fewer entries, there are a few other years that are exceptions, but this may be the highest percentage rise. 1920 births does exceed 1919 births by a larger percentage, but that is a movement in the other direection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility is that there were fewer births in 1915 due to the fact that men throughout Europe and the British Empire entered military service with the start of World War I in July 1914, thus taking men away from their wives. Cbl62 (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, the 1920 bump you see could be related to the post-war baby boom. The post-WWII baby boom is the most famous but there was also an uptick in births as soldiers came home after WWI. Cbl62 (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However 1920 is not much higher than the years following. In this case I think it relates a lot to the presentist emphasis of Wikipedia. Keep in mind that Category:1989 births is the largest one we have in Wikipedia, even though there are several ways people gain notability where it is very rare for a person to be notable at 32. A large number of politicians are first elected to office at a level we would consider notable after 32, it is very rare for a person to have gained academic notability by age 32, I think even more today than in the past, and I am sure there are several other cases. So the full size 1989 births category is almost certainly going to expand over the next few years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, 1939 births exceeds 1938 births in size, and 1940 births is even bigger than that. Now maybe various factors made WWII less disruptive to fertility rates. In those three categories we are dealing with over 10,000 births, so significantly larger. It shoots to over 11,000 in 1941, and then to over 12,000 in 1942, with an even higher number in 1943, we go from 12,019 to 12,457. It recedes to 12,369 in 1944. It is 12,228 in 1945, and then shoots up to 13,929 in 1946. 1947 has 14,694 entries. 1948 recedes to 13,744. The 1950s see us hover right around 14,000, 1951 has the low of 13,649 and 1959 peaks at 14,379. 1960 is at 14,648, but it is only 1963 at 14,732 that finally exceeds the 1947 number. 1969 at 15,169 is the next to exceed 1947. 3 years in the 1970s are in the 15,000s and the other 7 are in the 14,000s. In the 1980s only 1980 itself is under 16,000 at 15,742. the next 4 years are in the 16,000s and the last 5 are in the 17,000s with 1989 coming in at 17,787. This is despite the fact that in several fields of endevor people under 40, as anyone born from 1982 on, are unlikely to yet be notable, and depsite the fact that our BLP rules and other factors lead to us having large numbers of articles on living people that have not yet had birth information entered or have not yet been categorized by such. The 1990s see a reverse. 1990 has 17,340 articles, I think 1988 and 1989 have been the two largest birth year categories for about 5 years, 1988 is at 17,741 and 1986 which is the 3rd largest category is at 17,441. After 1990 the next 3 years are in the 16,000s range, 1994 is in the 15,000s, 1995 the 14,000s, 1996 the 13,000s, 1997 the 12,000s, 1998 the 10,000s and 1999 the 9,000s, this still means we have more articles on people born in 1999 than any year before 1927. 2000 has in the 7,000s range, and each year moving forward drops over 1,000 through 2004 which is at 1,011. 2005 has 364 articles, those people are basically all 16. 2006 has 168 articles, and 2007 has 93, which is 93 14-year-olds who are apparently notable. We continue seeing drops, although now small until we hit 2013 with only 5 articles. 2014 somehow has 14, but it is the last year with double digits. The recent rule change on olympic notability may lead to some changes, although I think I have only seen 2 current deletion discussions about olympic athletes. So who knows what will actually happen. For the record I only know we have lots of minimally sources articles on olympic athletes who have a year of birth given, I do not know if there are also other articles on olympic athletes uncategorized by birth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My idea that especially academics only become notable after age 32 (the current peak age for articles in Wikipedia) is easily supported. For example Alex Berman was 39 or 40 when he got his Ph.D. I have not studied the matter of age at getting Ph.D. enough to know what the normal age range is, but this is not anywhere near a record high age. Even then, the nature of academic notability means that most notable academics only become so a while after getting their Ph.D. Of course there are exceptions, but in general people have not become notable as academics by age 32.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The observation about World War I affecting the birth rate may be spot on. It feels like there are more people born in European countries in the 1914 births category, but I am not keeping a close count, and there may be other factors involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Baričević

Rudolf Baričević if I am reading his article seems to have spent 47 years outside Croatia/Yugoslavia, approxmately 1945-1992, although 1992 seems the earliest year he may have returned. Yet the article gives us no indication of where he lived during that time. This seems a major omission.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More thoughts on Tour de France participation

I just realized that back in October after about 2 months of discussion it was decided that those who participate in the olympics are not automatically default notable, only those who received a medal at the olympics are automatically default notable. I am wondering if this change should cause us to reconsider the current rules that make it so anyone who was in the Tour de France is considered to be automatically default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karlo Bauman

Our article on Karlo Bauman is only sourced to olympia. It seems we have not agreed if Olympia is even reliable, but per what was said by User:FOARP at the discussion of hte deletion of John James (fencer) it is not the level of source that leads to the passing of GNG, specifically are "database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion" and excluded from showing notability per WP:SPORTCRIT. There is this [18] from olympics. com, but it tells us even less. I have no idea about how reliable that source is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Pike Bissonnet

Alfred Pike Bissonnet was an ambassador. Ambassadors are not default notable. I do not see this article as currently having the level of sources we would need to justify keeping it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bjørn Schouw Nielsen

I am not sure we need an article on Bjørn Schouw Nielsen. We already have another article on the murders he committed, which seem to be notable, but he does not seem notable enough to justify a free standing article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert B. Brandeberry

Robert B. Brandeberry is another case of a stamp collector with only one source on the article, a source that may not be independent enough of him to add towards passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Augustus Bridle

Paul Augustus Bridle who has some sources, but not enough to show a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Humberto Briseño Sierra

Humberto Briseño Sierra is an article without sources. The only statement in the article is that he was a lawyer. This alone is not enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1914 birthplace issues

So far it seems to me in 1914 we have the birthplace wrong most often with people born in India. This is somewhat surprising, because the Russian Empire, Ottoman Empire, German Empire and Austro-Hungarian empire present a huge range of places that have had their status change, but I think there editors are more aware of the changes, and so relfect them, but for some reason with India about half our listings use the modern state names, which in general are states not created until the 1940s, but even more often 1950s and 1960s, and sometimes even more recently. Maybe not quite half, but there are a lot that use states that did not exist for another 30 years or more in the birthplace.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justo José Caraballo

Justo José Caraballo is an article with only one source. The one source is sports reference.com, which from what I have said above and what others have said seems to not be the type of source that Wikipedia considers to add towards passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zdeněk Černický

Zdeněk Černický is an example of the low quality, low information articles we get from allowing us to be flooded with articles sourced only to sports reference.com. We have no evidence he lived at any point after 1936, and no clue when he died.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard L. Coe

Richard L. Coe seems to be notable, at least if half of what is said in the article is actually true. However as someone who worked for the Washington Post for over 40 years, the main source being an obituary published by the publication does not bode well for showing independent coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deolinda da Conceição

Deolinda da Conceição is a one source article that makes no claim to the significance of her work. Merely being a jouranlist and writer is not enough to show that someone is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Cook (dancer)

Charles Cook (dancer) is an article with no sources. It has had a note of having no sources for 11 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene C. Crittenden

Eugene C. Crittenden was somehow in the 1914 birth category even though he was born in 1880. This is one of the most extreme misplacements I have seen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pál Csokán

Pál Csokán is an unsourced article that has had a tag saying it was unsourced for 10 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Cull Jr.

Richard Cull Jr. I am not seeing any clear claim to actual notability in this article, being a press information officer for the US government, even one handling major events, is not a sign of notability per se, unless we get significant in depth coverage for the events, and not just passing name drops. The sources currently listed seem more like primary sources, such as oral history interviews with Cull himself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Darcy

Clare Darcy may well be notable, but the sources that we currently have on the article do not seem to be the level of sourcing needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Devillers

Henri Devillers I am really strugling to see how among all the spies and double agents operating during WWII, anything actually makes Devillers notable, or how the one source we have constitutes enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balázs Diószegi

Balázs Diószegi may be a notable painter, but our current sourcing is not enough to show that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dong Yueqian

Dong Yueqian is an unsourced article. As an ambassador he lacks default notability, we need to actually come up with sources to show he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Dubois (canoeist)

Jean Dubois (canoeist) is the second Olympic competitor I have found who is said to have "not finished" in his event. Does this mean that he literally did not complete the race, or is it a way of saying he was so slow he wan not given a rank? Either way, he looks like another non-notable canoeist under our new more stringent inclusion rules that say only those who got medals are default notable for olympic competition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arletta Duncan

Arletta Duncan is an article with only one source, the unreliable and ultra inclusive. Just looking over her acting roles, they mainly were uncredited and small parts, often in not all that significant productions. One of them is even said to be in and unidentified role. Short of assuming everyone with a credited role in a commerially released film is notable, it is very hard to see anything indicating that Duncan was in fact notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lorraine Eckardt

Lorraine Eckardt is only sourced to olympia. Beyond this she was involved in the music competition at the olympics, which was never actually the level of competition we would need to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Horus Engels

Horus Engels seems to have as his lone claim to fame being the illustrator of cover art and maybe a few in the book illustrations of a long novel written in English, but only for the first German edition of the work. The article is in part very heavily dependent on primary source use of Engels correspondence with the writer of the novel he illustrated. I am really struggling to see that anything here, especially in the sourcing, adds up to actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howard S. England

Howard S. England is an article with 1 source being his own work, 1 source that looks to be the work of a family member, a local death notice, the social security death index (a primary source) and in general I am really trying to figure out how anything adds up to making him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conchita Espinosa

Conchita Espinosa is an article with one source. That source is the website of the music academy she founded. This is clearly not meeting the independent prong in the required prongs for a source to add towards passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Feller

Karl Feller is a poorly written article. Over half of it is full quotes from a dialogue between Feller and a political leader. The article no where really explains why Feller was notable. It is very poorly written and in need of full scale editing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1914 births

Currently Category:1914 births has 7,530 entries. I have seen so many of them be on olympic competitors sourced only to sportsreference.com or olympia.com, that I am wondering if that number will change soon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Flor

Lina Flor is an article sourced only to the subject's collected works. This is in no way an independent source covering the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Norene Forbes

Norene Forbes does not seem from the article we have on her to have been notable. There may be other things missing in the article that would show notability, but what we have there does not seem to do so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Fromentier

Unless I am missing a lot it does not seem that Paul Fromentier is notable. At least having your work in the painting event of the olympics does not seem that on its own it proves notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Gartner (philatelist)

John Gartner (philatelist) is another stamp collector with the article sourced only to the document explaining why the stamp collecting assocaition gave him an award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Gelver

In the case of Alexander Gelver I would argue neither of the two sources really provide in-depth coverage of him. I see no real substantial claim to notability. Being killed for trying to flee the Soviet Union is just not in and of itself an actual claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Glimnér

Erik Glimnér is an article that makes no actual claim to passing any notability guidelines. He may have held elected office as a politician, but the article no where ever actually says he did.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph L. Gormley

Joseph L. Gormley may have been a notable person, but the one obituary used as a source is not going to be enough to demonstrate that. I cannot tell for sure, but it may not even be a staff written obituary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Grierson

Edward Grierson has an "authority control" section on it, but no actual sources let alone linked sources. I am not sure how these "authority control" templates work, but they seem less useful than normal source linking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, forgive me for skimming your notes to yourself, but I know how the "authority control" templates work! They are populated by Wikidata (and if you wanted to add to or edit the "authority control" template on Grierson's page, you could do it through his Wikidata item). They refer to "authority records" used by catalogers in libraries. These authority records are important to be able to differentiate between authors of the same name. Much in the same way that Wikidata has a separate Q number for items, authority records give authors different numbers. Sometimes an authority record, like the ones on Worldcat, can help you find works by an author and give leads for their birth year (although I try to use a source other than Worldcat for birth years on Wikipedia). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So the authority control is going to link to a source. The sources will be different in different cases, and if they are enough to show passing GNG may or may not be the case, depending on exactly what is there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The authority records don't really "prove" notability. The Library of Congress makes them for everyone who publishes a book that they own (I think). Worldcat is teeeechnically crowdsourced by a group of catalogers, if I understand correctly. Normally I use it as a lead in researching the original birth year, but catalogers can use things like a person's Facebook profile to determine birth year, which we wouldn't use. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So if an article has an authority control but no actual sources, it is not adequately sourced to show notability, and to justify keeping it we would have to find actual reliable sourcing?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Henderson (canoeist)

Jack Henderson (canoeist) does not seem to be notable for his olympic participantion. If he is notable as a writer we would need to find actual sources that cover his writing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reinhard Kopps

I am really struggling to see how our sourcing on Reinhard Kopps rises to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).