Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chester Adgate Congdon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 17:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Chester Adgate Congdon
WP:NOR,WP:VER,WP:BIO. Ste4k 07:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I see a number of Google links and also the article Elizabeth Congdon backs up this one. Are you saying this article is original research and unverifiable; why? Also please elaborate on your apparent argument that this person is not notable, because it's not clear to me. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-02 08:31Z
- I don't see any of these other articles referenced. From the perspective of this article alone, it is unsourced. If indeed what you say is correct, then how is that verified in this article? Per the notability of the topic of this article, there are literally thousands of people in the U.S.A. that can be considered wealthy and/or businessmen. There doesn't appear to be any historic significance to this particular man, compared to, for example, J.P. Morgan whom the article identifies itself with. J.P.Morgan associated with several thousand wealthy individuals in the course of his life. What makes this person any more significant than anyone else? If you feel that the article should be merged, then perhaps you should make that clear. Thanks. Ste4k 08:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I still don't see how it's original research nor unverifiable. There are claims of notability and also by association but you haven't evaluated them except to say he is less notable than J. P. Morgan. This man was the richest in Minnesota, his house (Glensheen Historic Estate) is a tourist attraction maintained by University of Minnesota Duluth, and his daughter was notoriously murdered. I think that's more notable than bloggers who have Wikipedia articles. I'm sure there was plenty of media coverage in his time, but it was just before the time of the Internet so we don't see it on Google news. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-02 09:33Z
- It is not my job as a reader of an article to do the research which is not listed on the page. The article must establish such resources to meet WP:VER. Anything that is written in an article which cannot attribute itself to a reliable source is considered original research by policy, and by definition. Per policy, rather than guidelines, Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. thanks. Ste4k 09:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia where not every sentence is cited... in fact probably the majority at this point. Please be more careful in the future before nominating something for deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-02 10:02Z
- ste4k this is second nomination deletion of yours that I have seen that you appear not to have done any reasearch into before nominating it. Please note that just because something is unverified doesn't mean its unverifiable. And it is your job as someone listing an article for deletion, to actually do a bit of background research to make sure that it warrants deletion under one of the wikipedia policies. ViridaeTalk 11:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is not my job as a reader of an article to do the research which is not listed on the page. The article must establish such resources to meet WP:VER. Anything that is written in an article which cannot attribute itself to a reliable source is considered original research by policy, and by definition. Per policy, rather than guidelines, Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. thanks. Ste4k 09:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I still don't see how it's original research nor unverifiable. There are claims of notability and also by association but you haven't evaluated them except to say he is less notable than J. P. Morgan. This man was the richest in Minnesota, his house (Glensheen Historic Estate) is a tourist attraction maintained by University of Minnesota Duluth, and his daughter was notoriously murdered. I think that's more notable than bloggers who have Wikipedia articles. I'm sure there was plenty of media coverage in his time, but it was just before the time of the Internet so we don't see it on Google news. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-02 09:33Z
- Keep No problems with WP:BIO or with WP:NOR, only problem is WP:VER and that alone does not merit AfD considering the fact that there is a large volume of info on him just available by Google alone. Tag for sources only. SM247My Talk 10:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as with SM247. ViridaeTalk 11:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep clearly verifiable at the macro level. Dlyons493 Talk 12:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep However, it could use better references. Brian 12:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)btball
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
