Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanford Ransdell
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 was no consensus. W.marsh 17:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sanford Ransdell
Non notable person; he was an early settler of Indiana and a soldier, but that's about it. If you look closely, much of the article isn't even about him; his only connection to the murder case, for instance, is that his daughter was a witness. Brianyoumans 21:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as minor personage connected to one major event. --Dhartung | Talk 23:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Weak Deleteunless notability to murder trial can be established. I hate to vote this way, as I'm an inclusionist and I did delete the prod, but the more I've thought about it, the more I think this isn't notable. If editor can produce any secondary source that mentions subject in some notable way, I will change my vote. --plange 03:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)- Delete. Looks like genealogical research. The article doesn't say why he was notable among the thousand Americans in the battle of Tippecanoe or the thousands of early settlers in the Indiana territory. —Kevin 14:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep in a short period of time I was able to expand and source much of the existing article. This would not be possible to do after a 150 years if person was not notible. Friuli 19:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Of the 14 footnotes in the article as of this minute, only 4 or 5 actually appear to pertain to the subject of this article, and none of those appear to establish notability -- they just list him as a soldier who enrolled (note 5), was one of a thousand who took part in a battle (notes 1 & 2), and mustered out (note 8). This is standard genealogy -- we could find similar information about thousands upon thousands of other soldiers who are listed in muster rolls. Why is this guy notable among the thousand soldiers at Tippecanoe? The article still does not say. A quote from one or both of the two Battle of Tippecanoe books which mention him would quickly dispel my objections. —Kevin 02:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment
Not only is this family genealogy, it is original research.Brianyoumans 05:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)- Which parts? If they're sourced, it's not --plange 15:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- The facts are sourced, but since it looks like no one has ever written anything specifically on Ransdell before, the interpretations are new. --Brianyoumans 20:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you're only reporting what is in the sources, that is not an interpretation, but rather stating what is in the sources. That is not original research. Kevin's argument is the only valid one so far, IMHO, though I based my keep not on the battle info being sourced but rather the fact that he was involved in a sensational trial. --plange 20:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Time for a quote from the policy: Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." I would argue that some parts of this article probably amount to novel narrative and/or unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material. --Brianyoumans 20:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, so I'll ask again, which parts? --plange 20:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, looking again... very little of it. Mostly the bits about the 'notorious incident hanging over their heads for a decade' and the 'family strife'. I guess I agree that it isn't, on the whole, OR. On the other hand, many of the sources are obscure and/or unpublished - the "Ransdell Family Archive", for instance. And this doesn't change my view that this is family history and not anything really worthy of an entry. Brianyoumans 22:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- I would agree those should be taken out... and yikes, the Ransdell Family Archive does not meet WP:V! But I would argue that removing the 2 items sourced by the archives would not affect the notability, in fact, those two items are tangential and not terribly relevant. The WP:PEACOCK stuff can be toned down and the article salvaged. If it was a notorious incident in that town (the trial) then it wasn't just of interest to that family, but to the town as well, hence why I would argue it has a place. --plange 03:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- S/he is adding more data, but ironically, the more that's added, the less I believe it meets notability as it is showing that there really is no non-trivial mention of the person in question if they're trying to meet notability by inserting a quote about his company and not himself. I'd like to wait and see if my request to add the quotes from the Tippecanoe books per Kevin (on the Talk page) happens. I've also asked to show how the trial was important, and Sanford's role... --plange 07:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I would agree those should be taken out... and yikes, the Ransdell Family Archive does not meet WP:V! But I would argue that removing the 2 items sourced by the archives would not affect the notability, in fact, those two items are tangential and not terribly relevant. The WP:PEACOCK stuff can be toned down and the article salvaged. If it was a notorious incident in that town (the trial) then it wasn't just of interest to that family, but to the town as well, hence why I would argue it has a place. --plange 03:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, looking again... very little of it. Mostly the bits about the 'notorious incident hanging over their heads for a decade' and the 'family strife'. I guess I agree that it isn't, on the whole, OR. On the other hand, many of the sources are obscure and/or unpublished - the "Ransdell Family Archive", for instance. And this doesn't change my view that this is family history and not anything really worthy of an entry. Brianyoumans 22:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, so I'll ask again, which parts? --plange 20:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Time for a quote from the policy: Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." I would argue that some parts of this article probably amount to novel narrative and/or unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material. --Brianyoumans 20:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you're only reporting what is in the sources, that is not an interpretation, but rather stating what is in the sources. That is not original research. Kevin's argument is the only valid one so far, IMHO, though I based my keep not on the battle info being sourced but rather the fact that he was involved in a sensational trial. --plange 20:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- The facts are sourced, but since it looks like no one has ever written anything specifically on Ransdell before, the interpretations are new. --Brianyoumans 20:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Which parts? If they're sourced, it's not --plange 15:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. Seems to be full of tangential padding.ALR 20:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
