A new approach to writing an unassailable article

[Ming]

So here we have Catherine Lynch (T-H-L), whose article appears to be a repetition of the research done by the author of the book in which she is a figure, her only real claim to notoriety. And if you look at the AfD you will see an immense outpouring of words, largely ignoring that we wouldn't ordinarily have an article on a petty criminal sourced entirely from newspaper and routine governmental records. Meanwhile, we also have Albert Blithe (T-H-L), who again obtains all his notability from being an example person in a book (TV series). This second AfD is more likely to go through, if mostly because the milhist people are pretty hard-nosed about their standards.

Still, together they illustrate an interesting form of plagiarism which seems to protect an article pretty well: find a historical figure from someone else's book, and construct the article by repeating their research. It is clearly plagiarism of a sort, even if the original book be acknowledged; but it seems to protect the article because somehow the sourcing isn't primary any more now that it has been cited in a book.

[Poetlister]

somehow the sourcing isn't primary any more now that it has been cited in a book.

That surely is exactly in line with WP policy and practice. Primary sources are discouraged because they may be POV or COI and interpreting them could be original research. If they have been used to produce a reliable secondary source, then the original research has already been done.

[Randy from Boise]

There is definitely a hierarchy of sources:

1. University press book mentioning the subject in the title

2. Juried academic journal article mentioning the subject in the title

3. Dissertation mentioning subject in the title

4. Commercial publisher's book mentioning the subject in the title

5. Massive, headline level coverage of the subject in one of the sacred periodicals (Time magazine, NY Times, Times of London, etc.)

6. Significant coverage inside a university press book

7. Significant coverage inside a commercially-published book

8. Significant coverage inside a journal article

9. Significant coverage inside an article in a sacred periodical

10. Ordinary news coverage

11. Blog

Something like that...

Put together one of the top 3 above with ANYTHING else and it's pretty much bulletproof at AfD.

RfB

[Carcharoth]

Also discussed from this point onwards in the 'Did you know failures' thread.

[Carcharoth]

So here we have Catherine Lynch (T-H-L), whose article appears to be a repetition of the research done by the author of the book in which she is a figure, her only real claim to notoriety. And if you look at the AfD you will see an immense outpouring of words, largely ignoring that we wouldn't ordinarily have an article on a petty criminal sourced entirely from newspaper and routine governmental records. Meanwhile, we also have Albert Blithe (T-H-L), who again obtains all his notability from being an example person in a book (TV series). This second AfD is more likely to go through, if mostly because the milhist people are pretty hard-nosed about their standards.

Still, together they illustrate an interesting form of plagiarism which seems to protect an article pretty well: find a historical figure from someone else's book, and construct the article by repeating their research. It is clearly plagiarism of a sort, even if the original book be acknowledged; but it seems to protect the article because somehow the sourcing isn't primary any more now that it has been cited in a book.

From my perambulations around articles relating to soldiers and memorials, the mistake Albert Blithe made was not dying from his wounds (this is a tongue-in-cheek comment before anyone gets too upset). My point is that people that die during wars get more coverage and sometimes memorials erected to them, and so forth. It feels uncomfortable at times writing about people who died when those who survived get far less coverage.

A couple of examples that give different angles on this sort of debate, both where there is not an article on the person, but the biographical details are in an article about a related topic:

- Afghan Girl (T-H-L)
- Equestrian statue of Edward Horner (T-H-L)

One a girl (now woman), one a man. Both would ordinarily be non-notable, but in both cases (genuinely, I think) the notability criteria are met. There are many military personnel (particularly from both World Wars) that could be written about in the same manner as the Welsh women Iridescent wrote about, but it is the likely deletion reaction from those following the letter of WP:SOLIDER rather than WP:GNG that makes me wary of doing this (Ming's comment about MILHIST is something I recognise - that is in many ways a compliment to the standards being maintained by the MILHIST WikiProject).

[Carcharoth]

There is definitely a hierarchy of sources:

<snip>

Put together one of the top 3 above with ANYTHING else and it's pretty much bulletproof at AfD.

RfB

True. But where do the Catherine Lynch stable of articles fall on that spectrum? And why has it split opinion so much? It was nominated (for the second time) on 12 March 2018 (it was briefly nominated for 6 hours while on the main page and the AfD closed until it was off the main page). The second nomination was briefly closed (as 'SNOW no consensus) and re-opened 15 minutes later (see here). I was one of those objecting to the early closure as despite the sometimes heated nature of the discussion, it is important to have these sort of discussions that shed light on the current views of the community (though some people I was expecting to opine on this have not yet).

[Poetlister]

A couple of examples that give different angles on this sort of debate, both where there is not an article on the person, but the biographical details are in an article about a related topic:

- Afghan Girl (T-H-L)
- Equestrian statue of Edward Horner (T-H-L)

One a girl (now woman), one a man. Both would ordinarily be non-notable, but in both cases (genuinely, I think) the notability criteria are met.

I agree that if a photo or a statue is notable, it should probably get an article. However, if the article then goes into great detail about the subject or model, that is irrelevant to the article and the WP:COATRACK comes into play.

Going to the opposite extreme, La Délivrance (T-H-L) does not even mention Louise Curson, the model, although there is no shortage of references linking her to the statue.

[Carcharoth]

A couple of examples that give different angles on this sort of debate, both where there is not an article on the person, but the biographical details are in an article about a related topic:

- Afghan Girl (T-H-L)
- Equestrian statue of Edward Horner (T-H-L)

One a girl (now woman), one a man. Both would ordinarily be non-notable, but in both cases (genuinely, I think) the notability criteria are met.

I agree that if a photo or a statue is notable, it should probably get an article. However, if the article then goes into great detail about the subject or model, that is irrelevant to the article and the WP:COATRACK comes into play.

Going to the opposite extreme, La Délivrance (T-H-L) does not even mention Louise Curson, the model, although there is no shortage of references linking her to the statue.

Nice example, but unfortunately...

https://thefinchleyarrow.wordpress.com/ ... -editor-2/

"Historian Martin Bolton stated that the statue was begun in 1914 and that Louise Curson, born in 1905, could not have been the model as she was only nine at the time, and living in London. The distinguished French sculptor, Emile Guillaume (1867-1942), probably used a French model for the project, which could well have been inspired by Marianne, the symbol of the French Revolution in 1792."

The Wikipedia article should probably include both accounts.

[Poetlister]

Interesting. Of course, the sculptor could still have used this lady when making the finishing touches. But as you say, the article should have mentioned all this.

[BrillLyle]

I think it's important to have the book that supports the subject of the article used extensively.

But also, the book has to have footnotes and sources that helped the author create the book, right?

Those footnotes and sources -- and if there's a bibliography that too -- are further support to the article. They are a carefully curated and selected resources that could also independently support facts on the page.

I always tell journalists and students that for any article or paper about a subject or person where they had to go through a process of collecting sources and conduct research, that those items are typically really good citations.

I may be unorthodox in proposing this, but I think it's a logical approach.

- Erika aka ~~~~

[Poetlister]

Obviously, a serious scholarly book is almost certain to have adequate footnotes and references. However, any book from a reputable publisher should have considerable credibility. Something like Chamber's Dictionary of Biography or Wisden's Almanack is pretty reliable.

[Ming]

So here we have Bergen County Executive (T-H-L), which appears to have been created as a response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James J. Tedesco III (T-H-L). What we got was an article on a fairly minor political office which is used as a coatrack for a bunch of bios, include Mr. Tedesco.

[Poetlister]

So here we have Bergen County Executive (T-H-L), which appears to have been created as a response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James J. Tedesco III (T-H-L). What we got was an article on a fairly minor political office which is used as a coatrack for a bunch of bios, include Mr. Tedesco.

That too is at AfD but it looks like a snow keep, despite being totally worth deleting.