Talk:Mindell Penn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Find sources[edit]

—Northamerica1000(talk) 07:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Reference"[edit]

The current reference does not go into detail about Penn without going behind a paywall. Therefore, it is not sufficient to gauge Penn's notability, and should be deleted Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PAYWALL in WP:V.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PAYWALL, ..."The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment..." Northamerica1000(talk) 03:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

As per the WP:SOURCES entry in WP:V, "The word 'source' in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press).  WP:V is a policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing how that has any relevance. Also not seeing how most of the references you have adding, particularly the non-inline ones, amount to in-depth coverage. In that spirit, I have removed two of them that had no place in an article that has no place on this Wikipedia Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the previous comment was a minor edit?  Unscintillating (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's that have to do with the price of eggs? A better question is, "why were references that failed to establish notability and couldn't be integrated into the body of the article placed in the article in the first place?" Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There sources are a perfect example of GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." They should be kept and content removal as far as I know is considered vandalism.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Content removal...is considered vandalism". Nothing can be more inaccurate. Replacing a paragraph with the word "poop" is vandalism. These sources are either local or trivial and do NOT amount to significant coverage. They do not add anything to the article, and should be removed. Removing them in a BOLD manner, as I did, is not vandalism Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
VANDAL states "removing referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary." is Vandalism. The references you have/wish to remove are verifiable and important to establish notability and reliability of claims and article content. Clearly then they add more than "nothing". If an editor persists in removing the content that it would be vandalism, also a violation of the 3RR.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You skipped "a valid reason", which I had. Note that this article has, unfortunately, been kept. In doing so, the closing admin noted that only three of the references establish notability. Therefore, any reference that doesn't assert notability according to the closing admin and isn't an inline citation should be deleted Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just plain wrong and incorrect. What establishes notability and what is included as additional references is not the same. Inline citations are not needed.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are. Now that the article is kept, an additional reason can be put in play here...it is horrendously bad form to have non-inline citations in articles. Inline citations are always, always preferable; non-inline references are generally discouraged Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then work them into the article, but deleting them would fall under VANDAL.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You pretty obviously don't understand VANDAL... Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread it.LuciferWildCat (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did. Consider the following: "However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." In other words, you can remove content BOLDly if you explain why in the edit summary or on the talk page Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these references need to be removed[edit]

A few quotes or pictures or fleeting mentions, which is what most of these references are, do not establish notability. In addition, they cannot be properly integrated into the article. So they should be removed. Uninvolved readers note that Unscintillating has a history of adding junk references to articles Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a gross misrepresentation of the sources which are clearly more than trivial. The references should stay. If they cannot be properly integrated into the article by one editor they can from another with a better understanding of grammar, policy, layout. This is a wiki, it will eventually fix itself, and if need be, I'll be bold and do it myself. (Note: looks fine to me).LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are trivial. They mention Mindell Penn once; the fact that there happen to be many references that mention Penn once does not in my view. You do not get New York City by laying a hundred Dubuques end to end. Likewise, you do not significant coverage from a couple dozen fleeting references Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any one reference can only mention someone once, but these are more than trivial mentions. They even mention her in the headline. They relate her to the story. They don't mention her in passing or in a list with no elaboration. That would be trivial. That is not how she is covered.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BASIC, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". Most of the sources do not constitute trivial coverage, and some are just short articles. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main problem here is a terrible case of WP:DOESNTGETIT.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I don't get it, all the people who voted delete don't get it...nor does the closing admin, who said in his remarks that only three of the over a dozen references cited were non-trivial. There is no policy or guideline entitled WP:DOESNTGETIT, and even if there were, I do get it Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't remove the sources. No other editors are doing that. The other comments are irrelevant and WP:LOSTCAUSE as well.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong there, I'm afraid. I removed a trivial source which only mentioned Penn amongst a list of other councillors defending their seats. It wasn't about Penn, but about the council election in general. A long (or short) list of trivial, passing mentions only serve to cloud the issue. Sionk (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reference that she was part of that election, the other part of what she did as a councilwoman, its all about her plan.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard regarding the removal of sources based on notability grounds.  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That may not be the best place for it, as whether or not the three references you cite in particular are notable is irrelevant, as there are others that attest to notability still/already in the article Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More sources here[edit]

Found nearly over a dozen more sources here and hereLuciferWildCat (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptional work in finding more reliable sources for this topic. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks dude, I really feel local topics are overlooked for no good reason. It's just harder to find the sources and I think the deletion debates should be extended for longer periods of times if a bona fide rescue attempt is under work or actually they should be suspended for a period of time to allow the RfD to be based completely on the overhauled state. I at least discovered the archives search option hidden within existing searched for CC Times and Oak Tribune. I found more on Maria Viramontes too.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators will often relist debates for another week if consensus is unclear, and will discount early deletes if high quality sources have been added in the meantime. A deleted article with any potential can be yserfued and improved in a sandbox until it is truly ready for main space. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That only happens under ideal circumstances, there are a lot of lazy admins out there. And any votes based on an old version of given undue weight quite routinely. I think this policy change would lead to more solid decisions and less DRV and contention.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

was Penn vice-mayor?[edit]

While researching this article, a number of sources mentioned Penn as being vice-mayor.  But I could never find a good reference to say so, so at this point I really don't know.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I remember her being at one point. Most of the council members over the years have gotten a crack at that position as they have long careers and it's an appointed position. A detailed eyeing of the meeting minutes from her era would likely answer that question and also provide the needed reference.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The online references seem to fade between 1999 and 2004.  Have you seen 2000 meeting minutes?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No but they are available if you download enough meeting minutes PDFsLuciferWildCat (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mindell Penn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mindell_Penn&oldid=1195381167"