Talk:Mike Schafer (author)
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Article Propose for Deletion edit
The editor that proposed this article for deletion domdeparis, needs to re-read WP:NAUTHOR.
1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Mike Schafer meets this criteria, and is a widely respected figure in railroad circles.
3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. Mike Schafer meets this criteria, per the lengthy list of his published works.
- @Morphenniel: Hi thanks for the advice but I have read the criteria and concerning criteria 1. you may consider as may do lots of other people that this author is an important figure but this is not supported by the sources and this is what is needed. I would love to take your word for it but that's not how it works. You have cherry picked the criteria N°3 by conveniently omitting the following phrase "In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." this is not supported by the sources. Domdeparis (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Domdeparis: I've de-proded the article. It's your move. Morphenniel (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Morphenniel: hi it's not about whose move it is, it's not a game or a competition. I am a new pages reviewer and when i come across a page that needs attention there are several things that can be done. If I can tidy it up myself I do, if it's just a case of adding sources that I can quickly find I do if it's a case of nominating it for deletion I do. Thiarticle was Prodded because it clearly did not meet the criteria with the sources that were there. this is a community and the idea is to have articles that warrant their place in an encyclopedia. The subject may be notable but if the sources do allow the reader to verify that, then the article does not have its place on Wikipedia. i hope you understand what I am getting at. Domdeparis (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- I have just looked at the source you added which was written by the subject himself so this does not help towards proving his notability. Do you have any other sources? Domdeparis (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- It's also not simply your view or my view. Like you say, this is a community. I am happy to wait for others to chime in, which is why I posted on the Trains Project Page. Of course, if you are strongly of the view that this article is not worth keeping, then I would encourage you to re-instate the prod for deletion. My view of what you are about is somewhat clouded by the fact that there are many pages on Wikipedia that do not meet the criteria you are using, but they have passed by the likes of new page reviewers. So you'll have to excuse me if I find your approach a little like trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. Morphenniel (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I cannot reprod it now you have removed the PROD the next course of action is a delete discussion which can be very quick, which is one of the reasons I chose PROD as that gave you 7 days to improve the article and find the sources. I suggest we take this conversation to your talk page as I think you need a bit of help that I am willing to offer. Domdeparis (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- It's also not simply your view or my view. Like you say, this is a community. I am happy to wait for others to chime in, which is why I posted on the Trains Project Page. Of course, if you are strongly of the view that this article is not worth keeping, then I would encourage you to re-instate the prod for deletion. My view of what you are about is somewhat clouded by the fact that there are many pages on Wikipedia that do not meet the criteria you are using, but they have passed by the likes of new page reviewers. So you'll have to excuse me if I find your approach a little like trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. Morphenniel (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- I have just looked at the source you added which was written by the subject himself so this does not help towards proving his notability. Do you have any other sources? Domdeparis (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Morphenniel: hi it's not about whose move it is, it's not a game or a competition. I am a new pages reviewer and when i come across a page that needs attention there are several things that can be done. If I can tidy it up myself I do, if it's just a case of adding sources that I can quickly find I do if it's a case of nominating it for deletion I do. Thiarticle was Prodded because it clearly did not meet the criteria with the sources that were there. this is a community and the idea is to have articles that warrant their place in an encyclopedia. The subject may be notable but if the sources do allow the reader to verify that, then the article does not have its place on Wikipedia. i hope you understand what I am getting at. Domdeparis (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Domdeparis: I've de-proded the article. It's your move. Morphenniel (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm familiar with Schafer's work and I'm not sure if he's notable either. My understanding of WP:NAUTHOR is that being widely published (as Schafer is) isn't enough; you need to be cited by others and recognized by peers. Is Schafer? Not on the evidence provided. Morphenniel is certainly correct that many articles fail this test but that has no bearing here; this article stands and falls on its own merits. Places to look might be Trains magazine, or back numbers of Railroad History. Mackensen (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion edit
Although an author has pretty wide latitude for G7; this nomination strikes me as being in bad faith. The article's creator has also prodded several other articles about authors (railway and otherwise), apparently in reaction to the discussion above. Schafer might be notable; the discussion is ongoing. This is classic WP:PRAM behavior. Mackensen (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hi @Mackensen: He's just !voted to speedily delete another of his articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herbert H. Harwood, Jr.. This time the author seems to be more notable than Schafer. I've found quite a few sources notably reviews of his books form the Railway and Locomotive Historical Society which seems to be a well respected society. Domdeparis (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)