Talk:Paul Bradt

Discussion regarding Article for Creation

I am placing a discussion I had with Cullen 328 regarding the creation of this article, regarding the reliability of sources, the established notability of this individual, and some concerns I still have with the article regarding original research.

from my talk page

Hello 78.26,

I am wondering why you don't consider mountaineering club websites as reliable sources for mountaineering accomplishments? In my experience, such clubs have excellent reputations for accuracy and fact checking in a sport where inaccurate information is literally a life and death matter. One published book source in the draft article verifies that Bradt made a notable first ascent in the Grand Tetons in 1944. I see another impeccable source, A Climber's Guide to the Teton Range, verifying that. How can we help bring this draft to main space? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328! Thanks for writing and bringing this to my attention. The problem at AfC is of course I am reviewing subjects for which I have no particular expertise. (so few new articles are about the recording industry from 1877 to 1960, sigh). In general, I wouldn't consider hobby club pages to be reliable sources, but if you can ascertain these sites are reliable, then by all means they are included. Regarding the book, the information definitely should be added to the article. A source-by-source (at the time of my decline) reasoning of my decline, feel free to comment for my own education, if nothing else. The first is a local club. You deem this reliable, so ok. The second is a club video. I'm not sure how this helps demonstrate notability. The third "Local Climbing Histroy" is also a club publication, but it is reliable and establishes notability, well then the article should have been accepted as having multiple reliable sources. The fourth (Climber's Guide) I deemed a reliable source, but as used it only points to a picture of Bradt, so I didn't think it provided substantial coverage of the subject. I read "Cavers: A different breed" which doesn't provide substantial coverage on Bradt, but does mention him several times as well as confirming he was on a team that made a first ascent. When I reviewed it, I counted this as a verifiable, reliable source counting towards notability. The next is a "letter from Herb and Jan" which I still have a hard time accepting as a reliable source. links "Officers History" is not verifiable currently. 8 and nine "Archivists at Indiana University" and "personal correspondence" are original research, even if the sources themselves are impeccable. I couldn't tell if the marriage announcement was because Bradt was inherently notable, or if it was a paid placement, I thought it was the latter but I could be wrong. So of these sources, I only deemed one good for counting toward notability, but if we accept that the club information is reliable, we've got three, and the article should have been accepted for promotion. Add the additional source you found, and it isn't even close. I also see that subsequently some other good sources were added, such as the book by Rossiter. I'd like to remove the original research sources, add yours in, and by all means let's promote this! I'm also bringing this correspondence to the creator's attention. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 22:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the time to respond in such detail. I agree that many of the sources are somewhat weak, but we are dealing with a beginning editor. For me, the two sources on the 1944 first ascent in the Grand Tetons, plus the best of the others, means notability (if just barely). A book describing that climb as one of the classics in one of the premier mountaineering areas of the U.S. means a lot in the context of the sport of climbing. Thanks again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, beginning editors is what AfC is for, and I certainly wish this to be a positive experience for Hbradt when his article is published, and it is better than if he'd just gone it alone. There's no reason you can't promote the article yourself if you wish. If for some reason you don't want to, I'll do it myself, as long as you solemnly swear to add that source you found (just kidding). 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 23:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Deal: You promote the article as an experienced AfC reviewer (which I respect greatly), and I will clean it up as an editor experienced with mountaineering topics. Thanks again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Done Deal! Thanks for all your help and patience. Even better are the great lengths you are going through to help a new editor out. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello 78.26 and Cullen 328: So this is the article talk page is. Is this where we should be discussing the article? When I was working on it in the Sandbox, I could see how to access the "article talk page" (if it existed). All I could access was my User Talk page (as distinct from my "User Page") and, still, no one seems to have looked at my User Talk page. You can see I am confused. How does one find the article Talk Page when creating the article in the Sandbox?

I am grateful for the acceptance but am still quite frustrated by the experience. I spent much more time on this than I thought reasonable. However, I now see that both of you have invested substantial time in it as well and that is VERY impressive to me. The article has been, and is, being improved by the process. Also, I know one of the reasons I use WP is its relative reliability, and now I have seen from the inside why that is; the creation hurdles are not low and many people help make it so.

Where do we go from here? Cullen 328, do you want to work on it or would you prefer I do? It needs links, categories, addition of the Teton reference you quote, and possibly more. I don't think we are going to find more that will increase his notability. What he is, he is. Feel free to dive in; it will be so much easier for you.

Re links:there is only one mention to him in WP (Seneca Rocks), but references could, in principle, be added to Carderock and Tetons articles, and possibly relevant caving articles, but I am loathe to muck around with others' articles, even though I know that is the reality of WP.

Re the "marriage" WP article as a reference: it is all I found to document his (long term) job at the Bureau of Standards - without going into government archives (primary sources).

Question: what does "promote an article" mean?

Is this page where I am supposed to mention my CoI: I am the nephew of Paul Bradt, but I am neither a rock climber nor a mountaineer and am not associated with the Potomac Mountain Club in any way.

I hope the system knows enough to notify you about this message. Thank you both again for your efforts.

Hbradt (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

More for 78.26 and Cullen 328 Just checked my "User Talk" page and found the Creation message - at the bottom; I was looking at the top of the page: one more thing I have learned about WP. Hbradt (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Cullen328, MenoBot, and 78.26: I like the recent improvements but take exception to the deletion the second author of the Ortenburger book on the Tetons. The proper attribution is (from the book's copyright page): The authors are Ortenburger, Leigh N. & Jackson, Reynold G. In addition, the book is the Third Edition, which should be appended to the title. For some reason (possibly an automatic process) the second author and the "Third Edition" were taken out. I had forced the second author in by adding him to the "First Name" of the first. That may be why it was removed. I am about to reinsert this info. If there is a better way to do it, can one of you experts please do it. Thank you, Hbradt (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)