 | The contents of the Eggshelland page were merged into Lyndhurst, Ohio on March 6, 2013 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Notability
editI am removing the notability and reference tag. The article is adequately cited by sources which also prove its' notability.THD3 (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- However, it may be more appropriate to merge this article into the Lyndhurst, Ohio article.THD3 (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- An attraction such as this does not warrant inclusion, especially as its own section, in the article of a city. Therefore, this article has been resored and it will need to stand on its own merits in terms of notability. For the record, a subject being sourced does not automatically "prove" its notability; otherwise, every subject ever published in a reliable source would be notable. Editors may challenge Eggshelland's notability and pursue appropriate options if they feel it warrants deletion. --76.189.99.98 (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Typically something like this needs a home rather than a stand-alone page. If you do a Google search quite a lot of results come up. Is your objection to it being in the Lyndhurst article based on aesthetics? Because the only Wikipedia guideline or policy I can think of that forbids it is WP:UNDUE. But Lyndhurst really has nothing else going on. Abductive (reasoning) 23:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have no idea what "nothing else going on" means, but a random attraction not sponsored or directly affiliated with the city doesn't belong in the article about the city, let alone have its own section. It has its own article and can stand on its merits. Yes, there are reliable sources about this display, which is why I restored the article and and did a proper rewrite and cleanup. If any editors want to challenge its notability, they're welcome to do so. --76.189.99.98 (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- The evidence from other Wikipedia articles is that random attractions not sponsored or directly affiliated with the city regularly appear in articles. Chillicothe, Ohio mentions several, Mansfield, Ohio#Culture is a section devoted to them. Marion has its Marion Popcorn Festival. I suggest you find other things Lyndhurst is known for, and pack the article with them to reduce the glare... Abductive (reasoning) 03:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- A private display at someone's home is much different than traditional community events and attractions. I doubt any of the articles about Lyndhurst's neighboring communities include content about private attractions at residents' homes, much less have sections devoted to them: Mayfield, Mayfield Heights, Highland Heights, Gates Mills, South Euclid, Richmond Heights, University Heights, Pepper Pike and Beachwood. And if they do, they should be removed. Just because other other stuff exists doesn't mean it should exist. --76.189.99.98 (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- You are the only person I have ever found with a rule distinguishing private from public events on town articles. Wikipedia policy is to follow the sources and to find consensus. The material is well-sourced. It is even mentioned in a tourist guidebook Ohio Curiosities: Quirky Characters, Roadside Oddities & Other Offbeat Stuff. The consensus is to put repeating events in town articles, as long as they are WP:notable. No distinction is made for events "sponsored" by the town government and those that are not. Repeating events that are sponsored by a town actually rely on private citizens pushing their elected officials into holding them (since most are money-losers) and on local volunteers.
- Now, I am one of the strictest interpreters of notability on Wikipedia you are ever likely to run into. I have personally gotten rid of over a thousand articles, and participated in debates that established consensus to delete or to prevent the creation of entire classes of articles, preventing the creation of tens of thousands of articles in the long run. I found you while looking to greet new users who remove large amounts of text from articles, since Wikipedia has far too few real editors and far too many people adding text and creating articles on utter crap. But I tell you now, you need to give stop caring about if this "eggshell land" is mentioned in the town article. Instead, find more sources with something to say about the town, and add that material to the article. Abductive (reasoning) 05:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but a display in a homeowner's front yard once a year doesn't warrant inclusion on the article of the city it happens to be in. Nor does the attraction being "well-sourced". If everything well-sourced were worthy of inclusion in an encylopedia article, then everything ever printed in a reliable source should be included in Wikipedia. I wouldn't be opposed to one sentence about this eggshell attraction if it were placed in an appropriate section - such as Culture, Community events, Attractions, or something similar - and there were other reliably-sourced, meaningful city events or attractions included. The egg display certainly has no place in the city's History section, and absolutely does not warrant its own section with full details. Contrary to your claim that random attractions like this "regularly appear in articles", I showed you the articles of every surrounding community and none of them include anything like that. So apparently, it's not nearly as "regular" as you imply. I'm not sure what your excessive passion for this egg display is all about, but because of my editing, the article now has life again. But as I said, if other editors feel it's not notable then they can take the appropriate steps to try and get it deleted. And I don't know what "give stop caring" means, but do not tell me or any other editors what they need to do, think, find, or care about. I don't know what makes you think you're my editing boss, but your behavior could be perceived as condescending, arrogant, and stalkerish, so I'm therefore done conversing with you. --76.189.99.98 (talk) 06:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- You are clearly unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. All activity on Wikipedia is saved and viewable by all other users.
- Just checking the surrounding communities is insufficient. Just because a few nearby towns don't have such entries means nothing.
- At present, there are at least two people who want Eggshell-land in the article; the person who put it there, and me. There is only one who doesn't want it there, (you) and you have failed to cite any Wikipedia guideline or policy for removing sourced material. Abductive (reasoning) 16:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but a display in a homeowner's front yard once a year doesn't warrant inclusion on the article of the city it happens to be in. Nor does the attraction being "well-sourced". If everything well-sourced were worthy of inclusion in an encylopedia article, then everything ever printed in a reliable source should be included in Wikipedia. I wouldn't be opposed to one sentence about this eggshell attraction if it were placed in an appropriate section - such as Culture, Community events, Attractions, or something similar - and there were other reliably-sourced, meaningful city events or attractions included. The egg display certainly has no place in the city's History section, and absolutely does not warrant its own section with full details. Contrary to your claim that random attractions like this "regularly appear in articles", I showed you the articles of every surrounding community and none of them include anything like that. So apparently, it's not nearly as "regular" as you imply. I'm not sure what your excessive passion for this egg display is all about, but because of my editing, the article now has life again. But as I said, if other editors feel it's not notable then they can take the appropriate steps to try and get it deleted. And I don't know what "give stop caring" means, but do not tell me or any other editors what they need to do, think, find, or care about. I don't know what makes you think you're my editing boss, but your behavior could be perceived as condescending, arrogant, and stalkerish, so I'm therefore done conversing with you. --76.189.99.98 (talk) 06:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- A private display at someone's home is much different than traditional community events and attractions. I doubt any of the articles about Lyndhurst's neighboring communities include content about private attractions at residents' homes, much less have sections devoted to them: Mayfield, Mayfield Heights, Highland Heights, Gates Mills, South Euclid, Richmond Heights, University Heights, Pepper Pike and Beachwood. And if they do, they should be removed. Just because other other stuff exists doesn't mean it should exist. --76.189.99.98 (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- The evidence from other Wikipedia articles is that random attractions not sponsored or directly affiliated with the city regularly appear in articles. Chillicothe, Ohio mentions several, Mansfield, Ohio#Culture is a section devoted to them. Marion has its Marion Popcorn Festival. I suggest you find other things Lyndhurst is known for, and pack the article with them to reduce the glare... Abductive (reasoning) 03:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have no idea what "nothing else going on" means, but a random attraction not sponsored or directly affiliated with the city doesn't belong in the article about the city, let alone have its own section. It has its own article and can stand on its merits. Yes, there are reliable sources about this display, which is why I restored the article and and did a proper rewrite and cleanup. If any editors want to challenge its notability, they're welcome to do so. --76.189.99.98 (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Typically something like this needs a home rather than a stand-alone page. If you do a Google search quite a lot of results come up. Is your objection to it being in the Lyndhurst article based on aesthetics? Because the only Wikipedia guideline or policy I can think of that forbids it is WP:UNDUE. But Lyndhurst really has nothing else going on. Abductive (reasoning) 23:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- An attraction such as this does not warrant inclusion, especially as its own section, in the article of a city. Therefore, this article has been resored and it will need to stand on its own merits in terms of notability. For the record, a subject being sourced does not automatically "prove" its notability; otherwise, every subject ever published in a reliable source would be notable. Editors may challenge Eggshelland's notability and pursue appropriate options if they feel it warrants deletion. --76.189.99.98 (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- "You are clearly unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. All activity on Wikipedia is saved and viewable by all other users." Duh. And this has absolutely zero relevance to any issues on this talk page. But thanks for pointing out an elementary fact that even the most inexperienced editors know.
- Just checking the surrounding communities is insufficient. Just because a few nearby towns don't have such entries means nothing." So, let's see, you search for an hour to find one community (that's not even close to Lyndhurst) that you think supports your point (but in fact does not), yet you being shown the articles of every surrounding community which disproves your claim "means nothing"? Right. Now that's logic. Lmfao.
- "there are at least two people who want Eggshell-land in the article; the person who put it there, and me.: Now that is legitimate and clear consensus. You and the person who had a conversation with himself seven months ago. Hahahahahaha. Please stop embarrassing yourself with these comical statements. You're only making yourself look worse. And for the record, the name of the exhibit is Eggshelland, not Eggshell-land or eggshell land.
- Since you obviously know that "all activity on Wikipedia is saved and viewable by all other users" (see point 1), then you are aware that anyone can see that you have a four-year history of problems with other editors who have needed to educate you about your improper editing, behavior and misapplication of policies and guidelines. One of your most important misunderstandings that you need to get straight is that just because something is reliably-sourced does not necessarily mean that it should be included in an enclopedia article. That is an extremely basic concept that even most brand new editors understand. You need to stop pretending that you're some expert editor, when it's very apparent that you don't even understand some basic editing concepts. I suggest you stop your habit of adding welcome templates to hundreds of user talk pages so that you can make yourself feel important and act like you're an administrator when you're not. --76.189.126.36 (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have merged this article in an appropriate manner. If any editors would like to challenge the content's notability, they are welcome do so by following the proper protocol. --76.189.126.36 (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)