Talk:Franciscus Henri

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Edofedinburgh 11:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup rationale

More than half of this article is taken up with lists, this could use some integration. Also appears to be autobiographical ("all sources are from Franciscus Henri himself...") Seraphimblade 09:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The information was provided by Franciscus, yes, but he doesn't appear in any scholarly texts (no referencing possible) and it was edited and made objective by me. I'm also a little confused about how this list intergration should go about, so if you could help out that would be appreciated. Electriceel 02:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If no referencing is even possible, the article is likely to be deleted. Personal-knowledge information (whether true or not) must be verifiable to readers through reliable sources. While primary sources are quite alright, there must be secondary sources used as well. However, scholarly works are not the only possible secondary sources (though of course they are one good type). I'll see what I can find in terms of them. As to list cleanup, generally the lists should be converted into some type of prose. (For example, instead of just a list of albums, prose could be written in the form of "In (year), Henri released his (first|second|third...) album, (albumname). The album was certified as (silver|gold|platinum|limestone|whatever) in (year of certification)." And so on from there. (Of course, the style should be changed up a little as each album is integrated, to avoid being entirely repetitive, but it can be done!) Seraphimblade 01:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, ok... I'm going source hunting. I'm sure there are some catalogues or something out there with some info. Are there any points in particular that really need sourcing? It all seems pretty uncontentious to me, but if you can point out some stuff, I can remove it until I can source it properly. Electriceel 12:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Scholarly" is not to the point. But G-Test:

323 of about 480 for "Franciscus Henri" -wikipedia

and i noticed that excluding WP excluded over half the raw-hits count, so the G-Test count is probably still inflated by unacknowledged copying from WP, and hand inspection of a random sample of the 323 needs to be done before believing anything remotely like 323.

BTW,

*Antheunis, Franciscus "Henri", Australian musician and children's entertainer

appears not to be a typo, based on the tradition reflected in

12 of about 15 for "Franciscus Antheunis"

and the lack of hits for "Franciscus Atheunis", so

1. the sloppy work of placing Mr. Antheunis on List of people by name: At (which is not directly relevant to retention) suggests extra care in verifying claimed refs
2. there's no point in moving the entry to List of people by name: Ant, bcz the lack of evidence for that name does indicate that name is non-notable, whatever the person may be,
3. i'm making the

*Henri, Franciscus, Australian musician & performer

entry on List of people by name: He as a {{Deln trk list entry}}, 'cuz this sure sounds like the Deletion Track to me.

--Jerzy•t 07:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been watching the discussion about me with some interest. At his stage I'm beginning to believe I don't exist or my thirty six years in the recording and performing industry never happened. Can someone in plain english (i'm getting on in years ) explain why this page is diffrent to i.e. BRIAN CADD or JOHN FARNHAM both of whome are contempories BD, having produced one of my albums. Jb having children who listened to my music in the confort of their own bed room The pages to RAFFI(musician)- Canada are similar in nature and list me as writer of 'Ducks like Rain" on his Rise and Shine, album If one was to GOOGLE (may I use that word?)Franciscus Henri,(or "ducks like rain for that matter) there is plenty there to indicate that what poor 'Electriceel' is trying to put tigether is a genuine attempt to make me "immortal" on your splendid medium. FH—Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.63.141 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 2 February 2007

The other two articles are in, to put it nicely, pretty poor shape as well. They include only primary sources, a good deal of puff, superlatives, weasel wording which is unsupported by sources, and simply unsourced information. I'll have a look later to see if those can be sourced and get some cleanup done.

As to some examples of what we're looking for in a music biography, here are a couple of those that have made featured article status: Mandy Moore, Selena, and Charles Ives. Note that the biography there citing the fewest secondary sources, Ives, still cites ten different sources for the article, none of which were written by the subject or someone affiliated with him or her. That's what's meant by secondary sourcing and verifiability. I personally do not doubt that what you say here is true-but our verifiability policies require that if a reader were to doubt, (s)he can find a source which will confirm the article's information, not just that it "be true".

Of course, articles don't start out as featured article material, and I'm sure not a single one that I listed did! However, we do at least want to see some basics laid out in beginning articles-for example, that at least a secondary source or two is listed (even if it's not cited with footnotes, just that there's some type of reference to it), that will give future editors something to work with. It also establishes that the subject is indeed a notable one, and that enough source material does exist to write a comprehensive article without the use of personal knowledge. I hope that helps clear things up! Please leave a message either here or on my talk if you have any other questions. Seraphimblade 00:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• While "notable" obviously doesn't have a bright-line definition in most cases, it's a lot like "big" and thus requires a little more than plain English. If you don't understand what is meant by a Google test, follow this lk and then ask questions.

At a glance, i don't think that page mentions that the "unique" results never can exceed 1000, and that e.g.

750 of 20,000

means

21,000 "raw" hits were found, and of the 1000 Google considers most likely to be useful, 250 were each discarded for being too similar to one of the other 750

(There is some temptation to conclude that about 5000 of the other 20,000 would have been similarly discarded, but that doesn't follow. Still, the lower the uniqueness ratio on the first 1K, the shakier the "raw" figures look.)

You ask what is different, i think, among

722 of about 526,000 for "JOHN FARNHAM " -wikipedia

773 of about 19,100 for "BRIAN CADD " -wikipedia

323 of about 480 for "Franciscus Henri" -wikipedia

My responses are that the uniqueness rates are quite similar, but their raw hits are about 40 and about a thousand times bigger, and that i have no idea beyond those numbers about the others' notability, but both of them are high enuf that my informal recollection is of never having seen 19K or 500K cited as reasons to delete in any subject area. While (frankly) i haven't paid enough attention be sure how often 500 "raw" has been considered evidence for or against deletion of singer-songwriters, i can't think of a subject area where i'd consider 100 or fewer "unique" to be anything but a slam dunk for deletion, and 323 "unique" feels to me like at least a strong presumption of non-notability, requiring something very compelling to overcome that presumption.

(I don't understand "DB" nor "Jp", and the sentence beginning "Jp" appears to me more like a subject in search of a predicate. Nor do i understand how "Canada" bears in this discussion. Please enlighten at least me, if the arguments these are part of are important.)

Thanks
--Jerzy•t 01:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I for one am glad Franciscus Henri wasn't deleted, since I came here specifically looking for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.182.242 (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)