Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:06, 25 June 2009

Södra Råda gamla kyrka

Hej och hi! I've been translating this article for the Finnish wiki and I had been planning also translating the whole article to fill out the English article, but when searching for the meaning of "igensätt", I came across this site, which makes me wonder if the Swedish article isn't a plagiarized version of Svenska Kulturminnen 4. Do you happen to have access to that work? I've tried to find a copy of it here in Finland to no avail. Thanks for any help you can provide! -Yupik (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup, it seems that the plagiarized content was added in this set of edits. I am not surprised. Plagiarism runs rampant on Misplaced Pages.

Sorry, I have no immediate access to Svenska Kulturminnen, but I am familiar with the author of the text, Marian Ullén, who has written on this church elsewhere.

In any case, I already have a fuller article in the works here: User:Hegvald/SROC. I have no intention to translate from any other version but am writing it from scratch from the best available scholarly references (there are a few more than those already listed in that page). I was interrupted by having to return some books to the library and haven't gotten around to re-borrowing them yet.

I would prefer not to paste it in right now, as there are some things I really want to improve before I do so, and I intend to nominate it at DYK as a "five times expanded" version. --Hegvald (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just realized that I do in fact know what "Svenska Kulturminnen" refers to in this case. It is the work by Marian Ullén that I was thinking of, but it is titled Södra Råda gamla kyrka. "Svenska kulturminnen" is the title of the publication series. --Hegvald (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've marked the Swedish article with the plagiat-template so that it can be taken care of on that end. The article you're writing looks wonderful! I'm looking forward to you moving it to the main article as this church is unknown outside of the Scandinavian countries. I also finally found a copy of the Södra Råda gamla kyrka book in that series, but it's in the closed stacks of that National Library, so I'm not sure how much access I have to it :D Thanks for your help! -Yupik (talk) 11:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks & you're welcome! --Hegvald (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Robert Reed Church

It actually wasn't a mistake, but I've restored it nonetheless per the proposed deletion policy. Regards, –Juliancolton |  17:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Please note that I also suggested deleting the other article I found on the topic (the one which was plagiarized from one of its "sources"). --Hegvald (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, which is entirely fine, but Hegvald, can you post your rationale (why it should be kept) at Talk:Robert Reed Church? Thanks. tedder (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think my reasoning was clear from my comment at User talk:Juliancolton. --Hegvald (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You gave great reasoning for undeleting or doing a deletion review, but not for satisfying the article guidelines. Let me know if I can help with the research. tedder (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

In my view, your claim here that this particular article was "missing reliable sources to indicate notability of an individual" was incorrect. With the deletion log entry mirroring your argument for deletion and being visible in place of the empty page, it will leave a strange impression on the page creator returning to see what happened to his or her article. How is anyone going to learn how to make a better article (which is presumably the ultimate goal) if the criticism they get is that the perfectly fine source they referenced wasn't good enough, or that the subject of the article, about whom a great deal has clearly been written, isn't "notable" enough? If the log entry had said "subject potentially interesting, but article too short", "too badly written" or something, it would have been possible to overcome that by doing better next time. A log entry like this leaves no avenues for improvement, no way for the user to figure out what was actually wrong and what is needed to get the article to "stick" at the next attempt?

An established user, even someone like me who isn't fanatically hacking away at Misplaced Pages at every moment but has been around for a while and written a few articles, would probably shrug this off and return with a better article version a week later. But for a brand new user, it is likely to be both humbling and confusing.

Do you see my point? --Hegvald (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I arrived at this topic in some roundabout way that I can't reconstruct at the moment. It is far outside the kind of things I am usually interested in (I probably know too little about the American historical context to do a good job here). If you are interested in working on it, you might take a look at M. Sammye Miller, "Last Will and Testament of Robert Reed Church, Senior (1839-1912)", The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 65, No. 2 (Spring, 1980), pp. 156-157. I found it at JSTOR (stable URL) but haven't had time to read it. --Hegvald (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hegvald, I can certainly see your point. We're reminded to not bite the newcomers. However, a week is a decent amount of time, and it's how the new article process is set up. A proposed deletion is similar to the WP:BRD cycle- it is a way to find interested parties in relation to an article. The fact that nobody showed up for months is telling.

Further, in regards to saying "too short" or "too badly written", those are things that can be fixed, not arguments for deletion. Here's precisely what I wrote as the argument for deletion:

:::::Primarily notable as a relative of a notable individual, which is not an indicator of notability. Missing reliable sources to indicate notability of an individual.

We can break that down- first, it appears Church is primarily notable as the father of Mary Church Terrell- in fact, the article said "He is probably most famous as". Next, to meet WP:BIO, see Misplaced Pages:Notability (people)#Basic criteria and WP:ANYBIO. I won't cut and paste the guideline here, but note it says they should be the subject of multiple secondary sources, plus more. When I listed it for {{prod}}, it had one source, behind a paywall. There are still only two, and it appears the strongest claim to notability is as a father. Am I missing some other claim? I read the "Last Will" on JSTOR, and it basically said "he was a prominent local businessman." I'm missing any further claims to notability of an individual. Further, my search didn't find any other sources of information on him, which doesn't seem promising.

Ultimately, it is important to be nice, but Misplaced Pages also needs to be right. I'd encourage you to read Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion#Please be tolerant of others, which speaks to why editors delete things and the rationale for doing so. Also know the article will likely be headed to WP:AFD very soon if other sources can't be found- Misplaced Pages:Undeletion policy#Deletion review says "If a page was deleted via proposed deletion, it should be immediately undeleted by request. However, it may immediately be brought to AfD." I'm not going to do so immediately (though others may); however, the article needs more sources and needs a stronger claim to notability than simply being the father of someone notable. tedder (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Do as you see fit. I may comment in the AFD discussion area if you take it there (it will at least get more sets of eyes on the article), but I really don't want to spend more time on this now. --Hegvald (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)