Talk:Former Military Chapel (Bachelor Quarters) (Alcatraz Island)

Self-published cite resored?
, can you justify this use of self-published work? Qwirkle (talk) 07:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ...especially since it explicitly contradicts the claim it is used to prove? Qwirkle (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi. This is a tangent from Articles for deletion/Former Military Chapel (Bachelor Quarters).  Your goal is to get rid of the article, apparently.  You don't get to trash it and then justify deletion because it is trashed.  Allowing that would obviously work poorly, right?  It would encourage trashing.  In general, non-independent sources can definitely be used to develop articles, and it is obviously wrong to remove references which were in fact the sources for material in an article.  What you can do, though, is argue in the AFD about the quality of the source.  You can assert there that it does not count towards establishing notability of the topic.  You can argue that insufficient quality/quantity of independent sourcing exists to support the notability of the topic.  However again you don't do that by just hiding the existence of sources that you don't like, that obviously undermines a discussion of what is in the article.
 * I'll go further: IMO during an AFD opponents of an article should not edit in the article at all, while proponents may try to develop it.  That supports discussion of whether the topic can be established to be Wikipedia-notable. --Doncram (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How is removing a bad cite - and one which, in this case, doesn’t even support the claim made in an article “trash [an] article?” In this case, it objectively improved it.
 * More importantly, though, how do think having multiple stublets about a subject, sourced and written at this level, helps the reader and improves an encyclopedia? Do you think it would be a good thing to have a separate article on every aspect of a notable subject, a la Cirt/Sagecandor’s “Donald Trump...” series? Because that is what was done here, from the start, with some bizarre naming thrown in as well.
 * Finally, you can “go further” if you like, “in [your] opinion”, but that is all it is. It is entirely possible to discuss whether an article could be improved without censoring edits from one point of view. Personally, I think AfD should have a tool in that shows the version at the time it was recomended for deletion, modifiable if need be to another “before” version. In my opinion, that would be a good thing, but my opinion does not matter here. Nor should yours. Qwirkle (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

(Undid revision 884062519 by Qwirkle (talk)That's what the reference says.) (undo | thank)
...no. The cite does not say It [the military chapel] functioned as a Sunday School for children of the military personnel on Sundays. It does not mention the location of the Sunday aschool at all. It doesn’t even clain that there definitely was a Sunday school, only that someone vaguely recalled there having been one, someplace.

Here is the relevant section from the so-called source:

Wanda and her family never attended church at the military chapel. She recalled there being Sunday School Classes for the children. Wanda believed Military Chaplain Sliney resided in quarters situated over the sally-port tunnel. Both the Chapel and Chaplains quarters were located on the east side of the island. During the Bureau of Prisons era, Wanda recalled that she attended Sunday School Class in the Social Hall.

“Recalled” and “believed”, from 60+ year old childhood memory aren’t grounds for saying anything is, and not even the best source for saying it might have been. Finally, note it only states the location during BoP times, it makes no direct claims about USDB days. Finally, note the quality of writing...but that’s what you often get from self-published stuff... Qwirkle (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)