Talk:Henry Masterson III

Notability tag
Reverting the pretty absurd notability tag as subject easily passes WP:ANYBIO for being awarded National Medal of Arts. Coupled with archival preservation of the subject's work at a major university and plenty of GNG to go around. Please understand notability guidelines before doing drive by tags such as this. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I read "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." This subject did receive an award, but if that's the only claim to notability, I believe that makes him unlikely to pass WP:GNG. In any case, it's not a "pretty absurd notability tag", since the amount of in-depth coverage of this subject in reliable secondary sources is almost nil. So please don't disparage my edit as a "drive by tag" - I looked up the subject before deciding to add it. JimKaatFan (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm requesting that you undo your revert and respect the process of WP:CYCLE. Take the issue to WP:3O or AfD if you have a problem with it. Adding a tag and then reverting its removal, with the exception of a vandal, is in the face of multiple Wikipedia policies. The subject won one of the highest American honors for the Arts, had their house turned in to a museum and their papers are held in a university collection. This checks multiple boxes. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Buddy I added a notability tag and you removed it without adding a single source. You're the one breaking WP:CYCLE. JimKaatFan (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , That's because I feel the sources presented is more than enough to demonstrate notability. If you disagree then go through the process. Spoiler alert: reverting a non-vandal isn't it. Hence you not seeming to have a grasp of how WP:CYCLE works. Also, all this takes is a simple search to see a myriad of hits. If you're not going to participate in the process or take it to AfD or seek a third opinion then move on. You not wanting to participate in the process or expand yourself if is the definition of drive by tagging. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah that newspapers.com search is meaningless and you know it. Show me some reliable secondary sources for Henry Masterson III and then you can have a meaningful discussion with me. So far you're just doing some double-talk about how well you know Wikipedia policies. This person probably isn't notable. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , You asked for secondary sources, I showed the newspapers.com search which shows coverage in multiple papers spanning multiple years across the formation of the museum, purchases of artwork, producing broadway shows, etc. If you don't have access to newspapers.com sign up for it via the wikipedia library. Multiple SSGs are also checked. Since you have shown zero interest in participating in cycle or other outlets, I'm removing the tag. Take it to AfD if you have an issue. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're in the wrong if you remove the tag. Check Help:Maintenance_template_removal: "Consider first discussing the matter with the original placer of the template (unless this user is no longer active on Wikipedia). In any case, if the issue appears contentious, seek consensus on the talk page." JimKaatFan (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , All your doing is edit warring and not participating in the process. I've recommended you taking this to multiple different outlets since it's a contentious tag. You've refused to do so, showing a refusal of process and silent consensus. If you want to leave the tag up in spite of multiple sources presented and SSGs met then take it to AfD. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You linked to a newspapers.com search for the words "Henry" and "Masterson". Do you think I'm an idiot? the search would return any article with those two words in them. Not articles about Henry Masterson III. As for deleting the article, I feel it's good practice to give you a chance to find more sources. I certainly didn't see any. If you can't find any more after a while, then I'll be happy to nominate the article. There's no hurry. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Take it AfD. No need to waste time. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * honestly, I put the template there because I know some people monitor those templates and someone else might have access to a source that you and I don't. This isn't a personal mission to destroy pages that you've created, and I don't know why you took it so personally in the first place that you felt the need to attack my choices in editing. I have no idea who you are and no idea who Henry Masterson III is, but when I looked him up, I found nothing beyond "he's kind of notable in the Houston area", so I figured it was a good way to attract attention to the problem. Yeah, he got an NMA because he gave away a bunch of money and was probably friends with a bunch of powerful people in Washington. So what? WP:GNG is still the standard. If there's more sources, great. If not, I'll take it to a deletion thing in a week or so. I'm busy. Meanwhile, you've made me educate myself in how and why those templates should be removed, and I thank you for that, because Wikipedia policies make it clear that you shouldn't be removing it based on your opinion alone - especially since you're the article creator and you could hardly be called neutral on the subject. There's no hurry. JimKaatFan (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Again, take it to AfD if you dispute the notability and stop wasting my time with this nonsense. NMA is a huge honor, evidenced by virtually all recipients having wiki pages. The subject's house was donated and turned in to a museum. A major art museum had an exhibition honoring their contributions to Broadway. His letters and work are archived at a major institution. You seem to have very misguided beliefs about what GNG is (in particular the relation of SSGs to it), which again, is why I encourage you to take it to AfD. It'll be a good learning experience for you. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you're being condescending, but I don't usually see this level of malice from Wikipedia administrators. JimKaatFan (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinged here to offer a third opinion. I'm not going to weigh in on the notability of the subject, but am compelled to render an opinion on the maintenance template. As far as i'm concerned, the template should be removed as another editor has contested it and offered a viable solution (AfD) to determine the notability of the article subject. Maintenance templates are intended to be temporary measures. They are not intended to be permanent warnings or a means to determine the notability of subjects - that's what AfD discussions are for. Sulfurboy has stated and provided a link in the discussion above that they have evidence of the subject's notability that they have not yet added to the article. While I would encourage them to add these potential sources in short order, I will note that a Wikipedia article's notability is established by all potential sources, not just those that are currently cited in the article. I agree with Sulferboy that any doubts about the topic's notability should be determined by an AfD discussion, which would serve as a semi-permanent evaluation of Masterson's encyclopedic notability and would involve other editors.


 * As far as the current placement of the template is concerned, it should be removed. JimKaatFan, please understand that - while Help:Maintenance template removal encourages the gaining of consensus to remove tags - this how-to guide does not superseded WP:CON, a policy which as long established that the WP:ONUS is on the adder of content to gain consensus on the talk page - this applies to all content, and given you added the template and immediately had another editor contest it, you should abide by WP:NOCON and attempt to gain consensus to add the tag. For this reason I recommend that if you still have doubts about the subject's notability, you should nominate the article for deletion so that we can wrap this issue up. Thank you both. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this looks like a clear case of Canvassing to me. In my experience with third opinions, there are clear instructions at Third opinion for obtaining an unbiased third opinion, and that procedure obviously wasn't followed here. But I do appreciate the opportunity to discuss the proper ways to solicit third opinions, thanks for your input. JimKaatFan (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * noted, but canvasing normally means that one editor has explicitly asked another to vote on their side during a discussion. I don't think Sulfurboy infringed on this guideline, but I cant speak for everyone. As far as WP:THIRD is concerned, no editor is obligated to follow that process (see the disclaimer on the top of said page), and i'm not affiliated with dispute resolution. What I do know is you seem to be ignoring policy in favor of a guideline, and your repeated addition of clearly contested information is steering you into an edit war. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Canvassing doesn't say what you just said, at all. It says "notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way" - and lo and behold, the outcome was exactly what the canvasser wanted. So while I appreciate your attempt to defend your friend's actions, I would politely submit that perhaps you aren't 100% neutral in this discussion, as evidenced by how you misquoted what Canvassing says. JimKaatFan (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)