Talk:James Thompson (Kansas politician)

Untitled
Hey, I saw this article was considered for deletion, so I added context and bibliography, and expanded it. Is it safe now ? Emass100 (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ,, , It wasn't "safe." I tried to bring up the article today using Wikilinks in the Special Election article and  disambiguation pages, and when I found it didn't exist, I wrote an Article about Thompson. When I tried to rename it, I removed those links and  discovered that it had actually been deleted and I couldn't make the required move. Users Emass100, Zawl, Malcolmx15 and Joe_Roe were all very helpful in its timely restoration, and I'll be working on it to bring it up to snuff this weekend. I'm in the middle of making some updates to the Umpqua shooting article, and will get to the Thompson later today. Thanks for all your efforts to keep this important article on Wikipedia, in particular since Thompson has filed to run again in next year's KS-CD4 election, presumably against Estes. Activist (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no notable article here. What you just did is no different from the article that was decided to be a redirect a month ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ,, , I still don't know what existed beforehand. When I looked for an Article on the subject, and only found redirects, and not understanding why, my original intent was to create a "stub plus" article from scratch and then quickly add considerable material to it. However I was blocked because of the unknown earlier AfD actions, and I asked for help from administrators since I was baffled by whatever was happening. Two helpfully pitched in, in the middle of the night to sort it out. Unfortunately due to the confusion, the restoration process was rather complex. I didn't revive the history and do the merge with what I'd written last night. I just tidied it up after it had been done, intending to expand it right away, but got stymied because of the prior deletion that took hours and hours to sort out. I'm trying not to fall asleep after all that, but I'd appreciate it if you would take another look, and I'll get back to that expansion after some much needed sleep. I can also forward the correspondence from Joe_Roe, Zawl and Malcolmxl5 if you'd like. I should note also that this novice and fairly unknown candidate had by far the best Democratic party showing in the district in 21 years, despite being hugely outspent and suffering from a barrage of mendacious attack television ads against him immediately prior to the election. Thanks! Activist (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There has been no correspondence from me. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I got this, in the midst of back and forth between Joe Roe and Zawl:

Dear Activist, The Wikipedia page James Thompson (Wichita politician) has been changed on 23 September 2017 by Malcolmxl5, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Thompson_(Wichita_politician) for the current revision.

To view this change, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Thompson_(Wichita_politician)&diff=next&oldid=801989617

For all changes since your last visit, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Thompson_(Wichita_politician)&diff=0&oldid=801989617

Editor's summary: added using HotCat

Contact the editor: mail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Malcolmxl5 wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malcolmxl5

There will be no other notifications in case of further activity unless you visit this page while logged in. You could also reset the notification flags for all your watched pages on your watchlist.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activist (talk • contribs)

An AfD from a month ago closed as a merge/redirect because the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. I already tried restoring the redirect but was reverted. Since the current article is no better than the previous version seen in the article history, I appreciate somebody else restoring it as a redirect. Otherwise, I will again. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The AfD from a month ago suggested that the subject is not notable, not that the former article was not notable. In what way does this address those AfD concerns? You should revert your revert of me before I do it. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * When I reviewed this page I was able to turn up multiple sources on Thompson without any effort, so he seemed a clear pass of the GNG to me. I don't know if these sources were overlooked in the first AfD or if they've been published in the last month, but they are there. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:GHITS are not a way to determine notability. Those sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage. This is all covered at Articles for deletion/James Thompson (American politician) from only a month ago, and nothing has changed regarding this person in the past month. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There's nothing that says editors can't recreate previously deleted articles. WP:CSD applies if the content is more or less identical, but that's not the case here. So there's no procedural reason that we have to restore the redirect per the previous AfD.
 * I'm (quite clearly, I think) not saying Google hits make him notable. I'm saying that a simple Google search turns up sufficient depth of coverage to pass the GNG. And I'm talking about lengthy profiles, so I don't see how WP:ROUTINE applies. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 23:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to be suggesting that because there are GHITS, they establish notability, but a closer look at those GHITS shows them to be routine coverage of a political candidate for office, which gets into GNG and NPOL. The article is not identical to what it was, but it's clearly lacking in establishing GNG. I reached out to the closing admin of the deletion discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I reverted two massive deletions that had removed almost half of the article today, which what were I presume good faith deletions, unintentionally essentially usurped and skewed the AfD process. For instance, they removed a great deal of info about the article's subject that went beyond the second electoral process, the eventual election, the coverage of the election, which has been international (I had drawn unique material from the third post-election articles to be published over a period of weeks about Thompson and his candidacy in the British paper, The Guardian demonstrating international notability, and confirming the extensive analysis of the significance and particulars of the election. Activist (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Good Faith edits - Misperceptions
I hope no one thinks that any of us are editing in anything other than good faith. This has just been an unfortunate unintended clusterbang as edits have gone back and forth rather rapidly. It's the "fog of (unintentional) Edit war," I think. Activist (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I know this is all being done in good faith. It's still a mistake, I believe. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm just asking for a little patience and latitude. I've made 30 edits already in less than a day, essentially starting from scratch given that I was unaware of the former AfD and removal, and have done a substantial amount of reviewing of RS in order to do this. I can't see any reason to abandon this good faith effort and return to a decision based on a status quo ante which barely resembles what we have now. Activist (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

My edits?
Hello! Since my edits have been contested, I would like to seek consensus for them on this talk page. My edits were a large scale removal of what I considered to be material violating our neutral point of view policy. So, what do other editors think of my edit? RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 10:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you've asked, my honest opinion is that I think they were precipitous and unjustified. In addition, making so many deletions at the same time makes it difficult for any other editor to evaluate any single one, to ascertain whether any have merit, and makes it much more difficult to restore that text which has been inappropriately deleted, with any edits on any article. I don't think it's respectful to the work of other editors or to the encyclopedia. I hope this can be a learning experience for you. While a scapel might be helpful in some instances in any article, using a machete is unwise. Activist (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , it took me all of a minute to review the content changed in this edit and I see nothing wrong with it. In fact, I believe it reduces some puffery aimed at bolstering the subject of this article. There was no reason to revert that edit. Not every change needs to be discussed in committee. You do not WP:OWN this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Some context
The notion has been advanced that since Thompson had lost, even though with extremely limited resources he had immensely shaved the prevailing wide margins from the six preceding campaigns, in a district that had been gerrymandered in 2002 and 2012 to be still more favorable to conservatives, that his performance was nothing "notable" (despite getting international coverage). So I went to the Andrew Irvine (mountaineer), article. (Snark alert!) After all, even though it was the best ever attempt at the summit, prior to 1953, it is most unlikely that Andy succeeded in his quest and he died well before he returned to his base camp. I actually found a speculative statement in the article with an equally dead url and removed both. Does anyone think the Irvine article should be consequently entirely removed? Activist (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)