Talk:Thomas Meighan

Supposed Fan Sites
I get really annoyed with the editing on this page. Someone just removed 2 sites they claimed were 'fan sites'. Now no offense to Mr. Meighan but google him for a second...hes no Britney Spears. He doesnt have rabid fans putting out false data about him.

The two sites in question were of way different nature and authors. The first was a geneaology site, well researched and contained extremely important information on Meighan (such as his obituary). Again google that, you wont find another site listing such info. I dont see how that makes it a fan site, I find it quite a relevant information site alongside Golden Silents or Silentgents (both sites well linked on Wikipedia).

As for the second one, it was a silent film blog. Yes blogs are low on the list but the research is there, and its not just an 'anyone can edit' thing. It also provides pertinent data, summarizing Meighan's career and life. I dont see how thats a fan site as if you look through it it is not dedicated to Meighan and is a heavily researched site. Why again it should be removed over something like SilentGents or Golden Silents makes no sense to me. I think editors are too heavy handed sometimes. Again this is Thomas Meighan were talking about...not Paris Hilton. Look on any number of actors wikipedias (the well sourced from silents to talkies) and all have sites listed at the bottom either dedicated to the star or with articles about the star. Why should Meighan be any different? --Maggiedane (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That was my deletion of external links. The reason why I trimmed two blog links from Meighan is because they appeared unrefereed and non-peer reviewed. Neither blog was written by an established expert, and neither site quoted established sources. Such links fail WP:EL... By the way, citing the faultiness of other Wikipedia articles is no argument for this one to remain faulty. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not my blog, and if you look at the date its not a new entry; which has nothing to do with what *I* have to say...though one suspects childish deletion if thats the case. As for the first site its not a blog at all; though by WP:EL I guess its lumped together that way.  However 'not researched'?  Its a geneaology site, with tons of references and important info.  Sounds to me like you have some kinda vendetta or something; especially if you still qualify the first site as such.  I really think a third party should be invited here.  My qualms with the WP:EL is that I would say both sites qualify; minus the second one being ruled out for being blog (however it is researched, and its facts are easily citeable), but the first one there is no good reason to delete other then being deletion happy.  Im not going to engage in an edit war with you; but I think you are being childish and have really silly reasons for deleting BOTH sites. --Maggiedane (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So much drama! All I'm doing is toeing the WP:EL line. There's no ulterior motive or vendetta going on here. There's just a balanced assessment followed by appropriate action.
 * Wikipedia is not a repository for links. As you note yourself, anybody searching Google for Thomas Meighan will easily find the more well-connected websites with photos and information about him. The NY Times obituary is already cited numerous times as a reference within this article; having the same cite in an external link becomes redundant. Binksternet (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)