User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2016/October

Holmes Chapel
It appears you thought my edit to Holmes Chapel was frivolous - but if Tom Lowery is sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article, surely he can be listed as a notable resident? Paul W (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * While it's not formal policy, The person's notability must derive from the location OR the person must have derived the basis for their notability in that location OR the person must hold some significance to the location in general is generally a good rule to follow for "notable residents" lists. Wikipedia articles aren't an indiscriminate collection of information; if we start routinely including lower-league footballers, one-hit-wonder singers, minor actors etc who were born in a given location, then the lists will start ballooning out of control, particularly for larger towns and cities. (If Lowery turned down a big team in favour of Crewe because of his dedication to the area, or something like that, I'd consider that as making him worthy of mention, but there doesn't appear to be anything like that going on here.) &#8209; Iridescent 14:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition, it's very doubtful that Tom Lowery meets WP:GNG. There is insufficient evidence in the article you created of "significant coverage in reliable sources". The source given, the Crewe Chronical, is itself not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, being a weekly local newspaper with a circulation of only around 12,000. There is one article with Lowery as the subject, plus four sentences in another article by the same paper. If it were not for WP:NFOOTBALL's assumption that anyone with as little as one appearance for a league club is notable, the article would never survive AfD. --RexxS (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Crewe Chronicle does have an article, albeit stubby (written by some guy called Eric Corbett, as it happens). &#8209; Iridescent 15:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well spotted, - Mea culpa! that certainly does improve the newspaper's status, but I still don't believe that any individual other than a footballer would get through AfD with just those sources to demonstrate notability. --RexxS (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I take it you've never come across the cricket project, in that case? Their self-proclaimed exemption from the notability guidelines makes WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:PORNBIO look harsh; their "anyone who has appeared at first-class level, anywhere at any time" rule means we have such gems as Blundell (1812 cricketer) and Green (Kent cricketer). (The infobox on Blundell is a particularly hilarious example of the type.) &#8209; Iridescent 15:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Amazing. You aren't the first esteemed encyclopedist to have questioned the inclusion of such pointless entries. --Hillbillyholiday talk 00:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well spotted, - Mea culpa! that certainly does improve the newspaper's status, but I still don't believe that any individual other than a footballer would get through AfD with just those sources to demonstrate notability. --RexxS (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I take it you've never come across the cricket project, in that case? Their self-proclaimed exemption from the notability guidelines makes WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:PORNBIO look harsh; their "anyone who has appeared at first-class level, anywhere at any time" rule means we have such gems as Blundell (1812 cricketer) and Green (Kent cricketer). (The infobox on Blundell is a particularly hilarious example of the type.) &#8209; Iridescent 15:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Amazing. You aren't the first esteemed encyclopedist to have questioned the inclusion of such pointless entries. --Hillbillyholiday talk 00:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Amazing. You aren't the first esteemed encyclopedist to have questioned the inclusion of such pointless entries. --Hillbillyholiday talk 00:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

A very tardy response
Hello Eric Corbett, I hope everything is good in your life and that you remain in good health and good cheer. I was reviewing some archived discussions today, and I noticed moments of incivility in some of our conversations. In all candor, the incivility I saw was in my own comments, and conduct towards you! I regret this truth, and apologize, as fully as I possibly can, for the treachery I hid behind wholesome prose and feigned collegiality. It was not cunning that governed my actions, at the time, as much as it was ignorance, and not hearing things I should have been listening to, instead of talking. I'll resume listening now, and promise to work on saying less; as if I know much of anything at all.--John Cline (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Margaret Thatcher
Sorry to trouble you Eric. There's an interesting discussion there about whether to expand and consolidate material from the redirected page into a section of Margaret Thatcher. It would be useful to have your input, whether you agree with me or not. --John (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the merge of Iron Lady? Eric   Corbett  12:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. --John (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)