User talk:Sanlaw33


 * I do not think it possible to have a good article on the current plan. There is no good way to includes relatively non-notable people in a portmanteau article of this sort--it will be seen as an attempt to bypass WP:N. You can write an article on individual people if there are third party published references in reliable sources dealing about them in a substantial way, and this is the preferred way to go. Web sites of their organizations are not such sources. Newspaper & magazine articles are, but again not those linked to their organizations. Of the sources in the existing articles, only the Boston Globe story fits. Articles in alumni magazines are very borderline--they do not have a very high reputation for objectivity. You can also write an article about particular organizations, with the same considerations, and mention the people in such articles--but extensive biographical details would usually be seen as out of place. If the notability is borderline, pick one or the other depending on where the strongest sources are. And as a practical hint, try doing one at a time and see what the reaction is. Make sure the articles are strong, for they will be checked. If it is objected to as re-creation of deleted content, make extra-sure you have a very good case, and go to WP:Deletion review.

White Activists

 * The strongest article is Patricia Ramsey, who is probably notable as a professor according to WP:PROF, Orient the article that way, with emphasis on her published works, not her teaching, and discuss the activism. The detailed material on her family background and her personal views is probably not encyclopedic.
 * As for the general article on White antiracist activists, the first part of the first paragraph will in my personal opinion be acceptable if you can show that the individual statements in the article are supported by the references given. I have therefore trimmed it to that size to preserve the article--if you restore the content on the individuals, it will be added to the AfD discussion and removed, or when the AfD closes with a delete, it will be deleted as restoration of deleted content. But I also removed the mention of the local region--if the article is oriented that way, it will not stand, as over specific. Please note that this is my personal opinion only, --it is quite likely that the article will be challenged none the less as over-specific, and the community will decide. It should be written as generally as possible into an overall discussion of the phenomenon, covering more than one geographic region, and if you mention people who  do not have WP articles, just give their names and positions and towns, and nothing more.  Please read WP:COI, and WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a biographic directory, no matter how worthy the people are.
 * (incidentally, Administrators here have no special power in matters like this--all editors have an equal voice in the consensus when it comes to deciding notability at AfD--all that administrators do there is decide what the consensus of the discussion actually is and delete or not accordingly. All we can do otherwise is delete articles that are altogether unquestionably unacceptable. There are many Wikipedians of great experience who choose not to become administrators, and are highly respected. What is true is that nobody is accepted as an administrator without a considerable degree of experience and community expression of confidence.)

DGG (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

glad to see your note. I would strongly suggest that you post to the AfD discussion and ask to withdraw the article yourself, giving the intent of writing a more appropriate version under a more appropriate title. This will greatly facilitate adding the new article without encountering objections. Otherwise, AfD discussions normally run for 5 days and are closed within a day following that. I would also suggest you withdraw the individual bios except for Ramsay, with the same intent--just say that you will reinsert them when you have better sourcing. This will save everyone trouble, will avoid increasing any hostility that may have developed, and will show your understanding of what is needed. I certainly wont hold it against you if you do not do this, but it would make it easier for you and everyone. DGG (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, it might be a good idea to split your sandbox into multiple ones for each subject, so that if you work on them and are able to get them to meet WP:BIO, they can simply be moved into article space. --Core desat 04:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)