Talk:Notable Rhodes Scholars/Sept07

Notables

Note: This discussion has been "pruned" - the full text is archived at Talk:Notable Rhodes Scholars/Sept07 included on this page as hidden comments

I have suspicions that some of the redlinked names here are vanity/vandalism and propose that they all be removed, unless accompanied by a good external source. If they're notable then they should have a WP article to support the claim. —Moondyne 02:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I also "have suspicions that some of the redlinked names here are vanity/vandalism".

And I agree that "If they're notable then they should have a WP article to support the claim."

I'm forced to wonder about 1998's Deer Hunter (placed in the 1980s list), and some of the other redlinks are not particularly informative. e.g.

James Bathurst University Of Sussex, University Of Melbourne

Tom Krieger (Virginia and Virginia Tech) productivity consultant

Rather than delete them, I've decided to turn these three into hidden comments.

Cheers, Pdfpdf 11:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

A few redlinks I checked turn up sparse results on a google search, just enough to verify the claim, but nothing else.

Ooops - gtg - be back in 8 hours Pdfpdf 22:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Double Ooops! It's been somewhat more than 8 hours. Sorry. Pdfpdf 13:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've got a problem here. You're no newbie, but you're making some unexpected-by-me statements. I'm not trying to be offensive here. (In fact, quite the opposite; I'm trying to sound as inoffensive as possible while still trying to say something. Please assume good faith and bear with me.) By comparison to you, I am a newbie, yet I seem to be finding myself in the position of bringing up points that would have been obvious to you years ago. I can only conclude that I'm missing something. So please, feel free to fill in the gaps in my understanding. In fact, I would very much appreciate you filling in the obvious gaps in my understanding.

Yes, once again I digress.

So, to quote The Lone Ranger: "Meanwhile, back at the ranch":

Where were we? Oh yes.

Oh dear! Yes, Google has LOTS of stuff on it, but just because you can't find it on Google, you really can't make any negative conclusions. (In fact, even if you do find it on Google, you can't make any positive conclusions either - until you examine and verify what you've found.)

I digress again! OK. So what is the point here?

My understanding of "the point" is that you are highly suspicious of many of the entries in the list of supposedly "Notable" people. (And you know I agree with you.)

You have suggested that "redlinks" are not-notable, and therefore implied that "bluelinks" are.

That one I don't agree with. There are MANY blue links whose notability is, at best, "questionable". (Simplest & easiest example: Vanity pages which have not been deleted - yet.)

Both conversely and similarly, there are many redlinks that are Notable, and will remain redlinks because there is no-one with the motivation to change them into blue links.

So, so far, I've stated the obvious. But I'm afraid that, so far, we haven't progressed anywhere.

I went so far as to write a stub on one - Arthur Stanley Roe before seeing the light.

Ah ha! This is interesting!

a) Why did you write a stub? What were you intending/hopeing to achieve?

b) What was the "light" you saw?

What is your aim here? (To turn redlinks into blue? I can see that might be a thankless, tedious, and ultimately unrewarding task.)

I think you can see that I would / I have taken a different approach.

There are people who have made these entries; my attitude is that it is up to them to demonstrate notability.

Where "what is there" sounds plausibly notable, I left the redlink alone.

Where it didn't sound plausible, (or there was no useful information), I commented the entry out, and added into the text of the comment: "Why is this person notable?".

This seems a high value approach to me - from my point of view, it gets the rubbish off the visible page, but for the aspirant, it doesn't block them - it encourages them to do some work to justify their aspirations.

I will keep searching for more sources though

Why? At the moment your focus is on the quality of what's there, isn't it?

Let's verify/validate what's there, and "suspend" (comment out, rather than delete) the dubious.

but don't hold out much hope. —Moondyne 17:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Precisely! So why go to all that extra effort? (Especially when you expect that the "return-on-investment" is going to be zero (or perhaps even negative!) Pdfpdf 14:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow that last comment but not to worry. -->My aim is always to turn red to blue and and I'd love to see a completely blue list here. I'm happy to work with you to achieve that. My original point was that the list had a few dubious entries and as they were only a few, it'd be doing little harm to remove the reds entirely. As for deleting or commenting out, the effect is the same. It is generally accepted that its OK to have redlinks in articles as that encourages articles to be written. But we don't have to follow every guidleine literally. But I'm honestly not fussed as long as I know someone has an eye on it and it is not getting flooded with rubbish. Have a good weekend! —Moondyne 17:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: Peter Rathjen is next on my hitlist. —Moondyne 17:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

PPS: I do like the table - much better. —Moondyne 17:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the table. I guess I'd classify myself as a bit of a gnome. (Being an Ozzie male, I steer clear of being thought of as a fairy!) Currently, I would divide the redlinks into four categories:

1. I'm surprised these aren't already blue links
2. Thats a bit vague!
3. This person doesn't sound likely to be notable
4. I don't have sufficient information - yet - to make a judgement

(I would also say some of the blue links fall into some of these categories too, but I digress - let's deal with one problem at a time!)

So I've created these four lists. So what? When I started, I thought they would be useful. Now, I'm not so sure.

Your thoughts? Cheers, Pdfpdf 00:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Question regarding Olympic athletes: Does being / having been an Olympic athlete in and of itself make you notable?
(My guess is "yes", but I'd like a more reliable opinion than "my guess"!) Pdfpdf 09:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Further P.S.

• Creating the table is going to take a while; I've "reverted" that bit of Rhodes Scholarship#Notable Rhodes Scholarship recipients and created a new page Notable Rhodes Scholars. When it's acceptable, I'll link the two and remove the "raw data" from #Notable ... recipients
• Those red links are now starting to annoy me, too!!

Pdfpdf 02:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Having been listed as an "Olympian" should be referenced against the AOC's or AIS's list from Athens 2004 and back. Being part of an Olympic shadow or training team is not a noteworthy achievement (nor does it qualify them as being an "Olympian"), and results/performances of those should be checked. One of the members of this noteworthy list is not even Internationally-ranked, nor has received a result that qualifies them in the "A" or "Gold" fleet at any Group 1 event.

An accurate assessment would be a Top-10 World ranked sports-person, or a medal-winner at any Olympics. Thoughts? Anonymous 15:35, 16 May 2008 (AEST)