Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut/Latest article changes

Recent changes edit

Recent changes to WikiProject Connecticut pages.

Alerts edit

Recent developments to pages under the scope of WikiProject Connecticut. For an archive of older alerts, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut/Article alerts/Archive.

Did you know

Articles for deletion

  • 10 May 2024 – Meyer Ryshpan (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Dclemens1971 (t · c); see discussion (3 participants)
  • 09 May 2024 – Matthew W. McKeon (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Psychastes (t · c); see discussion (4 participants)
  • 07 May 2024 – Waggle Foundation (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Teratix (t · c); see discussion (2 participants)
  • 30 Apr 2024 – Tom Freston (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Ltbdl (t · c); see discussion (4 participants; relisted)
  • 06 May 2024The Queen Killing Kings (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Keivan.f (t · c) was closed as delete by Liz (t · c) on 13 May 2024; see discussion (3 participants)

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

Peer reviews

Articles for creation

Assessment log edit

Recently assessed or reevaluated WikiProject Connecticut pages.


May 14, 2024 edit

Reassessed edit

  • Keney Park Golf Course (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
  • New Haven Blues (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Redirect-Class to Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from NA-Class to Unknown-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed edit

Removed edit

May 12, 2024 edit

Reassessed edit

Assessed edit

May 11, 2024 edit

Reassessed edit

Assessed edit

May 10, 2024 edit

Reassessed edit

Assessed edit

May 8, 2024 edit

Renamed edit

Assessed edit

Removed edit

Deletion discussions edit

Transcluded from and further information found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Connecticut.


Connecticut edit

Meyer Ryshpan edit

Meyer Ryshpan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Sources are user-generated, primary sources or trivial coverage (the phone book??). BEFORE search turns up no other evidence of notability as an artist or generally. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Very trivial coverage found [1]. No listing in the Getty ULAN [2], the artist hasn't gained critical recognition, with no sourcing in Gscholar found... The person existed, but that's not what we're looking for in a notability guideline. Oaktree b (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Poland, Canada, Connecticut, and New York. WCQuidditch 04:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. I added three RS to the article. While cleaning up, I deleted all the unsourced and unnecessary material, and re-formatted two references. I think the article should be kept largely due to Ryshpan's regular exhibitions at the Montreal of Museum of Fine Arts, and his entry in A Dictionary of Canadian Artists. There is also non-trivial coverage of his 1958 retrospective. It passes WP:GNG with at least two reliable sources. Curiocurio (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is definitely improved and I thank you for taking that on! but I question the use of MacDonald's dictionary to validate notability. It doesn't appear to be selective but rather inclusive of any artist (the volume Ryshpan is listed is just Canadian artists with last names R-S, that single volume is over 500 pages long, and Ryshpan warrants a single paragraph). Meanwhile, the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts exhibitions were not selective nor were they exclusive to Ryshpan. The spring exhibition was for many decades an exhibition open to all artists and often included 400-500 works (see page 2 of the source you provided). That leaves a short reference in Ayre's art column, and I frankly disagree that this is enough. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main point is that three reliable sources are enough to get over WP:GNG, not WP:NARTIST. Curiocurio (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the question is whether a phone-book-length non-selective directory and an exhibition summary for a non-selective, open-to-all art exhibition constitute "significant coverage" for GNG. I'm skeptical. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Dictionary of Canadian Artists has been completed by the National Gallery of Canada, so it's hardly just a directory. Curiocurio (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew W. McKeon edit

Matthew W. McKeon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, top cited work appears to only have 20 citations in scholar, and no reviews on any published books. Psychastes (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NPROF. Appears that the article's original author created a number of articles for various philosophy professors at Michigan State University of questionable notability. Longhornsg (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Philosophy, Connecticut, and Michigan. WCQuidditch 04:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My off-wiki experience evaluating philosophers is that it's kind of strange. They often don't have many journal citations, nor books with many reviews, but the other philosophers in the same subdiscipline still have a strong idea who the important ones are, and I don't know how to guess that from the public record. In the case of McKeon, we definitely have nothing in the citation record nor the article that would suggest notability. Searching for reviews of his book The Concept of Logical Consequence is confusing because of Etchemendy's very notable and well cited book with the same title. I found only one review, by Núñez Puertas in Apuntes Filosóficos [3], far from enough even to justify an article on the book instead of its author. He does appear to have another book, Arguments and Reason-Giving, for which I found no reviews at all. In the absence of access to whatever information the philosophers use to evaluate their own, I think we have to go on what we can see for ourselves, and that's not very much. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could not find anything that supports WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR, with no reviews found on JSTOR. I simply cannot find any strong arguments in support of notability. --hroest 15:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Freston edit

Tom Freston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails general notability guideline. likely an autobiography. ltbdl (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]