Talk:Nathan Tabor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Notability

This subject does not appear to meet the standards of WP:BIO. Can we find some sources that discuss him? -Will Beback · † · 06:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"Like any encyclopedia, Wikipedia includes biographies of important historical figures and people involved in current events."

Of course he meets WP's professed standards of WP:BIO; he's one of the most influential conservative publishers and writers on the Internet, and just published a dead tree book on the UN. The only way he could be derided as non-notable, is if you assume that being conservative (and Christian) makes him non-notable. 70.23.199.239 14:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Google returns ~440,000 hits on "Nathan Tabor," most of which are blog entries/comments, but also including:
The guy seems notable to me, especially given his runs for office on the GOP ticket, but this article has serious sourcing issues in its present incarnation. To the anonymous editor above: Please refrain from drawing false dichotomies and be sure to Assume Good Faith. DickClarkMises 15:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


The standard of notability for biographies is:
  • A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent,6 and independent of the subject.
So running for office doens't make one notable, nor does writing a lot. Being noted makes one notable. So if the subject is notable we should be able to find some articles of which he's been the subject. The Human Events archive does not prove notability, and the JBS profile is a primary source as it appears to be a speaker's biography,[1] probably self-written. Reading this article, there's so much unsourced material that it appears to have been written by the subject from his personal knowledge. I can't believe that anyone else has written so detailed a bio of him. -Will Beback · † · 16:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Will, I certainly agree with you that (a) the vast, vast majority of the returns from a google search on Tabor are his own writings/comments and thus not useful in establishing notability; and that (b) this article is almost certainly an autobiography. Other than non contentious biographical information that seems encyclopedic (like date and place of birth, etc.) I would say that this article almost needs to be stubbed and rewritten from sources so that only those things for which Tabor is notable are included. Nonetheless, he seems marginally notable to me, but I don't have some serious, heartfelt conviction on the matter. DickClarkMises 16:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
There's no rush, but we should keep our eyes open for sources that would fuflill the notability requirement. Until then, DCM is correct that we should reduce this article to what is verifiable. The JCB profile appears to be the best source. -Will Beback · † · 16:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's one, covering some dirty tricks by his opponent in a politrila campaign: Twisted tale of ‘Pastor Randy’ 2004 The Hill. And here's a another on the same topic, from a local paper.[2] -Will Beback · † · 17:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Bad faith

"To the anonymous editor above: Please refrain from drawing false dichotomies and be sure to Assume Good Faith. "DickClarkMises 15:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)"

“Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice.”
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AGF
Such evidence obtains in abundance, in the editor in question’s habit of stalking me, and deleting any edit I make, based on a clear political prejudice, such that I am under a de facto, permanent block from editing articles. If that isn’t bad faith, nothing is.
70.23.199.239 06:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability and Sources

I added in multiple sources. I think the sources, as well as the content of the cited articles, indicate the noteworthy status of the wiki while providing adequate citation for the information contained in the wiki.Warpac 17:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Wikipedia does have a guideline on external links, WP:EL. I just removed a bunch that added nothing to the article or were otherwise non-compliant, such as blogs. The section is not intended as a record of every instance that the subject has been mentioned or quoted. Rather, it's intended for substantive material that we can't or shouln't include in the article itself. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)