Talk:Chase Osborn

Started and Done?

Okay, I've shot my bolt on Osborn here. I can't think of anything more that needs to be added. The article needs some formatting and copy-editing. But I can't think of any more content to add. You? Russell D. Jones 02:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

On the deletion request

The EC regulation on inclusion policy does not authorize speedy deletes. It requires four weeks during that the request can be contested.

What is the problem with this article? It seems to be informative enough, even compared to the WP article. --Peter Schmitt 17:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Russell, as I see you classified the article a 1 = developed -- hardly a candidate for deletion. --Peter Schmitt 17:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've looked through the article and I'm totally baffled by the request for a delete. I *suppose* that the entire article could be an elaborate April Fool's joke, that no one named Chase Osborn ever existed, but I'll now do a Google and see if this is the case -- nope, there are 19,000 hits for him, and I gleaned that he was indeed a Mich. governor. Geez, if *this* article were to be deleted, there must be a thousand or more *other* articles in CZ that could be deleted. Moreover, are there *two* Russell Joneses here at CZ? One of them apparently *wrote* the article -- and the other one wants to *delete* it? This whole thing certainly seems bizarre. Speaking as a member of the Editorial Council, I think one of our CZ principles is that CZ material is here for good once it's written and unless it has *terrible* flaws. And it's certainly been *long* established that the author of an article can't delete his own material 100% just because he wrote it. What am I missing here? Hayford Peirce 20:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, Russell (who is virtually the only author of the article, and also an editor in the relevant workgroup) has noted that there are no references, and that there is original research in the article (presumably his). But as no one else is working on the article, I have, however, volunteered to inspect whatever sources I can access -- the libraries in California aren't exactly loaded with info on Osborn, but I do have e-access to some apparently authoritative sources from Michigan -- and footnote those, while deleting the rest, thereby perhaps eliminating the problem. Would that be OK? But, as Russell is a relevant Editor, with more expertise in the discipline of history than you or I, presumably his writ should run if he really wants it deleted, no? Bruce M. Tindall 00:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, Bruce, but I still don't understand Russell's motivations. Did he purposefully write trash? Or false info? If so, he should be banned. If not, what's the problem? We're not WP with citation thingees all over the place. If a Prof. of History writes an article about a politician, then I think that we have to accept it as being correct. As to whether he, as an Editor, can recommend deleting an article that he as an Author originally wrote, I really think that this would be an Editorial Council decision. I will tell you informally, right now, as the Sec. of the EC, I *really* don't believe that we would allow this article to be deleted on the basis of what has already been written about it. My informal suggestion: stick in a couple of references, if you feel like it, mix a martini, drink it, and go on to the next project.... Hayford Peirce 03:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia version of this article also does not contain any inline citations but it does give a total of 13 "sources" that may help lead to an authoritative reference. David Finn 08:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

References added; information that could not be verified in those references deleted. The conditions impelling the speedydelete request would seem to have been removed, so does anyone have objection to removing the speedydelete now? Bruce M. Tindall 16:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it should have been there in the first place, so I certainly have no objection to removing it now. Hayford Peirce 17:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)