Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levinus Monson

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levinus Monson

Levinus Monson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Article does not reference any sources, as well as it is a very short article with less information, so what's the point for a Wikipedia's article with no sources and a very little information given to the readers? -⚒️MinecraftPlayer³²¹⚒️ | 💬 23:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Connecticut, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The source is clearly indicated at the bottom of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, I cannot find any sources that support meeting WP:GNG. LizardJr8 (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:JUDGE: "The following are presumed to be notable:....judges who have held...state/province–wide office" Gamaliel (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel, the reference SHOULD be added to the "References" section, like every other article has. Another reason is the link may be unreliable and it is probably outdated since I can't get in it. ⚒️MinecraftPlayer³²¹⚒️ | 💬 22:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article only has one source, meaning it cannot be notable, otherwise it could if someone could add a secondary source. This information is obtained from a library, which could hold incorrect information. ⚒️MinecraftPlayer³²¹⚒️ | 💬 22:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain your second sentence? I don't understand your assertion. Gamaliel (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reference you told us seems unreliable because the information is from the MSSA Library in Yale University. I don't know about you, but the reference seems to not be accessible. ⚒️MinecraftPlayer³²¹⚒️ | 💬 22:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OBITUARIES ⚒️MinecraftPlayer³²¹⚒️ | 💬 23:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a Yale University library be unreliable? Gamaliel (talk) 04:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per JUDGE. The Yale Obituary Record is certainly a reliable source for such basic matters as his judgeship and our sourcing policy says explicitly that sources need not be available online to be considered. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you send a link to your sourcing policy? I'm interested in that. ⚒️MinecraftPlayer³²¹⚒️ | 💬 01:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:OFFLINE. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is pretty much short with no template added about this biography of this person. Also the reference seems reliable, although they need more references to support this article, along with secondary sources. 2601:249:1A81:536E:7C61:7E4:4659:DFD9 (talk) 01:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although the hard work that Innisfree987 added hours ago, there is still some citing error, such as repeated sources that are used many times in a paragraph that are the same. For example, in paragraph 1 in "Personal Life", you could add just one of the source into the end because that will just clarify that whole paragraph is support that reference instead of adding the same reference separating. More information can be found in WP:CS or this. ⚒️MinecraftPlayer³²¹⚒️ | 💬 21:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Despite the reliable primary and secondary sources, it seems that there are less sources on this person than anything else, as the sources kept repeating all over the article. I will add a template for that. ⚒️MinecraftPlayer³²¹⚒️ | 💬 22:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That is not a citing error as the whole paragraph is not supported by that reference, only the statements cited are. Even if it were though, as I explained to you on my talk page, deletion decisions are not based on the current state of the entry, but on whether the subject itself is notable. Here the subject was a member of the New York Supreme Court, a fact that is reliably sourced, and which WP:JUDGE tells us gives a presumption of notability. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with MinecraftPlayer321. 2601:249:1A81:536E:6D44:E1C8:6A3F:C4C5 (talk) 22:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We should keep the template there because even though the references are reliable, the article needs more sources than that. If that cannot be found, that is one of the reason why this article is being deleted: lack of sources, reliable or not. 2601:249:1A81:536E:6D44:E1C8:6A3F:C4C5 (talk) 22:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Innisfree987 I am sorry Inissfree87 but also the article only has 22 (or more if I was wrong) views, making this article even more worse. What’s the point of keeping an article when there are less information, the person is less famous, lack of reliable sources, and less page views? 2601:249:1A81:536E:6D44:E1C8:6A3F:C4C5 (talk) 22:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.