Talk:Jean Pierre Sioussat

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 July 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

Reason for tags

As stated on the author's talk page, I added these tags because I have checked the source, and whilst the author seems to suggest that this man may have been important, there is no indication as to why this may be the case in this article. Expanding the article would entirely resolve this problem, and with enough new material would lead to it no longer being a stub.

Adding this page to the relevant category (or categories) would also improve it, as would diversifying and expanding the number of sources used. As it stands, the article is very short and rather unhelpful to the average user. I have not nominated for deletion (speedy or otherwise) as I think this page could be a fully fledged article about a person of note with some effort.Rambunctious Racoon (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal

I mostly added the page as an afterthought while I was at work and was therefore not prepared to put together the whole page! I blame my ignorance and apologize. As for the importance, I intend to argue that Sioussat is more an interesting figure and that he stands as the controversy to "who saved the portrait of George Washington when DC was burned in the War of 1812?" I currently don't have anything formal written up so if the article is deleted, I can promise that I will only try to make it again later.

As for the other issues, I am new to adding onto Wikipedia so that will take me some time. But, I am very excited to see how seriously these articles are investigated! Every professor who knocks this as a source has obviously never tried to get an article on here. Princessmud (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have seen, the page has now been nominated for deletion by Garchy. His reasoning is listed at the article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.

Based on your comments above, I would suggest you read WP:SYN, which is the "synthesis of published material" section in Wikipedia's "No original research" policy. The most important part is this:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.

I only mention this because of your use of the verb "argue" above ("I intend to argue that Sioussat is more an interesting figure..."). Unless this has already been argued by a reliable source which you can cite in the article, you should be careful not to violate the aforementioned policy when writing the article.

I'm glad you're enthusiastic about Wikipedia; if you have any questions along the way feel free to ask me or anyone else around! Happy editing :) Rambunctious Racoon (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looping me into the conversation, Rambunctious Racoon! I nominated this page because Jean Pierre Sioussat does not appear to be a person of notability. His role (First Master of Ceremonies) does not seem to be covered on Wikipedia, perhaps that is an article that could be expanded on instead? At this time it doesn't appear that this page currently fits WP:BIO, specifically for politicians/political figures: "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". I do hope this doesn't discourage you from editing, as we don't like to scare away people from creating new pages :) Happy editing! Garchy (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is plenty of independent research on the official "Master of Ceremonies" for the United States (does the function exist today as well?) that could make a great page to start. A section could be devoted to Jean Pierre Sioussat, if his role is significant. If the page is created in a matter of a week we could also vote for a redirect of this page to that page. Hope that isn't too confusing! Garchy (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]