Talk:McAndrews Estate

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 June 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

Orphan tag

Is the orphan tag really necessary on here? Some topics *are* islands. It doesn't mean that they aren't valid or valuable.

Proposed deletion

I looked. I can't find any good references. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't turn up anything on my first pass either. Khazar (talk) 05:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main reference for the article, the 'History of the Town of Cortlandt' is a high quality reference. It discusses this topic in some depth (non-trivial mentions), cites research sources, was written by professional authors and historians, and has been in continuous print since 1988 available in major booksellers. Regardless, I've also added a link to a Town of Cortlandt document which lists it as a de facto historical site, and strengthened an external link (that someone graciously added) to a biological study of the site. I think both of these should sufficiently cross the 'notable' threshold. Even if there is still a question, I would encourage you to consider Wikipedia's mission statement, and understand that in just the short period of time this page has been active, it has fostered real scholarship and historical/community activism. I don't mean to be combative, but the scruitny of this topic seems a bit pendantic. If the subjective bar of 'notability' is too strictly enforced, you run the risk of excluding valid and valuable niche or regional/local topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wespomeroy (talk • contribs) 14:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sympathetic to your mission, Wes; I agree that it sounds like a great and worthwhile project, and I'm glad you've attracted attention to it. But you have to keep in mind that Wikipedia's not designed to be a free advertising service (see WP:NOTADVERTISING), and so there's a certain cut-off for notability. Should the article fail the AfD, I'd suggest simply moving your research to a free web-hosting service--your Facebook page seems like a great idea--and then, if your efforts continue to gain coverage and become more notable, you can include them here. Khazar (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Sources

Provided this page doesn't get deleted, could some one provide some guidance on how I should treat non-published first-person references. In particular, I'm meeting lots of people who grew up around the estate or knew the people who lived and worked there. Often they have photos that go with their stories. Is there any way to leverage this information? I also am starting to get in some letters which I'm pretty sure qualify as a hard reference, but where would I host those letters? I could put it on a web site for the project, but that seems like it might not be kosher. Can someone provide some guidance in this area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wespomeroy (talk • contribs) 19:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for your situation, Wikipedia can't cite nonpublished first-person accounts. If you publish them in book form or can get them published in some other reliable source medium, then those sources may be eligible for Wikipedia citations. As for the letters, the website for your project is a good bet for hosting them. --Orlady (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great guidance. Thanks! Wespomeroy (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project Web Site a Reliable Source?

It may be too early to ask this question, but partially in response to the potential impending deletion of this page, we've created a new web site mcandrewsestate.org. We're still in the process of porting over all the Wikipedia content and various photos and documents (which now reside on Facebook), but when that's all there, would it be appropriate to list the web site as a 'reference' for this article? I'm assuming not. It feels self-serving or someone self-referential, but I can't articulate exactly why. If not a reference, would the site qualify as an 'External Link'? Thanks! Wespomeroy (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it'd be fine to have it as a reference for the article. While not a reliable source for purposes of determining notability or backing up a controversial claim ("William Howard Taft once killed a man with his bare hands here"), self-published sources are fair game for noncontroversial claims (as most claims about the estate would be, I'd imagine). Definitely include it in external links unless someone who knows better than I tells you different. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidance (and for your patience with me as I find the right balance between partisanship and maintaining a constructive tone). Wespomeroy (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Regardless of what happens with the AfD--and I think it's trending toward positive compromise--I hope you stick around the wiki; we need more skilled local historians like yourself, and I'm sure there's plenty more in your area to cover. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]