Talk:Thomas Carpenter (glassmaker)

Notability

I placed the notability tag at the top of the article. Four of the seven sources used are public record. This is not a problem when it comes to privacy because this person is deceased WP:BLPPRIMARY. However, WP:BLPPRIMARY identifies public record as primary sources and WP:SECONDARY and WP:RELY state that secondary, rather than primary sources, should be used to establish notability. On a side note, I also don't think manufacturing glass or witnessing a land transaction makes someone notable. Maybe it's just me. //Gbern3 (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Notable - A little weak on source documentation, but notable enough to be written about 200 years later in various documents.

To expand on the above and to claifiy public (government) documents verses a compiled privately published documents.

WP:BLPPRIMARY - emphasis below added regarding articles on those living.

"Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies."

1. Secondary source (second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event) - 1. Arthur Adams: "Memoirs of the Deceased Members of the New England Historic Genealogical Society" in The Northeast Historic and Genealogical Register, Vol. CVII, Whole Number 425, January, 1953, p. 70. In this case the memiors (an essay on a learned subject) are taken from other (primary and secondary) sources and compiled by someone else.

2. Secondary source - 2. John W. Jordan, ed.: Colonial Families of Philadelphia, Lewis Publishers, New York, 1911. Not an original source but a compiled document. Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources.

3. Secondary source - This one is more tricky because it uses previous compiled works and primary sources including corrections to previous works. It is not a government document but compiled by an private company. 3. William Nelson: New Jersey Marriage Records 1665-1800, Genealogical Publishing Co., Baltimore, Md., 1967, p. 64.

4. Secondary source - 4. HCB: Henry Charlton Beck: More Forgotten Towns of Southern New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, N.J., 1963, pp. 299-301.

5.See 1 above. Also use of op. cit. op. ed. etc. are frowned upon in Wikipedia. 5. Adams, op. cit.

6. Secondary source - 6. Charles S. Boyer: Old Inns and Taverns in West Jersey, Camden County Historical Society, Camden, N.J., 1962, pp. 158-159.

7. Not an original source but a compiled source document - 7. John D. Davis: Harrison County (West) Virginia Deed Records 1785-1810, Heritage Books, Inc., Bowie, Md., 1993, p. 267.

As added sources, this Thomas is mentioned in:

Samuel Carpenter and his Descendants compiled by Edward Carpenter & his son, Gen. Louis H. Carpenter, published by J. B. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia, Pa., 1912. See free download of book at: http://www.archive.org/details/samuelcarpenterh00carp Pages 58-60 of the Samuel Carpenter book describes Thomas Carpenter. THOMAS was about 5'10" high, with a large frame but not corpulent, erect, well-formed, with a fine ruddy complexion. His eyes were blue, hair thin, but not bald, orginally brown, and though tinged with gray, never became white. His affable and genial manners, anecdotes, and reminiscences made his society very attractive. He was fond of reading, intelligent, and self-possessed.

Carpenters' Encyclopedia of Carpenters 2009 (DVD format), Thomas is RIN 3248. This work contains updates to the 1912 book on "Samuel Carpenter and his Descendants".

I hope this helps. Jrcrin001 (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked over this discussion. Generally I kind of agree with all of you here. Reading the article, I don't see why it's in Wikipedia, that is, why is this subject important? My quickie test is trying to write this sentence: Thomas Carpenter (1752-1847) is notable because..." And I didn't come up with anything, other than he fought in the Revolutionary war as a NJ militiaman, and had descendants. Now, on the other side of this whole question, there are a few people who care about this subject earnestly enough to write about it -- people interested in Carpenter genealogy -- and it's not a contentious subject; it won't break Wikipedia to keep it. So a possible compromise might be along these lines: keep the article as a stub (whittling it down to ONE or TWO lines max), with references; or, keep this information in other articles about Carpenters (but delete this article). But there's so much fussing on Wikipedia about other subjects, I wouldn't get too worked up about this one. And if people desire to keep this article, I suggest whittling it down to bare bones, and not making such a big fuss over primary vs secondary stuff.Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

See: Thomas Carpenter (1752-1847) As noted the descision was to Keep. After the article gets renamed, the notability is questioned again? This may be a mistake, an artifact carried over. So, I removed the notability tag. Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I also took some time to expand and provide new cites for this article. Jrcrin001 (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)