Template:Did you know nominations/Killiechassie

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Killiechassie

(

)

... that the ancient Scottish estate of Killiechassie (pictured), which is now the home of J. K. Rowling, is noted for its dovecote?

Reviewed: New Malden High Street

Created by Dr. Blofeld (talk), Andrew Davidson (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 20:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC).

Not a review, but I am opposed to using this image in the DYK. As the caption in the article states, the subject of the article isn't actually in the picture. This is a picture of the general area, which while not entirely useless, isn't particularly useful either. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The topic is not just the house but also the surrounding estate, and the picture seems to show some part of that. Granted, it's rather misty and vague but it gives a feel for the nature of the land there. Andrew (talk) 05:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes I'd say that the land on the other side of the river is part of the estate, especially as she bought more land. If you look at the OS map on geograph though I think the house is just off the picture to the left. Image isn't great, but the nearest free photo I could find.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The first article on this subject made Wikipedia look like it had accidentally linked to some cheap celebrity magazine. Now it looks like gossip trivia trying to camouflage itself in an encyclopedic entry. Some estates are too obscure for an encyclopedia, some are valued. Given time, Wikipedia will no doubt find where it draws the line with regards to Killiechassie. In the meantime, as established by reasoned debate - notability is not inherited: why has this article not removed the JK Rowling references?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Killiechassie_House

The JK Rowling references are trivial gossip more suited to Hello magazine – not notable. I suggest these references are removed for this reason and also to respect the privacy of her family. I find it remarkable that Wikipedia goes to such lengths to protect the privacy of its own members and yet appears to have no respect for the privacy of Ms Rowling's family. The house itself is nothing special and most of the historical references concerning it are archaic and trivial. This article only ever appeared because of JK Rowling's link to the house. Angela MacLean (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

We're not censored, so there really is no point in removing things to "respect the privacy" of anyone: the information is already widely available in the public domain, so it's hardly private. As the majority of the information in the article is unconnected with the writer, this is quite a long way from "gossip trivia". - SchroCat (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Nobody's trying to 'censor' Wikipedia here. Privacy is respected to different degrees in different media - it's a grey area. I'm simply giving my own input here as to where I think privacy should sit in matters such as this. In fact I'm not the only person to have discussed the matter of privacy with regards to this celebrity. The fact that personal information is in the public domain does not mean to say that Wikipedia has the moral right to link to, or copy that information just because it happens to be there. The gossip trivia is supported by 'citations' which at my last count made up a third 'supporting' the article, one of which is nothing more than a tourist business website with an unreferenced list: even a passing reference to the estate's current owner hardly requires 5 citations. Someone's clearly desperate to link the estate to JKR because without her it wouldn't amount to much of an article.

More like - Did you know JKR bought a big house in the country some years ago? - Yeah probably did mate, so what? BTW what's this boring rubbish doing in your 'encyclopedia'? Angela MacLean (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't see a "tourist business website": could you let me know which that is, please? As to the JKR citations, that information appears to be supported by citations 2, 11 and 12, which isn't quite 5, or a third of the 16 on offer. If you feel so strongly about this article, can I suggest you offer it up for AfD once again? I suspect it will receive a different reception this time round. - SchroCat (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Britain TV citation has now been removed. However I looked in the last half hour and the article had 5 JKR orientated citations: 2, 7, 11, 12 and 15. 5 times 3 = 15. That's just one off a third. A third of the citational 'value' of this article is devoted to nothing more than a celebrity who happened to buy the house. That's cheap, pathetic and an embarrassment to Wikipedia. I'd suggest she has enough vacuous creeps turning up at her estate with cameras without Wikipedia encouraging any more. New idea for a Did You Know title:

Did you know that most Wikipedians are insecure people who hide behind a moniker? And yet, some will actually use this annonymity to argue that someone else shouldn't be afforded privacy on the very same website with regards to their private home? The hypocracy behind this is disgusting, immature and cowardly. Wikipedia grow up. Perhaps the most telling obvious ommision so far to this sad affair - not one of you has mentioned either her children or the sad fate of John Lennon. Angela MacLean (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No Angela: as per the above, the JKR material is supported by only three citations: 2, 11 and 12. Citations 7 and 15 have no information about her, only about the house. The information about her is minimal in the article, which is probably correct. I'm not sure that your attack on other editors is needed here (or anywhere else on Wikipedia, to be honest) and I think that you should probably drop such an aggressive stance. I have no idea what Rowling's children or John Lennon have to do with the history of this house and estate: i presume they've been left out of the article because there is no connection? - SchroCat (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

" I find it remarkable that Wikipedia goes to such lengths to protect the privacy of its own members and yet appears to have no respect for the privacy of Ms Rowling's family. " LOL Angela you called me childish on your talk page for suggesting that protecting Rowling had anything to do with your reasons. The only embarrassing thing I see here is your gross overreaction to this and inappropriate rambling. It's a legitimate article on a notable country estate which happened to be bought by a famous writer. Had it been a house with no other sources than being Rowling's house then you'd have a point. What's more disgusting here is that you think we should blast perfectly fine encyclopedic content just because your favourite writer might not like it. "it looks like gossip trivia", um no, it looks like your typical encyclopedic entry on a country house/listed building with a brief mentioning of its purchase by a writer.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

5 citations not 3. No aggressive language was used. I stick to the comment about hypocracy. Children should be afforded privacy from having their parents' houses listed in Did You Knows? on Wikipedia if their parent/s are celebrities. God knows it's not much to ask. Listing it on the Did You Know section will simply lead to a further flow of idiots to her property. I take it the subject of children has been left out of the discussion because there are fewer women involved in Wikipedia. Lennon and other celebrities were harrassed by people who thought they had some right to invade their privacy. As for JKR she's not my favourite author. That's my last comment here - as both sides are now repeating themselves - rainy days will see me editing elsewhere if time permits. Angela MacLean (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I see you don't understand citations: there are three that support the information about JKR, not five, despite your protestations to the contrary (if you think it's five, what information about Rowling do citations 7 and 15 support?). Just to correct you on a different point: JKR's children have been left out because they have nothing to do with an article about the house and estate, not because of anything to do with women editors (and I say that as a father of two). JKR's ownership of the property is of public record: we are reflecting those reliable sources, just as we strive to do in all our articles. Again I note your rather uncivil language about others: there is absolutely no call for it, so please do stop. - SchroCat (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Shall we delete The Tower House too because Jimmy Page happens to live there and worry that a legion of fruit n nut cakes will start marching their way to his house after seeing it on wikipedia? Ludicrous.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, that's a very real fear of mine. There is a lot of creepy material on Tower House on the internet. We should try to hold discretion paramount in these cases. The pseudonymous nature of our project does seem to blunt our reputation with regards to BLP's, I believe. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Very real fear or not, we wouldn't delete it would we? If a celebrity purchases a very notable house there's little we can do about it. We don't bow down to people like that. If they don't want their house documented on the Internet don't buy a listed building.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This is all covered by the Streisand effect which arose from the similar case of a celebrity trying to suppress details of their residence. Andrew (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This still needs a full review. Note that the image here has been replaced in the article and cannot be used here any more; I'm not sure whether its replacement would reproduce well enough at 100x100px to be usable. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

New enough, long enough. QPQ done. I've replaced the image with one that has been added to the article more recently - it is suitably licensed, shows that it is a big house surrounded by extensive grounds (what more do we need), so works okay at 100x100. All the facts in the good hook have inline citations. The article is balanced, NPOV and all mentions of Rowling are reasonable and relevant to the article. Comparing with sources available online reveals no close paraphrasing or copyvios. Good to go. Edwardx (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)