Talk:Frederick J. Stephens

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

It's hard to see how someone whose books are used for reference throughout the world, and those books being widely available, is not notable? Paste (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some information at Bayonetcollectors The genre within third Reich militaria is pretty narrow, is Wikipedia only for main stream authours and books ? Would it help if I added ISBN numbers on his books ? --Morphinea (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is for anything notable. If you like, you could remove the prod and we could take it to AfD so that a wider audience can comment on the matter? J Milburn (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever asked "has he won any awards" is completely ignorant of the reasons for this author being reputable. Do you have to serve 50 years in the military to be a 'reputable' military historian? Absolutely not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.112.156 (talk)

I was offering reasons that he may be notable- if he had won major literary awards, then yes, he would be notable. If I am so ignorant, please, educate me, tell my how he meets our notability guidelines. I did not say anything about him serving in the military, where did you get that from? Last thing- do NOT sign your posts as someone you are not. J Milburn (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just classic wikipedia. Here we have a mildly interesting article on an author who is obviously notable in his very narrow field. It's well worth its place for those interested in this narrow field, has far more worth than thousands of the articles in wikipedia such as single songs, US school sports teams, pro sportsmen and women who played for ten minutes in some obscure but pro league etc, and yet someone is actually suggesting it goes to AfD where loads more time could be wasted. Just leave it up to be improved!Paste (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point is that, without decent sources, it can't be improved. The fact it's interesting is irrelevent- the fact that he is apparently non notable is not. J Milburn (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact is that all the information in the article is given to me by the Stephens himself. I'm the author of his web page and I have Stephens permission to use this information to write this article at Wikipedia as I did. What more reliable source must it be then from the person himself ? What if one of his collector friends write EXACTLY the same information about him in one of their new books, would that be good enough, and is there REALLY any difference ? This is just quite silly deleting a article that will be useful for many collectors. I wonder why I even bother to contribute. How can you know that it can't be improved by information that will surface later, or is the article that good written ? --Morphinea (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well said MorphineaPaste (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is not the place to discuss this. If you are opposed to our notability criteria, then raise your concerns on the talk page of the relevent guideline or policy. And no, he himself is not a reliable source. Let us hypothetically imagine that John Smith is an author of books on politics and he is contacted- he is not going to mention all the negative publicity he recieved when it turned out that he was being paid by MP Tony Shaw to write positively of the XXX Party. Simplistic example, but you get the idea. Our guidelines on reliable sources are quite clear on this, not to mention that you are now admitting that this article is in direct violation of our no original research policy. Now, the article may be kept, or it may be deleted- it comes down (primarily) to the AfD I have started. Feel free to comment there. J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, sorry, forgot to mention two points. The fact you believe the article is useful is an argument that often comes up, but generally isn't respected, as explained at the link. Also, our policy is that, unless we know sources to exist, we delete, allowing recreation should other sources surface. J Milburn (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Frederick J. Stephens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit[edit]

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "Reduce uncited; reduce excessive list of nn works; notability tag". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frederick_J._Stephens&oldid=1201314630"