Jump to content

Talk:Jack Hadley

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

Requested move 19 September 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain t/c 16:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Jack Hadley → Jack Hadley Black History Museum – The sources for Jack Hadley himself are all in the context of the museum which appears to be more notable than he. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. DannyS712 (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Seems grey-area, I'm weakly against. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you think it's unclear, but why do you think the title you created is preferable?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is clear overlap between the topics of the suggested titles (and there's not material for separate articles), what is "best" is pretty much editorial preference. As I see it, the museum is part of the Hadley-topic more than vice-versa. I wouldn't like having the "Early life and career" info removed, which may result from such a move, sooner or later. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You stated that the museum is part of the Hadley topic more than vice-versa, but isn't the question which topic is more notable? Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. And my reading of the sources currently in the article, absent the "guides" (and even they don't ignore Hadley the person), is that they generally show no clear separation/focus between Hadley and the museum, they are pretty much treated as one topic. So I prefer the person, and any confused reader is aided by redirect. It's probably possible to add more personal content from sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sources relate to the museum, and they describe both the museum and Hadly himself. This article should do the same. Only the first source focuses equally on both. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And the second focus more on Hadley than the museum. Let's see if other editors have opinions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and while keeping in mind that those are sources that you found to write this article specifically as "Jack Hadley".  Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nom.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I'm sympathetic to changing the scope of the article per the above, but as written the article is a biography of Jack Hadley for which the proposed title would be inappropriate. Needs more discussion. PC78 (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There is definitely more information about the museum than about Hadley. Even his new initiative to restore the Imperial Hotel will eventually be associated with the museum. A "Background" section could be added to Jack Hadley Black History Museum to briefly describe Hadley's life. Yoninah (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article is a biography which gives prominent mention of the museum as an enterprise undertaken by the the subject. Much of the article would be redundant were it to be renamed to the museum. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We have organ builder articles which also cover their business, music publishers also covering the publishing house, - when something comes from one single person, why not use that name for the article title. Redirects, of course. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC) - Adding: in this case, it's even a BLP who should get the protection attached with it, while a museum would not provide that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

?

[edit]

Originalmess, the above DYK-process seems to have been neither approved or declined, was it just quietly archived somewhere because it took too long? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, found it at Template talk:Did you know/Approved. Will it be noted in the template or will I get a notice when it's moved to queue? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång I'll ping Yoninah for this since I'm not currently active. You should really listen to their points about hookiness though - the point of DYK is to get attention to your article, and while the subjects are incredibly interesting, the hooks you've written don't necessarily reflect that. originalmessbusta rhyme 19:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AJC's Saving endangered historic Black structures in Georgia

[edit]

Imperial Hotel as discussed at AJC's Saving endangered historic Black structures in Georgia (Subscription required). Rjluna2 (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjluna2 Thanks for noticing! It didn't say a lot, but I added something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_Hadley&oldid=1207505287"