Talk:Greg Tate

Do not delete

Please do not delete this page as it falls under the WikiAfrica initiative that will help to get African past and present publications onto the website.Pleaase see the GFDL License on the following link. http://www.chimurengalibrary.co.za/gfdl_licence.php

Some ELs

• "N.Y. writer Tate can't break from D.C. roots". The Washington Times. July 9 1992. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Bennie C. Wilson (July 20 1992). "Essayist displays his talent and courage: Greg Tate writes bravely about politics, music, other subjects". The Kansas City Star. pp. D5. Retrieved 2008-08-23. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "Hooked on hip-hop: Critic Greg Tate has tracked the evolution of hip-hop and now he's here to spread the word". The Voice. March 10 1997. Retrieved 2008-08-23. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Per suggestion, here are some ELs I added to the article. I think they belong in the article for now. I should have put them in Further reading, as they are dead-tree, like the one remaining, with CLs, rather than just web ELs. It is usual practice for such references to be added when there is a question of deletion and notability. ( been criticized for not doing so on other occasions. :-) ) As they prove the notability of the subject, being the most prominent articles about this well-known journalist found in a gnews search, I think the notability tag is out of place.John Z (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If they are references, they should be used as such. They are not really further reading and shouldn't just be put in the article as ref storage. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

How are they not "further reading"? I don't understand your objections, which seem rather unusual in my experience.John Z (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Because they are valid references that should be used as such instead of just shoved at the end of the article. Further reading should be extensive reading sources, such as lengthy publications, books, etc, that add significant amounts of new information, not just be a storage facility for yet to be used short references. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I disagree strongly. It is accepted, longstanding and imho entirely beneficial practice to add "reference storage" and yet to be used short references, in the form of further reading and external links, especially to stubby articles, and especially to ones which are in danger of deletion, simply in order to prove notability. The characterization of further reading above is not supported by Wikipedia:Layout#Further_reading or anywhere else to my knowledge. The goal is not to write a mythical perfect article at once, but to work toward creating one in collaboration. Cheers,John Z (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it as being useful at all, but more of a sign that we (collective we, as in Wikipedia editors) were to lazy to actually write up the article to incorporate the text. Particularly on an article like this which is already nothing more than a copy/paste from some other site. That isn't even an attempt at a decent article. Its borrowed content, even if under GFDL, and pure lazy editing that shows a complete lack of concern for the topic. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)