This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
A fact from Karen B. Westerfield Tucker appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 May 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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.
... that The Oxford History of Christian Worship was appraised by one reviewer as "by far the best example in the English language" of a multiauthored liturgical history? Source: Lathrop, Gordon W. (April 2007). "The Oxford History of Christian Worship: Geoffrey Wainwright and Karen Westerfield Tucker, editors: New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. 923 pp. $55.00". Theology Today. 64 (1). Princeton Theological Seminary: 112–114
Overall: Based on my review, I think this is good to go once the QPQs are complete. I couldn't think of a more interesting hook, so I feel like this one is interesting enough. Please ping me when the QPQs are ready. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LEvalyn: I've completed one QPQ with another one pending a reply. I think I could maybe punch out a quick article on Westerfield Tucker this afternoon (nothing fancy, but at least C-class in depth). Would you be willing to review a second short article so that maybe we can get a slightly more interesting hook out of this? ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LEvalyn: I am going to have to do another couple QPQs, but Karen B. Westerfield Tucker is ready for your review. The alt to reflect this second article is below:
O.K., but the way you worded that sounds like your describing David McCullough. This person may be a wonderful writer, I don't know, but her contribution to one of those books was a single essay among 58 authors. Do every single one of them deserve an article? She also merely edited and wrote one-and-a-half chapters in the other book. Additionally, the award she received is hardly a Pulitzer, it is so obscure it doesn't even have a page. Does every person who contributed to a book that won an insignificant award need their own article? Frankly the whole article seems almost promotional. I really don't think this article is that important. Thank you,
@TanRabbitry: I would encourage you to reread the articles. She edited the whole book—you may notice her name is on the cover. Additionally, there's not exactly a shortage of other things that make her notable mentioned in the article. I would encourage you to refrain from initiating deletion discussions until you've 1.) read articles completely and 2.) gotten more practice and experience on Wikipedia. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I reread what I wrote: "She also merely edited and wrote one-and-a-half chapters in the other book." I see that it isn't clear at all. What I meant to say was: "She merely edited and also wrote one-and-a-half chapters for the other book." I understand she edited the entire book, contributed a chapter and co-wrote another. I did in fact read the article. I don't mean to diminish editing, but most books with their own articles don't mention the editor, let alone include a page for them. As far as the experience, you may be correct in principle, but as far as I understand the guidelines, the article does not meet the requirements. I could be wrong and it was my understanding that the issue I raised would be considered and decided on in a consensus. Thank you,
The other editor (besides Tucker) of The Oxford History of Christian Worship is Geoffrey Wainwright, who in fact does have an article. But even supposing he didn't, the existence or non-existence of other articles generally isn't a reliable indication of whether or not an article about a comparable subject is notable or not. That's a common misconception, so much so that we have an "FAQ" of sorts about it: WP:OTHERSTUFF. Jfire (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I put the wrong book. "The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey" is what I meant, not "The Oxford History of Christian Worship." I had the latter already copied on my "clipboard" and mistakenly pasted it instead of the former. I am apparently not making the best case with all these mistakes. Charles Hefling and Cynthia Shattuck are the editors I meant to reference. TanRabbitry (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti:@Jfire: I also am not saying that the absence of their pages proves no editor should ever have an article. What I am saying is that just because a writer edited a notable book doesn't automatically mean that they are worthy of an article. Thank you,
Sorry, TanRabbitry, but someone who was the former head of a major scholastic organization, a top academic in her field, a leading participant in major interdenominational dialogue, and a recipient of a major award is so obviously notable that you would have to ignore all of those credentials and focus on a series of misconceptions in order to believe otherwise. If you attempt a deletion discussion—which I strongly advise you against—then you will almost certainly not succeed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. If you really believe that it fulfilled the proper criteria, I suppose you know that better than I. I don't know what you mean by a "series of misconceptions." I explained what I had meant to convey about her work in the second book. I would additionally say that if it is in fact so notable, than I would be the first to suggest that the award this individual received be made an article. By the way, did you write this page? If so, I hope you did not take offense at my suggestion that it be removed. I genuinely believed that it was not notable enough. TanRabbitry (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my review, I think this is good to go once the QPQs are complete. I couldn't think of a more interesting hook, so I feel like this one is interesting enough. Please ping me when the QPQs are ready. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)