User talk:MySweetMelissa/Archive

Discussion about notabilility of Mayflower passengers

Hello, MySweetMelissa, and welcome to our project. As I have seen you have worked on some of the passengers of the Mayflower, a ship that took the first settlers to the New World. I have started a discussion about what makes such a person notable (as in: worthy of having its own article). I would very much like your input on the subject here. Thanks for your input. --Eptalon (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Please lift my ban". Thank you.

Query

Hi there. I'm sorry I didn't respond directly to your query on my talk page yesterday. I had to go offline, but it looks like you resolved everything okay. If you still have any questions about anything, please let me know. Osiris (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I think I am on the right track now. MySweetMelissa (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to comment, I'm just letting you know about it. Osiris (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Mayflower articles

I have suggested renaming this template. If you would like to comment, you can do so at Template talk:Mayflower articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Biographical articles

Hi, Melissa. When you create articles about people, would you please include the following:

• Categories as appropriate to the person. You would usually have categories for the person's birth year, death year (or "Living people" if the person is alive), nationality and/or place of origin, profession (if any), and a category related to why they are notable.
• A DEFAULTSORT. That makes the person appear in the right order in the categories.

In addition, our manual of style (MOS) specifies that a person's full name is used the first time he or she is named in an article, and their surname alone is used after that. I notice that you've used the given name instead. I've fixed some of those, but I'd appreciate you following the MOS for future articles you create.

The other thing that would be helpful is if you link your articles to the corresponding articles in other Wikipedias. That is done in Wikidata. Let me know if you need help with that. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I created the attribution template on the articles. I assume you mean Wikipedia:Transwiki attribution

I am getting better at the simplification language and will be going back to Allerton, as I see there is a template there with regard to language simplification.

I do not understand DEFAULTSORT. I will attempt to comply with that, but I wondered if you could explain better what that means?

Thank you for your help and advice. MySweetMelissa (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

First, as for the attribution template: You have used URLs that will always go to the current version of the page. It needs to give the specific version of the article that you used as a basis for your article here. If the source article hasn't changed since you created the article here, you can get that version by clicking on "Permanent link" at the source page. If that article has changed, then you need to get it from the source article's page history. I know this is a pain, but it's a legal requirement here and we can get in trouble if it isn't done right.

As for DEFAULTSORT: For articles about people, that is used to make the articles appear in the correct order in their categories. Look at Isaac Allerton to see a DEFAULTSORT that I added: {{DEFAULTSORT:Allerton, Isaac}}. Then look at Category:Mayflower passengers. See how Isaac Allerton is under "A", not under "I"? That is because of the DEFAULTSORT. Without the DEFAULTSORT, pages are listed in categories in order by the page name. DEFAULTSORT changes that order. If you want to know more about using DEFAULTSORT, you can read look at Wikipedia:Categories#Sorting. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have corrected all of the attribution templates to reflect the version at en-Wikipedia to the date I created the article at Simple Wikipedia.

Working on the Readability on articles to assure they are at accepted score for Simple Wikipedia.

Inserted Defaultsort

Still reading and working on the CATEGORIES. Thank you for your continued patience. MySweetMelissa (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Time for a book

This editor is a Novice Editor and has the right to show this First Book of Wikipedia.

Here is your first book, also available as a medal or a userbox or a ribbon, or have all three! Congratulations on your first month as an active contributor to this project.--Peterdownunder (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much. MySweetMelissa (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Browser

Hi MySweetMelissa, which web browser do you use? If it is Firefox, there are some useful tools which would help with the editing.

I have been using Yahoo. I do not know much about Firefox. Is it better? MySweetMelissa (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not know whether it is better or not, but there are some tools that only work with Firefox. One is a simple English dictionary that will underline all non-simple words, and the other is a little application that creates citations from websites. Just having a quick break, back on line shortly --Peterdownunder (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

William White

Please reply to my note at Talk:William White. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Cut and paste references

Hi, I have created some cut and paste refs for you to use. They are in your sandbox, with instructions.Let me know if it makes sense, and if they are useful. --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much! MySweetMelissa (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Barnstar of National Merit
		You deserve whatever you want on Wikipedia! Aaqib Hola! 19:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much!! MySweetMelissa (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, MySweetMelissa. You have a new email! Please check it at your convenience.
Message added 22:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC). You can take off this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Osiris (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Separatism

Hello, MySweetMelissa. I just created the page Separatism; it is about people having different ieas from the majortity, and wanting the majority to recognise these ideas. You created the page Separatist movements (religion). The problem with this page is that it only lists Christian movements (which seemed to have separated from the Church of England, mostly). Some of the pilgrims left for economic reasons, not for religious ones. Anyway, I think that the page in its current form is a bad idea. Any idea on how it can be improved? - Oh, as to non-Christian separatism: there is at least the Khalistan movement, and Zionism... --Eptalon (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

There are currently articles for Separatist movements (Pakistan), another for Separatist movements (India). Did you plan to incorporate these all into one article?

I did intend to add other religions as I had time to research them including the two you suggested. If you wish to add more I will be happy to add them to the disambiguation page. I have already added the above two religions that you mentioned.

I understand that not all Pilgrims were considered or included as Separatists. They consisted of three groups: separatists, separatist sympathizers, and those employed by the separatists (soldiers, workers, and indentured servants). So I would say that they fit in this category more than they don't fit. It's a judgment call. MySweetMelissa (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Listing different separatist movements is not disambiguation (WP:NOTDAB): unless they share the same name, it's a list. The separatist Puritans can be listed because they're called "Separatists"; Zionists, Methodists and supporters of Khalistan are not, so they don't belong on the page. There are probably only two items on there that would actually classify as titles that need disambiguating. I don't see any reason why we need a separate disambiguation page for each type of separatism; if it's only going to contain two links, they can be combined under one page - Separatist (disambiguation). We also shouldn't be linking to a disambiguation page from articles (WP:DPL). If this was intended to be an actual article instead of a disambiguation page, then we really should cover it under the main Separatism or Schism (religion) articles. There's no need for yet another article about the same thing. In regards to the Mayflower people, if they weren't all Puritans, or Dissenters, or Congregationalists, or 'separatists' then I really don't see what they all had in common other than being Pilgrims... Osiris (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

At the time of the Mayflower Pilgrims there were no clearly defined Congregationists, Puritans, etc. They worshipped in homes and hidden places. They were just known as Separatists - as in "Separate from the Church of England". Since it was illegal to NOT practice the laws of the Church of England they fled to the Netherlands, and ultimately to the New World so that they could maintain their English customs without being jailed for not worshipping at the Church of England. Some were referred to as Pilgrims as in an earlier meaning of the word - having a religious connotation. There were a few others who went as indentured servants, or others as stated before. They were ALL passengers - thus the Mayflower Template states them as passengers, not Pilgrims. MySweetMelissa (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

So then why can't we just cover whatever there is to say about their religion on Mayflower (ship)? If weren't technically all of the same faith, and the only thing they had in common was riding on the same ship, then why don't we just cover it under the ship's article? With a link on Separatist (disambiguation)? Osiris (talk) 03:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The authors refer to them as Separatists. No other religious name is given. They were of the "same faith", though that faith was in its infancy, they all following the teachings of the same leaders. Why would I put the information in the ship article? That would be taking the major reason why these people gave up everything they had to take a dangerous journey to an unknown world - an experience many did not survive, and reduce it to an insignificant mention. I think perhaps the best things to do would be to just leave it in the individual articles, stating them as Separatists in the way that the authors did, reference it for further reading, and leave it at that. Perhaps that will be the best way to avoid a controversy and a unnecessary complication on Simple Wikipedia. MySweetMelissa (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I misunderstood your meaning. After thinking about it we could cover it on the Mayflower page. I’m not sure what you’d like me to do with the disambiguation page Separatist movements (religion)? MySweetMelissa (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I just meant that you'd have to describe the passengers on that page anyway (who they were, why they were leaving Europe), and that topic eventually overlaps with their religion and whatever separatist movement some of them were part of. Because the people in question were known as 'Separatists', my suggestion for the disambiguation page is to move it to Separatist (disambiguation). Does that sound like it would work okay? Osiris (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you. MySweetMelissa (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

English Wikipedia also refers to the group as "Pilgrims"? (en:Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony) - so if we crerated/moved to the corresponding article on SEWP, we could probably elsaborate on it; all we needed be a cross-ref to pilgrim/pilgrimage. Would this be cleaner than to mix concepts as we currently do? - Can we write any content in the article that goes beyond a simple list? --Eptalon (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Hello, and thank you for your mail. I have added two sentences to Pilgrims, and in the template, I redirect Separatists to there. As I covered separatist religious movements in Separatism, and that a simple list of such movements is probably useless, I would say we can delete the original article above...--Eptalon (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

That is fine with me and thanks. MySweetMelissa (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Separatist movements (religion)

An editor has requested deletion of Separatist movements (religion), an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2013/Separatist movements (religion) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Eptalon (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you have solved the problem. I have no objection to the deletion. Thanks for yours and Osiris' help. MySweetMelissa (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Most improved editor

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For MySweetMelissa who has shown so much improvement in the quality of her contributions. Well done, and congratulations Peterdownunder (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Linking to English Wikipedia

Linking to Wikipedia as you have in Jean de Venette is generally discouraged. There was a recent discussion on this. There's no sense having a Simple Wikipedia if we're sending readers to Wikipedia to read complex articles. In the image on the page, some names have been linked to Wikipedia. A couple of these links send the reader to a page "to be created" at Wikipedia. Our readers are children and ESL students. They will not understand this. You should discuss what you're doing with one of your mentors or an experienced editor. Good luck! Oregonian2012 (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm commenting on this because Oregonian brought it to my attention. I agree about links to enwiki (which I believe is what he means when he refers to "Wikipedia"). I think the issues could be resolved by removing the image, which doesn't seem related to this person anyway. Am I missing the connection? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I went to remove the image but I see it is already removed. As far as the words, I will check the remaining links to make sure there are none to en-Wiki. Thanks for the information. MySweetMelissa (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_106#Notability_of_Mayflower_passengers.3F Notability of Mayflower passengers?

Notability of Mayflower passengers?

Hello, I was wondering in what way people become notable by travelling on a ship, the Mayflower. Articles about passengers are being created, yet for people such as Humility Cooper, almost nothing is known (except that she seemed to have travelled on the Mayflower as a child, and later in life, returned to the Old World). Yes, there are records mentioning her name. I do however think that "notability" in our sense is probably different. Given the few things that are known about her, the interest in her is probably limited to academic sources (for example those that look at the conditions of women at that time). In other words: in my opinion, having a separate article about her is probably wrong. A similar case can probably be made about other passengers of the Mayflower. In short, I think that we should not have separate articles for most passengers. So far I have not nominated any articles for deletion as I think that this is more a discussion about what action make a person notable. Note that the Mayflower did not have any accident, the ship simply transported people to the New World (Plymouth Colony, iirc), and back. Thomas Andrews (enwp) was a shipbuilder that died when the RMS Titanic collided with the iceberg, he is generally described as a hero, helping others leave the ship. Is he notable? What about Madeleine Astor (enwp), who survived the accident, and died in 1940? Or Milvina Dean (enwp), who died in 2009, and who was the youngest person aboard the Titanic? - In short, what makes a person notable? --Eptalon (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You ask good questions. To me, Humility Cooper, for example, is probably pretty borderline.

That said, do understand that in US history, Mayflower has a unique, almost iconic status as ships go. It was the first ship to bring European settlers to the colonies that became the New England states. Those colonists were the first who came over as refugees from religious persecution, which in the US was a historically and culturally important aspect of the entire European colonization process. The story of the Plymouth Colony's survival through their first winter, culminating in the "first Thanksgiving" is an iconic story that substantially all US children learn in school. (Whether they learn it with historical accuracy ... is another matter!)

So at some level US citizens see almost everything pertaining to the history of that voyage of Mayflower as noteworthy at a certain level. The noteworthiness comes from a combination of the Mayflower voyage itself and the subsequent founding and building of Plymouth Colony, but as a perhaps-sloppy shortcut we tend to think of it mainly in terms of Mayflower.

In comparison, when you look at Titanic, a Titanic survivor (I think) would need at least something beyond pure presence on the ship to qualify. Astor (above) was certainly noteworthy in her own right, even if Titanic added to her fame. Andrews (above) was Titanic's naval architect, not just a passenger and hero. So he was inherently noteworthy, too. (It's at least arguable that even if Titanic had never existed, he would still have been noteworthy.)

With respect to Dean, it's more borderline. But the fact that she was the youngest passenger, and the last survivor, gives her a certain cachet, too. I'm not sure that she'd have been considered noteworthy if we were doing this 100 years from now, but I'm not sure we're wrong for including her now.

So I come to the conclusion that to be noteworthy, a passenger needs something besides mere presence on the ship. With Mayflower the critical difference is that all the passengers have something else: they have Plymouth Colony.

StevenJ81 (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... In terms of Humility Cooper I'd tend to say that she isn't notable. The ship is, and those on the ship collectively would be notable - for example the fact they collectively created the Mayflower Compact. Individually, I'd say no. Especially when almost nothing is known about her. I'd suggest merging all the passenger articles (of which there are some, but also many redlinks) into Mayflower passengers and possibly a list with the little info known about them? If individuals have notability for some other reason, such as John Carver who was the first Governor of Plymouth Colony they can have their own article... Basically; if they are notable as a group then they should have a group article, notable on their own, own article in this instance... Kennedy ^(talk) 14:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to thank Eptalon for notifying me of this discussion and allowing me to state my opinion here. I have to respectfully disagree with the editor who does not think her notable. You cannot "lump" these people together. They came from different places, different countries and for many different reasons.

Humility Cooper, is, in my opinion, not only notable, but especially notable to Simple Wikipedia whose articles are mainly directed to readers who are young in age. She travelled as a one year old child and was the youngest of the passengers, except for one other who was born on the ship. She was orphaned in Europe and travelled with persons who were probably her aunt and uncle, The Tilley family. Unfortunately, she also was soon to lose them to the cold and sickness of the first winter that took so many who had been passengers on the Mayflower and was then placed with yet another family. Humility witnessed the first encounter with the Native American population and the First Thanksgiving and did not returned to Europe until late in her teens, probably at nineteen years of age.

It is true that there is little information of Humility at this time, but more records are, even today, being gathered and discovered by professional researchers in Europe and the United States.

I think the young readers would not only find her notable but also would benefit greatly to know of her story. It is a story of courage that would inspire many young readers. I would also add that I believe that all of the passengers were notable just for being a passenger on the historic and momentous voyage of the Mayflower, its extremely dangerous voyage which few ordinary people especially children had experienced before 1620 and for their part in the discovery and the settlement of Plymouth Colony. Humility grew and prospered even while more than half of the passengers died.

I would hope that we would treasure this young child's story and that of all Mayflower passengers and to know that more information is actively being gathered even now on Humility and all of the other Mayflower passengers. While to adults, Humility's story may seem short of facts, to child readers, I think there is much there, spoken and unspoken.MySweetMelissa (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

We have to distinguish between who is an interesting person to know about, and what makes a worthwhile encyclopedia article. The way we do that on Wikipedia is through our notability guidelines. I would make the following points:

• The reason Humility was on the Mayflower was that her guardians made the trip. They were the people who made the decision to go, not Humility. One of the notability guidelines specifically says that a person is not considered notable just because they have a relationship with someone who is notable.
• Simple Wikipedia's articles are not mainly for young readers. They are for several classes of readers: children, yes, but also people whose first language is not English, and people with poor English skills. We do not cater to any one group over the others.
• A person is not notable for Wikipedia purposes because of what might be discovered about them in the future.
• Articles exist on Wikipedia based on the notability of their subject, not based on whether someone might benefit from having them there. A person is not notable because of what they experienced in their life. The passengers as a group may be notable for Wikipedia purposes, certainly at least notable enough to be listed in the main article about the ship. Individuals might or might not, depending on their individual stories.
• Wikipedia articles are, first and foremost, encyclopedia articles. They are not popular biographies or inspirational tales. Wikipedia articles deal with verifiable facts, not how much "unspoken" information there might be. In Humility's case, it is not a lack of facts, but a lack of notability according to our guidelines.

I am not saying that it is not worth knowing about Humility, or any other individual Mayflower passengers. I am saying that here we have specific criteria to determine who or what is notable enough for a separate article. Humility may not meet those criteria. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we should revisit the basic point of notability - "A person can be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". I think all the Mayflower passengers have met that requirement. As it is an iconic historical event it is important that we give it full coverage. Also, as it is used in schools, then Wikipedia should be an accurate and informative source for students, and even more so for Simple English Wikipedia. In the specific case of Humility, until I read the article I knew nothing about her. But the article was simply written and well researched. --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The simplest answer – on which decisions should be based – is at the top of the guideline: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (emphasis mine). This does not include trivial mentions in historical records. If the passenger has been written about extensively in multiple reliable sources, then they are notable enough to have an article. That's the guideline. It's not about whether they made an impact or did something else with their life. I don't know how much Humility Cooper features in the sources that have been provided. Osiris (talk) 06:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

We have a list of Mayflower passengers. All we know about her as facts could be put in a short paragraph there, and linked by redirect. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Mayflower passengers meet WP:Notability standards because they are Mayflower passengers and all that infers to Americans, both spoken and unspoken. We see articles about persons that have done nothing notable except hold a title. While that might not be notable in some countries, it is in others and they are respected and considered notable for that reason. The WP:Notability requirement is somewhat subjective as to country but should, I believe, be respected by all countries.

While I admit there is very little known about Humility Cooper at this time, more information is being found about these early Americans all of the time. She did come over on the Mayflower and that makes her as notable as any other Mayflower passenger, in my opinion and the opinions of many others who have sustained her and other Mayflower passenger articles for years now on En-Wikipedia.

Yes, I am aware that Simple Wikipedia had slightly different goals, those to children, language challenged persons, persons to whom English is not their first language, and to others and I applaud that goal. I think Mayflower articles are appropriate for all of the persons to whom Simple Wikipedia is directed.

I have seen many extremely complicated articles here which are near duplicates of those on EnWikipedia, unattributed and language nearly identical and have wondered to whom these articles are directed? Yet, because they pass the notability standards as interpreted by the administrators, I raise no objection.

I would think that since there is no space issue, and the Mayflower story being of such significant to both young readers and immigrants there would be no question that Humility Cooper could stay as a stand alone article and I respectfully request that she remain as such. Thanks. MySweetMelissa (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I am fully on Melissa's side. And at this point I don't think one can say there is a consensus to delete this and similar articles. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that no one has even nominated any of these articles for deletion. We're just having a conversation. That being said, we need to keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia. We do not decide on keeping articles based on whether they are appropriate for our perceived audience. We have plenty of articles that are not appropriate for children. The fact that more information might be learned about someone is also not a consideration. In my opinion, the Mayflower passengers are not equally notable. The ones who had leadership roles are more notable. The ones who accomplished more later in life are more notable. Yes, our notability guidelines talk about being mentioned in publications. But if the mention is always in connection with someone else, such as a child's guardian, you have to ask how much of the notability really belongs to the child.

As for the articles you see here that you think are questionable, question them! The administrators do not decide what meets notability guidelines, the whole community does. If you challenge something and consensus does not agree with you, you lose nothing. On the contrary, you learn something something. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I would strongly urge people to create one article, where all the passengers are listed; in my opinion, a separate article is necessary onlly if at least one of the following criteria is met:

• The passenger had a political role in the future colony, or was important for its political success (this includes the people negotiating with the natives, eg.)
• Leaving out ships registers, and the registers of churches (marriage/death/baptisms), there are other contemporary sources that illustrate the notability of the passenger.

So in other words: People travelling on the Mayflower, are not notable by default. --Eptalon (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think the amount of historical research done by scholars and historians makes each one notable. If you go to WorldCat, there are 1,239 books about the Mayflower. If you use Trove, there are an equally large number of sources. I think the sources are out there and notability is not derived from original documents proving they existed. --LauraHale (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Those are books about the ship/the voyage, and most of them are secondary sources (of the 20th century). What I tried to say is: Take Humility Cooper, and leave out the "boarding documents" and "church records". There will probably be few documents mentioning her, which were published until about 50 years after her death. She was baptized in London, in 1638 or 1639. Someone wrote in 1651 that she had died in England. It very much looks like this is all there is. Based on this record we decide that she deserves her own article here? -It looks like there were agreements signed in 1626/1627. People listed on those agreements are likely candidates for their own article. As a counterexample, en:William Bradford (Plymouth Colony governor) probably deserves an article of his own, as he served five terms as the governor of the colony. --Eptalon (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

These are certainly well accepted sources, and they are not old or outdated. Only one is in the last quarter of the 20th century:

• Eugene Aubrey Stratton, Plymouth Colony: Its History and People, 1620-1691, (Salt Lake City: Ancestry Publishing, 1986)
• Caleb H. Johnson, The Mayflower and Her passengers (Indiana: Xlibris, 2006)
• Charles Edward Banks, The English ancestry and homes of the Pilgrim Fathers who came to Plymouth on the Mayflower in 1620, the Fortune in 1621, and the Anne and the Little James in 1623, (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 2006)
• Nick Bunker, Making Haste from Babylon: The Mayflower Pilgrims and their New World a History (New York: Knopf 2010)
• Nathaniel Philbrick, Mayflower: A story of Courage, Community and War (New York: Viking, 2006).

This is not to exclude the fact that every childhood schoolbook mentions the Mayflower passengers in depth. To children in the United States, the Mayflower and the passengers are a big deal. They are addressed in every history book in elementary schools and high schools. An encyclopedia like Single English WP has a duty to provide additional information not covered in the basic history books. I cannot imagine anyone not thinking any of the passengers as being notable. I also have personal knowledge that many of the immigrants that come to the US, both children and adults are extremely interested in the Mayflower and all of the early Americans and are anxious to read more about them. Are we running out of space here?

There are many more quality books on the subject, but these I found in five minutes of research. (Added after) There is already an article on William Bradford and more will be added to it soon. MySweetMelissa (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Those are all secondary sources. Which is exactly what you're supposed to be using when deciding notability. Why is anybody suggesting that primary sources or arbitrary criteria be used to determine whether a topic is notable? We already have a criteria. It's written at the top of WP:N. Surely, the only thing that's relevant here is whether the coverage in the sources listed on the article is enough to show notability. Not what the person did with their life. Osiris (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I also see several secondary sources (not none or just one) and I agree with those above who have pointed out that this does meet the notability criteria. Also, is there a time limit for an article to be developed here? Because if not why the rush to delete an article not yet three weeks old? I fully understand why some might find this article uninteresting but in fact the readers here are children and those learning English. So the articles by their very nature seem to fulfill two objectives; to be of interest to the readership and to be good practice for improving their language skills. I've taught children but have also taught those new to the English language and from that viewpoint this is a decent article. It serves the stated goals of Simple English Wikipedia and is an article that may still improve as other editors contribute. We develop our rules through consensus and I don't agree to applying them in the most rigid sense. All things considered I see no good reason the article should not stay. Rus793 (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the policy on notability (significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject), we have 3 things to determine, significant coverage, reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject. I doubt that anyone can honestly question the last two (hundreds of books writen by hundreds of authors and historians centuries after the subjects deaths). Only significant coverage is questionable. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. This is where it gets tricky - in detail. In much of the sources, the coverage of the "not main" individuals is not extensive. Not a lot is realy known about them. But for the most part, what is known about them is covered. This is not a case of them being mentioned in passing. All that is known, every detail, is often included. The lack of information still available to us should not be used to say something is not notable. This lack of information may certainly affect how we deal with the subject in other ways, but it should not affect if it is notable. Given the sheer number of secondary sources which provide most every known detail about these people, I feel notability is proven.

Auntof6 stated above "The reason Humility was on the Mayflower was that her guardians made the trip. They were the people who made the decision to go, not Humility. One of the notability guidelines specifically says that a person is not considered notable just because they have a relationship with someone who is notable." Aside from the fact that the notability here is not based on the events but on the coverage of them, it is not a question of notability being inherited. No, she did not chose to go, but Jon Benet Ramsey did not chose to be killed. Why she was a passenger does not matter, that she was one would be all that matters. Her choice (or lack of) in the situation is immaterial.

That all being said, I do agree, in part, with Eptalon. While there is no doubt to me that Humility is notable, I do not feel there is ample information of warrant her own article at this time. A page listing all of the passengers with the known information about them with links to full articles on those where enough information is known to warrant full articles would probably be a better way to handle this. A page similar to the various "Characters of <blah>" pages would be best. People like Humility, while notable are merely bit players in the history of the events - they are minor characters of history. Character list pages handle the major and minor characters in a fashion where the information of most characters is available - pertinent info for all with just a summary for the major characters with a link to the rest of the information we have (the main article).

tl;dr: Yep, they are notable, but not enough info available of many of them for separate articles. Merge into a "character list" style page. --Creol(talk) 13:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The Simple English Wikipedia Notability guideline, under General Notability Guideline states: "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive". As for degrees of notability, they can't all be Charlemagne or other famous historical figures and I also don't see degrees of notability mentioned in the guideline. In the List of Mayflower passengers a link to her page is desirable but that list has hardly a sentence on those without articles of their own. Also, the point wasn't addressed why are we even discussing this on an article not three weeks old when this was brought up. What happened to letting the article develop and allow other editors to edit and add information? We don't know these are the only sources available on her so why the rush to judgement? Common sense should tell us this is a conversation for some time in the future after the article and others like it have been allowed time to develop. It's a good article and I definitely think it should stay. Rus793 (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Some of these characters don't deserve a separate article. The only stuff known about them is birth, baptismal, marriage, and death dates. Most lived the ordinary lives of settlers -- tilling the fields, eating, sleeping, praying, and making babies. This is not enough to merit a stand-alone article puffed up with speculation, 19th century oil pictures of the first Thanksgiving, and long paragraphs about the uncomfortable conditions on the Mayflower. Oregonian2012 (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If you really knew the history you would not make that statement. They interconnect in many ways. MySweetMelissa (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I know the history. I'm a descendant of two pilgrims. This is an encyclopedia not a genealogy guide. Some articles contain info that does not need to be recorded in a general encyclopedia. This stuff is fine for a genealogy encyclopedia or a tome about everything Mayflower but this is neither. Oregonian2012 (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no "List of Descendants living today" in these articles. I made a point of removing any such material when I brought these articles over from en-Wikipedia. The "genealogical information" you refer to does not exist. The immediate children are listed and you will see that many of those children became notable in their own right, although, as yet, those articles are yet to be created on SW. Many people believed they are descendants of these people because of internet websites which are often unreliable. That is why they are not included in any SW articles and if in the future they are added, I would hope they are reliably sourced.MySweetMelissa (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I worked for yeeeeaaarrsss in the genealogy dept. of a local library. I know what I'm talking about. Most of these "pilgrims" are notable ONLY for sailing on the Mayflower. There daily lives were very similar one to another and should not be recorded here in detail. There is no reason why every pilgrim in the Division of land or the Division of cattle needs to be documented in these articles. Why? This stuff is of interest only to genel. and desc. of pilgrims who (for some baffling reason) need to know every itty-bitty detail about their illustrious ancestors. Most of this stuff can be found at length in sites devoted to the pilgrims. SEW is NOT one of those sites. This is a general encyc. not a history book. Oregonian2012 (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hermann Einstein (1847-1902) was a pioneer of electrical engineering, and a German entrepreneur; in Munich, over 300 people worked for him. He was responsible for brining electrical light to the Oktoberfest, and to Schwabing, which is now a part of Munich. Today, people mostly remember him for being the father of Albert Einstein. English Wikipedia does not have an article about him.You won't find any articles about the parents of Marie Curie either, even though they were Polish nobility. In short: being the parent of someone who is notable, does not make you notable. --Eptalon (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Most improved editor

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For MySweetMelissa who has shown so much improvement in the quality of her contributions. Well done, and congratulations Peterdownunder (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, MySweetMelissa. You have a new email! Please check it at your convenience.
Message added 21:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC). You can take off this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Auntof6 (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)