Talk:Andrew Sabisky

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 February 2020. The result of the discussion was redirect.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Andrew Sabisky redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence

The article Andrew Sabisky, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:

Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

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 sourced must 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.

Biography

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 18 February 2020

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: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Sabisky → Andrew Sabisky appointment – This article should not continue as a biography of a living person (BLP) because of the 1 event rule (WP:BLP1E). However, the appointment of Andrew Sabisky to an adviser role within the Prime Minister's office and the controversy which ensued leading to his sacking/resignation has been a significant, notable event within UK politics. The appointment (and not the person) does merit an article and that is why I am proposing this move. (I have made a similar argument under the current AfD discussion). Oska (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If changed, this should instead be in sentence case as "Andrew Sabisky appointment", per WP:TITLEFORMAT. Grayfell (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that "appointment", and while I've done some touching up on the article and talk while passing to be clear that should not imply I'm in support of article retention, this move or any other, or a redirect with history and may possibilities and maybe printworthy.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. If kept it should stay as it is. He's not notable for his appointment. He's actually far more notable for his resignation and the reasons for it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The appointment of Sabisky was what generated controversy (given his previously stated views). The controversy and political pressure following that appointment led to his sacking/resignation. So the appointment & subsequent resignation are two sides of the same coin and obviously both would be covered in the article. Oska (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Necrothesp.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Necrothesp. Also just a note to say I've made a minor tweak to the proposed target, since our manual of style would suggest appointment should start with a lower case letter. This is Paul (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2020 (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.

Redirect is a surprise

The 17 February 2020 AfD redirect result to Second Johnson ministry is a WP:SURPRISE as Andrew Sabisky is not mentioned at the target article. @Wikimandia please a organise appropriate content at (I'd suggest a WP:ANCHOR) on the target. Alternative @GPL93, Kurtis, StonyBrook, Buidhe, and This is Paul: or elseone please assist. Please avoid WP:UNDUE weight on the target. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're singling me out. I didn't close out the AfD. It should have been merge and then redirect. Please be bold and organize it yourself. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia As far as I can tell you were the first to make that !vote in the AfD. My BOLD more would be to refer back to closer if nothing is done. I observe StonyBrook has already claimed to have got it sorted with a merge and a glance seems to indicate that is the case. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark

Done StonyBrook (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]