Talk:John Roecker/Archive 1

Arbitrary section

John Roecker reference is here :

[1] --Fallout boy 04:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undue Weight?

I see that the story of his incident with the Elfman's takes up more than half of the article. Is that really more important than his career as a director? Steve Dufour 00:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced material that was present in the article before I first began to edit this article. All I have done so far was to add more citations from reputable secondary sources. Smee 04:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I am tempted to remove the whole section, as per WP:BLP. At the very least, the first paragraph should be deleted since the reference is not a reliable source.HubcapD 19:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week, and I'm removing the section per WP:BLP HubcapD 23:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To elucidate on why I'm deleting this, the Reliable Sources section says quote "Editors should avoid repeating gossip published by tabloids and scandal sheets. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject." An alleged arguement between Roecker and the Elfmans is hardly relevant material to an encylopedia article on either person. This was deleted from Jenna Elfman's page and since WP:BLP applies to biographical information about people in other articles, it needs to removed form here as well.HubcapD 23:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what happened to Jenna Elfman's page. From what I see, it was never there.

Then you must have missed this and this.HubcapD 18:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The event wasn't gossip. It wasn't just reported by tabloid - you deleted a segment that is "This story was picked up by About.com, which is published by The New York Times Company". Jenna Elfman also confirmed the encounter.

As per Athaenara in my second link above, "The 2005 purchase of About.com by The New York Times Company does not confer encyclopedic legitimacy upon the content of About.com subject area websites."HubcapD 18:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, I am reverting it back in. Instead of just "delete all", make a short summary. That is what wikipedia editing is about: improving articles. Not just deleting what you consider as "bad PR" for whatever you support. --Tilman 05:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact of the matter is that is was removed from the Elfman article per BLP policy. Since BLP policy covers biographical infomation on people in other articles, it applies here as well.HubcapD 18:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:John Roecker/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*6 citations, no images. Could use images, and expansion with additional citations. Smee 04:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Last edited at 04:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)