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 rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article 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
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 Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible 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.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
This article is within the scope of the University of Cambridge WikiProject, an attempt to improve articles relating to the University of Cambridge, and to standardize and extend the coverage of the University in the encyclopedia. If you would like to participate, you can help us by editing the article attached to this notice, or you could visit the project page, where you can join the project, learn more about it, see what needs to be done, or contribute to the discussion.University of CambridgeWikipedia:WikiProject University of CambridgeTemplate:WikiProject University of CambridgeUniversity of Cambridge articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
The tone of the whole article is suspicious. Not only the article reads like a backcover appraisal, but hoever wrote it has a very nuanced and detailed knowledge of the author and says exactly what the author would say about himself.Shouldn't someone look into this?
I agree, and I did look into it. I don't have any doubt that at least one of the editors is the subject of the article, and that several others at least have some sort of conflict of interest.
Some information introduced is trivia, and trivia that likely only someone who knew him would know. Other additions are an extensive wall of suggested works and bibliography that is among the largest I've seen on Wikipedia.
Still other additions are extremely promotional, and definitely fall way over the line of WP:PROMO and WP:PEACOCK.
It should also be noted that the promotional language when it has a citation is specifically cited to blogs; unreliable sources.
In the case of all of those additions, this is the only article they've edited, or nearly the only one.
However, I'm not opening up an SPI because at this point; it's not [currently] disruptive, and even if there might be some sort of concerted effort to puff up this page, with all of them being IP editors, it would be fruitless without it becoming an ongoing problem.
As I said, I have looked at the other edits from the time the page was created by established editors, both registered and unregistered. That is, those editors who don't appear to have some likely conflict of interest, or this being the only article they've edited (with one exception). Nearly every one of these edits appears to be either copyediting, or some attempt to tone down the promotional nature and wording of the article.
So if there's no serious objections, I think the article should be rolled back to the version before these changes were introduced. "Rolled back" as in manually restored; I'll keep the contributions and just copy the text back. Any pertinent information that might fall in the cracks in the meantime can be certainly be added. It would reduce the article to a stub, but that's all the article is without the promotional material, bibliography, and trivial information.
In case some of those IP editors come back and read this comment, please read WP:COI about disclosing a conflict of interest, and avoiding articles where you might not be able to be neutral about the subject (especially if you are the subject of the article). Also, see WP:RS to see what we consider reliable sources, and WP:BLP as to what can be written about a living person. Spoiler: almost everything has to be referenced by reliable sources.
.jpg)
