Talk:Terry Breverton

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: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal 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 supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Lack of reliable references, lack of notability, COI edits

This page entirely lacks reliable references - on following the links, pretty much all of them originate with self-puffery from the subject, none of them substantiate anything except his rapid-fire production of (unreliable) books. I note that it is the work of one SPA and one prolific editor with interests that closely mirror those of the subject. Generally a page long overdue for deletion. Meanwhile, it needs to have the unreliable stuff removed - which is pretty much all of it. Hunc (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only real justification I can see for this page is the plethora of self-published books. Not that they are reliable references for their contents, but they do document their own existence. @Bellezzasolo: and others, I propose to trim this page down to a stub, and then take it to AfD. Comments? Hunc (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hunc: Don't trim it, just AfD it. That way, it's easier for !voters to judge the quality of the sources used. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Publications

I have just finished reading Breverton's "Richard III - the king in the car park". I am a German Biology teacher, so I'm not an expert for English medieval history, but I noticed that the chapter about the identification of the remains, especially his comments about C-14- and mtDNA-analysis, is teeming with errors (even a stupid Ninth grader wouldn't make these mistakes). The author obviously didn't do any research at all, mainly paraphrasing the statements given by Buckley and King at the press conference and the proceeding to say that the DNA-analysis is not reliable, because "there are too many generations between Richard III and the descentants of Richard's sister". After that, the DNA-analysis is not reliable because "medieval people lived short lives and there were many adoptions". And a few sentences later, the DNA-analysis is not reliable because "there are many people with the same DNA-haploptype."

If his other publications are on the same level he isn't a serious author and I wonder why he's got an entry on Wikipedia.176.7.144.164 (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agreed it's very largely a self-sourced puff piece. And I don't think that Breverton is considered an academic, certainly not an academic historian, despite the claim in the article. It could do with a severe trim, if not AfD'ing. As a start, I've removed the very long list of books, which appears to be nothing but advertising. KJP1 (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now taken out the material sourced to the subject. What you have left are three interviews - which are very weak - and a review. I don’t think there is enough here for Notability. KJP1 (talk) 08:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]