User talk:Alp watcher

Danby

I agree that the article is a little fawning at the moment, but the addition of potentially defamatory material is far more concerning per WP:BLP. I'm far from knowledgeable about the legal aspects of this but we need to err on the side of caution, at least until it's further established. Either way if it was defamation then it was legally judged to be untrue. As for the Rhiannon stuff, I always think "another political party outraged by something an opposing politician says" is a total beatup and not really worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic article (unless it's something that comes to define them, like Pauline Hanson with "please explain"). Frickeg (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Scott

Your revision is better, but I'm still concerned about the addition - the source provided is not really a secondary one. Do you have a link to some media coverage or something similar? It really needs a secondary source to establish significance. I know nothing about the incident so haven't removed it yet - it's possible it is "infamous" in different circles than I move in! (though I've removed the word which is prejudicial) - but we need something to show that. Frickeg (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about the source's veracity, but I am concerned about whether this incident received enough coverage to be significant (especially to take one out of five paragraphs in a biography). Unless the article is expanded considerably, there really needs to be some proper media coverage (in, say, the Age, or the Herald Sun, or the ABC) to establish significance and reduce undue weight concerns. Frickeg (talk) 07:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That's all very well, but you need to have sources proving that, not just you asserting it, otherwise it's original research. I've had a quick, very basic look around and the only thing that comes up in most searches about this is this very page. Frickeg (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I note with concern that you've added this incident two two other pages as well. Unless you can produce a source showing its significance, all three need to go. Frickeg (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, OK, but in future you need to find the sources first, and then include it. Your knowledge is all well and good, but can hardly be used as a source. And I take your point about early days of the internet, but that's no excuse for not sourcing something, especially in a BLP. Frickeg (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Robert Larocca for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert Larocca is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Larocca until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)