User talk:Rationalize

Welcome!

Hello, Rationalize, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — Javert2113 (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the local coverage that was generated, Ball might merit mention at the Fathers' rights movement page; but certainly not a page of his own. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 4:39 pm, Today (UTC+1)

I would support that, certainly, but not a page for himself, per WP:1E. — Javert2113 (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a convoluted history - start at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas James Ball and the related DRV. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie, I'm going to write quickly. First, I truly sympathize with the family of Mr. Ball and his supporters, and empathize with the situation Mr. Ball found himself in, but nothing — no piece of evidence, no reference, no argument — nothing changes the fact that the community consensus at the time of the TJB article, and at the later review, was the deletion of the TJB article. Repeated creation of that article lead to its locking under WP:SALT. I see no change here. Furthermore, given the references, a citation to an offline website (that is overtly political in its stance on men's rights), a blog, a International Business Times article that was the one mentioned in TJB deletion proceedings, a notice from the Southern Poverty Law Center that doesn't reflect well at all on Mr. Ball, and an archived article on boston.com; I fail to see two things: one, sustained and continuing coverage beyond 2012, which clearly suggests WP:1E, and coverage only for said act of self-immolation, which confirms WP:1E. In our current article, there's a serious lack of other, WP:RS sources, and the content is laughably short and superficial. As such, this editor can come to no other conclusion than deletion is warranted, and will be taking steps to effect such an end. — Javert2113 (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Thomas Ball (activist)

The article Thomas Ball (activist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:DEL8: per WP:GNG, the topic of this article lacks significant coverage, and has few WP:RS sources, extreme lack of content, possible WP:1E, probable evasion of WP:SALT on Thomas James Ball. (Possible WP:G4, but I'm not willing to go so far as to confirm it.) I should also note that the New Hampshire Union Leader, a clear RS, says nothing about political issues, but, rather, more about Mr. Ball's legal troubles (if the two are one and the same).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Javert2113 (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]