Talk:Jordan Chariton

Biographies of living persons rule with respect to sexual assault story

I myself have been looking for information on the currently unfolding sexual assault news. The article currently details these events, but provides not sources at all. Does this adhere to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons? By my understanding it doesn't, so it should be improved. --OKNoah (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Article structure

This article currently has no subsections. I propose that it it has the subsections "Career" and "Personal life" As this would require significant rearrangement of the article's text as well as addition of new text I am opening notifying editors here before making such a change. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

There's no reason to create sections for an inadequately referenced stub article. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Your edits removed everything that was adequately sourced leaving only sentences that needed citations for verification. There is reason to create sections on an article as that's inherently part of the development process (see the criteria for good articles). BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Bueller: trying to purposefully sabotage the quality of an article after you nominated it for deletion seems pretty unfair to me. Davey2116 (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The very person that nominated the article should not purposefully disrupt the editing process. As much as I want to assume good faith here, erasing our work and reducing the article to ten poorly sourced sentences in hopes of getting more delete !votes isn't how you get a consensus on an AfD, it's how you get sanctions imposed. I apologize in advance if this is a disrespectful personal attack but I would like to remind the AfD nominator that his reason cited was that the article was quote a poorly sourced stub covering a quote non notable individual yet he is the creator of several stub articles ranging from 2-4 sentences total covering non-notable individuals [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] and contested the speedy deletion of all of them. Bueller, I say this not with the intent of hurting or attacking you, but as a genuine request for you to have consistency in your actions. Act out of respect for policy in every instance, not because it's convenient at the time. I again apologize because this is harsh, but the situation is bothersome. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. It is policy that users should make an effort to improve an article before nominating it for deletion, or voting in the AfD discussion; sadly, this common-sense guideline isn't being followed here. You're completely right to point out Bueller's inconsistent actions. Davey2116 (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I think more effort should be made to arrange this article into sections. The career section can simply state what he has done career wise. The allegations against him could go into a separate section. What does everyone think? I just think it could be improved to look a little neater. Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Reference structure

Some of the references were pretty sloppy in the way they were structured, so I've tried to correct/expand the metadata on them. I've also replaced a couple of sources which I thought inadequate or irrelevant or just non-objective. There was one from what appears to a new commercial venture (Corporate Con Job?) of Jordan Chariton; using that as a source is very inappropriate and cannot possibly be taken for an objective reference. It might, however, be listed in an external links section? Or as his official website in the infobox? Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I added the Corporate Con Job website, and meant to add it as an external link. Apologies, and thanks for fixing it. Davey2116 (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

General notability in question

I think he does meet the requirements, given his position at TYT Network and the bulk of work he was involved in, and the high profile nature of the allegations being made against him. Chariton has been a major reporter of on the scene coverage for the past two years, at least. He enjoyed periods of very high popularity and acclaim. The allegations against him are a substantial story and there is ample secondary-source material to justify this page, in my opinion. I think this article should be kept and I'd like to see it improve. Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. There is an ongoing AfD discussion at the moment (though by now we're pretty much all in agreement that he is notable). Davey2116 (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)