Talk:Russell Gewirtz
| 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. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
What a mess.
editThis article is an absolute mess and I have no idea how it hasn't been AFD'd. I'm going to clean it up later, but it should probably should be deleted for having no notability and mostly being a garbled attack page. I'm still not even sure who this guy is... Jergling (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- While I was complaining, another editor actually took charge and reverted to a version that made sense. The sudden influx of defamatory content is making me think puppets, or maybe the obvious lack of patrol is attracting Recent Changes vandals. Jergling (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Self-Published/Blog content
editNot that I expect these single-purpose throwaways to read the talk page, but maybe we'll get lucky here:
The subject's own blog is not inherently notable, unless being quoted directly and for the purposes of illustrating a notable event. You must establish the significance of a controversy before you explain the circumstances. On Wikipedia, we don't just quote blogs out of context, especially with the intent to mock or deride. Russell Gewirtz is notable if/when reliable sources respond to him, not because he took a dump in a public forum. This is why his writing credits (and the poor reception thereof) are notable, while the "burning man controversy" is not (yet).
If you can find a reliable source discussing Gewirtz's behavior, then feel free to add it and quote it, but please stop contributing WP:SYN based on your own convictions about his blog. Jergling (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)