![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
I scanned the references of the new article and compared them to the article's state since the last AfD; there's this article in The Guardian; not entirely about Fosh, but with a fair amount of content; There's also this on in Living North which has sufficient WP:DEPTH but seems to be a local source of questionable notability. Then there are a number of articles mentioning or interviewing Fosh relating to the London mayoral election, with varying degrees of coverage. User:Bondegezou, User:Drmies, User:0xDeadbeef, any thoughts on whether this merits going into a 3rd AfD? OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I've removed and Strugglehouse has restored various details about Fosh sourced to primary sources. In particular, I would like to discuss use of his full name and date of birth. The article, as now, cites one of his YouTube videos for his full name and an old tweet for his birthday.
WP:DOB is relevant here. It states, Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public.
We don't have the former for either full name or d.o.b. We do have one of his YouTube videos for the full name, so maybe that's OK under
WP:ABOUTSELF. (That said, I am unconvinced on other grounds. The guy does prank videos. I don't see how any video he does can be trusted. He could well be making stuff up to be amusing.)
I am more concerned about his d.o.b.
WP:DOB does say A verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth.
However, I note that only says may
and a single tweet 11 years ago, when he was 18, does not seem to be very solid ground for believing Fosh is happy for this information to be publicised. We must err on the side of caution with
WP:BLP. I think the d.o.b. should be removed (or alternate sourcing provided).
What do others say? Bondegezou ( talk) 12:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
I scanned the references of the new article and compared them to the article's state since the last AfD; there's this article in The Guardian; not entirely about Fosh, but with a fair amount of content; There's also this on in Living North which has sufficient WP:DEPTH but seems to be a local source of questionable notability. Then there are a number of articles mentioning or interviewing Fosh relating to the London mayoral election, with varying degrees of coverage. User:Bondegezou, User:Drmies, User:0xDeadbeef, any thoughts on whether this merits going into a 3rd AfD? OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I've removed and Strugglehouse has restored various details about Fosh sourced to primary sources. In particular, I would like to discuss use of his full name and date of birth. The article, as now, cites one of his YouTube videos for his full name and an old tweet for his birthday.
WP:DOB is relevant here. It states, Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public.
We don't have the former for either full name or d.o.b. We do have one of his YouTube videos for the full name, so maybe that's OK under
WP:ABOUTSELF. (That said, I am unconvinced on other grounds. The guy does prank videos. I don't see how any video he does can be trusted. He could well be making stuff up to be amusing.)
I am more concerned about his d.o.b.
WP:DOB does say A verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth.
However, I note that only says may
and a single tweet 11 years ago, when he was 18, does not seem to be very solid ground for believing Fosh is happy for this information to be publicised. We must err on the side of caution with
WP:BLP. I think the d.o.b. should be removed (or alternate sourcing provided).
What do others say? Bondegezou ( talk) 12:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)