This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nathaniel Raymond article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I came across this article randomly and thought it was a joke at first. Wikipedia needs to police this type of self-serving bologna. No matter how noble Nathaniel's intentions may be, nothing about him or his life warrants a Wikipedia entry. What mechanisms does Wikipedia have in place to prevent any Joe Schmoe from recording his life story as this person has done? Utter rubbish. Honey715 ( talk) 00:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Honey715
This person does not have anywhere near the notability WP:N per the sources here, and he (ahem, or someone else who obviously wants Raymond to be notable...) has been sockpuppeting the case. Get rid of it. There are standards so attention-seeking people don't use wikipedia to advertise themselves. 92.158.207.40 ( talk) 09:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
This person does not have anywhere near the notability WP:N per the sources here, and he (ahem, or someone else who obviously wants Raymond to be notable...) has been sockpuppeting the case. Get rid of it. There are standards so attention-seeking people don't use wikipedia to advertise themselves. 92.158.207.40 ( talk) 09:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Are you kidding Nathaniel Raymond, ahem, aka Debbie W [ [6]]., a username removed because you promote yourself though fake accounts...GET RIDE OF THIS PROPAGANDA81.249.156.134 (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The WP:Notability guidelines state that a person is notable "if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources..." While someone has obviously devoted a significant amount of time to develop and cite the article, Raymond is not the subject of the majority of references. Two citations do concern Raymond; one is a bio on a blog and the other is a website bio (not a publication in which Raymond is the subject). I found it rather odd that the talk page had no discussion of notability. I went to the archive and, yes, notability of this person has been raised on several occasions in the past. Those discussions were archived away for some reason before any consensus was reached. I would like to contribute to the discussions that were, for whatever reason, archived.
I'd think that this guideline is the best defense for the existence of this page: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Raymond's recognized contributions (through secondary sources in which he is the subject) need to be documented here before I would agree that this page meets notability. Here below are some additional comments on the discussion begun before: 0Juan234 ( talk) 20:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Why does this page exist? Is Wikipedia a platform for self-promotion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.238.147.211 (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Are you kidding Nathaniel Raymond, ahem, aka Debbie W., a username removed because you promote yourself though fake accounts...GET RIDE OF THIS PROPAGANDA81.249.156.134 (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
This person does not have anywhere near the notability WP:N per the sources here, and he (ahem, or someone else who obviously wants Raymond to be notable...) has been sockpuppeting the case. Get rid of it. There are standards so attention-seeking people don't use wikipedia to advertise themselves. 92.158.207.40 ( talk) 09:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Juan, I cleaned up this article the best I could a few months ago. It used to be a quote farm for Raymond's advocacy. As for notability, I have mixed feelings but think he is probably notable. I looked at the references, and for most of them, Raymond is not the main topic, but he does feature heavily in number of the articles. The articles appear to be more about the programs that he directed. WP:GNG states that "significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Based on my experience, if this article was subject to AfD, it would probably be kept. DavidinNJ ( talk) 12:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Juan - While the article doesn't reflect this, Raymond's work was largely instrumental behind a rather unprecedented FOIA release of State Dept. and DOD documents (and ensuing litigation) regarding Dasht-i-Leili and for their leak to Wikileaks. Further, his work was a lot of the background for Doran's documentary "Afghan Massacre: Convoy of Death." Having been in AfPak, I disagree with his assessment, but his investigation is rather thorough. IMO, if he's interviewed by news media for PHR's efforts there's a reason for it, they think he's notable for his expertise and his work, and their cover establishes his notability sufficiently per Wikipedia's guidelines. I have to agree with DavidinNJ, if it was brought to AfD, it would be a keep.-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 04:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I updated the article about Raymond's connection to the film "Afghan Massacre: Convoy of Death," and the Dasht-i-Leili massacre. What other information should be added or modified? DavidinNJ ( talk) 05:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nathaniel Raymond article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I came across this article randomly and thought it was a joke at first. Wikipedia needs to police this type of self-serving bologna. No matter how noble Nathaniel's intentions may be, nothing about him or his life warrants a Wikipedia entry. What mechanisms does Wikipedia have in place to prevent any Joe Schmoe from recording his life story as this person has done? Utter rubbish. Honey715 ( talk) 00:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Honey715
This person does not have anywhere near the notability WP:N per the sources here, and he (ahem, or someone else who obviously wants Raymond to be notable...) has been sockpuppeting the case. Get rid of it. There are standards so attention-seeking people don't use wikipedia to advertise themselves. 92.158.207.40 ( talk) 09:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
This person does not have anywhere near the notability WP:N per the sources here, and he (ahem, or someone else who obviously wants Raymond to be notable...) has been sockpuppeting the case. Get rid of it. There are standards so attention-seeking people don't use wikipedia to advertise themselves. 92.158.207.40 ( talk) 09:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Are you kidding Nathaniel Raymond, ahem, aka Debbie W [ [6]]., a username removed because you promote yourself though fake accounts...GET RIDE OF THIS PROPAGANDA81.249.156.134 (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The WP:Notability guidelines state that a person is notable "if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources..." While someone has obviously devoted a significant amount of time to develop and cite the article, Raymond is not the subject of the majority of references. Two citations do concern Raymond; one is a bio on a blog and the other is a website bio (not a publication in which Raymond is the subject). I found it rather odd that the talk page had no discussion of notability. I went to the archive and, yes, notability of this person has been raised on several occasions in the past. Those discussions were archived away for some reason before any consensus was reached. I would like to contribute to the discussions that were, for whatever reason, archived.
I'd think that this guideline is the best defense for the existence of this page: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Raymond's recognized contributions (through secondary sources in which he is the subject) need to be documented here before I would agree that this page meets notability. Here below are some additional comments on the discussion begun before: 0Juan234 ( talk) 20:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Why does this page exist? Is Wikipedia a platform for self-promotion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.238.147.211 (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Are you kidding Nathaniel Raymond, ahem, aka Debbie W., a username removed because you promote yourself though fake accounts...GET RIDE OF THIS PROPAGANDA81.249.156.134 (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
This person does not have anywhere near the notability WP:N per the sources here, and he (ahem, or someone else who obviously wants Raymond to be notable...) has been sockpuppeting the case. Get rid of it. There are standards so attention-seeking people don't use wikipedia to advertise themselves. 92.158.207.40 ( talk) 09:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Juan, I cleaned up this article the best I could a few months ago. It used to be a quote farm for Raymond's advocacy. As for notability, I have mixed feelings but think he is probably notable. I looked at the references, and for most of them, Raymond is not the main topic, but he does feature heavily in number of the articles. The articles appear to be more about the programs that he directed. WP:GNG states that "significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Based on my experience, if this article was subject to AfD, it would probably be kept. DavidinNJ ( talk) 12:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Juan - While the article doesn't reflect this, Raymond's work was largely instrumental behind a rather unprecedented FOIA release of State Dept. and DOD documents (and ensuing litigation) regarding Dasht-i-Leili and for their leak to Wikileaks. Further, his work was a lot of the background for Doran's documentary "Afghan Massacre: Convoy of Death." Having been in AfPak, I disagree with his assessment, but his investigation is rather thorough. IMO, if he's interviewed by news media for PHR's efforts there's a reason for it, they think he's notable for his expertise and his work, and their cover establishes his notability sufficiently per Wikipedia's guidelines. I have to agree with DavidinNJ, if it was brought to AfD, it would be a keep.-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 04:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I updated the article about Raymond's connection to the film "Afghan Massacre: Convoy of Death," and the Dasht-i-Leili massacre. What other information should be added or modified? DavidinNJ ( talk) 05:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)