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 sourcedmust 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 within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Social Work, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Social Work on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Social WorkWikipedia:WikiProject Social WorkTemplate:WikiProject Social WorkSocial work articles
@Aoidh, as the user who assessed the article and rated it a ‘C’ on the content assessment scale, I would be curious to hear what your input is! If you have a moment to spare, the insight would be invaluable :) 9t5 (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@9t5: I would suggest reverting the request for comment and opening this at AfD, as this doesn't need to be an RfC. If you think this article's subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, the venue for that is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, not via an RfC (WP:RFCNOT). Also as a more general comment on RfCs, there are steps to take before opening an RfC (WP:RFCBEFORE) that don't appear to have been done first in this instance, but the primary issue is that this is something suitable for AfD rather than an RfC. As to the content assessment, that examines the content itself and things like comprehensiveness, quality, and verifiability, but does not examine nor is it intended to be a assessment of the notability of the article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoidh I am the author of the article. I think he is notable. My apologies; I didn’t really give context there. Recently I had asked a page reviewer if he had time to review the article for me, and he told me that after review he was going to have to nominate it and start an AfD discussion. I replied to him asking for time to find more sources (which I am doing currently), but also wanted to ask for comments in the meantime without the need of having to nominate my own article for deletion. I wanted to be able to get the opinions of other editors, and I absolutely agree with you that C is the appropriate assessment of the article. I realize now that out of context, it seemed like I was being snide with you. I actually really wanted to hear what you thought of the article.
Tagging @Nemov & @Redrose64 too to address the reply below. My apologies! I wasn’t sure how to word the RfC in an unbiased way while explaining the situation so I just asked a neutral question and the context was lost. 9t5 (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoidh Also, I just recently had a global username change from 4theloveofallthings to 9t5. And the linked discussion takes place before and after it switched. Which I know makes things even more confusing.. I’m so sorry haha. 9t5 (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I understand the context. In this case what I would recommend doing is to work on improving the sourcing in the article so that there are independent third-party reliable sources that have significant coverage of the subject (WP:GNG & WP:BASIC) as well as seeing if sources exist that would show notability through additional criteria for biographical articles if any of those apply. You certainly wouldn't nominate an article for AfD if you didn't feel it should be deleted, but an RfC wouldn't prevent an AfD from being opened. If you're able to show notability, then in the event that an AfD is opened, explain how that notability is shown through the given sources and how that meets the relevant notability guidelines. - Aoidh (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoidh I admittedly always get freaked out by AfDs. So many of the editors that flock to those discussions are dead set on getting articles deleted. It just made me kind of sad that I reached out to the editor — hoping maybe also to forge more friendships on here — and ten days later, instead of any advice on how to shape the article up, he just tells me that he’s going to nominate it for deletion. I wish I had just not reached out to him and waited for it to make its way through the queue to be reviewed. It was just in poor taste, I think. Especially because it is certainly not the kind of article that is in urgent need of deletion discussion. Sorry for venting. 9t5 (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoidh I feel like he could’ve said he isn’t going to mark it as reviewed, but he will let it run it's course in the backlog and let another reviewer take a look when the time comes.. considering I had politely reached out to him. 9t5 (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@9t5: The thing is, I spent a non-trivial amount of time and effort doing a complete review of the article, because I wanted to help you. It'd be a waste of my time and the next reviewer's time if I didn't implement the results of my review. I feel like I'm being as friendly as I can be by not nominating it for deletion and allowing you time to address the issues. Do keep in mind that even if it does go to AfD, that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be deleted because other editors may disagree with me. And while it may seem like deletionists flock to AfD, in my experience there's a similar amount of editors who flock there dead set on keeping articles. ––FormalDude(talk) 05:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn’t do anything wrong. It’s just a difference of outlook on how to handle a situation. Technically neither would be wrong, but one certainly leaves people less inclined to reach out for help in the future. That’s all. Just try to be mindful. :) 9t5 (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude You can nominate it. I think the subject is notable with the sources that are listed. It was nice meeting you. 9t5 (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is John Lauro is a notable topic, so there's opportunity in that case to give more detailed feedback, as I explained in my reply to you on my talk. ––FormalDude(talk) 08:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the RFC tags since it is the wrong venue for this discussion. Nemov (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Nemov. (i) there has been no indication that WP:RFCBEFORE has been tried, let alone exhausted; (ii) as noted above, if it is felt that the subject of the article is not notable, there are preferred methods. Discuss it in the normal way without a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC; try to find some sources which can be used to assert the notability; if these fail, send it to WP:AFD. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
