Talk:Ted Decker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Pbritti (talk). Self-nominated at 17:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • The article is a redirect at present, so it's pretty clearly not eligible for DYK. If that changes I will do a full review. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsandotherthings: Thanks for the heads up; an editor blanked the page to a redirect outside of the normal procedures. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can't say I fully disagree with the concerns about notability, but that's not for DYK to assess. Full review:
The article is new enough, just barely long enough (1549 characters), and I don't see any policy violations. I didn't get any hits with an Earwig check. QPQ is done. However, the hook is not interesting at all. List of College of William & Mary alumni says the college has "more than 94,000 living alumni". How is this person being a graduate of a university where some past presidents graduated from interesting to a broad audience? That information is not in the article either. I'm gonna be frank with you, there's nothing in this article that's interesting enough for a DYK hook right now. You'd have to expand it to find something worthy of a hook. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsandotherthings: Thanks for the review! I would encourage you to express those concerns on the new AfD; unfortunately, there has been very little input in many recent AfDs and even if I disagree it means we can have more insight. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that, as reviewer here, my participating in the AfD would compromise my impartiality. I haven't looked into the subject enough to determine if he's notable, and I usually limit my AfD participation to areas I have some familiarity with. If the article is kept, we can still move forward with this nomination, though again I'd encourage you to find something more interesting for hook material. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on the hook; I'll ping you if we end up being in a position where a next step is possible! Also, no need to explain–never a requirement to participate in an AfD and I'm glad you have set standards for yourself! Thanks for your promptness and comprehensive helpfulness; ping me on my talk page if you have questions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsandotherthings: First off, I would like to thank Cullen328 and DigitalIceAge–among a couple helpful others–for their help in expanding the article and making sure that the AfD could focus on a fully expanded article. Now that the AfD has ended with the result of keep, I wanted to submit a new alt hook with this as a source:

When you have the chance to review this hook, please let me know! I can also request another editor if this process has run too long for you already (I understand that it's been a few days and this was not DYK experience you anticipated). Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a major improvement compared to the original hook. I think that's definitely main page worthy. Happy to approve ALT1, as it is cited in the article and I see no policy issues with the article or hook. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want to suggest a slight modification, adding "lawns" for clarity: ... that, before becoming the president and CEO of
The Home Depot, Ted Decker started mowing lawns at age 8 and was managing a landscaping business by high school? Cullen328 (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
That works for me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page blanking

Hey, @Praxidicae: Noticed you blanked the page to a redirect despite multiple proper reliable sources and additional cited material providing multiple points of coverage within the last two years. Considering that a case for notability (but not the sourced component of that threshold) is simply made by his being the CEO of Home Depot, deleting it out of hand simply because the highest point of coverage is his three newest positions seems to run against procedure. Additionally, you failed to notify me of this prior to or after deletion in addition to failing to properly deal with the talk page. Overall, I am disappointed in the lack of procedure here and will stand by this article. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't outside of regular "procedures".
WP:BRD are perfectly valid. Now its at AFD. PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Twitter source

@

WP:ABOUTSELF for BLPs deals with self-published material rather than accounts tied to reliable institutions. There may be a relevant BLP restriction on using Twitter that I'm unaware of (this is my first creation on a BLP) so I don't want to reintroduce unless you consent. Thanks for the link to the relevant clause. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Twitter is a self-published source. It cannot be used to support content about third parties (in this case, Decker). In addition,
WP:BLPSPS states Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. Schazjmd (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Adding: if your only source for a bit of information is a tweet by someone else, leave the information out of the article. Schazjmd (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that, according to
WP:NEWSBLOG, "personal or group blogs" are what SPS addresses. Considering that the tweet is from an official channel of a reliable institution, I think this is a grey area not covered by either standard. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Did you read
WP:BLPSPS? Schazjmd (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, it suggests that "full editorial control" from a reliable institution determines that material that might otherwise qualify as a SPS when posted by an individual or group is instead reliable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand
WP:SYNTH based on your last edit summary. Yes, that is in fact synth. Since neither of the sources give his birth year. PICKLEDICAE🥒 22:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
"Editorial control" is specifically about "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs". Schazjmd (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Academic institutions are generally regarded as reliable sources concerning what positions their professors hold (See
WP:Prof 5a). So it seems reasonable to consider them reliable concerning what degrees their alumni hold, which I think is the fact that the Tweet was relied on for?--Jahaza (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm going to side with Schazjmd here. After discussing the matter here, I really think that their view on the standards is the right one (even if it is contrary to the utility that these sources being accessible would provide). ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd: I'll take your word for it. I think that policy page explanation is unclear and lacks precision, but I think your experience is probably more relevant to standards than any (likely wrong) interpretation I might get from it. @Praxidicae: Cool off, not part of this discussion, I left that matter open with the edit summary. Feel free to do BRD, as I did in that instance of adding material! I am incredibly disappointed in your lack of cordiality, patience, and formal procedure in this whole matter. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly calm and it is not your place to tell me where I can join in an open discussion about content. My point stands, your lack of understanding of sourcing requirements is problematic and is relevant to this discussion. PICKLEDICAE🥒 23:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please, read
WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior are unhelpful. Further confrontational behavior is unappreciated, but I do appreciate the thankless and tiring work you have put into this project so many times. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I pointed out an error that you made on an article which I have edited, you accusing me of battleground behavior and going "out of process" is nothing more than obvious gaslighting. PICKLEDICAE🥒 23:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ted_Decker&oldid=1206913189"