Talk:Daniel Oerther

NPOV

I have removed a large amount of local projects and local awards. For a very distinguished individual such as Oerther, they just detract from the impression. An academic CV includes everything. WP does not publish CVs--we are, instead, an encyclopedia/ To include not what the subject would like to say is promotionalism ; encyclopedic content includes just what the public is likely to want to know about.

I am also removing most of the wording of award citations--they usually are considered puffery, and they too detract from the article unless they add something of significance

I have also removed the promotional pictures of him in a group of other honorees, and the like. They are not informative, and do not help understand the significance or the individual. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Continuing prior pruning by DGG, additional wording of award citations removed Vothlee (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I see that 'news release' tag was removed by an unidentified user. I appreciate you citing my (Vothlee) edits as the reason for removal, but I believe that the removal should be made by DGG since s/he posted the tag.Vothlee (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Does this page belong on Wikipedia?

Is this Wikipedia or LinkedIn? Why does this page exist? What is the encyclopedia significance of this person?

Asaphx (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, this looks like it has been written by someone with a WP:COI. Huge chunks need to be removed. Bellowhead678 (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

My initial perspective was that it should just be pared down but after going through and considering what did and didn't belong it became clear to me that there wasn't much left once that was done. Based on that I don't think this person is notable enough to need an article.Frobird (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

No discussion here will result in this being deleted. If, after reading WP:PROF carefully, you believe that the article should be deleted then please start a discussion at WP:AFD. Of course there's a lot of content that is so promotional that it makes me feel ill just reading it, but if the article is not deleted then that can be changed. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Phil, I saw you reversed a recent edit. This article is a CV written by the subject who has extremely limited notoriety. Certainly in the UK he is best known for recent events during his very short time as Chair of the CIEH and for nothing else. I agree with others that this article should be scheduled for deletion. Lillytd (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Should this page be semi-protected?

{{Help me-inappropriate}} Starting 31 March 2023, the user Lillytd and anonymous mobile edits began a series of edits on this page. Many of those edits have been reversed by experienced users. In its current format, the page appears to be vandalized. Might I suggest that experienced users consider reverting to the page before the edits beginning on 31 March 2023 and placing a semi-protected status to avoid acts of vandalism. While properly sourced, newsworthy content should be included on Wikipedia, the edits since 31 March 2023 appear to be personal in nature and not properly sourced. Thanks for considering this request. Dan Oertherdb (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Oertherdb What if any connection do you have to the subject of this page? Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Just to answer the question asked in the header: requests for protection are made at WP:RFPP. If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate the suggestion. Best, Dan Oertherdb (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. I am the subject of the article in question (please see my user page, where I self-identify as such). Best, Dan Oertherdb (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I understand the frustration Dan, it is clear you wrote the article and are behind the 372 subsequent updates to it; you may even be the only person who's ever read it until recently. But this is Wikipedia not LinkedIn. That means edits may be made that you do not approve of. The edits I have made are facts, are correctly referenced, and are of greater interest to the general public than many of the existing and previous unreferenced statements you included in the article. Lillytd (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I can see that there are at least two editors who have gone about things wrongly here. Firstly this article as created is clearly very promotional of the subject (see WP:PROMO and WP:COI), and secondly recent edits have exaggerated the importance of recent news to the detriment of a well-rounded article about the subject (see WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP). If you would both knock it off it might be possible to create an article that contains everything in proportion to its coverage in reliable sources, per WP:NPOV. That's plenty of alphabet soup for you to read before you edit the article or its talk page any more. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)