Talk:Shawn Lonsdale/Archive 1

Obit tag

I checked on the talk page, but I see no explanation of why this tag was placed on this article. Please explain why the tag was placed here, just because someone has recently died does not mean the article reads like an obituary - and if you feel that it does, can you please provide some suggestions as to how to improve it? Cirt (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the "Death" section, in particular, is obit material. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific? Is it not common to have comments about an individual after they have died? Why, we even have a comment from an official spokeswoman from the Church of Scientology, for balance. Cirt (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is common in obituaries, yes. It is not common in encyclopedia articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You would make for a writer of rather odd obituaries, man...! I strongly suggest having the obit tag removed. It quite throws the baby out along with the rest of the article. If it makes everybody involved feel more at ease, we can create a sub-section "Reactions to his death". But the reactions quoted ought to stay in there (in fact, I'd rather have them removed in an actual obituary). Other opinions? Trigaranus (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(BTW I've removed the "living persons" tag on this page. Rest his soul, poor feller. Trigaranus (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

Current events tag placement

I checked on the talk page, and I see no explanation of why this tag was added to this article.

Please note the Guidelines for the tag's usage, at Template:Current:

1. This template was created for those occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, as an advisory to editors.
2. It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template.
3. It is expected, when used properly, that this template and its closely related templates will appear on an article for perhaps a day or two, occasionally several days.

When taking these Guidelines into consideration, laid out at Template:Current, I ask - is this tag being used appropriately in this article?

1. Are many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) going to edit this article on the same day?
2. Is this recent news about the topic, though the individual died 2 weeks ago?
3. Is it expected that this template will remain on this article perhaps a day or two, occasionally several days? If so, why?

Cirt (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the subject's recent death is being used as a WP:COATRACK on which to hang an already-deleted article, which has been the subject of discussion by multiple editors recently. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific, and address how the {{current}} template is justified, citing the guidelines, above? Cirt (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP tag

I checked, but I do not see any explanation on this talk page of why the {{blp}} tag was placed at the top of the talk page of an article about someone who is not living. Can you clarify specifically what is of concern in this article in this respect? Cirt (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Note, article placed at BLPN by creator immediately after creation

I put this article up at WP:BLPN immediately after I created this article, because I wanted to solicit input and be sensitive to the reasons the previous article was deleted. Please note, I did not create the previous article, though I did add secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources to the "Further reading" section on the previous article. This article was written from scratch, using those sources. Cirt (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not create the previous article, I had basically just started adding a list of sources to the "Further reading" section of that previous article when it was deleted. I have (7) WP:FAs and I would love to work with others to improve the quality of this article further. Cirt (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirected

• • I have redirected this to Scientology and Me. Lonsdale only seems notable for his appearance in one episode of a weekly BBC documentary. It is bad enough that we have an article (Scientology and Me) on a single episode of a multi-topic news programme, without a "biography" of a bit player. This guy simply isn't notable enough, and I suggest that you might want to merge anything that is relevant with that article. WP:BLP means we tread carefully with bios of the recently dead, and using one of them to have a go at scientology isn't on. We've sufficient articles debating Scientology.----Doc^g 09:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

{PS, BLP DOES apply to the recently dead)

• Fries, Jacob H. (2006-07-11). "Two tussle over filmmaker's camera". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2008-03-08. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Harrington, Jim (2006-07-13). "Man arrested after dispute with moviemaker". Clearwater Citizen. Retrieved 2008-03-08. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Farley, Robert (2006-08-29). "Scientologist in confrontation over filming will not be tried". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2008-03-08. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Farley, Robert (2006-09-17). "Scientology's scourge". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2008-03-08. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

These references seem to have nothing to do with Scientology and Me or his death. Where would you like them? Granted the existing article had serious problems, but summary deletion without a formal process seems a bit arbitrary. AndroidCat (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

A bunch of local reports about a guy who was arrested but had the charges dropped? What makes you think we want them anywhere?--Doc^g 12:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the redirection of this article to the Scientolgy and Me article because I've found more then one citeable sources about this guy that means he meets the requirments for notabiy. You're assertions are subjective and had no merit IMO. Wikipedia is about presenting facts that are backed up, not censoring them. AngielaJ 17:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Images

Anyone able to find any relevant images for this article, perhaps free-use? Cirt (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced addition

[1] [2] = unsourced info, and then info sourced to source that fails WP:RS, removed. -- Cirt (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)