Talk:B. J. Averell

Notability
"B.J. Averell" passes the google test as found in WP:BIO, with over 40,000 hits as of today. Considering the article was just created the day before, let's give it some time to get expanded on before it gets deleted, especially considering Tyler_MacNiven's page, his partner in the Amazing Race, has quite a bit of information. 205.205.200.238 18:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Unlike Tyler, B.J. doesn't have any notable details outside of The Amazing Race; where the Season 9 article already covers his accomplishments. An appearance in one television series (and a reality one at that) doesn't guranatee notability. Note that Google's search results yield little to no information about his accomplishments outside the Race. --Madchester 20:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Since it's hard to find information, than this page should stay here, that's the point of Wikipedia after all. Jamesinclair 19:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Your comment confuses me. Which piece of information in this article is "hard to find"? And exactly how does this relate to the "point" of Wikipedia, which I'm not sure has been universally interpreted to require articles on all reality television contestants?  --Maxamegalon2000 22:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing in this article at this point, youre right, the article sucks. Thats why it needs to be fixed, not deleted.Jamesinclair 03:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I'll probably improve it this weekend. --Maxamegalon2000 03:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Article improve!!! --Maxamegalon2000 20:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, this article looks much better. With the old version, I likely would have given it a speedy delete for failing WP:BIO. --Madchester 07:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Having come to this talk page from AN/I, I am copying here my reply to Maxamegalon's query, in order that a discussion of this article vis-à-vis WP:LIVING should take place here (Maxa and Hexa seem properly to have resolved many of the issues on the talk page of the latter, but it's sometimes useful that thinking be shared on the article talk page, so that others may readily observe what has transpired:


 * IMHO, the version to which Hexadisc made edits was wholly permissible and appropriate per WP:LIVING but likely was a bit crufty; the current version, even as it is demonstrably less critical of the subject, seems to provide a more encyclopedic treatment of the subject. The inclusion of the intimate details of the Harvard election and airport incident isn't, I think, proscribed by WP:BLP--indeed, the details, as sourced per WP:RS and WP:V and as formulated consistent with WP:NPOV, were compliant with our policies generally--but is militated against by WP:NOT, viz., that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  Joe 05:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

To this, I would add that the fact of the subject's running for campus office, and the disposition of the run, is likely notable; the minutiae involved therein is likely not notable, and so, notwithstanding that WP:BLP (my contempt for which I've expressed elsewhere) does not mandate removal, the exclusion of the info is likely appropriate. Joe 05:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the presidency campaign and description of antics is notable, both in relation to future antics and as a parallel to Tyler_MacNiven and his similar antics. I also agree that the details of said election are not noteworthy, esp. since the 2006 article about the 2000 UC campaign gets a majority of the minutiae wrong, which is why I edited them out. There are earlier articles that are more accurate, but again, the details of a 2000 campus election and its rigid postering rules are not significant -- Hexadisc 08:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A few things.
 * This, it should be noted, is the first discussion of the Harvard election content, the deletion of which has previously lacked explanation. At the moment, the article does not mention the election at all.  The article I had been citing (which, for what it's worth, is from 2003, not 2006), was at the time the only one I could find.  Having today discovered the search function at the Harvard Crimson's website, it appears that all interested parties can have access to articles from November and December of 2000.  If everyone agrees that the election meets notability standards, I can try to piece together a paragraph, or I can defer to someone else if that would be preferred.  A search for "Averell" in the Crimson archives can be found here if anyone wishes to peruse.


 * I noticed that Hexadisc removed the quote from Averell's lawyer, that the charges were dismissed because he was not beligerent to anyone. I'm not sure what the concern here is.  I'm worried, though, that if we question the legitimacy of the Harvard Crimson as a source regarding this incident, we have to eliminate mentioning the dismissal of the charges, for which I can't find another source.


 * I do appreciate the concerns about WP:NPOV vis-à-vis the Carr piece, and was waiting for the discussion to move to this talk page to make a suggestion. Assuming that the concern stems from the harsh and inaccurate take that Carr gives, I would recommend the inclusion of either a rebuttal directly following the commentary "However, B.J.'s mother has worked over 20 years as an elementary school teacher and two other jobs to put her children through school..." (though I'm not sure such an approach could be done withouth sounding awkward), or the addition of another section titled "Early life" to begin the article, which could contain information beyond that which directly contradicts Carr's statements.  However, this leads me to my fourth point.


 * One of the major reasons I requested administrator involvement here is my confusion about the extent to which information provided by the subject can be used as a source. Unsurprisingly and perhaps comforting, I can't find any verifiable information on B.J.'s family, which would require any information for my previous bulletpoint to come from User:Hexadisc himself.  Also, I noticed that Hexadisc changed the phrasing in the article from "showed up late for a 6:15 p.m. flight" to "showed up at 5:30 p.m. for a delayed 6:30 p.m. flight".  I don't know how important this difference is, except that depending on how one defines "late" this change contradicts a reputable source.  What is the limit to the logic that allows this change and, for the sake of another example, the uncited addition of the title of B.J.'s comic strip (not even close to an issue)?

I apologize for my lack of brevity. --Maxamegalon2000 22:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, if I had to apologize for my lack of brevity everytime I was exorbitantly loquacious, I'd never be done. In any event, we can't accept information, even if provided by a subject or a subject's agent, that doesn't comply with WP:V and WP:RS; Hexa's averring, then, that Averell's mother was an elementary school teacher and that his background isn't that of a privileged child, absent sourcing, oughtn't to be included and oughtn't to militate against our including the claims of Carr, inasmuch as those claims are facially subjective and inasmuch as our presentation of the information wasn't styled as an objective one, but, instead, as the musings of a columnist.  As to the other points...
 * I think the election controversy is notable, and I think the Harvard Crimson is a reliable and appropriate source. Even as I think everything Averell did to be altogether harmless and wholly funny, I can understand why he (or those familiar with him) don't want the information included; it is, though, notable, and we do not censor accurate and verifiable information simply because those about whom we write don't like our NPOV portrayals of them.
 * I, too, fail to understand Hexa's concern, and I think that, even as it approaches the unencyclopedic, the lawyer quote ought to be included.
 * The comic strip insertion likely should stay, if only because I think we can source it if we must (of course, we must, in theory, source everything, but even our best featured articles don't provide a citation for every factoid). I think Maxa's flight locution to be preferable to that essayed by Hexa, especially in view of its orthogonality with the source cited.
 * Because the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth and because we cannot accept original research, we oughtn't fully to acquiesce to Hexa's additions and deletions. Maxa has been dealing with this article longer than I, and so I'll let him be the one to revise the article and reinsert information that oughtn't to have been removed, but I think I can safely conclude that he and I are of one mind w/r/to this article.  If the article is written appropriately, consistent with our five pillars and even with WP:BLP and Averell or his representatives are still unhappy, they may surely avail themselves of the designated agent provisions of WP:LIVING, but we can be fairly certain that we'll not compromise on our overarching policies.  Joe 02:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:LIVING says that subjects of articles can contribute through their own websites or blogs. Would it be appropriate to recommend that any information, such as the "Early life" section I recommended, that B.J. would like in the article be posted at his MySpace profile, which I just found and added to the article? --Maxamegalon2000 02:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)