Talk:Denis Ingoldsby

Does info about his son belong here?
Many times there have been attempts to introduce information on his son to the article, e.g.. It's a news account from 2011 (12+ years ago) that in 2007 (15+ years ago), his son was acquitted of murder charges and convicted of assault. This article isn't about his son, so it's irrelevant here. That the news is over a decade old certainly makes it undue, in my view. signed, Willondon (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * This information is really important as he helped his son after killing a innocent man which wasn’t an accident when you killed the father of two to death on the street. 86.27.184.88 (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't really about what's "important" so much as what's notable in an article. Moral outrage isn't a reason to add content. So far I count at least three other editors besides myself that have reverted it in the past month, and the most prevalent argument seems to be that the article is about Denis Ingoldsby, not his son. There might also be objections to the inaccuracies and omissions when the content was added in the past. (In your post here you say "innocent man", when the sources say the two were acquitted of murder due to the self-defense defense.) There's also the principle described at WP:PROPORTION which aims to produce a balanced article, without any aspect being presented with undue weight. This is difficult to apply here, though, given the extremely small amount of information that is given in the article. I've seen omissions implying the son got away with something, when he was acquitted of murder (due to self-defense arguments), but convicted of assault. I have no problem believing Denis Ingoldsby did help his son in some way, but I don't see any of the sources saying that he helped, in what way he helped, or that the help was wrong or unethical. They all just mention that he is the father of the Ingoldsby they're reporting on. Perhaps a way to go forward is for us to collect the sources it would rely on (I culled a few from the history). Then, the text of proposed content can be hashed out, not omitting important details, and not adding things that don't appear in the sources.
 * But that may not be a productive exercise if the consensus opinion is simply that the fifteen-year old news is about his son, and doesn't belong in this article.  signed, Willondon (talk)  01:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources:

Again: "not omitting important details, and not adding things that don't appear in the sources" I reverted your edit because any content you add has to be backed up by the source. In future, don't add content unless you have a source that explicity says what you're adding. signed, Willondon (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)