Talk:Guy Cobb

Untitled
I am continuing to read through and integrate hundreds of articles and news stories about Guy Cobb and the Bud Light Daredevils. One question I have is if I use information from a television news story, should it be referred to the same as a newspaper article? Thank you. (September 9, 2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisehunter (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, could you identify which areas of this article are not appropriate for Wikipedia and I will remove. Thank you.
 * Okay--most of the article is not appropriate, for two reasons: there are no reliable sources to support the information, and the information is not significant; these two concerns are fairly synonymous. If the information hasn't been published in a reliable source, chances are good that it's not relevant for an encyclopedia. I'm concerned that you are not a neutral party, which is why I've requested input from others. My past experience is that reverting large sections of the article will spark an edit war with a contributor who has a vested interest, as you seem to.... JNW (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, a lot's been done here, and the issues are the same. Much of the article is off-topic, contains sources that don't really have to do with the subject, has a number of unreliable or iffy sources (blogs, company newsletters), contains sections of inadequately sourced peripheral topics, and just generally sprawls all over the place. An objective editor is needed to pare this. JNW (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A few brief examples for the moment: I think the multiple acrobatics sections can and ought to be condensed to a few sentences, and suggest that a separate article for the endeavor be considered--a lot of this isn't really about him, but about his brother, the group, etc; I don't see that "innovation and design", "tsl", or "independent film" sections are sourced well enough to support their significance and inclusion; many of the external links don't meet guidelines for inclusion; a number of family mentions are not properly sourced, and probably don't belong anyway; the "museum collections" section is unsourced; references can be combed through for irrelevant or unacceptable examples; likewise the many images--as mentioned last month, a Wikipedia article is not intended to be a personal scrapbook. After clean up there's plenty left to corroborate notability. It's clear that notability is centered on his achievements and recognition as a painter; the overemphasis on various other pursuits, none of which he has received substantial coverage for as an individual, dilutes the subject's primary significance. JNW (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Trimmed the article, per above. Objective input welcome. If poorly sourced or peripheral content is restored I'll ask for help at WT:BLP. JNW (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Images
Cobb looks much more badass as a basketball player than with the mustache next to the early painting. This is just an opinion but as I can see that that picture was added by Cobb, I think it's overkill since there's already another image of him and it's not really helping his image. Warrenking (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite
I've done a major rewrite based on this complaint at WP:BLPN. I have removed unsourced content. Removed content and sources that were not about the subject, removed unsourced storytelling and promotional tone, added content from reliable sources where available. Happy to discuss my changes with anyone who cares to engage here. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)