Talk:James Morton (baker)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Gingerbread Barn.jpg
 * JamesMortonBaker.jpg

Article's condition
I'm not happy with the article being restored, and now the article's state is left to be desired. Furthermore, I still believe that this person's notability is questionable besides cookbooks and Bake Off, which I think are insufficient to guarantee a stand-alone article like this. Also, I found out that the person who created this article was the article subject himself. I'm unsure how long I must await the article to be improved, but I can't wait too long. George Ho (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The article is completely fine, and given that at Ruby Tandoh a draft rewrite to WP:GA level only made you drop the pretense that your merge attempts had anything whatsoever to do with the article content I'm even more disinclined to buy it here. The list you're trying to merge the article into is wildly non-compliant with several different policies - indeed, there is a guideline saying that lists should of that nature should never be used for living people.


 * GBBO never even screened on TV in my country, and I don't think I've ever even seen the season with Morton in it because I'm not sure it even ever wound up on a streaming platform here, but I can buy the book he wrote years after he was on a cooking show in my local suburban indie bookshop's two-shelf cookbook section something like ten years after he was on the show because he's internationally well known as someone who really knows his stuff about bread. Although that's anecdotal, I'm sick of having to wrangle about people this notable - if you can't control yourself and keep trying to merge everyone who's ever been on the show other than Nadiya Hussain (including the small handful of ones who've long gone onto independent notability into that utterly non-compliant list regardless, it's going to force me to take on dealing with the entire issue (i.e. the list) once and for all instead of anything I'd rather be doing. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Whatever country your in, you should search for the show to find which platform distributes it. And I'm sick of your attitude, constant demanding, and rigid interpretations on rules toward lists that you think are "non-compliant". Why not try WP:BLPN to address the whole matter... or WP:VPP? George Ho (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not "interpretation": what about "this [type of list] is never used for living people" on a page you yourself linked to do you think was vague and unclear? You cannot just ignore about six major policies and guidelines because you don't want to follow them. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The WP:CSC you were referring is not absolute. One said in a past discussion, It's not set in stone, but should be used by default unless there's a compelling reason to use another criteria. Per WP:LISTCRITERIA, a list can has its own selection criteria but only if reliable sources verify them and only if the criteria are neither "original" nor "arbitrary". I'm doing my best to rely on reliable sources and to include noteworthy info. If you still have concerns about bio-entries list, and you want "Common selection criteria" to be more enforceable, please continue at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists.
 * WP:BLP is somewhat selective... and subjective on low-profile individuals, especially for lists. If a material is not compliant with BLP, then I may remove it. Calling the whole list not BLP-compliant is I think a stretch too far, especially without knowing which material(s) violates the BLP policy.
 * WP:GNG is not absolute as well. Rather WP:NLIST that I believe applies more.
 * I also believe that the list meets core content policies. But if the three policies are not what I was referring to, then what are exactly among the six rules besides WP:BLP, WP:N, and WP:SAL? George Ho (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, where's your proof that I'm not following the rules? George Ho (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've explained, in detail, how that list breaches a series of policies and guidelines on your talk page, and your response has been "but I really want to ignore them because I'm really invested in it/put so much work into it", just phrased differently each time, with no actual argument based in policy. And that's not how Wikipedia works: you can't just ignore policy because you really want to. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You know what? I dare you to nominate the lists for deletion. Or try to propose redirecting the list of finalists to the contestants list. I'm so exhausted from trying to change your rigid mind. Nothing I can say will change your mind as ever. I dare you please to take the finalists lists to AFD. What are you waiting for? --George Ho (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. If you think you're right about the list, please tell me what to do about the list, so I'll clean up or something. Otherwise, you would have a tougher time trying to make me 100% agree with you. George Ho (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Back on topic, I see just cookbooks, books, and... medicine... and other activities related to one single field. If they're sufficient proof of notability, ...then why is the person's notability considered "marginal" (as noted in a past discussion)? Furthermore, I am uncertain how noteworthy the award nominations are, but I just included award winnings in the list's section about this person. George Ho (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement whatsoever that anyone be notable in multiple fields to be notable for Wikipedia purposes, and even the person who made that comment was arguing that he was ultimately notable given the continuing coverage years after the show. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What you said about "multiple fields" wasn't exactly what I meant. I just struggle to see how readers would be impressed by what they can learn about this person and how adding more about his cookbooks and reception toward them would improve the article's standing. Oh, and another editor favored redirecting/merging due to "marginal" notability. George Ho (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)