Talk:Nathaniel Raymond/Archive 1

Why does this page exist
Why does this page exist? Is Wikipedia a platform for self-promotion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.238.147.211 (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nathaniel Raymond is a leading human rights investigator. He has been interviewed by the NYT, New Yorker, IBT, and many other publications.  Look at the references.Debbie W. 12:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding Nathaniel Raymond, ahem, aka Debbie W., a username removed because you promote yourself though fake accounts...GET RIDE OF THIS PROPAGANDA81.249.156.134 (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
A WP:PROD tag was placed on the article, removed by a second editor, and then replaced by the first editor. Please note that once a Prod tag has been removed, it should not be put back. if you believe that an article should still be deleted after the removal of the Prod tag, please instead propose the article for deletion per WP:AfD. Thanks, and happy editing! Phoenixred (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete this page--Wikipedia is not for self promotion
This person does not have anywhere near the notability WP:N per the sources here, and he (ahem, or someone else who obviously wants Raymond to be notable...) has been sockpuppeting the case. Get rid of it. There are standards so attention-seeking people don't use wikipedia to advertise themselves.92.158.207.40 (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Raymond is well-known in the human rights community. Because there is no specific Wikipedia standard for human rights advocates, this article would be covered by WP:BIO which mandates non-trivial coverage by multiple independent, reliable sources. I reviewed all 17 references, and 6 of them (listed below) clearly meet this standard, whereas the others provide supporting information.


 * Furthermore, I don't see any evidence of advertisement or self-promotion in the article. For example, there's no link to any Raymond-affiliated website, nor does the article use any puffery. The article appears to give a factual description about a person that is notable in their field. 71.125.74.121 (talk) 11:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * New York Time reference
 * New Yorker reference
 * Pittsburg Post Gazette reference
 * National Public Radio reference
 * Guardian reference
 * Boston Globe reference
 * Reporting on an event does not make the reporter notable. Remove WP:N. 84.253.24.250 (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this article for real? This is ridiculously shameless self-promotion.
I came across this article randomly and thought it was a joke at first. Wikipedia needs to police this type of self-serving bologna. No matter how noble Nathaniel's intentions may be, nothing about him or his life warrants a Wikipedia entry. What mechanisms does Wikipedia have in place to prevent any Joe Schmoe from recording his life story as this person has done? Utter rubbish. Honey715 (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Honey715

Excessive Advocacy
I changed the article message box from one warning about a lack of notability to a custom template that discusses WP:NOTADVOCATE. The big problem I see with the article is that it is imbalanced toward the subject matter's opinions, rather the just factual information about the subject. There's plenty of information on the internet about Nathaniel Raymond, and article can contain some information about his advocacy, but this article is imbalanced. The lead, early life, and anti-torture sections are fine. The satellite surveillance section needs some modification, and the human rights advocacy paragraph needs a total overhaul. The advocacy section may need to be removed, and any pertinent info from it added to other sections. DavidinNJ (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I have since made a substantial number of revisions to this article. I removed the human rights advocacy section, added more detailed factual information to the other sections, and replaced potentially unreliable or overtly political sources (e.g., YouTube, Firedoglake). I no longer think that the excessive advocacy message box is needed. DavidinNJ (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)