Talk:Robert Young Pelton/Archive 2

Comment
My comments were not meant to be insulting, but if you want to take them that way, that is nothing I can do about that. Your point above seems to be similar to the "Pokemon argument" that is frequently made in AfD's and discussions (essentially, "why can't we have an article on X if we have an article on every single Pokemon that has ever appeared for 5 minutes on a television show"). In my opinion, all this does is prove the ridiculousness of having an article on Carvanha, not a justification of article X. Unfortunately, as has been proved time and time again, attempting to delete Carvanha is not going to be a successful endeavor. As far as the links are concerned, Wikipedia has a very clear guideline on this that can be seen here. I have absolutly no objection to you posting an external link to a listing of your work on your own website (where you presumably control the content), but links to a numerous examples of your work is simply not appropriate for Wikipedia. As far as License to Kill is concerned, I'm not exactly sure what the issue is here. It appears in the Bibliography. What I removed was the excessive number of reviews of the book. Again, if you spend some time to look around at other author/journalist articles, this is something that is usually not allowed. Posting several reviews of your book goes against the soapbox clause of WP:NOT. Please remember that the purpose of external links and references is to source the statements in the articles as well as show relevance of the subject per the WP:BIO criteria for inclusion of a biography of a living person. As it stands right now, I'm ready to remove the remaining two tags from the current version of the article... but I still feel very strongly against adding back the huge link section above to the article.--Isotope23 17:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, I agree about the links and I suspect that the current link list is very likely the right one. I'm just trying to figure out a happy medium. - Richfife 17:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ideally, if these links were hosted on RYP's site, a link in the Wikipedia article to whatever page they were hosted at would be wholly appropriate... the link list right now can certainly be edited for content (if there are links that better support the article I'd be all for them replacing the links currently there)... but the total number should not be dramatically increased.--Isotope23 17:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Isotope you say that "Please remember that the purpose of external links and references is to source the statements in the articles as well as show relevance of the subject per the WP:BIO criteria for inclusion of a biography of a living person" Did you actually read any of the links or articles? They provide much of what you are seeking. As for the argument about the three page, heavily promotinoal Milli Vanilli and Ashlee Simpson pages. I suppose I will just have to start lip synching to get more relevance on Wikipedia.....:))) RYP (signed)


 * Comment... yes I did read some of the linked articles. While some sourced the information in the article, some did not, or provided redundant sourcing information, and were therefore unnecessary.  What is there now is sufficent.--Isotope23 05:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Question: why are these links posted here on the talk page? I propose removing them. Maybe User:RYP or someone else could then have them on their user page. Alcarillo 17:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Praedict
Why is the following taken out? Is it not true?-- Esemono (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In 2007 with former CNN member, Eason Jordan he started Praedict, which describes itself as a "war zone-focused media company providing customized, up-to-the-minute news, intelligence, and safety tips to those in harm's way." Praedict's first project is the Iraq focused news site, Iraqslogger.com.