Talk:Russell Gewirtz

What a mess.
This article is an absolute mess and I have no idea how it hasn't been AFD'd. I'm going to clean it up later, but it should probably should be deleted for having no notability and mostly being a garbled attack page. I'm still not even sure who this guy is... Jergling (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * While I was complaining, another editor actually took charge and reverted to a version that made sense. The sudden influx of defamatory content is making me think puppets, or maybe the obvious lack of patrol is attracting Recent Changes vandals. Jergling (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Self-Published/Blog content
Not that I expect these single-purpose throwaways to read the talk page, but maybe we'll get lucky here:

The subject's own blog is not inherently notable, unless being quoted directly and for the purposes of illustrating a notable event. You must establish the significance of a controversy before you explain the circumstances. On Wikipedia, we don't just quote blogs out of context, especially with the intent to mock or deride. Russell Gewirtz is notable if/when reliable sources respond to him, not because he took a dump in a public forum. This is why his writing credits (and the poor reception thereof) are notable, while the "burning man controversy" is not (yet).

If you can find a reliable source discussing Gewirtz's behavior, then feel free to add it and quote it, but please stop contributing WP:SYN based on your own convictions about his blog. Jergling (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)