Talk:Ted Decker

Page blanking
Hey, Noticed you blanked the page to a redirect despite multiple proper reliable sources and additional cited material providing multiple points of coverage within the last two years. Considering that a case for notability (but not the sourced component of that threshold) is simply made by his being the CEO of Home Depot, deleting it out of hand simply because the highest point of coverage is his three newest positions seems to run against procedure. Additionally, you failed to notify me of this prior to or after deletion in addition to failing to properly deal with the talk page. Overall, I am disappointed in the lack of procedure here and will stand by this article. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't outside of regular "procedures". WP:BLAR and WP:BRD are perfectly valid. Now its at AFD. PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Twitter source
Saw your revert. I'm fairly certain WP:ABOUTSELF for BLPs deals with self-published material rather than accounts tied to reliable institutions. There may be a relevant BLP restriction on using Twitter that I'm unaware of (this is my first creation on a BLP) so I don't want to reintroduce unless you consent. Thanks for the link to the relevant clause. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Twitter is a self-published source. It cannot be used to support content about third parties (in this case, Decker). In addition, WP:BLPSPS states Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. Schazjmd   (talk)  22:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding: if your only source for a bit of information is a tweet by someone else, leave the information out of the article. Schazjmd   (talk)  22:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It would appear that, according to WP:SPS, a tweet from an established institution does not qualify as self-published but would be a release from said institution. SPS seems to mean individuals or groups working independently from an institution, and per WP:NEWSBLOG, "personal or group blogs" are what SPS addresses. Considering that the tweet is from an official channel of a reliable institution, I think this is a grey area not covered by either standard. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you read WP:BLPSPS? Schazjmd   (talk)  22:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it suggests that "full editorial control" from a reliable institution determines that material that might otherwise qualify as a SPS when posted by an individual or group is instead reliable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH based on your last edit summary. Yes, that is in fact synth. Since neither of the sources give his birth year. PICKLEDICAE🥒 22:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Editorial control" is specifically about "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs". Schazjmd   (talk)  23:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Academic institutions are generally regarded as reliable sources concerning what positions their professors hold (See WP:Prof 5a). So it seems reasonable to consider them reliable concerning what degrees their alumni hold, which I think is the fact that the Tweet was relied on for?--Jahaza (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to side with Schazjmd here. After discussing the matter here, I really think that their view on the standards is the right one (even if it is contrary to the utility that these sources being accessible would provide). ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. I think that policy page explanation is unclear and lacks precision, but I think your experience is probably more relevant to standards than any (likely wrong) interpretation I might get from it. Cool off, not part of this discussion, I left that matter open with the edit summary. Feel free to do BRD, as I did in that instance of adding material! I am incredibly disappointed in your lack of cordiality, patience, and formal procedure in this whole matter. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly calm and it is not your place to tell me where I can join in an open discussion about content. My point stands, your lack of understanding of sourcing requirements is problematic and is relevant to this discussion. PICKLEDICAE🥒 23:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please, read WP:AGF; I asked for insight from editors in this sphere when I had questions and marked material I was concerned about with notes. If you want to offer insight, competency accusations and constant WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior are unhelpful. Further confrontational behavior is unappreciated, but I do appreciate the thankless and tiring work you have put into this project so many times. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I pointed out an error that you made on an article which I have edited, you accusing me of battleground behavior and going "out of process" is nothing more than obvious gaslighting. PICKLEDICAE🥒 23:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)