User talk:Daddy997rs

Mike Stuchbery
Hi, I can see you didn't like the state this article was in and neither did I. It was already marked as having potential bias through being created by a friend of the subject, and I nominated it for deletion because the subject is not a public figure of established notability, nor is his work as a supply teacher or his hobby of blogging rather notable.

It is best for you to not worry any more about the page. I removed most of the advertising and hagiography from the article and the community should agree and delete it. I would be amazed if they didn't. Not only did the creator - who should know better as he says he has edited Wikipedia in different accounts since 2003 (!!!!!!) - violate many Wikipedia guidelines in his writing, he broke a couple more in his motives to create the page (as admitted on Twitter): his rationale was PJW has an article so Mike should.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: The existence of one page does not justify the existence of any other

WP:POINT: No edits should be made as a protest against a perceived injustice (the creator had a documented hatred of Paul Joseph Watson and love for Stuchbery and wanted to put one on a level pegging with the other)

I hope you stick around on Wikipedia and find some more articles to edit. All the best Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This is what everyone should discover in the deletion debate. Mike and his creator friend think because they believe their views are correct, the article should exist, because there is an article on Watson who they believe is wrong. This fails WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, Wikipedia should not exist to balance anything that somebody believes is unfair. No matter whether Mike is right or not, he has had nowhere near the consistent press coverage of PJW. The PJW article had actually been deleted many times before the Trump campaign because of notability issues, then there was consistent coverage for like two years. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)