Talk:Ritch Esra
Add topic| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Improved notability
[edit]This man has become much more notable since a skimpier article about him was challenged in 2022. Each and every one of the red-linked sources are to be found multiple times thoughout citations of many other articles on English Wikipedia. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Edited and reinstated from draft as per talk here SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Problems are back?
[edit]The article has been stable since November last year. Now, here we go again. Wouldn't it be better to specify here exactly which references are to be considered inadequate than adding a big ugly box to contaminate the whole article? Also, since when, and in what guidelines, are regular URLs no longer to be used, thus warranting that part of the big ugly box? Some of us old users grow very weary from big ugly drive-by boxes, especially when they appear after prevous hard work and months and months of OK-isness. The whole project looks much better with less of them, and it's too easy to berate biographies of living persons this way without any further help to make improvements. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- SergeWoodzing, I'd suggest it's probably helpful to stop thinking of maintenance templates as "big ugly boxes". They are designed to
foster improvement of the encyclopedia by alerting editors to changes that need to be made
and at their best willcall attention to problems that need to be addressed by editors
. The links on the templates themselves should explain why they have been added here and avoid your incorrect assumption that by adding them I am "sort of half-proposing the article be deleted again" . But I'm happy to explain in more detail here:- The first template WP:BURL was added due to the way sources are cited, i.e. without including the bibliographic information. There is a long term editor on wikipedia who very often responds quite quickly to the placement of this tag and quickly fixes this issue (Derek R Bullamore) and so I hope that template will attract an editor like that to do so here, although of course if you have the time and interest you are welcome to insert the full citations and remove the template
- The second template (see WP:IS) was added due to the nature of the sources - they are exclusively interviews with the person who is the subject of the article.
Reliance on independent sources ensures that an article can be written from a balanced, disinterested viewpoint rather than from the subject's own viewpoint or from the viewpoint of people with an ax to grind. Emphasizing the views of disinterested sources is necessary to achieve a neutral point of view in an article.
It would be great if you or others could add sources to the article that are genuinely independent of the subject to both help establish notability and to ensure a neutral point of view.
- Thank you Melcous (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2026 (UTC)