Talk:Harry Partridge

Removing references

User:FormalDude has blanked a bunch of sources claiming they don't count as WP:RS see [1]. Among these sources are a book published by Routledge's CRC Press, myfoxboston.com, a book by Packt Publishing, scifinow.co.uk, ElDiario.es, thewatmag.com, Skwigly Animation Magazine, an imdb link, a BBC link, a digitalspy link, and an interview from a website called "kittysneezes.com". Out of these, only the last one is obviously not an RS, while the others obviously are. They should be reinstated. 101.50.250.88 (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "kittysneezes" link, yes, it's not a WP:RS, it's not ideal, but it's been used in the Andy Partridge article for years and is the only current source I can find for this statement, except Harry tweeting about it once or twice. I find it's better to have a so-so source for this statement than having nothing at all. However this is the one source I would be OK with being removed, if it really is a must. 101.50.250.88 (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that the "About Harry Partridge" Youtube link isn't a reliable source either, but it was added automatically when I added the YouTuber template. So obviously Wikipedia accepts things that are not WP:RS for certain things, though they of course don't count toward establishing notability. I don't think removing things just for the sake of removing them is making Wikipedia better for anybody.101.50.250.88 (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re the BBC blog reference [2] another user wanted to remove, note that it is (or maybe was) the official blog of the BBC Comedy Department, and is acceptable per WP:NEWSBLOG.101.50.250.88 (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:FormalDude has ripped out a bunch of content again, including several perfectly fine sources and statements. See [3]. I don't think this is acceptable. If you think a statement isn't covered by the provided source (which is often open for debate, but debate you refuse to engage in), tag it with "citation-needed", don't rip out both the source and the statement. What good does it serve other than to increase the chances of the article getting deleted? Also see WP:TWITTER for the twitter link you removed. 101.50.250.88 (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The good it does is bringing the article closer to Wikipedia standards, actually making it less likely to be deleted. And WP:TWITTER supports the removal of the link. ––FormalDude talk 11:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it's appropriate to rip stuff out instead of tagging the things you find questionable? Is it merely to leave me unable to keep on improving the article, something I've spent considerable effort doing, because I'd get busted for WP:3RR if I reverted you? Because of this, I can't place those statements back, I can't rephrase the statements provided by the removed sources, I can't provide better sources. If you honestly want to work together to improve the article, please revert your edits, tag the things you find problematic or not covered by reliable sources, and allow me a chance to improve it.101.50.250.88 (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have truly bastardized the article in an absolutely nonsensical manner. You've removed his family information, that his dad is Andy Partridge, yet you've kept the link where the same Andy Partridge talks about his son...!101.50.250.88 (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]