Talk:Jon Bentley (TV presenter)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 30 March 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.


Look at the entry that is dated April 2. This was obvious meant as a joke - indeed, this man himself has appeared on television admitting that he did this (as an experiment). He was simply making a point about <wiki> websites as opposed to those that use html, or, more specifically, about <Wikipedia>.ACEO 20:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hope you all saw the show were i messed this page up wright proper love jason bradbury //Saw it and loved the show!! Keep up the good work guys ! the test concluded that Wikipedians took about 2 hours to revert it back to a previous version The revision is 9 days later though? --Charlie The Wonder Dog 14:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion

Davesmith33 has twice flagged this article for deletion. Once for speedy deletion on the grounds the article had been deleted before - even though it hadn't. The second time it appears to have been nominated purely because the article he created on Top Gear Dog was deleted as non-notable. It seems a clear case of WP:DISRUPT to me. I have removed the deletion tag on the basis that putting it there was merely an attempt at vandalism. DrFrench 13:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

French, I don't know what your agenda is, but can you please refrain from constantly undoing other people's edits without first discussing them on the talk page? I see you have already been temporarily banned in the past for such actions. The reasons for the proposed deletion are clearly displayed on the article. If you disagree, then discuss here don't just remove the deletion tags. Davesmith33 13:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the explanation above as to why the deletion template was removed. The placing of it was merely WP:DISRUPT. The templete also specifically stated that it should not be replaced if removed ("If this template is removed, it should not be replaced.") DrFrench 14:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It states quite clearly: "To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion", something which you haven't done. WP:DISRUPT is irrelevent in this case, as it was with Top Gear Dog. "The article could be classed as being pointless and unencyclopedic, i.e. the same as Top Gear Dog. It's not really relevent to the Top Gear article and adds nothing to the Wiki Project." If TGD was quote, "pointless and unencyclopedic", end quote, then so is this article as it isn't even sourced. Davesmith33 14:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, I explained my 'objection' at 13:40UTC above. The template also clearly states "You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason." You seem to be making up your own policy. Please remove the deletion template or you will be blocked. DrFrench 14:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your 'objection' doesn't constitute a binding decision that it should not be deleted, just as my argument that it should be does. "Please remove the deletion template or you will be blocked." That isn't your decision to make, after all you are the one who has already been previously banned for similar actions as that you are engaged in here. There is a discussion taking place here as to whether this article adds anything to the Top Gear project on Wiki, you've made your views clear so can you now please be quiet while everybody else can discuss in a civilised manner what should happen? Davesmith33 14:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever your opinion of my objection is - you cannot add back the deletion template once it has been removed. DrFrench 14:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

French, I suggest you read the guide to deletion page.Davesmith33 14:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The first deletion template you put on was a {{prod}} template. According to the deletion policy you told me to read, it says "If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back". You put it back. Then you changed the template to an {{afd}} one, which is a different deletion process. I assume you are aware that there is a history of all page amendments (including user talk pages), so anyone can see who did what and when. DrFrench 14:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

French, I suggest you sit back, relax and chill out a bit whilst the deletion process takes place instead of coming up with all these weird and wonderful accusations. Davesmith33 15:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So is the page history wrong? DrFrench 15:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No as per usual, your reading of it is. Davesmith33 15:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's see...

2007-03-29 22:14 You added {{db-repost}} 'was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD) discussion'.

2007-03-30 01:14 It was removed by PS2pcGAMER as the article was not a repost.

2007-03-30 14:03 You added {{prod}} 'Article could be classes as being pointless and unencyclopedic, i.e. the same as Top Gear Dog. It's not really relevent to the Top Gear article and adds nothing to the Wiki Project.'

2007-03-30 14:27 I removed it as WP:DISRUPT.

2007-03-30 14:49 You put {{prod}} back.

2007-03-30 14:57 I removed it as {{prod}} clearly says 'If this template is removed, it should not be replaced.'

2007-03-30 14:59 You put {{prod}} back again.

2007-03-30 15:28 You removed {{prod}} and added {{afd}} instead.

2007-03-30 15:32 You added {{prod}} back again as well as {{afd}}.

Please tell me what part of that is incorrect. DrFrench 15:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New discussion

I have added some references now to correct the previous lack thereof. The outstanding issue is hence notability. If this article is deleted, it goes that Suzi Perry and Jason Bradbury should be deleted as well. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 17:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No RXND, I disagree. Top Gear Dog was removed, and that article had much more detail and was a much higher profile part of the show than Bentley, so a precedent has been set. Davesmith33 17:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Bentley has been in more shows than the Top gear dog. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 18:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Dave, sadly this just exposes your real reason for the AfD. "You wouldn't let me have Top Gear Dog, so I won't let you have Jon Bentley". That's just WP:DISRUPT and effectively vandalism of Wikipedia. Do you really want to do go down that route? DrFrench 19:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

French, the only vandalism is emmenating from your vacinity. Davesmith33 21:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And what vandalism have I caused to this page? Perhaps you would like to respond to the question I posed above at 15:33 UTC? DrFrench 21:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References?

How are they inadequate? Every line is cited. The gadget show bio is reliable enough. Dave, don't arbitrarily add these template and always explain your reasoning on the talk page. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

They are inadequate when compared to TGD which as you've even stated yourself was "had some decent sources". TGD was removed for being a much better article than this one is. Davesmith33 10:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be blunt, but that makes no sense whatsoever. TG Dog was deleted for being a repost of a deleted topic which lacked notability, not for the sources. TG Dog has no relevance whatsoever on this article. You bring it up only serves as further evidence that you are disrupting WP to make a point. Anyway, I was wrong about the decent sources statement as I didn't look very close. One of the sources for TGD you included was a caption of a screenshot and the other being IMDB (written by an outside contributor, not IMDB staff)...two incredibly poor sources that fail WP:RS. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to concur with PS2pcGAMER. Dave, your rationale seem to be simply "you won't let me have the TGD article, so I won't let you have this one". Please stop. It's not constructive, it's WP:POINT and will only serve to get you blocked. DrFrench 10:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)