Talk:Fantasy defense
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fantasy defense article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Attorney is highly relevant
[edit]Squeakbox, you recently removed the name of the attorney that pioneered this defense. I think that person's name is highly relevant as this is the person that effectively invented it. It's like removing the name of an inventor from a technology. I think it should be restored. Toddst1 (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- If he is notable you should start an article on him, then we can include the name, otherwise I am unhappy at doing so♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Your logic is severely flawed, so I have reverted: Notability determines whether someone should have an article about them (WP:GNG and WP:BIO) or be included in specific lists (WP:NLIST). Notability has nothing to do with whether someone relevant to an article should be mentioned in an article. Someone who is relevant to a topic such as the developer of a technology or in this case, the defense, is highly appropriate to mention if it is well-sourced and does not violate other policies or guidelines like advertising. That is the case here. Please do not remove the lawyer's name again without achieving consensus - note there is only 1 R in WP:BRD. Toddst1 (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- I agree its notability that defines whether he has an article but he is a living person and re our core WP:BLP policy we shouldnt include his name if he oisnt notable, that is my position, you could ask for a 3rd opinion at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. telling me my logic is severely flawed isnt helpful or a sign of good faith and you are wrong there too, we need to be very careful of ncluding the name of the lawyer in this specific case without him being notable because his defense is known as the pedophile defense, hardly lacking controversy in itself. Yet may also make him notable enough for an article if he is widely enough covered. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Your logic is severely flawed, so I have reverted: Notability determines whether someone should have an article about them (WP:GNG and WP:BIO) or be included in specific lists (WP:NLIST). Notability has nothing to do with whether someone relevant to an article should be mentioned in an article. Someone who is relevant to a topic such as the developer of a technology or in this case, the defense, is highly appropriate to mention if it is well-sourced and does not violate other policies or guidelines like advertising. That is the case here. Please do not remove the lawyer's name again without achieving consensus - note there is only 1 R in WP:BRD. Toddst1 (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)