Talk:Robb Alvey

Notability

This was up for deletion as as draft, and moved to article space. It still does not meet notability. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts/Robb_Alvey#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts.2FRobb_Alvey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.41.85 (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

The IP that nominated this for speedy deletion appears to have a personal grudge against the subject for some reason. The subject himself is clearly notable and I see no reason for it to be deleted. If the IP wishes to pursue an AfD, they are free to, but speedy deletion is clearly not appropriate. --Silverseren^C 04:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You did not need to vandalize the talk page here nor slander my name. This page is clearly self promotion and due for deletion. Your move of this article out of deletion talks was backhanded, and censoring my input is unprofessional to say the least. The article was selected for deletion before, then sent to the drafts pile, then not edited for a year. The added sources are nothing but hearsay from fluff stories. The article does not live up to the standards of Wikipedia for notability purposes. It also had an AfD and then you moved it to a page to bypass the consensus to delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.41.85 (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

No one else in the MfD agrees with you. The only person voting Delete said they only want the draft to be completed and not left as a draft. So I improved it and moved it to mainspace, as should be done. And the past AfD on this article was on an inferior version that didn't have proper sourcing, as is evident from the AfD discussion. Again, feel free to list it at AfD again, I am confident that it will be kept. Silverseren^C 05:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Seeing that I just joined into the conversation tonight, I see several others going for strong delete. I count 4 or 5 for deletion and two against. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.41.85 (talk) 05:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I assumed those others were you as well. Are you saying they're not? Huh, that's rather suspicious. Where are all of these IPs and new users finding this MfD from? How did you find it, pray tell? Silverseren^C 05:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Grow up and cut it out with the accusatory immature non-sense. Look at the IPs man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.41.85 (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of people have rotating IPs. They're called dynamic IP addresses. I had no reason to think you were different people. But, even then, it looks like there's just 2 people then. You and Julser1 (who is also 108.17.102.92). There's not 4 or 5 people. So there's certainly no consensus. Silverseren^C 05:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

What about Uzma Gamal? The fact is that all of the same issues with this page still exist from before that led to deletion before. Nothing is verifiable beyond his own site. It is easy to feed non-sense into a fluff story meant to fill up a page. This page does not meet the notability standards of Wikipedia. It is self promoting blather. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.41.85 (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Uzma had an issue with the draft staying as a draft indefinitely. He didn't comment on the notability, beyond saying that notability isn't good enough to leave something as a draft. That's why I fixed it up and rewrote a significant amount of it.

And these sources are definitely not fluff pieces. They are coverage of his website and the television show he's in, focusing extensively on him because he's the commentator of the show. Why do I feel like you would call every source a fluff story, regardless of the content? Silverseren^C 05:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

They are stories about roller coasters to fill time, they are not vetted like a typical source. This is your second attempt to bypass deletion consensus on this article. These brings down the credibility of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.41.85 (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You have no proof for that beyond your own word, which, unfortunately, isn't a reliable source. I don't see why they wouldn't be vetted like any other article written by the sources. And what do you mean my second attempt? I merely moved the draft to mainspace. Silverseren^C 05:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

According to the history page on the abandoned drafts page, you bypassed a previous MfD to create the draft page. Now you did it again this time on a subject not notable by Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.41.85 (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. No, I went and spoke with the closing admin afterward and he agreed that the sources were good enough for it to be worked on and moved a new draft to the WikiProject. Silverseren^C 05:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

As before, He is no more notable than any other self-promoting person, articles on whom which have been deleted in their masses from Wikipedia. He is not a notable figure as per Wikipedia guidwlines and I suspect the article has been self-promoted or even self-created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.41.85 (talk) 05:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

And I disagree with you. I think he is more than notable, as the sources show, and meets the notability guidelines. Silverseren^C 06:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because this entry merely identifies previous work experience of said person; it does not list actual contributions or accomplishments achieved to be noteworthy as a public figure. Article is self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.104.123.64 (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion

I've not got a problem with there being a wiki page for Mr Alvey in principle. If he deserves a wikipedia page, then fine. Let one be written. But let it be written by someone else. There is enough evidence in the style to show he did it himself, and people shouldn't write their own Wikipedia entries, because they're clearly not objective. In the end though, what does it matter? The internet is full of such Walter Mitty characters, and it only makes him look more silly, especially the part about Mr Alvey's "Filmography", which on closer inspection boils down to a bunch of smartphone video compilations of him going on children's theme park rides! That's a "filmography"?? I mean, come on. The guy is in his fifties for goodness sake. I'm embarrassed for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gthosie (talk • contribs) 11:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

How about instead on deleting it, we just rewrite parts of it to rid it of its sensationalism and self-promotion. Neither of us are close associates of Alvey and that is something I've intended to do for awhile. Tis why I created the Controversies section, which is referenced in this talk page--Bigtime_Boy (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Controversies Section

On January 3, 2021, I wrote out the Controversies subsection on this article. It is a known fact that Robb Alvey has gotten himself into several situations - heck, the man even has a criminal record from his time in California - but given that I was prepared to revamp the page, I may as well add in the Starbucks incident. There were reasons for this to be written. One, to hopefully discourage Theme Park Review haters from committing troll edits and writing about it, since something was already there and well-sourced. Two, waiting for individuals with close connections to Alvey to take it down so that I could lambast them over their sense of TPR propaganda. Three, I was of course going to revamp the page in a more factual manner and not have it written in a way that promotes Theme Park Review. Four, I do not have any close connections to Robb Alvey, nor am I Robb Alvey myself, so it was appropriate to do so.

If anybody feels that this is biased in any way, feel free to edit, but please DO NOT delete without my say-so. This is a page concerning a person, and anything that has been made public knowledge can be placed on here. I want to make this a less-obnoxious page so that people can stop trolling here, which has been a larger issue since the said event in the controversies section. And yes, this was a notable enough event to be written about; there was a fair amount of coverage, it tied in to major ongoing events, and it did have consequences for anybody involved. I had no role in that, so I feel entitled to write about that as a spectator without bias.

The creation of this has been controversial for some, so please do message me if you have any questions.--Bigtime_Boy (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The previous edit read as though it was written by someone with a bias against Alvey. Your comments here would confirm that. It has been re-written with less of a bias towards anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.182.217.71 (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It should be pretty obvious at this point that that Bigtime Boy has a bias against Alvey and is using Wikipedia as a vehicle to continue an online smear campaign that ended over a year ago hiding behind a ruse of attempting to make this entry less sensational. Any attempt to make the narrative more neutral has been removed, so at this point I recommend removing the section completely, and perhaps removing this entire Wiki entry if it is causing that much of an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seriousmilk (talk • contribs) 04:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no campaign currently against Robb Alvey, and to accuse me of corrupt editing is infuriating. I could do the same and say that you want my edits deleted because maybe you have a close association with the subject. See? These accusations are not only questionable, but pointless... they get nowhere. What we can say is that we're working towards a common cause, and that is to eliminate bias and sensationalism, so if that means that you have concerns regarding bias, then be my guest to do something to improve it, but not necessarily delete or complain. I really am sincere about ridding the article of its sensationalism, by the way... I can't prove it if that's what you're asking, so you're just going to have to take my word for it and work with us who do. This is a page that is accessed frequently by many people, it was written and maintained by close associates of the subject, and unlike yourself I've taken it on me to do something about it and improve it for readers. Thats all that I would like to say.--Bigtime_Boy (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)