[[Russell_Brand]], Crap article Options

[Peter Damian]

This is a completely crap article, nearly as crap as the person it is about.

[Alex]

This is a completely crap article, nearly as crap as the person it is about.

Disagree with the first point, it's not that bad.

As for the second point, well...

[EricBarbour]

As for the second point, well...

Heh heh heh. I bet you some British WP admin thinks Brand is a laff-riot.
Otherwise, why would a guy this scummy rate such a long article?

Brand lives in Hampstead, London,[35] with his cat, which he named after the singer Morrissey, of whom Brand is a big fan[36].
He has been a vegetarian since the age of 14,[37]and is also a fan of football, and a supporter of West Ham United and has a season ticket; he says that his love of football is "intrinsically about my relationship with my father."[38] He dresses in a flamboyant bohemian fashion describing himself as looking like an "S&M Willy Wonka."[39] He has bipolar disorder,[40] and has suffered from bulimia in the past.[37] He also went through a period of self-harm.[41]
He is a former heroin and sex addict, alcoholic and has had numerous run-ins with the police, having been arrested 11 times[42] During the time of his addiction, he was known for his debauchery, a notable example being his ejection from The Gilded Balloon, in Edinburgh.[43] He has abstained from drug use since 2003 and is now a patron of the addiction charity Focus 12.[44] His abandonment of drugs and alcohol was instigated by his agent John Noel.[45] He did so with the help of the Hare Krishnas, to whom he feels "indebted".[46]
Brand dated Australian actress Teresa Palmer between May and September 2008.[47][48]

WP has too many BLPs that read like exposés from a celebrity magazine.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Mon 3rd November 2008, 7:46am

[Kato]

Russell Brand is a really funny guy and a big star. It's as simple as that.

WP has too many BLPs that read like exposés from a celebrity magazine.

Can't argue with that.

[wikiwhistle]

Russell Brand is a really funny guy and a big star. It's as simple as that.

WP has too many BLPs that read like exposés from a celebrity magazine.

Can't argue with that.

Some of us shamefully like it that way and go to the talk page for any extra dirt. Wrong, I know.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: Mon 3rd November 2008, 12:11pm

[Peter Damian]

Russell Brand is a really funny guy and a big star. It's as simple as that.

WP has too many BLPs that read like exposés from a celebrity magazine.

Can't argue with that.

Some of us shamefully like it that way and go to the talk page for any extra dirt. Wrong, I know.

I wondered whether to open a thread for [[Barack Obama]] but I'll stick with this one. Is Wikipedia a celebrity magazine (per this thread) or is it a current affairs program (see the kerfuffle on the Obama talk page, and WP:AN). Should it be either of these? Should it perhaps be an encyclopedia.

Does anyone actually read Wikipedia for the news, as a matter of interest? (Or as a substitute for the Daily Mail or "OK" or "Heat" - all excellent publications in my view).

[Doc glasgow]

This is a completely crap article, nearly as crap as the person it is about.

Yes, Wikipedia's articles on people like this are little better than tabloid aggregators

[LessHorrid vanU]

This is a completely crap article, nearly as crap as the person it is about.

Yes, Wikipedia's articles on people like this are little better than tabloid aggregators

It really is a case that it is the sources that are to blame, because to present a fair and reasoned article of Brand - or indeed anyone of that kind of "celebrity" - would be an exercise in Original Research. Between the PR spinners and the tabloid press, there isn't a whole lot of balanced material with which to work.

[Peter Damian]

This is a completely crap article, nearly as crap as the person it is about.

Yes, Wikipedia's articles on people like this are little better than tabloid aggregators

It really is a case that it is the sources that are to blame, because to present a fair and reasoned article of Brand - or indeed anyone of that kind of "celebrity" - would be an exercise in Original Research. Between the PR spinners and the tabloid press, there isn't a whole lot of balanced material with which to work.

Leave it out then. There's nothing about Brand in any reference work I own.

[The Wales Hunter]

Another problem is the reliance of these articles on "autobiographies," when the subject of the book has spent less than an hour with the actual writer.

[EricBarbour]

Does anyone actually read Wikipedia for the news, as a matter of interest? (Or as a substitute for the Daily Mail or "OK" or "Heat" - all excellent publications in my view).

[EricBarbour]

It really is a case that it is the sources that are to blame, because to present a fair and reasoned article of Brand - or indeed anyone of that kind of "celebrity" - would be an exercise in Original Research. Between the PR spinners and the tabloid press, there isn't a whole lot of balanced material with which to work.

In which case, we are back to the idea of removing all BLPs.
Gee, that idea looks better and better all the time.