Talk:R. J. Williams

Untitled

What else (some of) you can add or point out on the R.J. Williams page? Feel free to leave a message or comment on the quality and accuracy of the article. Note that any false, libel and slander relating to living persons/celebrities in Wikipedia articles will be removed immediately. I appreciate it and thank you for posting any additions or corrections. + Mike D 26 08:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Early Career" is Not About "Early Career"

The "Early Career" section doesn't talk about it at all, it's just an advert for his "Youg Hollywood" website. Aside from the advert tag, I didn't know what else to put up that matched the main problem of this section. Unless somebody actually writes something about his early career, either I or someone is gooing to have to delete this entire section. Brittany Ka (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

Regarding notability: if the person is notable for his acting, there needs to be proof of more media coverage, or awards, or some of the other things listed at WP:BIO#Entertainers. If he's notable for his website, I guess he fall under WP:BIO##Creative professionals

Regarding references: Filmreference.com is not a reliable source and I've removed it as a reference. Also, the use of a primary source (the subject's own website) is not a reliable source for claims of being a "market leader", and I've removed that reference as well. Additionally, in instances where the site could be used, you can't just link to the front page of the site, the URL given must lead directly to the information in question. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 02:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I clicked on the link you posted and it says "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards --he or she has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions." You had mentioned imdb wasn't reliable for bio info but it was for credits this lists over 40 credits in many notable shows --a majority of which have their own wikipedia page. Please have another look into this. Thank you. (Movieman2008 (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)).

References

POV/Promo

Quite a bit of this material appears to be written by someone affiliated with the subject. I also notice that quite a bit of the content focuses on the subject's company a little too much. I suggest a total rewrite. If it's not done in the coming weeks, I shall trim the article down myself. Pinkadelica^♣ 05:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the labels that were put on this account considering it has been around for over 6 years and considering the recent article I just read in Forbes magazine about the subject. I feel if anything it should contain more information and not be consolidated. I don't know enough about Mr. Williams to contribute anything further --I just happen to come across this recent article and went to look him up on wiki and was surpised I couldn't find much info and was even more surpised of the tags in the header. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.89.0.18 (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Pinkadelica -- Based on the the comment above I think that was plenty reason to revert the notes you made, but I see you went ahead and deleted them without trying to talk it through. I'm not going to get into an edit war here, as I see you already have issues with an edit war from another page this month that you tried to revert. I just advise that you think twice regarding this page, as you can see there are several 3rd part citations from very reputable publications that support every single thing on the page. I'm not going to go and revert what you did because I dont have time to go back and forth and you wont hear from me again regarding this page. I just really hope you seriously think this through, because you mentioned yourself when you claimed the COI that you have no idea which user the COI stems from--that is reason enough to just leave this page alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.71.25.198 (talk) 08:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Great, if you're longer interested in this matter we have nothing more to talk (or not talk) about. I won't be surprised when another IP pops up and comments about matter though. Pinkadelica^♣ 16:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a dreadful article; little better than a press release. Please, please somebody do a puffery-removal job on it... Little grape (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Almost two years later and this article is still a PR platform for this dude. I’ve retagged it as someone removed the tags claiming tagging it was an act of vandalism because the article has existed for a decade and has “reputable” sources. Can’t argue with the fact that it has existed for a decade or so and has some reliable sources, but it’s still poorly written. 2602:306:8383:E010:3C67:CCD6:48F0:1C71 (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Self-promotion/ lack of neutrality

This article reads like classic self promotion. Is this person even notable? I suggest deletion. Genetikbliss (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)