Talk:Andrew Gray (lawyer)

Close connection tag

Hi - I originally wrote this article and declared my close connection to the subject. When writing it, I did my utmost to ensure the article was neutral in content and tone. Would it be possible for someone to review the article and remove the close connection tag if they are satisfied that it is sufficiently neutral, please? Any feedback or further guidance gratefully received. AndyARP (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Once the redraft has been implemented to include more notable events about this person, I would support a removal of the close connections tag. Flames675 (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Like i suggested, i have redrafted the page, removed certain phrases and added more citations to both old and new material. I think the close connection tag can be removed now. If no objection, i shall be removing in in 72 hours.Nuel Jr (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Potential Merge with 2023 Selby and Ainsty by-election

@AndyARP:

I propose merging Andrew Gray (lawyer) into 2023 Selby and Ainsty by-election. I believe that most of the content on the source page (Andrew Gray) can and should be put into the Campaign section of the destination page (2023 Shelby and Ainsty by-election), and the other information not relating to the campaign should be moved to their respective pages if not already mentioned. I believe this would not cause any article-size or weighting problems for the by-election page. Flames675 (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

While obviously not all of the campaign information on this page would fit the proposed destination page, the important bits, mostly the AI election tactics, can be reworded and compressed with citations that can lead to further detail. As for the the "Other activism" section, paragraph one would be better suited on the Nuffield Health page, whereas paragraph two would be better suited on the murder of Sarah Everard page. Flames675 (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. However, I disagree that the article should be merged. Your proposal would involve splitting up the information contained on this page into several separate ones, when the unifying factor is Andrew Gray. And he has received significant coverage in various contexts which, I believe, satisfies the notability requirements. It was recently accepted for publication on that basis. I am not sure what you personally consider to be 'the important bits' but I think that all of the information contained in the article could be of interest to people searching Wikipedia. It is also highly likely that further information will be added in future. As such, I believe it would be more appropriate to expand the separate articles you mention with a small amount of information regarding their connection to Andrew Gray and link to this article from them so anyone interested can discover more. AndyARP (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Here's where I stand: the vast majority of the article focuses on Gray's use of AI campaigning during the 2023 by election. There are several mini paragraphs describing various aspects of this campaign technique that don't have any connection to Gray himself barring the fact he employed it (see the input regarding the Taiwan and other uses). Therefore, I fail to see how this "unifying factor" is strong enough to warrant an entire separate article. I fully believe that a description on the by election page about the AI technique (what it is, how it's employed, and notable examples, all of which are already said in this article with no mention about Gray besides, again, that he used it) with a mention that it was used by Gray should fully suffice. Should readers want to learn more, they can read further through the links that are cited. I believe that the other information, regarding Nuffield Health and the murder of Sarah Everard is better mentioned on their own pages rather than on this one, as both are no longer than a couple sentences and can be incorporated into the storylines already present.

Overall, I don't see any considerably important connection to Andrew Gray that would prevent any of the information in this page to be incorporated into other pages without causing confusion. Any needed mention of Andrew Gray can be described accurately enough that it wouldn't unnecessarily weight those articles.Flames675 (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I understand your POV, however, i think a general reformating of the page, rewording should suffice in keeping the page. I believe the subject is worthy of a page, given he passes the notability check, however, i think the content of the page and its format is the issue given some contents may be better suited on other pages. But given the subject is notable enough, has obviously contributed in his own field, i think rewording and reformating should fix the issue and the page be kept. Nuel Jr (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Could you please expand on your general reforming idea? Thanks! Flames675 (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

What i mean is that, apparently the subject of the page Andrew Gray is notable enough to merit a page. But given the bone of contention from your end is with regards to the fact that the page seems to focus solely on the campaign. Hemce, if the page is redrafted, the controversy simply becomes a part of a bigger content. Then, the page stays. I have already begun a research to identify other notable events by the subject other than the campaign mentioned and i have found a number of them. Hence, upon doing the redrafting, the campaign part simply becomes a part of a bigger thing. The subject obviously plays a great role in the campaign, hence, making the page more than just the campaign is probably what is best to keep the page. Nuel Jr (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok! I'll remove the suggested merge notifs. Thank you for that! Flames675 (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)