Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

A fact from Julian Radcliffe appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 March 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that Julian Radcliffe is the founder of the world's largest private database of lost and stolen art? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2017/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Julian Radcliffe.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

87.224.74.105 I'm curious as to how the information you removed is 'malicious'. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 00:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki's policy towards living biographies is clear. Personal comments about whether the person is a gentleman or not, are prohibited. Also, do not state "claimed", if this is in doubt the content has no place in Wikipedia. any attemts to reinstate the malicious content a third time will result in user blocking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yon dee (talk • contribs) 08:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Boomer Vial and That'sbetter: A WordPress blog and a blogspot.com blog both don't strike me as reliable sources worthy of being included in a WP:BLP, since they're WP:USERGENERATED. I've removed the content from the article that relies on these two sources, as well as some content based on other sources that wouldn't make sense without the context of these two sources. I realize that the Chasing Aphrodite WordPress one is written by a fairly reputable journalist, but the fact remains that it is only him that is writing the blog with seemingly little editorial oversight. As this is a BLP, I would be much more comfortable if we could get a consensus here that these sources are reliable before restoring the information. Alternatively, I noticed that the blog entries themselves may cite reliable sources; if we could cite those sources, I would be happy as well. Mz7 (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mz7 Since it's only him writing, now I don't know how I feel about including it on the article. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 08:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have opened a discussion on whether to include the disputed content at the above link. Please comment on the issue there. LynxTufts (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]