Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
MichaelQSchmidt (talk | contribs) m m |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
It's ridiculous that the article was kept as "no consensus" since the person is clearly not notable, but let's see if anyone can actually source this thing and assert notability. As it stands the article is unreferenced, has nothing to verify notability, and is far from neutral. If those who argued to keep this article can do those things, I'd love to see them clean this article up. If not, why would they possibly have argued to keep an article that cannot be sourced, or the notability of the subject verifiable? Doesn't make sense. [[User:Laval|Laval]] ([[User talk:Laval|talk]]) 14:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC) |
It's ridiculous that the article was kept as "no consensus" since the person is clearly not notable, but let's see if anyone can actually source this thing and assert notability. As it stands the article is unreferenced, has nothing to verify notability, and is far from neutral. If those who argued to keep this article can do those things, I'd love to see them clean this article up. If not, why would they possibly have argued to keep an article that cannot be sourced, or the notability of the subject verifiable? Doesn't make sense. [[User:Laval|Laval]] ([[User talk:Laval|talk]]) 14:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
:As nominator of both AFD's, [[User:Laval]]'s not agreeing with the previous close would have been a reason to take [[User:Skomorokh]]'s October 2009 close[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_L._Murphy] to DRV way back then. While returning it to AFD after sevaral months is fine, the impuning of the decision and integrity of the closer as a means to negatively color the AFD discussion is unneccessary. I am removing the neutrality tag, as |
|||
:'''A)''' the article is now just as about as "neutral" as it can possible be, |
|||
:'''B)''' the orginal author has not edited since April of 2009,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bale75] |
|||
:'''C)''' the original author is not the major contributor/editor to the article,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_L._Murphy&action=history] |
|||
:'''D)''' the author was never notified regarding any claimed COI,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bale75] |
|||
:'''E)''' nor was their any discussion with him about it,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bale75] |
|||
:'''F)''' and of a greater concern, the author was never notified of either AFD.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bale75] |
|||
:'''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<font color="blue">Schmidt,</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|<sup><small>MICHAEL Q.</small></sup>]]'' 21:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:31, 14 July 2010
Biography Start‑class | |||||||
|
It's ridiculous that the article was kept as "no consensus" since the person is clearly not notable, but let's see if anyone can actually source this thing and assert notability. As it stands the article is unreferenced, has nothing to verify notability, and is far from neutral. If those who argued to keep this article can do those things, I'd love to see them clean this article up. If not, why would they possibly have argued to keep an article that cannot be sourced, or the notability of the subject verifiable? Doesn't make sense. Laval (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- As nominator of both AFD's, User:Laval's not agreeing with the previous close would have been a reason to take User:Skomorokh's October 2009 close[1] to DRV way back then. While returning it to AFD after sevaral months is fine, the impuning of the decision and integrity of the closer as a means to negatively color the AFD discussion is unneccessary. I am removing the neutrality tag, as
- A) the article is now just as about as "neutral" as it can possible be,
- B) the orginal author has not edited since April of 2009,[2]
- C) the original author is not the major contributor/editor to the article,[3]
- D) the author was never notified regarding any claimed COI,[4]
- E) nor was their any discussion with him about it,[5]
- F) and of a greater concern, the author was never notified of either AFD.[6]
- Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)