| Revision as of 18:01, 19 September 2007 editAkradecki (talk | contribs)24,127 edits →Marc S. Ellenbogen: fix my grammar in my reply to VivianDarkbloom← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:12, 20 September 2007 edit undoVivianDarkbloom (talk | contribs)409 edits →Marc S. EllenbogenNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| *'''Keep''', because being a visiting fellow at an Oxford College is much more notable than winning a "year's best blowjob" award from a batch of porno-obsessed bloggers . And Akradecki, if you really think that having a Misplaced Pages article confers more credibility than that Oxford credential, you need to get out a lot more. ] 22:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep''', because being a visiting fellow at an Oxford College is much more notable than winning a "year's best blowjob" award from a batch of porno-obsessed bloggers . And Akradecki, if you really think that having a Misplaced Pages article confers more credibility than that Oxford credential, you need to get out a lot more. ] 22:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| **'''Observation''' - ] would benefit from actually ''reading'' the sources of an article. The reference for his visiting fellowship very curiously ''doesn't'' include his name, therefore leads me to suspect that the claim is bogus. So, if he really ''wasn't'' a visiting fellow, and he hasn't won any of the adult movie awards that you refer to, why is it we should keep this article? ''']'''<sup>]</sup> 18:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC) | **'''Observation''' - ] would benefit from actually ''reading'' the sources of an article. The reference for his visiting fellowship very curiously ''doesn't'' include his name, therefore leads me to suspect that the claim is bogus. So, if he really ''wasn't'' a visiting fellow, and he hasn't won any of the adult movie awards that you refer to, why is it we should keep this article? ''']'''<sup>]</sup> 18:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ***'''More accurate observation.''' Before you post a boneheaded, uncivil comment like this one, you might just assume good faith or do a little checking for yourself. He's listed in other places, like this Oxford site, as having an affiliation with the university. And UNESCO verifies the credential . Perhaps the reason that the reference you "suspect" doesn't list him is because "visitng fellow" is a temporary appointment, that the reference was probably valid when added, but that his fellowship has now ended. The article does say "former," and the reference cited is current. Now go do the right thing, change your comment, and apologize for your uncivil, poorly informed, and condescending if not insulting inaccurate remarks. ] 22:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Delete''' this detailed ] '''unless''' it is reduced to an appropriately brief bio with sufficient citations of unaffiliated ]. Comment: user ']' may benefit from reading the ] and the ] guideline. — ] ] 06:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC) | * '''Delete''' this detailed ] '''unless''' it is reduced to an appropriately brief bio with sufficient citations of unaffiliated ]. Comment: user ']' may benefit from reading the ] and the ] guideline. — ] ] 06:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' From what I can tell, this is little more than a resume and personal puff page persistently restored and inflated by the person himself or by those who work for him or his foundations. I see little, if anything, that's notable, so the best course would be deletion. It could perhaps be stubbed down to only relevant, notable information -- but I fear that would simply leave a blank article that would continue to be puffed to current content by those working for this man's organization. ] 15:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' From what I can tell, this is little more than a resume and personal puff page persistently restored and inflated by the person himself or by those who work for him or his foundations. I see little, if anything, that's notable, so the best course would be deletion. It could perhaps be stubbed down to only relevant, notable information -- but I fear that would simply leave a blank article that would continue to be puffed to current content by those working for this man's organization. ] 15:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 22:12, 20 September 2007
Marc S. Ellenbogen
- Marc S. Ellenbogen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Was a redirect to a now-deleted article - see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Global Panel Foundation. Requesting deletion so as not to stay in limbo. maf (talk-cont) 12:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Serious COI problems here of a nn subject. Eusebeus 13:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I fail to see how our notability guidelines are satisfied, especially now that GPF has been deleted as nn. I, too, am concerned about COI issues. As I said at the other debate, it semes to me that these folks are using the encyclopedia to confer credibility to themselves. AKRadecki 19:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think the three articles for this were excessive, but that the references available do support a single article. The man is notable enough. I have had great frustration in try to remove spam from this series, but do not see the need to react by removing them altogether. The essence of what has happened is a merge here, which I think a good solution. DGG (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Cleanup or Delete in one month - is it possible to set up a probation time (as for images)? I also see material for one article, but it needs to be cleaned up, so I'd give it one month to cleanup or delete.--maf (talk-cont) 22:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, because being a visiting fellow at an Oxford College is much more notable than winning a "year's best blowjob" award from a batch of porno-obsessed bloggers . And Akradecki, if you really think that having a Misplaced Pages article confers more credibility than that Oxford credential, you need to get out a lot more. VivianDarkbloom 22:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Observation - VivianDarkbloom would benefit from actually reading the sources of an article. The reference for his visiting fellowship very curiously doesn't include his name, therefore leads me to suspect that the claim is bogus. So, if he really wasn't a visiting fellow, and he hasn't won any of the adult movie awards that you refer to, why is it we should keep this article? AKRadecki 18:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- More accurate observation. Before you post a boneheaded, uncivil comment like this one, you might just assume good faith or do a little checking for yourself. He's listed in other places, like this Oxford site, as having an affiliation with the university. And UNESCO verifies the credential . Perhaps the reason that the reference you "suspect" doesn't list him is because "visitng fellow" is a temporary appointment, that the reference was probably valid when added, but that his fellowship has now ended. The article does say "former," and the reference cited is current. Now go do the right thing, change your comment, and apologize for your uncivil, poorly informed, and condescending if not insulting inaccurate remarks. VivianDarkbloom 22:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Observation - VivianDarkbloom would benefit from actually reading the sources of an article. The reference for his visiting fellowship very curiously doesn't include his name, therefore leads me to suspect that the claim is bogus. So, if he really wasn't a visiting fellow, and he hasn't won any of the adult movie awards that you refer to, why is it we should keep this article? AKRadecki 18:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this detailed résumé unless it is reduced to an appropriately brief bio with sufficient citations of unaffiliated reliable sources. Comment: user 'VivianDarkbloom' may benefit from reading the talk page guidelines and the Misplaced Pages:Etiquette guideline. — Athaenara ✉ 06:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete From what I can tell, this is little more than a resume and personal puff page persistently restored and inflated by the person himself or by those who work for him or his foundations. I see little, if anything, that's notable, so the best course would be deletion. It could perhaps be stubbed down to only relevant, notable information -- but I fear that would simply leave a blank article that would continue to be puffed to current content by those working for this man's organization. Ashdog137 15:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)