Talk:Malcom Glenn

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Make part of Crimson article[edit]

While Malcom is no doubt a fine president of the Crimson, almost every source written about him is a reference to his work on the paper or quotes him on a Harvard issue simply because he is the president of the paper (as is standard practice when major news outlets need to interview a Harvard undergraduate). Malcom's information is best included within the Crimson article.

I wholeheartedly agree. Mr. Glenn may be a great guy, but it's difficult to see this as anything other than an abuse of Wikipedia for personal gain. Wikipedia's policy clearly states that a person must be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" if an article is to be created about them. Mr. Glenn is the leader of a student organization, and the article indicates nothing accomplished in that role that satisfies the above criteria. He is thus not notable by Wikipedia's standards, and this article should cease to exist or be merged with The Crimson's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.152.47 (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree. No dig on Malcom (a great guy), but for now at least he's notable only in the context of the Crimson. --En dash (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this article either does not verifiably satisfy the Notability criteria for one of the following guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia: Academics, Biographies, Organizations and companies, Fiction, Music, Films, Schools, Web content, or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it is a Copyright violation.

Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources to verify any claims of notability. Even though the lack of reliable sources in an article is not grounds for deletion in itself, an article with absolutely no sources (or only external links to unreliable ones) suggests to some editors that multiple reliable sources may not, in fact, exist.

Although I am considering tagging this article for deletion according to the Deletion policy, I am nonetheless willing to assist User:EditorName (talk · contribs), and other recent contributors to this article, to make some constructive improvements to it ... I do not have time to examine this article in depth at the moment, and it may improve over time, in which case this warning was premature.

Please respond on this Discussion page, instead of on my Talk page, in order to avoid fragmenting the conversation.

To better understand why I have used this template, please read Flag templates for deletion warnings ... I realize that some of the expressed possible concerns may not be appropriate in this case.

I agree that this article needs to be deleted because it truly seems like nothing more than a vanity page created by Glenn or one of his friends. Sourcing, etc. is fine but he's not in any way a notable figure at this point in time. If he does something worthwhile, then perhaps an article would be in order, but simply running a college newspaper is not enough.

In my opinion, this article either does not verifiably satisfy the Notability criteria for one of the following guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia: Academics, Biographies, Organizations and companies, Fiction, Music, Films, Schools, Web content, or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it is a Copyright violation.

Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources to verify any claims of notability. Even though the lack of reliable sources in an article is not grounds for deletion in itself, an article with absolutely no sources (or only external links to unreliable ones) suggests to some editors that multiple reliable sources may not, in fact, exist.

Although I am considering tagging this article for deletion according to the Deletion policy, I am nonetheless willing to assist User:EditorName (talk · contribs), and other recent contributors to this article, to make some constructive improvements to it ... I do not have time to examine this article in depth at the moment, and it may improve over time, in which case this warning was premature.

Please respond on this Discussion page, instead of on my Talk page, in order to avoid fragmenting the conversation.

To better understand why I have used this template, please read Flag templates for deletion warnings ... I realize that some of the expressed possible concerns may not be appropriate in this case.

Category:Flagged articles[edit]

I have removed the [[Category:Flagged articles]] from the message above . it was flagged at least two months ago by Some Other Editor, but the current version looks OK to me. ^Avicenna_sis @ 04:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEPROD[edit]

Need to finish discussion about merging or redirecting to The Harvard Crimson. Significant coverage in at least one reliable source: [1]. ~Kvng (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Malcom Glenn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]