Talk:Robert Kovacik: Difference between revisions
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Kovacik closed as keep |
Tgarrett24 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
I was unaware of the formatting of posting a wiki article and have since corrected the matter. I have also kept a neutral point of view throughout the listing and merely listed accomplishments and stated facts, unbiasedly.[[User:Tgarrett24|Tgarrett24]] ([[User talk:Tgarrett24|talk]]) 00:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
I was unaware of the formatting of posting a wiki article and have since corrected the matter. I have also kept a neutral point of view throughout the listing and merely listed accomplishments and stated facts, unbiasedly.[[User:Tgarrett24|Tgarrett24]] ([[User talk:Tgarrett24|talk]]) 00:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
How many more sources are needed to remove the message about having more references. Currently there are over 17 references and I also thoroughly believe a neutral viewpoint has been taken throughout this article as well.[[User:Tgarrett24|Tgarrett24]] ([[User talk:Tgarrett24|talk]]) 16:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:10, 7 April 2010
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 30 March 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This is Robert Kovacik's BIO which was written himself and is used by NBC Los Angeles. He would like to use the same BIO for his Wiki Article.Tgarrett24 (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
What steps do I need to take to verify this information.Tgarrett24 (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
This article is merely a statement of facts, there are no bias points to it. It is a basis for fans and other reporters to add stories/happenings to as well. Robert is a highly regarded journalist and needs a wiki page for others to contribute to.Tgarrett24 (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I was unaware of the formatting of posting a wiki article and have since corrected the matter. I have also kept a neutral point of view throughout the listing and merely listed accomplishments and stated facts, unbiasedly.Tgarrett24 (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
How many more sources are needed to remove the message about having more references. Currently there are over 17 references and I also thoroughly believe a neutral viewpoint has been taken throughout this article as well.Tgarrett24 (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)