Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Molnar: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:03, 10 April 2017

Louis Molnar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP, written like a prosified version of a résumé rather than an encyclopedia article, of a person with no particularly strong claim of notability and no particularly strong reliable sourcing. His notability as a businessman seems to boil down to "got named as a local business leader in a listicle"; his notability as a politician begins and ends at "district chair for a political party" and "non-winning candidate for city council"; and his notability as a writer is stacked onto self-published books and symposium papers metasourced to themselves. And the referencing here is extremely dependent on primary sources and blogs and Twitter tweets, with the number of reliable sources being nowhere near enough to constitute a WP:GNG pass. I can't actually prove anything outright, but this reads and sources an awful lot like the kind of puffed-up article that typically results from either a paid-editing public relations job or a person trying to WP:AUTOBIO themselves — a concern not exactly assuaged by the fact that its creator has never edited any other page on Wikipedia but this one. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CD, of the 29 references, 16 are primary, 12 secondary, and 1 tertiary. On analysis this article has been edited by numerous individuals and often edited -- removing empty references, puffing, grammatical errors by many contributors, etc -- both by myself and other editors. Not sure who the creator of the article is, but as the primary editor I have edited many other pages -- mostly political and LGBT-related. When editing articles, it is important to focus on 'circular references' to itself. Many of the articles referenced noted here are by reliable sources globally-recognized periodicals on the subject, and can't be considered puffing. Any references to Twitter tweets or Facebook posts should be deleted per policy, and many have been removed, although that doesn't nullify the notability of this subject and garners a WP:GNG pass.

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 [[WP:BLP]], written like a prosified version of a résumé rather than an encyclopedia article, of a person with no particularly strong claim of notability and no particularly strong [[WP:RS|reliable sourcing]]. His notability as a businessman seems to boil down to "got named as a local business leader in a listicle"; his notability as a politician begins and ends at "district chair for a political party" and "non-winning candidate for city council"; and his notability as a writer is stacked onto self-published books and symposium papers metasourced to themselves. And the referencing here is ''extremely'' dependent on [[WP:PRIMARYSOURCES|primary sources]] and [[WP:BLOGS|blogs]] and Twitter tweets, with the number of [[WP:RS|''reliable'' sources]] being ''nowhere'' near enough to constitute a [[WP:GNG]] pass. I can't actually prove anything outright, but this reads and sources an awful lot like the kind of puffed-up article that typically results from either a paid-editing public relations job or a person trying to [[WP:AUTOBIO]] themselves — a concern not exactly assuaged by the fact that its creator has ''never'' edited any other page on Wikipedia but this one. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 21:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People|list of People-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:NewYorkActuary|NewYorkActuary]] ([[User talk:NewYorkActuary|talk]]) 01:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)</small>
+[[CD]], of the 29 references, 16 are primary, 12 secondary, and 1 tertiary. On analysis this article has been edited by numerous individuals and often edited -- removing empty references, puffing, grammatical errors by many contributors, etc -- both by myself and other editors. Not sure who the creator of the article is, but as the primary editor I have edited many other pages -- mostly political and LGBT-related. When editing articles, it is important to focus on 'circular references' to itself. Many of the articles referenced noted here are by [[WP:RS|''reliable'' sources]] globally-recognized periodicals on the subject, and can't be considered puffing. Any references to Twitter tweets or Facebook posts should be deleted per policy, and many have been removed, although that doesn't nullify the notability of this subject and garners a [[WP:GNG]] pass.