Talk:Alexander Görlach
| 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. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Completely useless article
[edit]Just a shopping list, a boring & poorly written CV - not WP-relevant. At least use English!
WHAT DOES HE STAND FOR? Arminden (talk) 08:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Being BOLD (Wikipedia rule & principle), I have removed the faulty, irrelevant, poorly presented, in one word: useless and user-despising material. The tags AUTHOR CLOSE TO PERSON IN CASE; (SELF-)ADVERTISEMENT; NOTABILITY NOT PROVEN have been active for 15 months, with no reaction. Also: majority of sources in untranslated German - this is English Wikipedia, if you didn't notice. Back to a stub, which it never stopped being. Arminden (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- With all these criticisms, why don't you nominate the article for deletion? 109.78.244.67 (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Because I arrived here after reading about his debates with Alan Posener, whose article is interesting and who has good media contributions, and I wanted to see who he's debating with every week. But there was no answer to that in this article. My issue is with the article, not the person. Maybe he's notable, it's quite possible, but none of that is visible from the CV we had here. There are many active academics who aren't notable; he might be, but I expect those who care about him to make it visible. Once that's done, we can decide if it's good enough for Wikipedia. The distinction is clear: terribly poor "article", but potentially notable person. For now, the user is better served by a concise stub with the option of being properly expanded, than by a deleted article. Arminden (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)