Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period. This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material. Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here. You can request a revision deletion on IRC using #wikipedia-en-revdel connect, where only administrators will be able to see your concerns. Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here. Sections older than 5 days archived by ClueBot III. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Search this noticeboard & archives Additional notes: Note that edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. Place the {{BLP noticeboard}} template on the talk page of articles that are being discussed here, and remove it when the discussion is resolved. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, consider using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. All editors are encouraged to assist fellow editors regarding the reports below. Administrators should review enforcement instructions.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Centralized discussion
Inclusivity of the criteria of "Wikipedia:Notability (sports)" MOS:GENDERID for genderqueer people Which sister projects should appear in search results? Recent policy changes about verifiability as a reason for inclusion Adopting a gender neutral default for policy, guidelines and help pages Proposed policy update on cosmetic edits done by bots

Timmy Tan might be poorly sourced, because I cannot find that much information about him.

In this page link- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Timmy_Tan, there seems to be gibberish information that seems to be poorly sourced, update: I removed the poorly sourced information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PattyDay (talk • contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PattyDay (talk • contribs) 01:00, April 3, 2017 (UTC)

Jesse Taylor

Jesse Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The first entry on this page refers to Season 25 of The Ultimate Fighter and lists the two fighters who will fight in the finale of the show. Season 25 doesn't premiere until April 19, 2017, so the information listed on Taylor's page is either inaccurate or is revealing the results of a season that has not aired yet.

link to site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.17.255.154 (talk) 16:10, April 10, 2017‎

Richard Hambleton

Richard Hambleton Hello, My name is Kevin Whipple. I work for Woodward Gallery in NYC. Woodward Gallery represents the artist Richard Hambleton. I am trying to correct his birthday on his wikipedia page. I have documentation to prove his corrected birthday. How do I go about correcting this?

Thanks, Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwhipple90 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kwhipple90: We generally can't include dates of birth unless they are widely publicised and known about anyway, for privacy reasons. I appreciate Mr Hambleton may be perfectly fine with people knowing his birthday, but we prefer to be consistent across the board, as you can never be entirely sure if somebody is happy with it, or will continue to be so indefinitely. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

His date of birth is already posted on his Wiki page, however it is incorrect. I am trying to correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwhipple90 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kwhipple90: Okay, I have found a source for the correct DOB and added it to the article - can you check it's now correct? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

That is correct! Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwhipple90 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, My name is Kevin Whipple I work for Woodward Gallery in NYC the gallery that represents Richard Hambleton. We noticed that his website was changed back to richardhambleton.com. However that is not his official website. His official website is actually richardhambleton.art which has all of his biographical information, artist resume, exhibition history, a large selection of his works and news articles of past and present. The other website is promotional material to a documentary film going on at the Tribeca Film Festival and is not his official website. How do I get his official site changed back to richardhambleton.art?

Thanks again for your help, Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwhipple90 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Kwhipple90, you should stop editing that page please. Your addition of several promotional links for the Woodward gallery, where you work, is not needed. We are not here to advertise your artists. I removed those. Please leave it to the non-involved editors.96.127.244.11 (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I might also not here that I just removed several sections of the article that were designed to promote the artist's value: multiple mentions of the Woodward Gallery, "all of the work sold out", auction results and so on. The DOB mentioned above was also removed as ARTSY is not a reliable source. Sure, it's nice that the gallery asked for help in fixing the DOB, but this ignores the many promotional edits they have made ot the page over the past years. 96.127.244.11 (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Possible BLP violation (Infowars)

Infowars and other sources were restored to another page. Others have concerned with using Infowars. On another talk page please read this related comment by User:Capeo. Similar content was rejected by the community on another talk page. What should be done about Infowars and other sources? See Bad_Elk_v._United_States#Internet_meme_and_myths. QuackGuru (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for my ignorance, but I don't see what the BLP violation is. Can you please explicitly lay it out? Mr Ernie (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

While the text included at "Bad Elk" is ostensibly the same as the text included at "Plummer v. State", it does not repeat the parenthetical which contained unsourced, arguably contentious information about living persons. Those parentheticals made "Plummer" worth bringing to this forum; "Bad Elk" does not, imho, have the same issue w.r.t. BLP. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

We can start with removing the unreliable sources. Infowars does not have consensus per this. QuackGuru (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

QuackGuru, you're pointing to an RFC that was withdrawn by the OP, that doesn't show consensus one way or the other. Are you sure you're pointing to the right thing?  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  15:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It was withdrawn because consensus was against including the unreliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it was withdrawn to attempt to address the concerns of the community. Please state, with particularity, exactly what is a BLP violation. As far as the Infowars reference, as noted on the Bad Elk talk page, the discussion will be held at Plummer, and then applied to both articles to avoid multiple discussions on the same issue. Without a specific BLP violation, this appears to be forum shopping, and if QuackGuru does not outline the specific violation, this thread should be closed. GregJackP Boomer! 15:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You stated "it was withdrawn to attempt to address the concerns of the community". The latest RfC does not contain Infowars and other unreliable sources rejected by the community from the previous RfC. Part of the concerns were Infowars. QuackGuru (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I still don't understand why there's a report about this on this board. El_C 16:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Same. The two cases are over a century old, and everyone involved is long dead. The only thing approaching a BLP issue that I can see in any of the links or any visible revision is the claim that the misinterpretation and misquotation of the two cases constitutes "fabrication" (insofar as the word has a nefarious connotation). This is honestly more one of those situations where we need a law equivalent to MEDRS. I ran a quick search and didn't find anything in the legal literature obviously addressing the pseudolegal claims regarding those cases. And, annoyingly, the ADL seems to have purged its archives page, removing Sussman's Idiot Legal Arguments (though from what I can see in an archive, it's unlikely Sussman directly addressed this). There is, of course, a ton of case law that addresses these points. Holloran v. Duncan, No. 13-1050, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47717 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 30, 2017) pretty directly criticizes the mistaken reliance on Bad Elk on a national scale, rather than a local scale like most authorities seem to do. It looks to decisions of several other circuit courts of appeal. That said, there does appear to be some remaining vitality in Bad Elk and related decisions in the Fourth Amendment context, but certainly neither of the character asserted nor to the degree claimed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Sussman's article did not address either Plummer or Bad Elk. I had already checked it. I was unaware of Holloran and will look at it, thanks. GregJackP Boomer! 02:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘One of the big problems with these pseudolegal sources is that they tend to actively go out and find cases that have not been explicitly overruled despite, as in these cases, being superseded by statute in every jurisdiction. And of course, the documents that do acknowledge the existence of inconsistent statutes will argue that those statutes are unconstitutional (and often give off the general indication that statutes in derogation of the common law are unconstitutional). And, of course, when they find a good bit of case law, they tend to take it in a direction that nobody in the literature has. I'm just grumbling at this point, but someone really needs to take the ideas from Sussman's book and start a looseleaf service or even a law journal that tracks and debunks these arguments. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

If I could figure out a way to monetize it, I would, but I haven't figured that out yet. GregJackP Boomer! 08:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm just going to ask one more time - User:QuackGuru please state explicitly what you think the BLP violation is. I would like to help but I'm unable to find it. Or else let's close this section as irrelevant. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's start at the beginning. First, Infowars is unreliable. If it is not removed from the page then we will not move to step number 2. There is no point to continue here if others don't agree. QuackGuru (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

While Infowars is definitely unreliable, using it to source content about itself is completely reasonable (Eg similar to how we have limited the Daily Mail, and here, citing Infowars' version of the mistaken take on the Bad Elk decision does not seem to be a gross violation wrt to BLP or RS. Original research, maybe (seeking out the sites that misquote the Bad Elk decision could be seen as that), but as the text clearly frames that what Infowars is cited is not what is cited in the actual decision, it's certainly not a severe problem. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing an answer to the *basic* question "what is the BLP issue here please?" Would it help Quackguru if I rephrased that as 'Please provide a living person to which including this material causes harm'. You seem to be making this about a reliability issue (which is something for RSN to deal with), but as Masem points out (and I agree with him) the source is being used to show that websites (of which Infowars is one) cite the Bad Elk decision, infowars is perfectly reliable as a primary source on material Infowars has hosted online. If you want to argue *that* take it to RSN, otherwise unless you can come up with an actual BLP issue pretty sharply, I am going to close this as a waste of time as Mr Ernie suggests above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes exactly thanks for clarifying. Who is the living person involved here so we can help? Mr Ernie (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Sahar Nowrouzzadeh

Sahar Nowrouzzadeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article introduces her as an "Iranian American" in the first sentence even though she was born in the U.S. Juxtapose that with introducing the Italian American governor of New York state this way: at best it would look silly; at worst it would look prejudiced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.214.3.94 (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed the ethnicity from lead unless she has dual nationality or ethnicity is reason for notability. --Malerooster (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Murder of Yeardley Love

Murder of Yeardley Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this a BLP violation? It's been removed as such. Thanks, St. claires fire (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Definitely yes. The removal was well within BLP policy, IMO. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I've just added this to their talk so we have gotten to the right place.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Eggishorn, care to give a rationale? Whose biography is implicated here, and how? Aren't these newsworthy public figures? St. claires fire (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Uh oh. Somebody just went all pointy by advancing to remove other names because they couldn't add what they want. That probably won't go well.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@St. claires fire:, if the long posting on your talk page doesn't enlighten you as to why a local politician's comments are not relevant within BLP, then I suggest that you re-read the policy. You might start here: Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

You actually didn't have a lot to say about it on my talk page. You mostly focused on an essay, COATRACK. So apparently you have no rationale that would explain how the rules apply to the situation; you're just going to say, "Read the rules." Okay, bye. St. claires fire (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Short version: we do not use articles about person A to shoehorn in negative material about non-notable third party B. The place to include criticism of Lander would be on Lander's biography. Should he ever become notable enough to get one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Michael W. Fitzgerald

• Michael W. Fitzgerald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are problems with new material added to this article. I've reverted twice and rarely revert more than that unless it's an egregious policy violation or I'm acting as an administrator. I've told the editor to take the challenge to the material to the article Talk page per WP:BRD. Instead, they continue to revert and left a long post on my Talk page, not the place they should be.

The problems with the new material are two-fold. First, the material is not neutrally worded. Second, the material itself is not neutral. If you read the sources, some of which are more reliable than others, you get a much more balanced picture of Fitzgerald's rulings in this case. Instead, it's presented as if he is anti-rape-victim and a complete outlier on what's permitted at trial and what isn't.

I know the public likes to pick on judges when they issue rulings that are not popular with some segment of the population, but Wikipedia is not "the public". As the article now stands, the material violates BLP.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've reverted again. The sources wouldn't meet our normal RS violation. I can't view the claimed Washington Post source because my browser see it as a security risk for some reason, but it links to a MSN website while claiming that it was from WaPo. That alone is a big enough error in citing that I felt comfortable making the revert until someone can clarify it. I also agree with Bbb23 on the NPOV and BLP concerns here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Except for the Washington Post, I didn't like the "sports" sources and have no idea how reliable they are. I rarely use MSN, but it comes up as a Washington Post article displayed at MSN. It would be more straightforward to link to the actual Washington Post article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• I couldn't see the MSN source because I think my browser thought it was phishing or something since it claimed WaPo but linked to a different website. If it was WaPo, linking to it would be fine, but a direct link would be preferable. Think Progress isn't exactly NPOV, and I consider borderline RS on some things. The Complex article looks to be a blog post submitted by a guest freelancer. I can't find anything else on the other source linked. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Easy enough to find alternative sources. I left reports from the LA Times and Daily Mail on the talk page. There's also a good ThinkProgress piece, easily accessible, that does argue that the ruling was a complete outlier on what’s permitted at trial and what isn't. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a reliable source? In any event, the most important part is that the material, if included, needs to present first a fair representation of the ruling itself, and to the extent we want to include commentary, it should come from legal scholars, not periodicals - without transforming this into an WP:UNDUE thesis.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail wouldn't be acceptable here. I'd be open to a note about the controversy surrounding this case, but it would need to be balanced with commentary from legal sources to put it into context. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Edward Scolnick

User:Intelscience has removed sourced material from this page 6 times, and made no other edits to any other articles. I have left several messages on their talk page. I tried AIV, but was told it's not vandalism. I'm not sure the best place to bring this to someone's attention, so I'm posting it here. Natureium (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that dropping the big red hand template a few times on this editor's talk page is the best way to communicate. In fact I think it is quite inappropriate to place that template threatening a block when there aren't necessarily any policy violations. Per WP:BRD this issue should have first been discussed on the article talk page. User:Intelscience please open a discussion on the talk page about why you believe the material should be removed, and User:Natureium please try to work it out there. If there's no progress it would probably be the time to seek some admin intervention. There does not appear to be a BLP violation in removing the material. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually the more I look at this the more I think that you, User:Natureium need to justify inclusion of the material. I don't think it belongs in the article, per WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. I have reverted it from the article until you can justify its inclusion. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The Vioxx scandal is one of the main reasons Scolnick is notable in the first place. I've shown examples on the talk page of the many articles on the subject, including its use as a case study at a major business school. Natureium (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The issues here is not just the inclusion of content (which BTW has been confirmed by another editor on the Talk Page as necessary to the article). The issue was the editor blanket removing content as a user without any prior history except these edits. It had reached 3RR in its motives of intent and suspiciously depicts sock puppetry or COI. Regardless of the discussion on the Talk Page or the merit for inclusion, it is the speculative removal that is in question first and foremost. Maineartists (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Note that the collaborative process is in progress at the talk page. Once consensus has emerged there we can move forward. Thanks for bringing this here instead of edit warring, and thanks to the editors participating. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Kevin Deutsch

A number of users have noticed suspicious edits of this page by its creator who has repeatedly removed well-sourced material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihunter6 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The sources have been called into question, you need to demonstrate on the talk page that they meet our reliability standards. Per WP:BLP, the material stays out of the article until the sources are accepted. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Bharat Aggarwal

After giving all the information to support the word "retirement", the editors of this page are still not fixing the wrong reporting. They need to remove the part "resigned under pressure" to retired from MD Anderson. Also some people are giving their personal opinions rather than sticking to the reliable news sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universaljustice (talk • contribs) 01:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Svetlana Tulasi

Svetlana Tulasi, born on 30 August 1991, is an Indian Classical & Bollywood dancer, choreographer, actress and model from Moscow, Russia. Svetlana is of mixed ethnical origin: her father was a Telugu businessman from Hyderabad, India, and her mom is a Russian, from Moscow.

Svetlana is a trained Kathak dancer, she learned the dance from a Russian woman named Ekaterina Selivyorstova, disciple of one of the most prominent Kathak Gurus – Smt. Urmila Nagar of Kathak Kendra University (Delhi, India). Svetlana’s Guru ji came back to Russia after graduating from Kathak Kendra University in late 90’s and continues teaching Kathak dance to her students till today. Svetlana is her senior disciple.

Since the age of 10 Svetlana was learning Kathak thanks to the efforts of her parents. When she was 13, her father suddenly passed away, and Svetlana remained dancing and promoting Indian Classical Dance and Indian culture in the memory of her father. She now has become a professional Kathak dancer with a Bollywood-type appearance, being one of the most popular artists of Indian Dance both offline – in Russia and CIS, and online – on Youtube. Her videos from Ukraine’s Got Talent TV show where she danced in a traditional Kathak dance style gained millions of views and hundreds of comments from different people across the world.

Svetlana’s dream is to encourage as many people of Indian origin as possible to remember their roots and contribute to their nation’s rich culture through Indian Classical Dance instead of following the western culture imposed by the mass media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svetlanatulasi1 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

This article does not currently exist. You may wish to create it as a draft.--Auric talk 10:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Jack McCauley

A single purpose account (SPA) has been turning what was a mildly promotional BLP into full-on hagiography. I made some efforts at trimming it back, only to find some of my work reverted by the SPA and additional laudatory material added. Much of this stuff is sourced to a profile of the subject on the website of his alma mater (at which, the article notes, he has established a charitable fund) and to blogger, and gaming and tech industry sites.

Additional eyes on this article would be helpful. I'm kind of aggravated about it and am going to refrain from re-engaging for a couple of days. David in DC (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

And now he's adding non-free images. David in DC (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Rachel Bloom "comedian?"

Someone put 'comedian' in quotes, which seems uncalled for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crooked Wookie (talk • contribs) 19:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• So remove the quotation marks. Doesn't strike me a Noticeboard topic unless someone keeps putting them back. I think there's something in the style guide that using quotation marks in that context violates WP:NPOV as it signifies sarcasm unless for some reason the person in question is actually being quoted (as in it's someone self-describing themselves) in which case the quotation marks need to be accompanied by a citation. 136.159.160.8 (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Dan Donovan (politician)

Dan Donovan (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Townhall controversy section is clearly not objectively written. In addition, reference #45 is not a real source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.167.194.82 (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Robert Fisher (New Hampshire)

Need some eyes over there, interesting news is breaking, lots of edits being made and reverted today. Beach drifter (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

william orrick

William Orrick III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Check the recent entry under "notable cases" and notice the characterization of the rulings as "overreached his authority" when clearly that has not been determined by higher courts, etc. Trump trolls at work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:C000:BD82:C55E:56AE:68C9:2D36 (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Lefty Driesell

• Lefty Driesell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Biography is undergoing a major makeover with admirable puffery, apparently connected to a public relations effort to get the coach into the college basketball hall of fame (I'm trying to do this without outing the editor, but he appears to be using his real name, which is associated with said p.r. firm); [1]. Needs oversight and editing of promotional content. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed much of the puffery from the lead, but left the rest alone until I have more time. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reverted two sections to their earlier versions, removing promotional and editorial content and restoring sourced text. I'm sure more can be done. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I've pretty much restored the pre-COI version. Please have a look and see if I missed anything substantial, or if I've inadvertently removed anything important. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the changes you made and made two others. There was a part in the awards section that was duplicated from the Maryland section and poorly-referenced, so I summarized it and added a reference to a Sports Illustrated story. I also removed the section about his most recent non-election to the HoF sourced to PR New Wire. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I also went back and added a one-sentence "nominated but not selected" reference to the BBHoF, citing the HoF itself and the SI article mentioned above. With WP:RS citation, I believe this meets WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Tom Lackey

Having a little trouble with the bio over here. Someone removed his religious preference (Mormon) and also some info I sourced, linked, referenced then added about his history while serving in the CA State Assembly. The article info was about bills he authored or sco-authored if they passed or not and clarification that a specific lobbying group is not a public organization or under the public purview.

I have undone the removal of the information, however the person who is removing information from this page may try to remove the info again. Please help me keep an eye out on this article and check for removed content ro poorly sourced additions or flat out omissions (for whatever reason).

Page @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lackey

Thank you, Msqared80 (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The religious preference is not, on its own, objectionable if it is cited correctly. The other material you added had possible WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT issues and I would suggest bringing it to the talk page per WP:BRD before re-adding it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Nolan Crouse again

Nolan Crouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Was wondering if some others would mind commenting at Talk:Nolan Crouse#Legal issue. The article needed to be protected a while back and was cleaned up a bit per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive250#Nolan Crouse, but the protection has run out and it appears the POV editors are back, including the SPA Nolanwatcher. I have been unable to find anything more about Crouse's legal issues, so I am beginning to have concerns that it might now be a case of WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. Any input would be appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Ajay sanchaniya

• Ajay sanchaniya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

all information is true but change title "Ajay sanchaniya" to "Ajay Sanchaniya". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.34.1.180 (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I tried, but:

You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason:

You cannot move a page to this location because the new title has been protected from creation.

And based on the sources in the article, it doesn´t fulfill WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Now at AfD [2]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Ron James

Also known as "Rev Ron" the comedian. Ron is an ordained chaplain. State Chaplain of the MD. VFW. Ron is retired from Lockheed/Martin Corp, where he was a Project director in his last assignment. Ron is the Mayor of Galestown, MD. (dorchester Co.) Ron teaches Character Counts, does Hospice work, serves as the President of the Eastern Shore Veterans Cemetery Committee, Was a founder of the Vets Rifle Squad, and acts as director on the Vets helping Vets Eastern Shore Association. Ron is a Radio personality for Vets Helping Vets on radio WCEM AM 1240 with a weekly hour show Mondays at 10 am. Ron is a graduate (B.A. Christian studies) of Suffield University, and U of MD College Park, MD fellow degree in government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.179.249 (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be an attempt to create or request an autobiographical article. This noticeboard is not the place to create one. Before proceeding, I suggest reading the Conflict of Interest guidelines. If you still would like to see an article created, you can request another create one. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Jeremy Konner

Jeremy Konner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi everyone,

I just created this page for American director, writer and producer Jeremy Konner and I need some help bumping it up from Start-Class! If anyone has any tips on how I can get this page more official, that would be helpful. I am new to wikipedia and editing and am not terribly confident in my usage.

Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terualexa (talk • contribs) 22:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

In order to bring the page to WP:GA status, you should read through the criteria here. Hope this helps! Meatsgains (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Terualexa: I fixed the template for the article. One tip: You may want to consider adding Template:Infobox artist to the article. Thanks, caknuck _° needs to be running more often 16:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Bruce Reyes-Chow

• Bruce Reyes-Chow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A user whose name is the same as the last name of the subject of the article has made edits. This may constitute a conflict of interest. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

User's edits have been consistent with a single purpose account, to advance the notability of the subject of the article in question.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

COI aside, judging by the calibre of the refs, the article is ripe for AfD. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Article is now AfD due to non-notable status and references / external links that are either dead, fake or misleading in content. Maineartists (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

coronation cup 1953

Can anyone verify Vale of Clyde won Coronation cup circa 1953? Tom Getty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.189.43 (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Yahel Chirinian

Long term spamicle tended by COI accounts--one was just blocked and a new one popped up. A request for speedy deletion was declined. My question here is whether the article is worth keeping; if so, it needs drastic pruning. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:C916:D06E:BD60:82B4 (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Nominated for AfD. Seems purely promotional. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)