This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
John Earle Sullivan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
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 B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
Is there enough here is to establish notability? This could be a case WP:BLP1E unless there is sufficient evidence of activities beyond the storming of the capitol. -- Salix alba ( talk): 20:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Discussion of the subject and not the article
|
---|
|
FTR, this article was then nominated for deletion for this reason, but there was no consensus to delete. -- Beland ( talk) 08:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC) Why is that log not on the top of the page? 2603:7080:4C3D:959B:25AF:6DCF:46C8:73C4 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
If from now on, the twitter texts cited by the author (himself) are no longer reliable, then, the use of twitter on the web must be prohibited, and twitter must be closed. Because all the texts posted around the world are no longer reliable!? Pole6464 ( talk) 17:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
RE: [1], what part is being disputed? - Adolphus79 ( talk) 23:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The article refers to a "Lex Scott" as though he or she were a credible source. I doubt this and suggest references cited to him or her be removed. Thanks for your attention. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 19:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
@
Soibangla: In reponse to
the revert, the hatnote doesn't indicate at all that the subject is officially linked to antifa
, but serves to provide crucial context (why antifa of all things? the answer: there has been an ongoing conspiracy theory), which is the conspiracy theory. The linked content is not the antifa article as such, but the conspiracy section within that article. It's a proper use of the broader template. Edit: in other words the subject is not officialy linked to antifa – instead, the subject is verifiably linked with the conspiracy theory relating to antifa.
— Alalch Emis (
talk) 00:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Soibangla: I hope you find this to be an improvement: diff
Feoffer ( talk) 01:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
John Earle Sullivan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
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 B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
Is there enough here is to establish notability? This could be a case WP:BLP1E unless there is sufficient evidence of activities beyond the storming of the capitol. -- Salix alba ( talk): 20:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Discussion of the subject and not the article
|
---|
|
FTR, this article was then nominated for deletion for this reason, but there was no consensus to delete. -- Beland ( talk) 08:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC) Why is that log not on the top of the page? 2603:7080:4C3D:959B:25AF:6DCF:46C8:73C4 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
If from now on, the twitter texts cited by the author (himself) are no longer reliable, then, the use of twitter on the web must be prohibited, and twitter must be closed. Because all the texts posted around the world are no longer reliable!? Pole6464 ( talk) 17:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
RE: [1], what part is being disputed? - Adolphus79 ( talk) 23:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The article refers to a "Lex Scott" as though he or she were a credible source. I doubt this and suggest references cited to him or her be removed. Thanks for your attention. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 19:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
@
Soibangla: In reponse to
the revert, the hatnote doesn't indicate at all that the subject is officially linked to antifa
, but serves to provide crucial context (why antifa of all things? the answer: there has been an ongoing conspiracy theory), which is the conspiracy theory. The linked content is not the antifa article as such, but the conspiracy section within that article. It's a proper use of the broader template. Edit: in other words the subject is not officialy linked to antifa – instead, the subject is verifiably linked with the conspiracy theory relating to antifa.
— Alalch Emis (
talk) 00:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Soibangla: I hope you find this to be an improvement: diff
Feoffer ( talk) 01:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)