![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 July 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 22 September 2009. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
It's ridiculous that the article was kept as "no consensus" since the person is clearly not notable, but let's see if anyone can actually source this thing and assert notability. As it stands the article is unreferenced, has nothing to verify notability, and is far from neutral. If those who argued to keep this article can do those things, I'd love to see them clean this article up. If not, why would they possibly have argued to keep an article that cannot be sourced, or the notability of the subject verifiable? Doesn't make sense. Laval ( talk) 14:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Raider307 uploaded a picture of Murphy, which I've removed from the article for now since the uploader of that image (Raider307) claims it as his own work, and identifies himself as Murphy. Either this isn't true and Murphy is not Raider307, making the source of the image unclear, and if it is true, then Murphy should not be adding anything about himself to this article Laval ( talk) 15:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mike L. Murphy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 July 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 22 September 2009. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
It's ridiculous that the article was kept as "no consensus" since the person is clearly not notable, but let's see if anyone can actually source this thing and assert notability. As it stands the article is unreferenced, has nothing to verify notability, and is far from neutral. If those who argued to keep this article can do those things, I'd love to see them clean this article up. If not, why would they possibly have argued to keep an article that cannot be sourced, or the notability of the subject verifiable? Doesn't make sense. Laval ( talk) 14:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Raider307 uploaded a picture of Murphy, which I've removed from the article for now since the uploader of that image (Raider307) claims it as his own work, and identifies himself as Murphy. Either this isn't true and Murphy is not Raider307, making the source of the image unclear, and if it is true, then Murphy should not be adding anything about himself to this article Laval ( talk) 15:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mike L. Murphy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)