Talk:Emmett Rensin: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by Dingoctopus - "" |
Attempting to move the non-notability talk to its logical conclusion. ~~~~ |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
Given that the subject of this article is no longer writing professionally according to his personal blog, the question of notability seems to be settled. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Dingoctopus|Dingoctopus]] ([[User talk:Dingoctopus#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dingoctopus|contribs]]) 02:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Given that the subject of this article is no longer writing professionally according to his personal blog, the question of notability seems to be settled. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Dingoctopus|Dingoctopus]] ([[User talk:Dingoctopus#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dingoctopus|contribs]]) 02:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== Notability 5 == It has been yet another two years with no worthwhile editing or added notability. |
|||
Revision as of 20:20, 25 February 2020
 | Biography Stub‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Template:WikiProject Libertarianism
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Notability 1
This article should be deleted, no notability whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.36.161 (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Notability 2
Removed notability tag. His book was reviewed by The Guardian. Today, he's in the national news cycle for having called for violent riots in the street to oppose a candidate he dislikes (well, a candidate i also dislike, but... start a riot?!?!) cited to Los Angeles Times. This would need ot go to AFD, not a prod or a speedy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- I just reviewed the entire history of this article. I would put the Notability tag back on (how many times has it been removed without doing much to remove the reason for it?) and also would have restored the Libertarian controversy section that was briefly here, since it provided sources on which notability might be judged. The point of the notability tag is not to call for deletion but to prompt for expansion (with threat of deletion as a possibility if no expansion occurs). If a call for deletion on account of notability were to occur, it would be the contents of the article that would be judged, and right now they're still rather meager. The two incoming links from article space are just barely adequate to keep it from being an orphan. By WP standards, being the author of a book and being the subject of a topical news flurry are not necessarily sufficient for inclusion.
- Since I wouldn't want to get into an edit war with you, I'll wait a while for a response before taking the actions I've proposed. —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 21:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Let us hope for more well-sourced material to expand this article so the notability and refimprove tags can come off. —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Notability 3
Since its been a year, I want to call attention to the above again and agree that this isn't sufficiently notable and should be deleted.
Notability 4
Given that the subject of this article is no longer writing professionally according to his personal blog, the question of notability seems to be settled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingoctopus (talk • contribs) 02:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
== Notability 5 == It has been yet another two years with no worthwhile editing or added notability.