From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
|
|
|||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
|
:I look forward to receiving a meaningful reply. [[User:SapientiaLudens|SapientiaLudens]] ([[User talk:SapientiaLudens|talk]]) 10:06, 14 October 2025 (UTC) |
:I look forward to receiving a meaningful reply. [[User:SapientiaLudens|SapientiaLudens]] ([[User talk:SapientiaLudens|talk]]) 10:06, 14 October 2025 (UTC) |
||
|
*<small class=”delsort-notice”>Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Finance|list of Finance-related deletion discussions]]. ”'[[User:Wcquidditch|<span style=”color:red”>WC</span>”<span style=”color:#999933″>Quidditch</span>”]]”’ [[User talk:Wcquidditch|<span style=”color:red”>☎</span>]] [[Special:Contribs/Wcquidditch|<span style=”color:#999933″>✎</span>]] 10:53, 14 October 2025 (UTC)</small> |
*<small class=”delsort-notice”>Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Finance|list of Finance-related deletion discussions]]. ”'[[User:Wcquidditch|<span style=”color:red”>WC</span>”<span style=”color:#999933″>Quidditch</span>”]]”’ [[User talk:Wcquidditch|<span style=”color:red”>☎</span>]] [[Special:Contribs/Wcquidditch|<span style=”color:#999933″>✎</span>]] 10:53, 14 October 2025 (UTC)</small> |
||
|
* ”’Delete”’ cannot find any evidence of notability. Self published author who was interviewed once on a Spanish podcast, most references are primary sources from what I can tell. Was involved with a court case that received some coverage but not enough to qualify for [[WP:NBLP]]. [[User:Orange sticker|Orange sticker]] ([[User talk:Orange sticker|talk]]) 11:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 11:42, 14 October 2025
- Bill Fairclough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:N – could be, but current state is a nightmare 0xReflektor (talk) 09:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Could you please be more precise and informative? Your comment inferring that “the current state is a nightmare” is absolutely meaningless. Indeed, given your normal focus on subjects of interest to you, it might be helpful to explain what motivated you to focus on this article ab initio given it is way off your beaten track.
- I can make one comment about the article and that is there were changes made by others shortly after its release that took a considerable amount of time and effort to deal with in order to resurrect the article. I even wondered if the article had been deliberately sabotaged. As a result there were duplication and errors in the references until corrected this morning. As noted by me on User Talk, the situation has stabilized. I commented as follows:
- “The article has been comprehensively reviewed and cleaned. The following actions were completed:
- The “inline citations not properly formatted” maintenance template was removed after all references were checked and confirmed to follow standard citation formatting. A redundant, manually typed list of legacy references appearing beneath the automated
<references/>output was deleted to prevent duplication. A single correctly functioning References section now generates all citations from inline footnotes. The DEFAULTSORT and associated category tags remain correctly positioned for indexing. Verification checks have confirmed that the reference list is functioning as intended and that no duplicate Reflist or references templates remain.” - I look forward to receiving a meaningful reply. SapientiaLudens (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
