Talk:Mark Bauerlein

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mark Bauerlein entry[edit]

I couldn't identify any plausible reason making it worth to dedicate an entry to Bauerlein. Rmsoran (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mark Bauerlein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mark Bauerlein. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tweet[edit]

@RetroCosmos, 107.10.129.126, TheEpTic, and EditingMonkeys: I think the IP has a point. The accusations of vandalism are not assuming good faith, but the single opinion piece doesn't seem to establish that the inclusion is WP:DUE for a BLP, and I couldn't find any sources to bolster it's inclusion. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I disagree. The determination on whether something is due or undue weight is based on the proportion of views of a subject. Mark Bauerlein is not a particularly notable person. I am not saying he is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, but he is not commonly in the news. There aren't many sources to bolster its inclusion because he's just not famous enough to attract attention. I would not oppose that entry be rewritten in a more reasonable manner. RetroCosmos (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of sources in general is not reason to lower the bar of what is acceptable as a RS for controversial content to be included. This is a single Primary source (WP:BLPPRIMARY) clearly labeled as "Opinion" that includes quotes such as "He is a scumbag". This article can't be used to establish the notability of itself. The call for his removal received no further media reaction, and therefore fails to justify an entire section or even really a mention of the incident. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong argument. I agree. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed 107.10.129.126 (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Bauerlein&oldid=1206193484"