Talk:Gary Coull
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
The late Gary Coull was a notable person in Hong Kong and, indeed, throughout the global financial community. He was an FOB (friend of Bill Clinton) among others.
This attempt to delete the article is part of a malicious effort by the user currently lurking behind 72.75.70.147 who seems to delight in wiki-vandalism. Administrators please refer to his/her pattern of activity. The user has previously appeared under different IP addresses - for four days until June 3rd it was 72.75.100.232, before that 68.239.79.82, and so it goes.
Ad nominem...The "editor" aka vandal, currently known as 72....147, is probably some computer admin type with access to multiple IP addresses but few formal responsibilities to occupy his/her time and not much useful in the way of content or language skills to contribute to Wikipedia.
867xx5209 02:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with 867xx5209. The chimerical 72 appears to have been behind the speedy deletion of a recent article on CLSA - without providing any rationale. Chance in HK 03:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Note: I have moved my reply made as User:72.75.70.147 @ 13:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC) from here to User:867xx5209's talk page ... comments regarding personal attacks like these should be in user space, not article discussion pages. —72.75.85.234 (talk · contribs) 19:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Warning: This article lacks WP:A to establish WP:N
I recently encountered this article while performing either New Page Patrol, Recent changes patrol, or Counter-Vandalism Unit activities, and in my opinion as a Wikipedia editor, it either lacks sufficient Attribution that it satisfies the notability criteria for Biographies, or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it reads like blatant Vanispmcruftisment.
Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources to verify any claims of Notability … without them, an article is just original research, which is prohibited by official policy.
Even though the lack of reliable source attribution in an article is not grounds for deletion in itself, articles with absolutely no sources (or only links to unreliable ones like MySpace, Google, and Amazon.com) raises a flag for some editors that such attributable sources may not, in fact, exist.
The point is that I plan to tag this article with either a {{prod}} that explains my reasons why I believe that it should be deleted, or else a {{db-bio}} tag for speedy deletion (CSD A7).
I have created this initial entry on the article's Discussion page in the hope that Administrators and other editors, including the author, Chance in HK (talk · contribs), will also comment on their opinions and actions here ... please respond on this Discussion page, instead of on my Talk page, in order to avoid fragmenting the conversation.
- Other experienced editors: Please see the Draft protocol to minimize friction from hasty deletions, and try to keep the proposed and speedy deletion processes from occurring Too Quickly, like when a WikiNewbie creates a "work in progress" stub instead of using their own sandbox first. The important thing to remember about this new paradigm is
-
-
Flag it, then tag it, THEN frag it!
-
- In other words, announce your intention to tag (flag the author and Discussion pages first), and have a "time-out" before proceeding with the tag ... and if the tag is removed, either proceed to the next step in the protocol, or else MOVE ON.
-
- Administrators: If you do speedy delete this article, then in the spirit of WP:Please do not bite the newcomers, consider leaving a note on the Talk page for this article's author, Chance in HK (talk · contribs) ... explain that you concur with the reasons for the speedy deletion, and have exercised your authority as one of the Administrators to delete it ... this should shorten the time it takes for the author to appeal for restoration of the article because it was just an unfinished "work in progress," or they neglected to tag it as a stub article.
-
- It would certainly require a little extra time and effort for you, but it may keep Some Other Editor from being blocked for reverting the deletion of tags after an article has been recreated, all because there was no paper trail ... after all, I took the time to start a message thread about this article on their Talk page, so all you have to do is append your own "stencil" message ... this is for that Very Small percentage of cases where a mistake has been made by being Too Hasty in our collective judgment of this article's unworthiness for inclusion in Wikipedia as presented for the first time. :-)
I think we can all agree that Haste is the Dark Side of the proposed and speedy deletion processes, and these draft protocols are designed to "soften the blows" of the "iron fist in the velvet glove" ... for all of the parties involved. —72.75.70.147 12:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I think we can all agree that TROLLS like 72.75.70.147 are the dark side of Wikipedia. Trolls, in the Wikipedia context, are those who misuse the process to wreak havoc. This is part of 72's pattern of attacking the notability of articles on CLSA (which s/he had speedily deleted without due process, but is now in Deletion Review) and Gary Coull, linked to the biography of Jing Ulrich, which he unsuccessfully tried to have deleted for lack of notability. This 72 subsequently has used ever administrative trick (ie abuse of process) he can think of to put tags onto these articles - whether to claim a lack of links, or lack of notability, or getting admins in cohoots to delete the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 867xx5209 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 26 June 2007
-
- User:867xx5209 has already been warned that personal attacks like this do not belong in articles, but they refuse to confine them to user-space, like their own talk page, where I have previously moved comments and replies to them. —72.75.85.234 (talk · contribs) 16:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
