Talk:Gerald Caplan
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gerald Caplan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 30 December 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| 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: | |||||||
| ||||||||
anon
[edit]An anon added and an endorser of the Genocide Intervention Network to a bunch of pages.
Don't want to revert if it's true.
Mikereichold 07:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Prod
[edit]As I removed the prod notice that was recently placed on this article, I am hereby explaining my reasoning. The article certainly needs referencing improvements to be brought up to contemporary wikistandards, I'll certainly agree with that -- however, the article is not entirely unreferenced as it already stands, and the relative lack of sourcing is not because quality references about him don't exist, but because the article was created in 2005 when referencing standards weren't even close to what they are now.
Furthermore, as an experienced administrator, I have to point out that anonymous IPs who nominate pages for deletion do tend to raise red flags. While it's true that the nomination may have been made in good faith, there's also a long history on Wikipedia of anonymous nominations that were backed by ulterior motives (especially when they're made by anonymous editors whose nominations display far more knowledge of Wikipedia policy and procedure than they could credibly be expected to have, given a history with less than 20 total edits in it.)
Accordingly, I've added the {{refimprove}} tag to the article instead, because it does need improvement, but it is not a valid candidate for prod. Bearcat (talk) 04:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)