Talk:Alexander Muse
| 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 Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Searches
editFind sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
What is the threshold for including individuals in Wikipedia? This person doesn't seem particularly newsworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.97.124 (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
This page screams vanity page! Smucoxmus (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Removal of sentence about lawsuits and Wikipedia
editI removed a sentence talking about some lawsuits and the fact that the subject has a Wikipedia page. The second point is a canonical example of redundancy and doesn't belong in an article. Discussion of lawsuits is a little bit more problematic. There were several sources. Three of which were behind a pay wall which is not prohibited but limits my ability to comment on them in detail. In general, we need to remember that a lawsuit, at its core is an allegation. There are times that a lawsuit, when settled, may be relevant to an article. This isn't necessarily sufficient, as the subject matter should be material, should relate to the subject in other than a trivial way and should be discussed at some level of detail, beyond mere mention, in reliable sources. A lawsuit that is not yet been settled requires a more significant hurdle. It may be relevant if substantially discussed in reliable sources. In my opinion, it looked to me like someone simply did a search identify the name in connection with some lawsuits, in some cases just barely connected, and through in a sentence with some references. I'm not suggesting that any mention is prohibited but I think it deserves more thoughtful editorial discussion than simply scraping a few references in slapping them into a sentence.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)