Talk:Michael Leidig
| 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: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Contemplating nomination for AFD
editThis article is filled with self-promotion, and self published links. I don't believe it complies with WP:BLP and it seems that there are others who have brought upWP:PROVEIT and WP:NOR
I'd appreciate some thoughts from other editors who are not affiliated with the subject of the article.
The Columbian Journalism Librarian (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
This needs gutting
editI wouldn't go as far as an AFD on this, but the lack of sources, coupled with the appearance of original research sure does make this article smell bad. I'm going to hunt about for some citations for some of the major points. Otherwise, and unless anyone else steps up to improve things, I'm going to gut this on grounds of WP:PROVEIT and WP:NOR --gilgongo (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
According to the article below, this page mostly seems to have been written by Michael Leidig himself (as "bylinebandit"). He mostly just seems to fabricate news. It should be gutted. http://beijingcream.com/2015/04/sorry-xinhua-youve-been-out-bull-bullshitted-by-cen/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.127.226 (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- OK removed most of the stuff I wasn't able to cite properly or at all. This article is still borderline AFD though, particularly if there's a sock puppet in evidence. --gilgongo (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
NPOV
editThis entire article reeks of self-promotion. Every point levelled against Mr Leidig is, in my view, countered with examples that only detract his accusers... without addressing the substance of the accusation. It is also doubtful that this article even adheres to WP:BLP guidelines. --Booksworm Talk? 11:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Removing NPOV template from article now as I think the issues have been discussed and addressed. Article history also now shows reasonable editor diversity --gilgongo (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)