Talk:Sharon Gans
 | This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
| 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: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Delete
editDelete this article. It's not necessary.
The links in the article do not meet living peoples Biography standard and perhaps a delete is in order —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.42.221 (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- This article meets the notability criteria so it should stay. + It will soon be improved and expanded to fix the pages problems. Aeuio 02:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Current cult activity
editThe most recent edit to this article before mine included information about the current activity of Sharon Gans / "The Work" which was removed whole-cloth for reasons I'm not 100% sure on. I'm not thrilled with using Rick Ross as the sole source for someone accused of running a cult but considering that Gans is evidently alive and at one point faced serious legal attention for running something that seems to have been either a cult or a long con. If she is currently running one WP either needs a non-Ross source it can live with or to bite the bullet and cite Ross on her current activity.
I sincerely hope this is a matter of poorly-sourced edits alone and not someone with an axe to grind, because WP really shouldn't be acting as water-carrier for con artists. You know, one of those pubic interest things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.185.69 (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Reverted and stubbified the bulk of which appear to be anonymous and unproven allegations that were never proven. It does look like someone is using Wikipedia to settle old scores. That's just not acceptable and if the material is added again, I will have the article locked down. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)