User talk:Possessive

It would help greatly if it were written with a more objective POV. It also would help if there were some references that were other than just his website and columns that had information about Doc Love. As it is the article suffers from verifiability because of its limitation to just those sources. If there are no other sources that mention Doc Love, then he isn't notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns remain at present because the only cited content is primary content, i.e. that created by Doc Love himself. In contrast, consider the AskMen.com article which includes three separate references from secondary sources that were not under its control as to its content and that enable one to judge the importance of the subject. At best, the columns indicate that his employer thinks his writings are worthwhile, but there is nothing in the Doc Love article to indicate how valuable that opinion might be. I hadn't even heard of the site until I read this article. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Doc Love has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability is not established. Article is more advertisement for services. No biographical information or citation of reputable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Doc Love has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Page reads as advertising and promotional and has no independent sourcing.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Wkharrisjr (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]