Talk:Morten Middelfart
| 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 has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
[Untitled] edit
This page appears to be obviously written and edited by its subject. Many of the sources are from the subjects own website, or are simple patent applications, which do not connote notability. Jumlaa (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, of course, this should be deleted asap, for blatant advertising of a clearly non-notable person/company. Marking for speedy deletion under G11. Let me add that it can be viewed as highly outrageous that this page has been allowed to exist for so long, which seems to in part be due to the numerous edits by Ajvsell, who has a direct conflict of interest (employed by the company/person), and has a history of reverting deleted pages (for the person's company). (Anonymous concerned Wiki-citizen) 21:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Edit: The speedy deletion tag was almost instantly removed without any explanation, presumably by the person himself, which is clearly against Wiki rules. If any editor sees this, I suggest they go ahead and (semi-)protect the page to prevent further illegal reverts. 80.62.116.32 (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Yet another very quick 4th reversion, with a phrasing indicative of a person too close to be allowed to edit. As for their argument: No, an anonymous vouching (in an Edit summary) does not constitute proof of notability. Nor does having patents (regardless of the number of such), nor does having any number of external mentions, unless they are sufficiently "significant, independent, reliable and secondary in nature": Here, I quote the Wikipedia requirements for notability Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies), which this article falls far short of.
Note also that this "Rushmore University" is not an accredited institution, so his claimed "PhD" is really no PhD at all.
This all smells extremely fishy. Reverting back, and somebody authorized needs to stop these edits by doing the requested full deletion. 80.62.116.32 (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hello IP editor. Speedy deletion is only for very obvious cases of promotion; generally if you wish to delete an established article (older than a few months) then you should use WP:Articles for deletion, which is easier if you create an account. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)