Talk:Jonathan Hart

Contesting of PROD
I have chosen to contest the proposed deletion on this page, on the basis that the rationale provided does not give rise to a valid rationale under the deletion policy. If the proposer wishes to commence a community discussion, they may make a request at Articles for Deletion. -- sandgemADDICT yeah? 06:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because he is a known academic and poet. As evidence of the importance of his poetry: it has translated into 10 languages which is not common for an unknown poet (see http://www.proversepublishing.com/authors/hart_jonathan_locke ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.120.19.133 (talk) 07:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If you feel that way, then you shouldn't be attempting to selectively remove content from the article. There has been 4 attempts at removing an entire passage from the article in the past few months alone; the last one being from your IP. That was also the first edit from this IP, which suggest you're likely a WP:SOCKPUPPET.
 * My point is, assuming the subject is notable (and this is up for debate), you can't selectively remove content you happen to disagree with. On the other hand, if it isn't notable, then might as well delete the whole article. But you can't have both. -DA1 (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fellowship of the Royal Society of Canada is an assertion of importance; "lacks adequate reference" may be a reason to take it to Articles for deletion but not one of the criteria for speedy deletion. And if an editor's IP address changes or they edit from a different location that doesn't make them a WP:SOCKPUPPET. Peter James (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue has already been settled. My allusion was to the IP removing the same exact passage as was removed & reverted several times before. If your assertion is that the IP changed, which is natural, it doesn't change the reason why the article is pending-protected (i.e., multiple IPs coincidentially attemtping to delete the same passage after being reverted). In any case, its been settled. DA1 (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Bullshit
Recent editions were sourced and link sources were provided, why were they reverted. Why did AndyGray110 comment 'This sentenced IS referenced in source, other additions are unsource' when anyone can check the links and see that is plainly a lie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.178.178.164 (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)