Talk:Mark Bauerlein

Mark Bauerlein entry
I couldn't identify any plausible reason making it worth to dedicate an entry to Bauerlein. Rmsoran (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mark Bauerlein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090223230753/http://phibetacons.nationalreview.com:80/author/?q=Mzg2NQ== to http://phibetacons.nationalreview.com/author/?q=Mzg2NQ==

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mark Bauerlein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://phibetacons.nationalreview.com/author/?q=Mzg2NQ%3D%3D
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080420182424/http://www.nea.gov/pub/ReadingAtRisk.pdf to http://www.nea.gov/pub/ReadingAtRisk.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091208033726/http://www.english.emory.edu/people/faculty/bauerlein.htm to http://www.english.emory.edu/people/faculty/bauerlein.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Tweet
I think the IP has a point. The accusations of vandalism are not assuming good faith, but the single opinion piece doesn't seem to establish that the inclusion is WP:DUE for a BLP, and I couldn't find any sources to bolster it's inclusion. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * With respect, I disagree. The determination on whether something is due or undue weight is based on the proportion of views of a subject. Mark Bauerlein is not a particularly notable person. I am not saying he is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, but he is not commonly in the news. There aren't many sources to bolster its inclusion because he's just not famous enough to attract attention. I would not oppose that entry be rewritten in a more reasonable manner. RetroCosmos (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A lack of sources in general is not reason to lower the bar of what is acceptable as a RS for controversial content to be included. This is a single Primary source (WP:BLPPRIMARY) clearly labeled as "Opinion" that includes quotes such as "He is a scumbag". This article can't be used to establish the notability of itself. The call for his removal received no further media reaction, and therefore fails to justify an entire section or even really a mention of the incident. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong argument. I agree. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed 107.10.129.126 (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)