Talk:Natalie Kertes Weaver

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Natalie Kertes Weaver. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303200401/http://www.forumonpublicpolicy.com/archive07/weaver.pdf to http://www.forumonpublicpolicy.com/archive07/weaver.pdf

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) 00:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

(1) This article was self created by the subject who is also the author
(2) This article does not cite any sources.

(3) This article does not Meet Wikipedia’s Guuidelines as a known public person.

(4) This article does not have a single external link.

(5) This article is an orphan

(6) This article has no RfA

(7) This articles one topic is pseudoscientific

(8) This article has no administrator and therefore has “messy cleanup work.”

(9) This article should be deleted as it is self authored and therefore unsuitable.

(2) This article contains one paragraph irrelevant to any other article.

(3) Of the 1,181 administrators, admins, sysops, and janitors not a single one oversees nor created this one paragraph page as it was self created by the subject who is also the author.

(4) Of the 1,181 Wikipedia Administrators, admins, sysops, and janitors not a single one created or oversees this page as it was written and created by the subject who is also the author.

(5) This article is not about a known public figure nor relates to any known public figure.

Dr. Kris Kooper (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Natalie Kertes Weaver
((1) This article is likely to be remembered as either a new low in self aggrandizing Quackery or, perhaps, the unlikely start of an era in which naive people write about themselves.

(2) Of the 1,181 administrators also known as admins, sysops, and janitors there is not a single one who oversees or as it was self written by the”subject and author,” it should be deleted.

(3) The topic of this article does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. There are no citations or reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it, the article should therefore be deleted.

(4) This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. It should therefore be deleted.

(5) The only contributor to this article or perhaps major contributor appears to have a close c(1) This article is likely to be remembered as either a new low in self aggrandizing Quackery or, perhaps, the unlikely start of an era in which naive people write about themselves.

(2) Of the 1,181 administrators also known as admins, sysops, and janitors there is not a single one who oversees or as it was self written by the”subject and author,” it should be deleted.

(3) The topic of this article does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. There are no citations or reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it, the article should therefore be deleted.

(4) This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. It should therefore be deleted.

(5) The only contributor to this article or perhaps major contributor appears to have a close connection or is the subject themselves. Therefore It may either require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly Wikipedia’s neutral point of view or be deleted.

(6) The topic of this article does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. The article requires notability’s guidelines and reliability’s of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be established, the article should be deleted. (7) This articles sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations A major contributor to this one paragraph appears to be the author themselves or at minimum have a close connection with its subject.

(8) This one paragraph article is an orphan as no other article link to it. It should therefore be deleted.

(9) This article does not cite any sources.

(10) This article does not Meet Wikipedia’s Guidelines as a known public person.

(11) This article does not have a single external link.

(12) This article is an orphan

(13) This article has no RfA

(14) This articles one topic is pseudoscientific

(15) This article has no administrator and therefore has “messy cleanup work.”

(16) This article should be deleted as it is self authored and therefore unsuitable.

(17) This article contains one paragraph irrelevant to any other article.””

(18) This article is not about a known public figure nor relates to any known public figure and should therefore be deleted.

(1) This article is likely to be remembered as either a new low in self aggrandizing Quackery or, perhaps, the unlikely start of an era in which naive people write about themselves.

(2) Of the 1,181 administrators also known as admins, sysops, and janitors there is not a stingless one wgullible oversees or hascwertittennit as it was self written by the”subject and author.”

(3) The topic of this article does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. There are no citations or reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it, the article should therefore be deleted.

(4) This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. It should therefore be deleted.

(5) The only contributor to this article or perhaps major contributor appears to have a close connection or is the subject themselves. Therefore It may either require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly Wikipedia’s neutral point of view or be deleted.

(6) The topic of this article does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. The article requires notability’s guidelines and reliability’s of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be established, the article should be deleted. (7) This articles sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations A major contributor to this one paragraph appears to be the author themselves or at minimum have a close connection with its subject.

(8) This one paragraph article is an orphan as no other article link to it. It should therefore be deleted.

Dr. Kris Kooper (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

(1) This article is likely to be remembered as either a new low in self aggrandizing Quackery or, perhaps, the unlikely start of an era in which naive people write about themselves.

(2) Of the 1,181 administrators also known as admins, sysops, and janitors there is not a single one who oversees or as it was self written by the”subject and author,” it should be deleted.

(3) The topic of this article does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. There are no citations or reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it, the article should therefore be deleted.

(4) This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. It should therefore be deleted.

(5) The only contributor to this article or perhaps major contributor appears to have a close connection or is the subject themselves. Therefore It may either require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly Wikipedia’s neutral point of view or be deleted.

(6) The topic of this article does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. The article requires notability’s guidelines and reliability’s of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be established, the article should be deleted. (7) This articles sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations A major contributor to this one paragraph appears to be the author themselves or at minimum have a close connection with its subject.

(8) This one paragraph article is an orphan as no other article link to it. It should therefore be deleted.

(9) This article does not cite any sources.

(10) This article does not Meet Wikipedia’s Guidelines as a known public person.

(11) This article does not have a single external link.

(12) This article is an orphan

(13) This article has no RfA

(14) This articles one topic is pseudoscientific

(15) This article has no administrator and therefore has “messy cleanup work.”

(16) This article should be deleted as it is self authored and therefore unsuitable.

(17) This article contains one paragraph irrelevant to any other article.””

(18) This article is not about a known public figure nor relates to any known public figure and should therefore be deleted. Dr. Kris Kooper (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)