Talk:Doyle Doss
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 16 January 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
| This page was proposed for deletion by Ellin Beltz (talk · contribs) on 15 January 2013 with the comment: Non-notable due to no significant awards or honors, no nominations for same, no widely recognized contribution to his field, no text in the article, only sources include subject's own website and two brief mentions in the press. WP:SPIP |
| 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 is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
AFD
editPlease see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doyle Doss for AFD discussion. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Re-categorise as
edit
You have linked to a generic Megan's Law website. I also have questions about how WP:Notable this is. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have serious questions about notability, as well, but apparently the article was once nominated for deletion and no consensus was reached to delete it. The Megan's Law site has a search engine and, if you enter Doyle Doss' name, you get the information quoted in the article. --Yaush (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- If you choose to renominate for deletion as non-notable, I'll support that. We'll have to overcome the brief mentions in NYT, though, which create a strong presumption of notability in a lot of editor's minds. --Yaush (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I was writing about the alleged conviction. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- How can his conviction for pedophilia not be notable? --Yaush (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- I was writing about the alleged conviction. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- If you choose to renominate for deletion as non-notable, I'll support that. We'll have to overcome the brief mentions in NYT, though, which create a strong presumption of notability in a lot of editor's minds. --Yaush (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- This is a complex case. I'm aware that the guideline at WP:BLPPRIMARY says that "public documents" should not be used "to support assertions about a living person." At the Megan's Law website, the public documents are several layers down, accessible only via search. None of the records of the registered sexual offenders can be linked directly. Instead, the reader is asked to check a box saying that they will not use the information "to harass an offender or his or her family". After that, the reader is allowed to search the records. I think this legal formality, and the layers of protocol preventing easy access to the public record, eases the concern Wikipedia has about this being a primary source.
- The Megan's Law disclaimer also raises the concern about mistaken identity, based on a simple name search, but for a guy like Doyle Doss the likelihood is nil; one would expect mistaken identity to be a problem only for common names, but his name is quite unusual. How many Doyles Doss are there?
- Overall, Doss's biography is borderline notable. It was always promotional, involving pseudoscientific claims for an invention which is claimed to yield impossible benefits. Perhaps if the biography were nominated once again for deletion, the presence of the Megan's Law records would tip the balance against it, and we could finally delete the guy. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Over the years I've seen lots of facts deleted as WP:Fancruft or not WP:Notable in an encyclopedic sense. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Doyle Doss. 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/20121218151922/http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/03/latest-buzz-man-invents-wearable-hummingbird-feeder/ to http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/03/latest-buzz-man-invents-wearable-hummingbird-feeder/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)