User talk:Scope creep
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7
Thankyou for improving the project
I want to thank you for your recent AfD of Herbert Wigwe. I know it is a difficult undertaking to do an AfD and I commend you for it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @Johnpacklambert: Thanks. It seems to be harder now than it has been, even 5 years ago. So many UPE/Socks/Coi's coming in to defend and/or muddy the water, so it leads to no-consensus. It is hard going. scope_creepTalk 20:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
AfC notification: Draft:Changhong Zhu has a new comment
AfC notification: Draft:Reba Monness has a new comment
Your submission at Articles for creation: Parminder Vir has been accepted
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
MurielMary (talk) 05:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation: Marie Verhulst (August 2)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Marie Verhulst and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Marie Verhulst, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello, Scope creep!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Joseph2302 (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
|
AfDs and GNG: Business People
Hi, do you know if there are any specific guidelines for notability for individuals in the business/finance community like there are for authors, actors, politicians, military personnel, etc.? I've looked, but have not found official guidance on the matter. You've nominated multiple of my articles for AfD - articles which I built based on my understanding of WP:GNG and a review of similar articles. I'd like to get more perspective on this matter, as it seems like the barrier for notability and significant coverage are much lower for the more defined bio categories.
Also, if you're looking for AfD fodder, and you think my articles don't meet WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV, then I recommend reading through Category:American stock traders, Category:American hedge fund managers, Category:American financiers, and Category:American money managers. If even half of those articles meet your criteria then I'll eat my hat :) --TardyMarmot (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @TardyMarmot: Please don't get disheartened. I'm not looking for Afd fodder. I think that is a misrepresentation of what I try to do, really to improve the quality of Wikipedia. When I look at an article, I check the references, to see if they are valid, and if they are not and if can't find coverage, then I'll try and delete it. I don't take a left-wing academic viewpoint that business and businessman are somehow bad. Business and businessman generate profit that keeps the government going, in my instance anyway, the UK government. So I don't have anything particular against your three articles. Looking at those two articles, they have no WP:SECONDARY sources, that can satisfy WP:BIO, that is the gold standard, sources in newspapers, journals and so. That means folk talk about the subject who doesn't know the subject. For BLP articles, there must be coverage per WP:SIGCOV, i.e. independent, reliable and of of sufficiently deep level, i.e. not paid, or PR. Do you want to go through sources on one of the articles I Afd'd. E.g. Being listed at Bloomberg, is a paid service. scope_creepTalk 18:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response! I appreciate the feedback. Looking over my earlier articles with my current understanding of Wikipedia's definition of notability I can see why you'd nominate them. The sources I used for Sanjiv Das weren't particularly solid, and those that were from independent journals weren't focused on the subject. Jonathan Korngold is a stretch, too - I thought his notability stemmed from awards and such, but without independent sources to back that up I suppose he only qualifies as notable within the industry. However, I'd still argue that my most recent article for Remy W. Trafelet meets criteria. There are in-depth, independent, and reliable articles focused solely on the subject and the ups and downs of his career. Honestly, I only included his Bloomberg profile because I see it used in a lot of other finance professionals' articles - it's not even accurate, and I had to source other material for up-to-date info. Do you have any advice on how to improve that article instead of deleting it? I went for complete coverage, but maybe that introduced too many minor sources? I'm open to suggestions. --TardyMarmot (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- The Remy W. Trafelet has a couple of good references, but it is a BLP article, not a company article, so endless lists of company references, aren't useful. The article is at Afd, and it needs to go through that process. This article Sanjiv Das is junk. Not a single reference in the first 10 are worth the time to put them in there. None of them are BLP references, none of them WP:SECONDARY, i.e. references from good sources e.g. journals, newspapers, Google Books. There is nothing on the article to indicate why he is notable; he looks as though he is just doing his job. Being a CEO doesn't make you automatically notable. It also looks like a paid article. Are you being paid for this? scope_creepTalk 20:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- No, I'm not being paid for this. Thanks for the notes on BLP articles - can you clarify a bit about not including company references? When I'm doing my own research on someone I appreciate finding a Wiki that discusses their business dealings. I guess I don't fully grasp how BLP articles differ from company articles, at least when the person in question is closely related to the companies they've worked for or founded. Or at least I don't understand where to draw the line between useful information and not. If you were writing the Trafelet article, would you only include the WP:RS sources and info, even if there was more (verified) information about the subject from direct and/or less notable sources? --TardyMarmot (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- That coolio. Thanks. Well its a kind of balance. For many businessmen and businesswomen, their whole life is their business, they exist for that, but there must be clear differentiation between what is the business references and what is BLP references in the relation to the business. What they have done in that business that makes them notable. Having a whole ream of what the business did will lead to deletion. Looking at Sanjiv Das as an example. Ref 1 is a paid reference. You pay 24k and part of that gets you a profile. Ref 2 is an announcement. How is an announcement, proving that person is notable? In that aspect, it is context that counts. If it was announced he was winning the Copley Medal, it would be reported every newspaper on the world. So context really counts. An announcement doesn't cut it. Ref 3. A page of text? Ref 4. A business acquiring another business. How is that notable. It is completely generic. Ref 5. Another announcement. Ref6. All about the business, not the person. It looks like a press release. It states, his office is uncluttered, setting the environment for the reader. It doesn't report, it states. It states what his working days is like. It is WP:PUFF piece. Ref 7.
"Military families face many unique obstacles when it comes to purchasing and maintaining a home," Sanjiv Das, CEO of CitiMortgage, said in a press release.
They have the good grace to state it is a press release, and per WP:NOT, is against policy. The dude sends out a bunch of press-releases. If some really notable person is notable, they will be reported on in news/newspaper in seven continents, sometime 3 or possibly 1. They will be recorded in journals as secondary sources, books as secondary sources, archives as secondary source, and books of the period, and web sites that have editorial control, meaning the posted information has been fact checked. I plan to find somebody to check the Trafelet article, specifically those paywalled sources. A lot of these types of sources are often passing mentions in the context of the company, or a press release. scope_creepTalk 23:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)- Regarding sources behind paywalls - I don't know of any way to make pdfs accessible to other editors, but I could do so if one existed. I assume that could lead to some copyright issues for Wikipedia, though... are you aware of a way around that other than knowing someone with paid accounts or having one yourself? --TardyMarmot (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Per WP:V, sources must be verifiable. It is my understanding, it is assumed that WP:AGF applies, that the sources behind paywalls are valid, if the article has already been filled with sources that are valid, i.e. secondary sources that are intellectually independent and reliable, meaning the editor who created the article is assuming AGF, i.e. they are making a serious attempt to find valid, reliable reference that are secondary. Regarding the pdf's, I think it would depend on the licence that the company used. Often it is very strict interpretation, it can be used by that one person, other times anybody can view the document. Jstor is very open, whereas Taylor and Francis is restrictive. scope_creepTalk 18:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding sources behind paywalls - I don't know of any way to make pdfs accessible to other editors, but I could do so if one existed. I assume that could lead to some copyright issues for Wikipedia, though... are you aware of a way around that other than knowing someone with paid accounts or having one yourself? --TardyMarmot (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- That coolio. Thanks. Well its a kind of balance. For many businessmen and businesswomen, their whole life is their business, they exist for that, but there must be clear differentiation between what is the business references and what is BLP references in the relation to the business. What they have done in that business that makes them notable. Having a whole ream of what the business did will lead to deletion. Looking at Sanjiv Das as an example. Ref 1 is a paid reference. You pay 24k and part of that gets you a profile. Ref 2 is an announcement. How is an announcement, proving that person is notable? In that aspect, it is context that counts. If it was announced he was winning the Copley Medal, it would be reported every newspaper on the world. So context really counts. An announcement doesn't cut it. Ref 3. A page of text? Ref 4. A business acquiring another business. How is that notable. It is completely generic. Ref 5. Another announcement. Ref6. All about the business, not the person. It looks like a press release. It states, his office is uncluttered, setting the environment for the reader. It doesn't report, it states. It states what his working days is like. It is WP:PUFF piece. Ref 7.
- No, I'm not being paid for this. Thanks for the notes on BLP articles - can you clarify a bit about not including company references? When I'm doing my own research on someone I appreciate finding a Wiki that discusses their business dealings. I guess I don't fully grasp how BLP articles differ from company articles, at least when the person in question is closely related to the companies they've worked for or founded. Or at least I don't understand where to draw the line between useful information and not. If you were writing the Trafelet article, would you only include the WP:RS sources and info, even if there was more (verified) information about the subject from direct and/or less notable sources? --TardyMarmot (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- The Remy W. Trafelet has a couple of good references, but it is a BLP article, not a company article, so endless lists of company references, aren't useful. The article is at Afd, and it needs to go through that process. This article Sanjiv Das is junk. Not a single reference in the first 10 are worth the time to put them in there. None of them are BLP references, none of them WP:SECONDARY, i.e. references from good sources e.g. journals, newspapers, Google Books. There is nothing on the article to indicate why he is notable; he looks as though he is just doing his job. Being a CEO doesn't make you automatically notable. It also looks like a paid article. Are you being paid for this? scope_creepTalk 20:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response! I appreciate the feedback. Looking over my earlier articles with my current understanding of Wikipedia's definition of notability I can see why you'd nominate them. The sources I used for Sanjiv Das weren't particularly solid, and those that were from independent journals weren't focused on the subject. Jonathan Korngold is a stretch, too - I thought his notability stemmed from awards and such, but without independent sources to back that up I suppose he only qualifies as notable within the industry. However, I'd still argue that my most recent article for Remy W. Trafelet meets criteria. There are in-depth, independent, and reliable articles focused solely on the subject and the ups and downs of his career. Honestly, I only included his Bloomberg profile because I see it used in a lot of other finance professionals' articles - it's not even accurate, and I had to source other material for up-to-date info. Do you have any advice on how to improve that article instead of deleting it? I went for complete coverage, but maybe that introduced too many minor sources? I'm open to suggestions. --TardyMarmot (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @TardyMarmot: Please don't get disheartened. I'm not looking for Afd fodder. I think that is a misrepresentation of what I try to do, really to improve the quality of Wikipedia. When I look at an article, I check the references, to see if they are valid, and if they are not and if can't find coverage, then I'll try and delete it. I don't take a left-wing academic viewpoint that business and businessman are somehow bad. Business and businessman generate profit that keeps the government going, in my instance anyway, the UK government. So I don't have anything particular against your three articles. Looking at those two articles, they have no WP:SECONDARY sources, that can satisfy WP:BIO, that is the gold standard, sources in newspapers, journals and so. That means folk talk about the subject who doesn't know the subject. For BLP articles, there must be coverage per WP:SIGCOV, i.e. independent, reliable and of of sufficiently deep level, i.e. not paid, or PR. Do you want to go through sources on one of the articles I Afd'd. E.g. Being listed at Bloomberg, is a paid service. scope_creepTalk 18:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Encyclopædia Universalis has been accepted
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
scope_creepTalk 10:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Deleting information on Universo Online
Hello Scope creep, may I ask why you deleted this section on Universo Online? It seems fine to me (aka I don't see the spam problem). Thanks in advance and greetings from Germany, --LH7605 (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @LH7605: How are you? It is a spam. Take a look up at the coin noticeboard, specifically Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Refspam across many articles. The statement was flagged due to mdpi.com and bestref.net as spam sites, and link into a fake article, called Modeling Popularity and Reliability of Sources in Multilingual Wikipedia A paragraph containing these links was put into at 170 articles and from the latest from spam noticeboard, possibly more. They have all been removed. scope_creepTalk 17:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Scope, thank you for the explanation. (I only saw the alexa-part first but you are totally right about mdpi.com and bestref.net). Keep up the good work, deleting links to fake articles seems quite important to me for the whole wikipedia-project. Greetings, LH7605 (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @LH7605: How are you? It is a spam. Take a look up at the coin noticeboard, specifically Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Refspam across many articles. The statement was flagged due to mdpi.com and bestref.net as spam sites, and link into a fake article, called Modeling Popularity and Reliability of Sources in Multilingual Wikipedia A paragraph containing these links was put into at 170 articles and from the latest from spam noticeboard, possibly more. They have all been removed. scope_creepTalk 17:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Derek_M_Yellon
See request for third opinion. Your assertion this person is eminently notable does not make it so. I have been science, medicine, and wikipedia for a long time and have never heard of him. Feel free to comment, dont make unfounded allegations of harrassment, and refrain from suggesting user:block.Dudewheresmywallet (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)