User talk:Rlmoorhead69

Welcome!

Hello, Rlmoorhead69, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Richard Moorhead, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! WWGB (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Richard Moorhead

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Richard Moorhead requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Aliske1 (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Richard Moorhead

The article Richard Moorhead has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. WWGB (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

advice

It's not going to be deleted, but it MUST be expanded. I work frequently with academic articles and have helped it remain in WP, but WP is not a mere directory. Gve at least a brief biography, including all higher education, and all academic and professional positions. Include a list or the most notable work. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding proposed deletion and notability

Hello,

It seems the page Richard Moorhead was flagged for deletion quite a few years ago, but in accordance with the advice note above, would not be deleted if amended. However, I believe this page contravenes the Wikipedia notability guidelines and conflict of interest guidelines, given that the page seems to have been created and most recently edited by the page's subject. Please could Richard Moorhead page be re-visited for proposed deletion, and please could it be explained why it wasn't deleted once deletion was originally proposed. (Note: this message is by no means intended to detract from the subject's contributions and achievements, it merely suggests that the page contradicts Wikipedia's guidelines and should therefore be deleted]. Thank you. Harriett Potter (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the individual has published a second book, which I added. It is not obvious to me whether or not he would be considered to meet the requirements of WP:PROF, or whether sources could be found that would meet the WP:GNG It would need to be considered at an AfD. If there is an AfD, I might participate in it, but I cannot say in advance what would be my !vote. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - respectfully, I believe this article should still be deleted due to notability issues and the fact that it was created by the subject. Again, I do not mean to undermine the subject's achievements, it's just that they do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. Please could you give me your thoughts, DGG? I welcome opinions from others as well. Thank you. Harriett Potter (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see two academic books from very highly regarded publishers. that's usually enough to meet WP:PROF, considering he is in addition a full professor at a very high quality university. It would help of course to have book reviews, because if they are from from 3rd party reliable sources, then he would also meet WP:AUTHOR. If you're thinking about afd on the basis of notability, you ought to WP:FIRST check for them I haven't checked for highly cited articles yet, but theat's another possibility As for autobiographies, there's no policy for deleting on that ground alone, provided they're NPOV and not promotional and notable. Perhaps there ought to be, but in practice it rarely arises, because 95% of attempted autobiographies here are so questionable in terms of promotionalism or notability that they get deleted on those grounds--I've deleted hundreds of them. We do of course tag them so readers are aware, and I always advise people not to even try to write them. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG thanks for your input. I'm a bit confused as to what you mean - based on your last point it sounds like it should be deleted then on autobiographical grounds re notability/promotional issues? Thanks! Harriett Potter (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: having consulted the notability guidelines, please see the below - surely this means this article should be deleted on notability grounds? Thanks! Harriett Potter (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotion and publicity Shortcut WP:SPIP Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

Independent sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written; see Wikipedia:Autobiography for discussion of neutrality concerns of self-published sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they are not a measure of the attention a subject has received.

There are two separate but related factors:

(!) Whether a subject is sufficiently notable according to the general or special notability guidelines that it is appropriate to have an article about them in an encyclopedia , This is based on the policies NOT INDISCRIMINATE and NOT DIRECTORY

(2) Whether an article is not a true encyclopedia article , but advertisig or promotionalism, to the extent that it does not belong in an encyclopedia no matter how notable the subject may be. This is based on the policies NOT ADVERTISING and NPOV.

The true relationship is that if a subject is really non-notable, it will be impossible to write otherthan a promotional article, because ther will be insufficient high quality references . But even if there are not sufficient substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, the subject might be notable enough for a WP article because of the variety of our rules on presumed notability , such as being an elected state or national legislature, with the presumption that references will be found, or will at least be findable. There are also a few special rules that are independent of the GNG, such as WP:PROF, which has its own set of criteria, or the rules about officially reconized populated places or Olympic athletes. The GNG is only the general notability guideline, not the universal guideline.

The usual interpretation of this also implies that borderline notability combined with a high degree of promotionalism is a particularly good reason to delete an article. It also means that WP:V is essential is all cases, for it must be possible to write an article with reasonably reliable sources. The practical detailed relationships vary from field to field, and from time to time, and can be mostly overridden if the community agrees at an afd. The operational meaning of " notable" is that the community agrees the subject should have a WP article. It may decide wrongly, by a group of editors who are fans of the subject or protective of the subject area, or in the opposite direction by editors who for whatever reason are unreasonably skeptical of the significance of the subject or the quality of the sources, or just by the accident of who is present at an AfD. It may decide rightly to ignore the rules for historic subjects or those of a nature that good sources are particularly difficult to find, or if there is sufficient public interest that an article is justified because any ordinary reader would expect to find one in an encyclopedia . And regardless of logic, or facts, or basic common sense, if a sufficient number of the community has persisted in agreeing on something, there is no way in WP for their decision to be over-ridden--this is inherent in our basic way of operating. Logic, facts, and common sense will not always prevail here. It cannot really be otherwise, because it would need an authoritative group of people with power to make and enforce decisions on content, and there is no such group--and the ethos behind WP has been to make sure there would never be one. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]