| Revision as of 20:34, 16 February 2019 editGilabrand (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users72,084 edits wp← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:02, 17 February 2019 edit undoDGG (talk | contribs)316,874 edits →NotabilityNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| ::: ] I removed the templates as week passed with no response. If you would like to discuss it more, I'm all ears! ] (]) 10:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC) | ::: ] I removed the templates as week passed with no response. If you would like to discuss it more, I'm all ears! ] (]) 10:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC) | ||
| : |
:There are still problems, so I applied an appropriate tag .6 of the 12 sentences are either promotional, name dropping, or over use of personal detail. Another editor removed an extensive quote that would have made it 7/13. 6 of the 21 references are 1st part or otherwise unacceptable. ''']''' (]) 07:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC) | ||
| ::::: I see no problem with what you removed. Added his being a ], which is recognized in notability on others in his field, such as ] and is part of the ] template. Do you see a problem with removing the {{]}} tag? ] (]) 10:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I trimmed a little more, and removed the news release template. GDE is a one year position, though renewable. There are presently 738 people in that position. He is not one of them. Besides him, Andrew is the ''only'' person in WP who has that designation in their article. That's pretty much of a negative precedent. It's part of the Google template because its an article about Google., so that is irrelevant. ''']''' (]) 20:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: ] Point taken on the GDE, seemed more serious at first glance. The request for deletion was added by an annonymous IP user that has only done this. Do you see a problem with removing it? I would assume it would require a more experienced user in order to make this request? ] (]) 03:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :: ] Once the afd has opened, I think it's better for it to run its course, even if it was started by an anon, unless it's clearly in bad faith. Comment there. ''']''' (]) 05:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:02, 17 February 2019
 | Biography Start‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Move back to article space
Britishfinance - I've made some changes. Do you feel comfortable moving the article back to the article space now? אגם רפאלי (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- אגם רפאלי. Geat job on providing references, will move it to the Mainspace now. Note that it would be great if you include the date in the reference citation (both date of the newspaper article, and the date you accessed it), as it adds to the quality and relevance of the reference. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Notability
DGG Would you care to elaborate on what you are missing in order to remove the wikipedia:notability tag? The article currently has multiple sources (Forbes and Business Insider articles) that offer significant coverage according to the general notability guideline. On top of that there is plenty of records showing that Fuld is well published. אגם רפאלי (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- I originally tagged it for both notability and promotionalism. It think that at present you are correct that it shows at least borderline notability, but it is straightforward promotionalism and advertising for him, using vague terms of praise , and I have tagged ti accordingly. The guide here is to write not what he would want to say about himself, but what a reader hearing his name might want to know about him. Either you can fix it or I can or someone else, but unfixable promotionalism is a reason for deletion. . DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- DGG When I first editted this I thought I had a good version. When I tagged you here I thought I removed all of the promotional material but completely missed the entire re-writing of the career paragraph. Apologies for that. I think the current version is much better at establishing notability as well as using encyclopedia-phrasing. Your comment on "write what reader hearing his name might want to know" was very helpful in discerning what was bad about the article. Thank you. What do you think about the article in its current form? אגם רפאלי (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- DGG I removed the templates as week passed with no response. If you would like to discuss it more, I'm all ears! אגם רפאלי (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- DGG When I first editted this I thought I had a good version. When I tagged you here I thought I removed all of the promotional material but completely missed the entire re-writing of the career paragraph. Apologies for that. I think the current version is much better at establishing notability as well as using encyclopedia-phrasing. Your comment on "write what reader hearing his name might want to know" was very helpful in discerning what was bad about the article. Thank you. What do you think about the article in its current form? אגם רפאלי (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- There are still problems, so I applied an appropriate tag .6 of the 12 sentences are either promotional, name dropping, or over use of personal detail. Another editor removed an extensive quote that would have made it 7/13. 6 of the 21 references are 1st part or otherwise unacceptable. DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)