User talk:Hcjkeik

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Hcjkeik, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why the article about you was deleted[edit]

The article was deleted because the account who created it, User:Manc1234, was a sockpuppet for a hired shill that we've banned from the community because we don't take too kindly to undisclosed paid editing because we don't tolerate promotionalism.

I'm glancing over the deleted article, and it did not meet the standards set by the general notability guideline. The only unaffiliated source was this, which is not really a Forbes article but a user-submitted blog post on the Forbes website (hence the warning "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own"). All articles need to cite multiple professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about the article topic but independent of and unaffiliated with the topic. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability criteria for an Academic scientist[edit]

Dear Ian,

Thank your for your comments on why my article was deleted. I would imagine that your job as an administrator has its downside when having to deal with egocentric individuals.

How close am I to fulfilling the criteria for notability of an academic scientist? I would like to understand in more detail any ways in which I can strengthen the article. I also fear that your feelings regarding paid Wikipedia writers stigmatized the article at the outset as it did with Katie.

I know that you are very busy but if you do have a chance, I would deeply appreciate any guidance that you can offer me on strengthening my article to achieve notability.

Thanks very much,

Hcjkeik (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)hcjkeik[reply]

Regarding your notability: I haven't checked for sources so I'm afraid I couldn't say. I'm not opposed to someone writing an article about you or anyone else, so long as a our notability standards are met (and I'm pretty sure Katie feels the same). What was present in the deleted article, paid editing or not, did not establish notability because none of the reliable sources were independent of and unaffiliated with you. The only independent source was not reliable because it was a blog (which anyone can upload). Per our general notability guideline, there need to be some unaffiliated/independent professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources.

I recommend that you read WP:Autobiography, WP:My first article, and WP:42 for more information.

For what it's worth, since you are one of the few article subjects who didn't rail into me, I'll add the article title to my watchlist so that (if it's recreated with independent reliable sources) I can protect it from vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see that Katie has resurrected the article as a draft. It's not in article space and it won't turn up in Google, but it provides some time for people to bring in independent reliable sources before it goes live (or for you to make a personal copy of if it needs to be deleted again). Ian.thomson (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information[edit]

Dear Ian,

Thank you very much for your helpful and clarifying comments regarding notability requirements and for kindly keeping the article on your watch list.

Best Regards,

Hcjkeik (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)hcjkeik[reply]