Talk:Chip Skowron

Denial of article
An editor denied publication of this article. Saying this submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people).

That's not true. There are a number of articles in the references that show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) of the subject in reliable sources independent of the subject. --2604:2000:E010:1100:C975:B86:C1B6:2636 (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Many of these sources don't meet the criteria and especially so under WP:BLP1E. As an example, this is not acceptable to source content in a BLP of this nature because it's not written by Forbes' editorial staff, but a contributor. This is just a copy of this and there are several other issues with sources in addition to the copyright violating material. Praxidicae (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * First, WP:BLP1E is not an issue. There are multiple events - his arrest for insider trading, his conviction, and the faithless servant decision on the separate civil case two years later. All of which were covered separately in the RS press. Plus, WP:BLP1E states "The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Here, we have years of coverage. And a huge amount of coverage - just look.


 * As to sources, they are overwhelmingly appropriate RS sources as to which there can be no dispute. If you have a problem with one source, fine - take it out (actually I just did it, and see you already addressed the one article you found to be a mirror in a second publication, by changing the reference to what you believe to be the initial article). But the remaining sources from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Institutional Investor, Reuters, Business Insider, MarketWatch, Bloomberg, etc. are more than enough - and more than robust enough - to satisfy GNG. The existence of one article you feel is not appropriate is reason to delete it, not to delete the article. I've now added to the RS refs in any case.


 * And I don't see copyright violating material. This article is based on many sources - even most sentences have multiple sources, and does not seem to have any copyright issue, though I will take another look. 2604:2000:E010:1100:C975:B86:C1B6:2636 (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)