Talk:Letter of recommendation/Archives/2012

Proposed deletion
Spammy. Article is a slightly re-written version of the text found on http://www.writinghelp-central.com/article-recommendation-letters-defined.html, which is also the website mentioned several other times in the article.

If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced.

Reply
My name is Shaun Fawcett.

I am the person who posted the article titled "Recommendation letter". It is my original content. I am the worldwide copyright holder of that material. In fact, I am Webmaster of the free content Web site http://writinghelp-central.com. That site contains over 175 pages of free writing help content. Some of that content includes information about the definition of "Recommendation Letters" and how to write them. It also includes some sample recommendation letters -- all for free. I am also Webmaster of several other writing help-related Websites. It just so happens that I am the foremost expert in the world on the subject of writing ALL types of "recommendation letters". That's right. So, when I discovered that Wikipedia had nothing listed on this subject, it occurred to me that it makes great sense for me (the world expert) to post a definition of "Recommendatio letter" and provide some related resource links on the Wikipedia site. I am also the author of the World's top book resource on Recommendation Letters: "Instant Recommendatioan Letter Kit - How To Write Winning Letters of Recommendation" (ISBN: 09736265-4-2). That book has been a popular seller worldwide since 2002. I published a Revised Edition in 2005. Yes, I indeed derived the article you objected to from a previous version that I had already written on the same subject. In fact, I spent many hours earlier today carefully revising my original article so that it would meet Wikipedia guidelines in terms of neutrality and quality. Actually, I believe it to be a well-written article, better than much of what I have viewed at Wikipedia. So, what is the problem with me the "expert", providing Wikipedia with a valid and accurate definition of what "recommendation letters" are all about? Are you suggesting that I close my free writing help content Website and take my best-selling book off the market because they contain similar content? I discovered a major knowledge gap in this one area at Wikipedia; as a foremost expert on the subject I carefully revised and improved material thatI had previously written; I then posted that improved material to add to the Wikipedia knowledge base. What's the problem with this? Perhaps there is some misunderstanding here. Maybe someone (a robot?), was thinking that someone stole copy from a Website and posted it at Wikipedia. NOT the case here. I am the original author of this content and I am improving the Wikipedia knowledge base in my area of expertise.

Please advise me if this is not clear of if you have further questions. Thanks very much, Shaun Fawcett, M.B.A. http://www.writinghelp-central.com/about.html

findraft@sympatico.ca 1-800-600-6550

Response
Thank you for your extended response, Mr. Fawcett. I am the person (not bot) who placed the above tag on the article. Let me explain my rationale.


 * 1) The similarity of the text to that of your existing articles is a concern.  Even though it's been modified, and you are also the copyright holder, it does give off an "advertising" sort of vibe that conflicts with the purpose of Wikipedia.
 * 2) The external links given are only those to your sites, and the book is yours as well.  Even if you are "the foremost expert in the world" on the subject of reference and recommendation letters, it borders on self-promotion to limit the outside sources to your own works.

I agree that articles about recommendation letters and reference letters do belong in Wikipedia, but I also think that they should be approached in a more neutral way. I will withdraw the proposals for deletion if the article can be changed to reflect this ideal. ... disco spinster   talk  16:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello!
 * I think, as long as the original author releases the same content under the Wiki license - as is done per editing the article - the similarity in content should not be a problem, but I might be wrong.
 * I do strongly agree that linking to the mentioned external page is self-promotion. The linked paged even leads to a page where you can buy a book by above author. Furthermore I do not consider the content of the linked page relevant enough to merit promotion through wikipedia. I therefore removed it and strongly oppose re-adding it.
 * --Methossant (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)