Talk:Robert Siciliano

General issues
I've tagged the article as having a lot of issues, foremost being that I'm not convinced that the subject is actually notable enough to meet Wikipedia's standards. Unfortunately I do not have enough time to address these at the moment, so in the meantime another editor who is familiar with the subject may like to have a look at improving it. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please forgive me. How would it be possible to remove this entry from the possible deletion list? I'm the primary author of this entry, which remains in rudimentary form because I'm new to Wikipedia and still scaling the learning curve on formatting and content. I figured if the page included the "under construction" tag that I'd have a number of days to refine it. Is this indeed the case? Robert Siciliano has in fact been the author of two books. In addition, he's been cited in two others, referenced in another two, and been the contributor to yet another four. I had not yet posted these, as references, for the entry; I am posting them now, as a list later to be properly converted to citation format. Bws1971 (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not currently nominated for deletion. I have flagged the article as needing work and the standard tags contain a warning that deletion might follow if the work is not undertaken.
 * Only administrators can delete pages, and I am not an administrator, so cannot speak for them - but very much doubt that any of them would perform a speedy deletion on the article as it stands. Speedy deletions should only take place where the page is clearly inappropriate for Wikipedia and has no hope of attaining Wikipedia's standards. If I am honest, I think this page and the subject is borderline - but because of that I would not recommend the page for speedy deletion because I think it deserves time to see if it can improve.
 * The other ways that the page can be deleted is either via WP:PROD, which can be easily opposed by simply removing the tag, of via WP:AFD. Both these processes take five days, so you would have plenty of time to oppose and improve the article.
 * Construction tags should only really be used when the article is being worked on at that time, this stops other editors making changes or and causing edit conflicts. Different editors have different standards, but I personally prefer new pages to be developed on the starting editors using pages rather than drafted in the main article sections. This also helps guard against editors nominating for deletion.
 * Rather than me telling you what I think the article needs could I suggest you read through the following. It looks like a lot, but the articles are very short and you will quickly get a feel for the sort of things you need to include and the traps you need to avoid.
 * WP:N - these are the general notability guidelines. A subject must be seen as notable to justify an article.
 * WP:BIO - these are the notability guidelines for people.
 * WP:V - these are the guidelines on verifiability. You must be able to back up claims made on the pages with sources.
 * WP:COI - these are the guidelines on conflicts of interest. I noticed that this is the only article you have edited. This is often an indication that you have a connection with the subject. This should be avoided. If the subject is notable, someone unconnected will write the article.
 * WP:NOT - finally, an article on what Wikipedia is NOT. One thing that Wikipedia should not be is an advertising or hosting service. The article currently reads like a resume, and that needs addressing.
 * I do hope I don't seem discouraging, but high standards are what makes Wikipedia the respected resource it is. Please drop me a line on my talk page if I can help with anything else. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, BlinkingBlimey. I think I may have inadvertently caused a stir; before reading this chat note from you, I erased the existing content from the entry. It was my evidently inaccurate understanding that, as the initiating author of the entry, it was actually my responsibility to do this in order to create more suitable content to post later. But, in the other chat area for this entry, someone severely warned me that I had overstepped my bounds. I apologize for that. Bws1971 (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the issues we are talking about are more general I have responded on your talk page. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi everybody- I've given a shot at fixing the article, hopefully it's more of what you were looking for! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.183.111.207 (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

this article seems to meet notability guidelines now...
...or, at least, it's very close. I have removed the "notability in question" tag. The article has grown significantly since that tag was added over a week ago, and to me, the subject seems sufficiently notable. If someone disagrees, please let me know why. And if I wasn't supposed to remove that tag, please forgive me for that. The article's lack of wikification may very well be skewing people's view of its notability, in my opinion. This is just a thought. The formatting and layout need attention, obviously; help with that would be greatly welcomed. Bws1971 (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

regarding proposed deletion
This article was proposed for deletion -- on what I think were insufficient grounds. I've therefore removed the deletion tag. Robert Siciliano is not only a TV pundit, but also the author of "The Safety Minute: 01," a highly regarded personal safety book that was featured a few years back on a number of the nationally televised talk shows ("Montel Williams" and others). If anything, this wiki entry is guilty of being severely "under-wikified." On numerous occasions, I have made pleas to the wiki community for their help in its wikification, but to no avail; from what I gather, however, someone may in fact now be in the process not only of wikifying the entry, but also of recasting it in a way that addresses other issues. Until this occurs, I ask the community to reserve its judgment. Bws1971 (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

please advise
A thorough revision of this entry, which has drawn much criticism demanding such, was made on March 21st. Now someone has reverted that revision back to the previous version -- the one that, for good reason, has caused problems -- citing the update as "unconstructive." This seems unfathomable, and I really would like some feedback as to why, exactly, this happened; the subsequent reversion in fact seems like borderline abuse, but I may be overreacting.

Much shorter and to the point than the version reverted back to, the new version no longer displaying actually seemed like a vast improvement. A constant, primary complaint against this entry for Robert Siciliano, ever since the entry's initial posting in February, has been its resemblance to a resume; the version reverted back to, in fact, is the very version that has been drawing this complaint. The previous version now displaying is also bereft of proper formatting (i.e., "wikification"), another major complaint regarding the entry.

The update, which someone negated almost immediately, seemed like an earnest attempt to address the issues of an entry sorely in need of a fundamental overhaul, yet nevertheless worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia -- and therein resides the crux of this: It's unclear to me how someone might fundamentally improve this entry without significantly recasting and tightening the content. And yet, if this is the only way it can be improved, then what are we to make of someone taking down that very kind of earnest attempt? This is what has happened. It now seems impossible to properly address this article's issues while also satisfying the various wiki members' apparently differing opinions and understandings of what the entry should look like. Please advise. Bws1971 (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Problems
This article is the linkfarm to end all link farms. I removed most of the garbage and cleaned up some of the promotional language, only to have a single purpose account revert the edits without explanation. Please discuss the issues. Failing that, I will restore my edits shortly. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed them. I agree with this being the linkfarm to end all linkfarms. Sheesh!  Them  From  Space  04:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The article links provide value to the reader to better understand the subject. This is not a link farm it is a biography of a living person and cutting 2/3rds of the content is innapproriate. There must be a compromise. Maybe removing deadlinks? Nikidog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikidog (talk • contribs) 15:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 2/3rds of the content is not appropriate! This just isn't what wikipedia is for. See WP:NOTDIR, WP:IINFO, WP:LINKFARM and WP:EL  Them  From  Space  15:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I opened up a third-opinion request here to get some new eyes on the matter.  Them From  Space  15:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Careful
I'd lock this page, or at least watch it very closely, because he provoked a lot of Anonymous people with his comments the other day on Fox News. 129.7.255.67 (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Robert Siciliano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060902213629/http://www.lsu.edu/safety/pdfs/Safety_Programs.pdf to http://www.lsu.edu/safety/pdfs/Safety_Programs.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)