Talk:Sorcim

This article appears to have been written based almost entirely on the personal recollections of Walter Feigenson. Besides the obvious conflict of interest here, many of the "sources" are not sources in the wikipedia sense - unpublished interviews with founders, etc.. I've tagged these for now, and will remove them n due course unless reliable sources can be found. HupHollandHup (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

--WFeigenson (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This article was written by a group of people who were founders and early employees of Sorcim. I assembled all the different versions, which we did collaboratively in Google Docs, and wrote the final article. If you can help me conform the document to Wikipedia standards, I will be happy to rewrite it. It was not meant to be self-serving, but I did want to say where the information came from in case anybody wanted to question anything. -Walt
 * There are two important policies you need to understand:
 * WP:Verifiability, which includes "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth&mdash;whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
 * WP:No original research - Wikipedia is not a place for first publication of anything.
 * If you read those, you will understand the concerns raised above.
 * Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thinking this over, Sorcim probably does pass the notability test, but an article based on unpublished reminiscences is not going to make it. Try the approach recommended by an experienced user in User:Uncle G/On notability:
 * "When writing about subjects that are close to you, don't use your own personal knowledge of the subject, and don't cite yourself, your web site, or the subject's web site. Instead, use what is written about the subject by other people, independently, as your sources. Cite those sources in your very first edit.  If you don't have such sources, don't write."
 * WP:Amnesia test explains the same idea. I would only add that written means, written in a published reliable source. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)