Talk:Stephen Gilfus

Untitled
Waiting for edits and suggestions on NPOV Dispute —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrigores  (talk • contribs)  11:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

--

I think the neutral point of view of this article should be questioned. In particular the "Accomplishments" section is filled with unsubstantiated claims of achievements and biased descriptions. For example, the subject is noted as being "visionary" and repeatedly "key" or "core" to the success of the relatively minor companies at which he has worked. This article reads like it was written by the subject of the article. This is an article about a living person who is apparently a VC, so the possibility that this is self-promotion has to be considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.0.45 (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

--- I have updated this article with appropriate references and factual components for major accomplishments but doing research on this individual. Modified NPOV to maintain factual completeness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrigores  (talk • contribs)  15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Terms such as "e-learning visionary" show problematic point-of-view issues, sourcing notwithstanding. I note that one editor is responsible for the majority of edits to this page. This can make POV issues harder to recognize, as one usually does not notice one's own point of view.


 * This page also needs to be written in prose format, not as a series of lists. Cnilep (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

--- Really? Writing white papers is a major accomplishment? I mean, having your company go public certainly is, but a lot of those bullets don't belong under that heading. Besides that, the entire CourseInfo section was lifted off of another site (I removed it myself), and it all reads like crap, and everything is in bullets. And really, how many people on Wikipedia have all of their white papers listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.73.11 (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edits and sourcing per WP:BLP -- July 2011
I have removed a great deal of poorly sourced edits. To readd the edits, please discuss here first and provide sourcing that meets WP:RS. Corporate or other organizational links won't work, nor will links only remotely related to Gilfus. The article needs significant, independent news coverage about this person with links that can be easily checked by readers and editors. Flowanda | Talk 09:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Vanity
This whole article looks like a vanity piece written by a WP:SPA - likely a paid editor with an obvious wp:COI. I'm going to start removing the bits that aren't sourced. Feel free to join in (or add sources). I'd be OK deleting the whole article as the sources are either self-published or something put out by the Cornell rather than the media. That is to say, I don't see any wide spread media coverage that would justify a biographical article. Rklawton (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)