User talk:Daisyv123

Advice
you are the most recent editor of Michael Capponi As reviewing administrator, I deleted the article for being wholly promotional and not fixable by normal editing.

It is possible, though by no means certain, that the subject is notable. (The requirement is in WP:PEOPLE, that there are references providing substantial coverage from  3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. I note that almost none of the references in the previous article are more than trivial mentions, rather than sufficient coverage, and articles about him like the ones in Ocean Drive & Miami New Times are totally permeated with PR, not journalism.) but a Wikipedia article needs to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release--don't praise the  person, say what they do. Don't use vague adjectives of excellence; let that be implied from the accomplishments. Don't use PR jargon; don't use wording like ". With his experience and proven track record," don't repeat his name frequently, and never refer to him by his first name only--these are techniques of promotional writing. . (The best word to use instead is he)

Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to prospective clients--that sort of content is considered promotional. Keep in mind that the goal of an encyclopedia is to say things in a concise manner, which is not the style of  press releases or  web sites, which are usually more expansive. Do not include tributes to him by celebrated people, or mentions of him being one of the people at important events: include only major matters, that one expects to find in encyclopedia articles about notable people.

Above all, remember not to copy from a web site, even his own -- first it's a copyright violation, but, even if you own the copyright and are willing to give us permission according to WP:DCM, the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable.

As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without Conflict of Interest; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest or as a paid press agent, but it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know. If you think you can do it right according to our guidelines, do so, but expect the article to be very carefully checked for objectivity. I notice this page has been in the past edited by a number of people who have edited nothing else, some with a username very similar to yours'. This certainly would incline one to think that the purpose of their editing might be promotional, and involve a conflict of interest. People who use Wikipedia for promotion can be blocked from contributing, especially if it is just adding promotional material to articles about  people--notable or non0notable, so be very careful in what you write.

Please start over again entirely--there is almost nothing in the previous article suitable to reuse in an encyclopedia. If I can assist you, ask on my talk p. Remember that the more compact and unexceptional the article, the less likely it is to be deleted.  DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)