User talk:JBerce

Speedy deletion of Jaro berce
A tag has been placed on Jaro berce requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk to me)  11:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of Speedy Delete tag
Hello there, I'm sorry to have had to tag your page but if you look here you will see the criteria that people need to meet before a Wikipedia entry is justified. There was no assertion in the article that you meet these criteria. Also, it is strongly discouraged for Wikipedians to write articles about themselves: such a conflict of interest means it is very hard to write from a neutral point of view. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk to me)  11:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Hi, thanks for message. You can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~. I deleted your article because
 * it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. This seems to be a print-on-demand paid publication, and I see no claim of how it is notable. It has no independent references at all, just your own blog.
 * Your external links were all commercial sales sites, we are not a free sales platform
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include: to become the outstanding leader... The answer is simple... leadership process that is adaptable and suitable... leaders are to take into consideration this new dimension... a fresh and new leadership approach... The content itself offers an extraordinary insight into blending of eastern and western way of thinking and practices that we needed in today’s global environment leadership process... &mdash; and so on, just a sales blurb
 * You have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles about this subject. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that your book is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request at Requested articles for the article to be created. See also Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.

 Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

 Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  14:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * “Independent verifiable sources” &mdash; If you follow the link above it will tell you what is needed in terms of referencing your claims. Essentially, it means sites that are not written by you, your publishers or commercial sites, and have sufficient status to be acceptable. For example, reviews in major newspapers and appropriate magazines would be acceptable, but blogs, your own website, other unattributable web pages or Amazon would not. You can establish that the book exists from just its isbn. There is nothing wrong with stating the publisher, the point I was making is that a print-on-demand imprint, rather than a contract with, say Random House's main imprint casts doubt on whether your book is notable as defined in the other link above. Your only reference for your claims was your own blog, neither independent or of sufficient weight.
 * "Your external links were all commercial sales sites" &mdash; easy to omit as you say
 * “it was written in a promotional tone.” – there are many poor models that lead people astray. Here are many high standard article about books. you don't need that level of detail, but it should give you an idea of tone, layout and referencing
 * "And finally what can be done?" &mdash;There is no ban as such on writing about your own book, although it's discouraged because it's difficult to be sufficiently objective. I think the main problem you have is establishing that it is a notabe book. If you can't do that, than it will be deleted even if the other issues are fixed.

more

 * “Independent verifiable sources” - Essentially, it means sites that are not written by you, your publishers or commercial sites, and have sufficient status to be acceptable. Would this be OK: PRWEB(republished on February 23rd by San Francisco Cronicle and others…)
 * It's a site that publishes press releases produced by companies, obviously not independent
 * Even if it was an acceptable source, it's just a review, doesn't help with the notability question. Summarising the book doesn't need a source (for fiction, plot summaries are not referenced even at Featured Article level). It's the notability criteria (sales etc) and reviews that need genuinely independent and reputable sources.


 * "And finally what can be done?" — There is no ban as such on writing about your own book, although … - could I ask someone (professional) to do it instead of me? You know one?
 * I'm not sure that's the answer. Paid writing is frowned upon (although again it's not banned) because if you being paid you are unlikely to write a neutral article, he who pays the piper...
 * Also, a paid writer is unlikely to know his/her way around Wikipedia any better than you. We are not looking for great literature, as long as it's intelligible, that will do. You need to find reliable sources, otherwise the article can't clear the notability hurdle
 *  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  14:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)