User talk:Jmcgnh/Archives/2022/01

Thanks for help with my article
Hello, thanks for helping with my article on David Gokhshtein. I saw your recommendation. How can I improve the article?

Mastetchi (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've restored some prior AFC comments to the draft that were improperly removed.
 * Writing about topics connected with cryptocurrency on Wikipedia is extremely difficult because of the scar tissue built up from having to resist a general atmosphere of promotionalism. To get an accepted article, you need to be scrupulous about finding independent reporting that actually discusses your subject in depth; actual biographical coverage that is not merely reporting promotions or hiring; not based on interviews. Maybe it will be possible to find such sources.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I completely understand your point. The great articles on wikipedia are as a result of years of collaboration and work. They weren't written in one day and by one individual. However, great collaborations start with a step by an individual. My draft introduced the individual Mr. Gokhshtein. Consider what I have in that article right now as a step and with great collaborations and contribution from other editors and time too, this article will become better. What I have is an introduction and this article will be improved with time. I hope it is approved though but like I said, I understand your point. Mastetchi (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Center for Inquiry Investigations Group for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Center for Inquiry Investigations Group is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Center for Inquiry Investigations Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 21:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I had to review what I said all those years ago and review the article history to see if I had had a hand in it.
 * I agree that the article looks to be over-egged by CFI partisans, especially after reviewing your source analysis. I'd guess their skeptical messages are not being sufficiently picked up by independent reporters, so they've resorted to reporting it in their own publications.
 * Would you want to do the same analysis at James Underdown? I remember it had an AfD at about the same time.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 22:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd have to read all those offline sources about his career as a poet to draw up a table, though I'm going to go over to that article since I'm pretty sure writing a BLP off of YouTube videos/imdb/etc isn't acceptable Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 23:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)