User talk:Mcgwire257013

Please do not remove tags, the way you did for 3S Understanding until you have either fixed the issue that the tags were for, or provided a rationale in the summary or talk page of the article. Removing tags in this fashion might be seen as disruptive. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Mcgwire257013, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Dennis Brown (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

I don't see what is wrong with the quality standards of the article. There are several books, organizations, and curriculum programs that deal with 3S Understanding and it is becoming more and more notable. Mcgwire257013 (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have also included some Links to show notability and will continue to add more. Mcgwire257013 (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What helps to establish notability is having references from a variety of sources that qualify as reliable sources. What you have there seems fine, but are only from one author.  Tagging the article is just a way to tell people "this article needs work, help it if you can" and honestly, also says "this article needs work, and may not be complete or correct yet".  I've asked an admin here to take a look at it, someone I trust with articles like this, DGG (smart guy, librarian, MLS, PhD), who is quite experienced with these types of articles and can offer help if you ask him.  Dennis Brown (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

advice
Let me explain the problems.

He's a notable author, as I can  see from WorldCat, who should have an article; he also meets WP:PROF, our guideline for academics. My general view, and the general view here, is that for anyone who as written more than one book a bio article article on them is better than an article on one of their books, or   on one of their theories, unless a book or a theory is particularly famous. In any case, the simplest and clearest course is to write the biographical article, where a reasonable section of one or two paragraphs can summarize his theories

I am not able to judge easily whether this particular term is the standard one in the field as the name of his theories;   Google books shows it is at least occasionally used. Presumably a general article will make it clearer.

There's another problem:  The article text seems to have been previously prepared for a different purpose;and if so, is almost certainly copyvio. Even if you were to grant a free license according to DCM, it's not all that suitable. A Wikipedia article on someone's theory is not as much an exposition of his theory as a discussion of it, including the reaction to it; references to reviews of his books are needed, references to criticism are needed, references to any applications are needed, If this is the general term for his theoretical position, it's more important to present it as a theory, than to show its development from book to book,  If it does not apply to all his work, that needs to be said also.

I suggest you do one of two things: either move this article to his name, and rewrite it to be a bio, or withdraw the present article, and write the bio using some of the material. There is a third possibility, but it is the most difficult: write the bio, and also rewrite this into a suitable article on the theories. Let me know, and I'll help with the formalities. I'll look here for your response about how you want to proceed.

Should you decide to keep it more or less as is, I shall do some of those  things myself; after all, anyone can edit.

By the way, I need to correct one or two misperceptions.First, the theory has to be notable here and now--a statement that it is becoming more important is taken as an indication that it is probably not yet important. Second, the references that are needed are not his own writings, but references from others providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources. And to sustain the present article, they'd have to be about this particular theory under this name, not his work in general.  DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * While I'm not an expert on the subject matter, I will be happy to assist with formatting and such, but I agree with DGG in letting you first decide which direction you want to proceed with the article since you have made the greatest contribution to date. Once the direction is clear, I will jump in and do what I can to assist.  Dennis Brown (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)