User talk:Prof1957

Welcome to my talk page. Prof1957 (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Prof1957

COI
Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.


 * PS: Pardon the boilerplate welcome but it covers some of the necessary material. The notability issue with Mark M. Goldblatt is that all of the sources are by him rather than about him. Wikipedia has notability standards, the most applicable one being WP:BIO. Basically, the subject of a biography should have received significant attention from 3rd-party sources such as profiles or awards. Being a published author is not enough. I suggest that you use the article talk page (talk:Mark M. Goldblatt) to list the 3rd party sources. Then I, or another editor, can add them to the article.
 * Another issue with that article is the longish section on theology. Why is it there? The article asserts that he is best known as a political commentator. Why are his views on theology especially notable? Have other authors discussed them?   Will Beback    talk    19:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, the Greenpoint Press article makes no assertion of the notability of its subject. Publishing a dozen books does not make a publisher notable. Like with biographies, the subject needs to have been written about in reliable sources. Without an assertion of notability, the article may be deleted immediately. Since it looks like the best available sources have already been used, and they do not meet the standards, I'll go ahead and delete it. It can be recreated if sources can be found that talk about it.   Will Beback    talk    19:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you reply. I'm still going over those links. However as a general principle, reviews of the novel help indicate that the novel is noteworthy, but they don't directly show the notability of the author. Likewise for having it as a homework assignment (if that were the threshold we'd have articles on every textbook writer). The "Beach Reads" entry is similar to being quoted: it's a very tangential indicator of notability. Interviews are trickier. An interview about Goldblatt's views on some political issue doesn't help much while an interview about his life would be more on point. For references to count towards notability, Goldblatt needs to be the subject. The guideline is at Notability (people).
 * I see I never answered your earlier question about the quotations. This is similar to the general notability issues. According to whom are these quotations noteworthy? When I did a search on Proquest, I found some commentaries quoted by third parties. Those would be the ones to include. However, Wikipedia is not intended to be a repository of quotations. A few quotes are sometimes included but there is a sister project, Wikiquote, for longer lists.   Will Beback    talk    21:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding Greenpoint Press, it would fall under Notability (organizations and companies). Just as with people, companies need to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources in order to establish notability. That's a tough threshold. Even if their books and authors are notable, few people write about the publisher itself. I've removed the deletion notice from the article temporarily in case you think you can find such coverage.    Will Beback    talk    21:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've listened to the first five minutes of the podcast. I guess I have to keep listening for Goldblatt to show up. However when it comes to notability, being interviewed for a blog or self-published podcast doesn't help much. Being interviewed by the BBC is another matter.   Will Beback    talk    21:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a web station, not a broadcast station - is that right? I don't know quite where that fits, in the scheme of things. It's certainly an adequate source for Goldblatt's views, but I'm not sure how much it helps the notability issue. However since multiple sources are required, it helps at least a little.   Will Beback    talk    22:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that user:Charles Salzberg wrote the article on Mark M. Goldblatt and Mark M. Goldblatt wrote the article on Charles Salzberg. The Wikipedia equivalent of logrolling? In any case, both of you should read WP:COI, which I've already linked for you. Except for removing unsourced negative material and obvious errors, neither of you should be editing your own biographies. As I suggested before, please make article suggestion on the article talk pages and let uninvolved editors do the actual editing.   Will Beback    talk    23:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

MOS
Wikipedia has its own manual of style. It's unusual in some respects as it combines elements of American and British English. For example, it follows the British habit of placing quotation marks inside the punctuation, rather than outside. See WP:MOS for more information.  Will Beback   talk    21:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Greenpoint Press


The article Greenpoint Press has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No evidence of WP:ORG"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Star  Mississippi  15:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)