User talk:ShimritMarom

Reply to Talya
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. Sources that are not acceptable include social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company claims or interviewing its management.

Most of the text was unreferenced, and one of your two refs was to his own paper, obviously not an independent third-party source. the other was to a paper I can't access, but appears to be a brief mention in passing. The citations you gave confirm that the work exists, but you really need something other than primary sources to establish notability, such as chapters in a book or a journal review of the text. See also WP:Neologism.

The article was created in a single edit without wikilinks or references, and looks as if was copied from an unknown and possibly copyrighted source. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

I'm prepared to restore the text to a user page for you to work on, but I want you to be sure that you can establish notability before I do so. If you can't it will be deleted again, by another admin if not me. I don't want to waste your time. Let me know.

If you do so, put your references in the the text following the fact each supports using. Then   at the end will automatically generate a numbered list. also use wikilinks like Carnegie Mellon University.

Jimfbleak - talk to me?  15:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Jim,

Thank you for the detailed response and explanation.

I've reviewed the notability criteria, and it appears that they relate to the degree of interest expressed in the topic. As there are 22 Google Scholar citations of this work, and 721 citations of "pain of paying".
 * Also, notability requires verifiability. To this effect my colleague has now posted the dissertation online (ResearchGate)so it can be approached and inspected by readers.


 * We will do the editing as you suggested, in terms of the references, and provide sources for claims, including the Carnegie Mellon University proof of the dissertation. Also, the text was written by the author of the WIki and not taken from anywhere else.


 * At this point, we are happy to take you up on the offer to restore the text to a user page we could work on.

Many thanks! Talya Talya Miron-Shatz (talk) 07:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Talya, I'm watching this page, so I'll pick up any messages here when I check the list. If you want a possibly quicker response, start your message with User:Jimfbleak, and that will ping me. You could post the article directly, but better perhaps to put it here initially if you would like me to take a look before you throw it to the wolves