User talk:Wikimikework

Welcome!
Hello, Wikimikework, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RFD (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest on Edgeworth Economics. Guidelines which you should read are Conflict of interest and the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. JohnCD (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I see that I should be making suggestions to content, rather than live edits (or writing full content). I will absolutely keep that in mind for the future. Wikimikework (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Edgeworth economics
I have moved the draft article you placed on the talk page to Draft:Edgeworth Economics. As the original article was deleted after a deletion discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Edgeworth Economics, you should first approach the administrator who closed that discussion, user for permission to post it. If he does not agree, you can appeal at Deletion review.

First, read WP:Notability, WP:Notability (organizations and companies) and WP:Notability (summary). For establishing notability in Wikipedia's sense, references which are only mentions in a list of awards, or quote someone from the company, are not as significant as independent references which discuss the company in some depth. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for moving the draft article. FYI I did approach the administrator who closed that discussion. Shortly after I posted on his page, however, another user stated that he had been off Wikipedia for a few weeks, and that I may not get a timely answer. That is why I created the talk page for Edgeworth, to ensure that someone would be able to see and review the content. I apologize if this was not the right procedure, and I appreciate you moving the article.


 * And yes, I agree about notability. I have read the notability guidelines. As a paid consultant, I understand that I can't be 100% objective about the matter. However, looking at similar pages (which I realize are not always recommended for comparison purposes), and the quality (and quantity) of independent sources that have referenced Edgeworth on various matters, I do feel that Edgeworth can make a case for notability. While the firm may not have a wealth of independent articles that discuss the company in some depth, I believe that Edgeworth is notable given their involvement and influence on various matters involving the NFL, numerous Fortune 500 companies, government regulations, etc. Obviously, I welcome your feedback (and the feedback of others) on this matter.


 * Thanks again. Wikimikework (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Edgeworth Economics draft
I took up you offer of extra time - thank you!

I have looked again at your draft, and I am not convinced about notability. The references link to quotes from the company, work it has done, awards to its people, etc, but none of them provide any in-depth discussion of the company, in line with the General Notability Guideline's requirement for "significant coverage". Against that, it could be argued that the way in which the company's work is quoted indicates notability.

That is a judgement call, and in the last resort those are made by community discussion. Once deleted after an AfD discussion, a re-posted article is liable to speedy deletion unless it has clearly overcome the original reasons for deletion. What I suggest is that I accept the article out of Draft status into the encyclopedia, and immediately re-nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion, explaining the background and making no recommendation myself.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to review the draft. I certainly understand your concerns - and I appreciate your comment that notability could be established based on the quality / quantity of regional and national coverage. You’ve been extremely thorough and fair, and I trust your judgement to accept the article out of Draft status into the encyclopedia, and immediately re-nominate it under AfD (explaining the background).


 * If you wish to reference entries for similar firms in your background information, articles for Compass Lexecon and Analysis Group may prove useful. I understand the concerns regarding "other stuff exists" arguments, so again, I'll leave this up to your discretion.


 * I assume that I should stay out of the AfD discussion unless there is a compelling reason for me to comment, but if there is anything else I should do please feel free to let me know. Thanks again, Wikimikework (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Edgeworth Economics for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Edgeworth Economics 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/Edgeworth Economics (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Above is the formal notice of the new AfD discussion. These discussions normally last for a week, though they may be relisted if they are inconclusive, after which an uninvolved administrator will decide what to do, basing the decision on the arguments presented, not on a count of heads. You can see what they look like at this daily log from a week ago.


 * You are certainly entitled to comment: you will see that in my statement I have made your status clear, so there will be no misunderstanding. It would be better for you not to make a formal "keep" !vote (the ! before "vote" is intended as a negative, "not-vote", to emphasis that it's a discussion not a ballot). The closing administrator will realise that your preference would be "keep". There is advice at WP:DISCUSSAFD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Perfect - thank you. I will add a comment (just letting people know that I am available if they need more information) and, as per your advice, I will not make a formal vote. Thank you again. Wikimikework (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)