Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Michael Szporer

THIS IS NOT A BOOK PROMOTION: for there are several books! Besides that would be patently absurd since book contents are known; parts have been published and even available on the net. It is mentioned because it is important and contains primary sources; even before its publication it is widely referenced. The only reason for the bio is author's name has been mentioned in several Wiki sites and is really on the par with several bios from the organizations mentioned on wiki. Several edits suggested by "editors" are informal or promoting errors, hence deleted or not addressed.
 * There are several reasons this article has been nominated for deletion. I will try to enumerate them for you, and I ask that you do not take offense.


 * 1) That the article is not a book promotion is inconsequential; it was written in a very promotional tone about its subject, Michael Szporer. Wikipedia has a specific policy about tone: It must be neutral. Wikipedia is not for advertisement.
 * 2) To summarize Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest, the subject of a biographical article should not write it him- or herself. It is apparent that you, the author, are also the subject of the article, and that is counter to Wikipedia policy, because you have an inherent conflict.
 * 3) The fact that "book contents are known" is moot. For all we know, until you demonstrate otherwise, those books are self-published material, and do not pass muster as reliable sources. Note: Please read the preceding link in detail. It explains what materials Wikipedia can and cannot use as foundations for articles.
 * 4) In regards to the so-called promoting of "errors," Wikipedia's applicable policy is verifiability. In a nutshell, verifiability determines the threshold of whether or not material can be included in an article. It can be absolutely true, but if a reliable source -- such as an academic journal or newspaper -- doesn't mention it, then it's nothing more than original research, and will be removed.
 * 5) Finally, you have been utterly unresponsive. You removed deletion notifications from the article repeatedly, without explanation, and ignored the entreaties of other editors to say anything at all to us. You refused to interact with us in any way until it finally became clear to you that the article you created was in danger of being deleted. I had to point out that removal of the deletion notification again would amount to vandalism before you finally stopped, and even then, this marks the first time you have actually responded to any of our concerns. And you do not even use edit summaries (that's the smaller text box below the big one) to let any other editors know the reasons for any of your edits.
 * In summary, you really need to read Wikipedia's policies regarding material for inclusion, and you really need to be less combative and more communicative with other editors. Let me make something clear, here: I don't want to delete your article. It may be that you are notable by Wikipedia's standards. I don't think any editor here wants to delete your article, in fact. But we adhere to Wikipedia's policies on the matter, and ask that you do, too. -- Good Damon 01:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)