Talk:Albert Beckford Jones
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Article issues
editI have identified a number of issues. Please do not remove the tag until either addressing the issues or reaching a consensus here that the tags are wrong. Bongomatic 23:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- An anonymous user removed the tags and made some minor editorial changes to the article. However:
- There remain no citations to significant coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources;
- There remain numerous typographical errors (specifically with respect to punctuation);
- The overall booster-like / resume-like tone remains (and the bulk of the edits were still made by someone suspected of conflict of interest)
- Bongomatic 04:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
As the original author, I will address the issues one by one.
- There remain no citations to significant coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources;
The article has citations to a number of significant and independant sources. Among them are actual video footage of the subject speaking at the Jeddah Economic Forum, the same venue other speakers such as Al Gore have etc have spoken.
- The subject's speaking at that forum is not evidence of notability. Bongomatic 23:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The Civilian Research & Development Foundation is an independent non-profit established by Congress... surely that should be a reliable source.
- Any individual's employer is not an independent source, though it may (or may not be) reliable. Bongomatic 23:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
On the subject of employment I'd suggest that a person's employer is the MOST reliable and independent source.
If I make a claim for example that John Doe is a Professor at Harvard university and then link to a Harvard University published Staff roster, you are saying this would not be a good enough reference? Would I need to provide a newspaper article? I'm confused. Simplynetworked (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
If there are specific statements that are troublesome it would help to note them specifically.
- There remain numerous typographical errors (specifically with respect to punctuation);
Granted, I will address these.
- The overall booster-like / resume-like tone remains (and the bulk of the edits were still made by someone suspected of conflict of interest)
The article as it stands is simply a listing of civic involvements and biographical history, it is in no way promotional, nor are there any claims that could be construed as such. The text while it may be uninteresting to some readers is factual and concise. As for the lack of many contributors... the article is newly posted, surely most articles have few posters in their early days. I could point out a dozen similar articles with similar content with nary a tag attached to them: Examples... Clark Winter, Amr Dabbagh.
- Please see WP:OSE Bongomatic 23:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Any edits would be much appreciated, however tagging the article as suspect really is not a constructive criticism.
- I came across this page while patrolling newly created pages--tagging is the appropriate approach. Bongomatic 23:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Simplynetworked (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
While I don't fully understand all the reasoning behind the tags added to the article, I believe they were added in good faith. I will remove the COI tag as I have not seen anything specifically mentioned here to support that assertion. I will leave the other tags until such time I can revisit the article or any other Wiki contributors can help to improve those issues.Simplynetworked (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Notability
editI last visited this article in 2011. There have not been any improvements since then. I have done a media search again now and find no evidence that the subject of this article meets the GNG or any other notability guideline. If anyone has thoughts about if or how this article could be improved, or why the subject is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, please chime in. Otherwise I'll probably nominate it for deletion.