Talk:David Glick
| 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: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Requested move
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was move per request. Nothing controversial about a move from a user subpage to mainspace. Whether this meets our inclusion policies is another matter entirely.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
User:JamesKnowles001/David Glick → David Glick —I have edited the page to the best of my abilities, with hopefully everything in the right place, I am though new so feel free to point me in better directions. I also don't feel I should just edit 6 more pages to get to move to status myself that I believe is not in the right spirit of Wikipedia so I am hoping someone can help me with the move. Thanks. JamesKnowles001 (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please read (and feel free to ask questions at) WP:Notability and WP:NPOV. This reads like a CV on Glick's website (if it is, see also WP:COPYVIO) and does not establish why we should have an article on him, instead of a million other authors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, for the comment. Certainly this not a copy of CV from the website so no Copyvio I have linked the official bio on the page for clarification in external links. I wanted to establish the article as from the reference, that David is highly connected into the music industry and even in his early days his media connections made him potential worth of article imho hopefully the references support that. I have added more references such as an interview in Music Week, Independent Top 100 list in the Music Section for example. As you can see this is my first article so maybe my writing style is wrong (but having read the bio rules I wanted to make sure it was positive). I honestly believe he passes the notability test. I would hope the extra references I have added now would have at least shown the article to pass the test. David has been notable in the music industry with and without his company for a long period of time, hopefully the references support that showing a good period of years. My view was that combined with the authoring of a controversial book that took a sideways look at green issues, he was worthy of an entry. I certainly take on board the points, having added extra reference. Is there anything else you want me to add or address? All directions are good. I am honestly trying to produce a fair, balanced and positive entry into Wikipedia for someone who I really think is notable. JamesKnowles001 (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Does this also mean the request for a move is blocked? JamesKnowles001 (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.