User talk:Strongline123

Welcome!

Hello, Strongline123, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Magnus Penker, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Yeryry (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Magnus Penker

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Magnus Penker, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Yeryry (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Magnus Penker (June 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Our notability guideline requires there to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic His own works are not suitable sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Magnus Penker and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Strongline123, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Magnus Penker (July 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nikolaiho was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Read WP:42. Not following those rules makes the article seem promotional, etc. Some of the sources like amazon.com are not acceptable. Google query doesn't show wide coverage about him.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Magnus Penker and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

NikolaiHo^☎️ 20:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Magnus Penker (October 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

What we would've needed is clear evidence he's considered a significant figure in his field, either by publications or citations as this is what's best to use.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Magnus Penker and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Magnus Penker (October 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chris troutman was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Magnus Penker and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Chris Troutman (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris troutman!

Thank you for your comments on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Magnus_Penker. Can you be more specifically? It would help me a lot.

Mr Penker has 1707 references in scientific papers to "business modeling":

https://scholar.google.se/scholar?cites=2371379373459258806&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=sv

885 references to scientific papers to UML Toolkit 2.0: https://scholar.google.se/scholar?cites=433047914094896286&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=sv

"Magnus Penker" is mentioned over 400 times in Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Magnus+Penker%22

Sparx System has built a tool with Eriksson-Penker extensions: http://www.sparxsystems.com/enterprise_architect_user_guide/10/domain_based_models/eriksson_penker_extensions.html

And they also a training program/eduction in this: http://enterprisemodelingsolutions.com/eriksson-penker/

“Though innovation is en vogue, few leaders or organizations really know what is possible or how to sustain innovation. Mr Penker and his team have now provided innovators a way forward in building the right kind of knowledge, capabilities and assessments for breakout innovation and long term success.”

-Anne Keough Keehn, Executive Director at Leading Academic Innovation Network, and former Senior Fellow at Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

“While many write books on innovation and creativity, innovation is somehow left out of the discussion. Creativity is much more fun, while innovation is a discipline that must be practiced like a professional musician or ballet dancer. Mr Penker has developed and describe an extensive approach with all the critical components of innovation. This is a must read for serious innovation practitioners.” - Dr. Brett Trusko, President and CEO of International Association of Innovation Professionals

International Association of Innovation Professionals is the world's foremost organization for profesional innovation , look at http://www.iaoip.org. Dr. Brett Trusko is Editor-in-Chief on Internatinal Journal of Innovation Scens (peer reviewed, http://www.iaoip.org/page/IJISHome).

Philippe Kruchten, Professor of Software Engineering at University of British Columbia and known as Director of Process Development (RUP) at Rational Software explained Penker and Erikssons work on Business modeling with UML such as: "UML may have been designed by and for software engineers, but Eriksson and Penker have defined a practical extension to UML for describing business processes. They put this extended UML immediately to use with a gallery of common business patterns that should jump start any BPR effort.

(I have added all above to the draft now)

He is also mentioned in several Wikipedia articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Modeling_Language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Erik_Eriksson#Eriksson-Penker_Business_Extensions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_engineering

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process_modeling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_Architect_(software)

Many of the sources in the article are quoting/using Mr Penker as a reference. Is this enough?

Best regards, Strongline123 (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, none of that is sufficient. I can only assume you didn't bother reading any of our guidelines. You seem to be stuck in your own conceptions of what the word "notability" means, which is why you've been unsuccessful. I also assume you represent a business interest trying to promote Penker, which would further distort your objectivity. First, the number of hits on Google is not a reliable or meaningful statistic, though some would wish it were. We cannot use it as the basis for notability. Second, everything you've provided is a primary source. None of those sources are significantly removed from the subject. We would want to see independent, reliable sources about the subject like an article (not an interview or sponsored post) in The New York Times. The article would need to contain significant coverage about him and you'd need to show a few of those. For example, there's this article by gp.se. It's a reliable source but it's only a mere mention of the subject. You could use that to verify he left a company, but it doesn't connote notability. Junk like this is a routine background item and doesn't help you. Per WP:CIRCULAR, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source, either. We don't accept self-published sources. Finally, your entry reads like ad copy. This is an encyclopedia, not an advertising platform. You're trying too hard to sell us on Penker using unimpressive sources. Penker is not Bill Gates. Nobody is writing about him. I encourage you to read more about notability on Wikipedia before you continue, or hire someone that knows what they're doing. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your input Chris Troutman! Those links to "primary source", "signifiant coverage" etc is very useful! I didnt find them earlier... I'm kind of new to this and I looked at WP:Notability_(people), specially "creative professionals" and "academics". The reason why I write about the field Penker operates in its because many scientists, experts etc is using his models, work etc "in depth". They are quoting/using Mr penker as a reference. His work is about a new extension (Penker-Eriksson extension), a toolbox, diagram dialog, business modeling within UML and how to practical use it in business/organisations etc. Many experts in the field have accredited him, for an example: Philippe Kruchten. I'm just wondering about the Google Scholar "hits". I can understand that "hits" on google isnt notability, but why isnt Google Scholar notability? Its scientific papers, books, e-books, reports etc, and many of my sources are connected to experts in the field. Cant I use his works to explain what his done?Well, I'm going to check for more reliable "newspaper" sources! Just one more question. Do you know why Penkers colleague/co-author Hans-Erik Erikssons, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Erik_Eriksson, wikipedia site is up? What is the difference between that site and Mr Penkers site (in form of notability?). And again, thank you for all your input! Strongline123 (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, click on every blue link and read what you find. All of Wikipedia's instructions are written and accessible. As to the "why isn't Google Scholar numbers acceptable" question, I don't exactly know. I think there's an issue that the results Google provides don't fairly portray the importance of the subject. There are arguments that some fields of study (soft science) don't cite each other the way other fields (hard science) do, so we don't have a good metric. Regardless, our guideline for academics doesn't include Google scholar hits or H-index. Please remember there are many cases where you can use websites to verify things about the subject, which is important to do, but notability is different from verifiability. Notability is not inherited so it doesn't matter if Albert Einstein said nice things about him. I took a look at Hans-Erik Eriksson and tagged it for notability issues. Be aware that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument; Wikipedia has too many articles and more getting added everyday. We're struggling to keep up with it all so you're bound to find plenty that don't meet our criteria. If we were to allow one bad article because of another bad article we'd be in a continual race to the bottom. Your argument is common and I understand the frustration. If it makes you feel any better, that other article may be deleted before long. Please remember that there's no rush to write this article. Often, people don't have anything meaningful written about them until after they're dead. We can wait. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I can explain some of this. The actual factor in judging citations and publications is not the gross number, but whether any of the work is highly cited--that's the measure of influence in one's field used in the academic world, and therefore the appropriate standard for WP:PROF. . Looking at the correct Google Scholar search, one for the author name, [1] we see that he is coauthor of two widely cited general books--more exactly, one important book and a corresponding practical manual. Publishing such a book is in fact one of the possible bases for notability both under WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR, so it would be appropriate to try to demonstrate it properly. (We also see that he has no research publications, and the slides he has posted are not scientific papers)

For notability as an author of such books, this is usually supplemented by information about library holdings and, especially. book reviews. As for library holding, WorldCat shows that the books are fairly widely held: [2]. But the formal standard for NAUTHOR is reviews. These have to be formal substantial published reviews in reliable professional sources--blurbs by people in the author's field are not reliable, no matter how famous the people are, because people are usually not being discriminate when they write them, and there is no editorial control. We not only do not rely on them for notability, we never include them in an article. They are meant as advertising, and we do not do that.

The present contents of the draft is overall entirely advertising. There is no evidence that he is a "computer scientist, organizational theorist, and specialized in innovation, digitization and business transformation," or any of these -- only that he is the author of a textbook and the owner of a training business. Unless there is a reliable review, there is no reason to think that any of his published work is original--textbooks & general books such as these almost never are & are not intended to be. There is no evidence that "Eriksson-Penker Business Extensions" is significant, unless there are third party reliable sources for that. The awards are trivial. The table of contents of a book is not encyclopedic content.

Please remove all the puffery and irrelevance, and add references to substantial published reviews. Then ask me on my talk page to look at it again.

and as for Erikson, I doubt that page will be here much longer unless it gets fixed very quickly. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Magnus Penker concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Magnus Penker, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Magnus Penker concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Magnus Penker, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Magnus Penker concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Magnus Penker, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Magnus Penker

Hello, Strongline123. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Magnus Penker".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Magnus Penker has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Magnus Penker. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Magnus Penker has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Magnus Penker. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Magnus Penker (January 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Magnus Penker and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Magnus Penker, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Magnus Penker concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Magnus Penker, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]