User talk:Swisbell

Nomination of Scott Welsh Isbell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scott Welsh Isbell 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Welsh Isbell 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. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Your addition to Scott Welsh Isbell has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swisbell (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Hi EricEnfermero, thanks for all your contributions. If I may, could you please review the article and point out all the things that must be addressed before this article is passed. I appreciate your response. Cheers!Swisbell (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is already "passed" (as it does not seem to have gone through a review process like WP:Articles for Creation). It is in the mainspace of Wikipedia, but it is at risk of being deleted because of the notability concerns we discussed on the other page (the Articles for Deletion - or AFD - page). In addition to the notability concerns, I noticed that a lot of the material seemed to be taken directly from the subject's website. With the notability concerns surrounding this subject, I don't see any point in badgering you to address any other aspects of the article. If the article is not deleted at AFD, then we can go through it in more detail.

For future articles, you may find it beneficial to carefully read through Wikipedia:Your first article. Before you publish an article to Wikipedia's mainspace, a link to this page pops up in case you'd like to read it. It covers things like the notability and copyright issues we've discussed. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swisbell (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Okay. I can see that you have deleted most of the initial content. I assume that is due to non-compliance with some Wikipedia guidelines. I read through the guidelines before putting the article up. But I'll do so again to see what I need to change. Cheers!Swisbell (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the article and click on View History near the top, you can see a list of the edits that have been made, along with the edit summaries that have been left with each edit. I almost always leave an edit summary for any non-obvious edit I make. On this article, you'll see that chunks of it were removed because of copyright violations (basically, using the same words as another source).

I would read WP:Your first article one more time before further editing. It's pretty direct about avoiding copyright issues by not copying things. If you reinsert anything from Isbell's website, make sure you use your own words. Even if the wording is mostly the same and not directly quoted, that's still not good - it's called close paraphrasing. The best thing to help the article would be to find independent sources (stuff that doesn't come from Isbell or anyone associated with him) that discuss him in depth, but even if you do that, make sure you place any material in your own words. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]