Jump to content

Talk:Adam Khoo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

sorry, but i feel that this article is an advert

[edit]

it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.225 (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


It is. Please refer to Wikipedia:Autobiography. The last time I checked it was started by himself. Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community. Editing a biography about yourself should only be done in clear-cut cases. Wikipedia:Verifiability Verifiability on Wikipedia is the reader's ability to check cited sources that directly support the information in an article.Jasonhanjk (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Louisakoh/Adam_Khoo This link shows Louisakoh is Adam Khoo himself. Jasonhanjk (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are facts. There is no need to delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.222.48.244 (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is useful information though. I vote for the information to be included back in, but re-worded to be less self-promoting. I have also tagged the page with respect to the findings made above. Zhanzhao (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how useful, it stills need to abide to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPDEL#Summary_deletion.2C_creation_prevention.2C_and_courtesy_blanking. "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies." I allow 30 days period to ensure the links are in working order, or I would have to delete it again. Thanks.Jasonhanjk (talk) 07:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing 2 separate issues here, BLP and the rule about autobiography are 2 separate issues. I hope you're not trying to synthesize a new rule out of these 2. As far as I see, the information is sourced, and the only problematic link is the 9th one which is dead (which can just be tagged accordingly). The rest are all secondary/third-party sources, which would easily pass a Reliable Source check. Feel free to challenge this and post any of those references/links to the RS page if you wish. I do agree that some of the text can be worded more neutrally, but that's what we editors are here for. To improve content, not throw the baby out with the bathwater. You should try to make the article more neutral before deleting it. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I compare it to Robert Kiyosaki's page, another motivational writer/speaker, and see no difference in the style of writing. Both may look like advertisements to some readers due to the nature of their career/personality. Whatever action taken here could set a precedent for other such subjects. Just saying. And since the article has undergone multiple edits since the writeup by the author, which actually were itself based on , as mentioned above, reliable and neutral secondary sources, the autobiography tag doesn't fit anymore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.196.92 (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jasonhanjk is misrepresenting the Wikipedia:Autobiography policy. The 3 problems possible with self-written autobiographies according to the policy page are neutrality, verifiability and presence of original research. There's no evidence of it here which makes it any different from the pages of any other such personalities i.e. Robery Kiyosaki. Neither has the subject acted in a way to protect his version of the article, as its been subject to many edits since his last entry. As a non-administrator, Jasonhanjk has no authority to enforce the "delete within 30 day" statement What he can do is raise this issue at the relevant administrative boards and bring in REAL administrators to see the page, though I doubt it will be to his satisfaction due to the points raised above by the other editors. BBFreman (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adam Khoo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adam Khoo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello everybody,

I have revised the page thoroughly and removed advert content that looked promotional enough to me. I have added some RED references like YouTube, but it meets the criteria. If there is anything else that seems overly promtional, then let's discuss! SAMsohot (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I have added back the advert tag. The whole article sounds like a PR piece (full of praise) and includes too many primary sources like YouTube, blogs and the subject's own website. The reference to a third-party source, The New Paper (which is one of the few legitimate sources), is unlinked. As other editors have noted in talk, a Wikipedia account associated with the subject was involved in editing the article, which represents a conflict of interest and should be strongly discouraged. I will delete all content associated with primary references for now. --202.51.247.22 (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed most of the promotional content. The number of unverified claims of "best-seller" and links to Adam Khoo's own products and services is simply ridiculous. May be speculating here, but I get the feeling that a party with vested interests is creating websites out there to list information about Adam Khoo, and then quoting and listing these websites as first-party sources here. This seems to be a case of "repeat it enough until it becomes believable", even if it is not verified by reliable, third-party sources like newspapers. If these blatant promotional content appear back again, I will seek admin help to sanction the account which does it. --202.51.247.22 (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adam_Khoo&oldid=1202140032"