User talk:Wylve/2013 Archives

How is this YC & Sequoia backed company 'non-notable'?

Look at some other, less notable companies with wikipedia pages:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Grockit http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/GREedge http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/QuestionMark http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Learnalot http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Lyryx_Learning_Inc

Alexis.ohanian (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

alexis ohanian

Which article are you referring to? --Wylve (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

oops. i'm a wikipedia noob

sorry about that - here's the article in question: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Tutorspree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis.ohanian (talk • contribs) 17:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, most of the references in the article are about the founders rather than the startup itself, therefore those sources do not imply notability on the company. Some references (like the NYtimes reference) make reference to Tutorspree as part of a larger topic (see WP:SPIP). The Venturebeat reference definitely cannot establish notability, since it is written by one of the founders of the company. The Huffington Post post also cannot establish notability, as companies can simply email the editor for a post to be written about them. In conclusion, notability is not established by the amount of references in the article, but the quality of those references and whether if the company in question make up a large part of the topic in those references. --Wylve (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

CUHK edit warring

Thanks for your notice. I added my reasons in his/her talk page and please have a look on it if you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.198.203.200 (talk) 06:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Gutheinz

Hello Wylve: Earlier this year you added a COI template to [1]. The template is gone now, so I'm wondering how or if it was resolved. (As you can see, I've done a lot of work to clean up the mess.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rich. This was an article I just stumbled upon. At the time, it looked like a mess and after viewing the edit history of the same group of editors editing, I believed there is a conflict of interest. The editors have expressed that they are graduate students of Joseph Gutheinz. COI is not a problem when they are declared and the editors adhere to the policies. Regarding the article itself, there are a lot of problems which I don't have the time to fix myself. Currently, the lead section is the most resume-ish. There are a lot of roles and public offices that I don't think are notable enough to be mentioned. The most ridiculous sentence would be "...American attorney, college professor, commissioner, fraud examiner, writer, and former Army intelligence officer, Army aviator and Federal law enforcement officer...". It would be best if Gutheinz's most notable post or occupation be written in the lead and then expanded on later in the body. It would also be nice to remove all the brackets and put those years in sentence form. Overall, there is a lack of information on Gutheinz himself, and an overabundance of information on his Moon Rock Project (which in my opinion, should be separated into another article) and the works of his students. This section also bugs me the most, as those L3 headers read like newspaper headlines. The use of metaphors and figures of speech such as "Pulls the Lid off" introduced vagueness in the article. I am sorry I can't fix the article itself (I don't think I am capable enough), but I am willing to provide my opinion. Regards. --Wylve (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's still a mess, not so bad now. I've asked each of the major contributors about COI. We will see how they respond. And maybe they'll be able to more clean up. I came across it because they listed Gutheinz on the Meritorious Service Medal page (which I follow). The result was a bit of paring down from 125K to present 84k bytes. Gutheinz and the Moon Rock story is an interesting one, I just wish the editors had done more homework before launching into the massive bit of hype! Regards backatcha. – S. Rich (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)