User talk:Mrbengruber

Hello, Mrbengruber, 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 TonyLuppino, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

• Article development
• Standard layout
• Lead section
• The perfect article
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on TonyLuppino requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 deleted 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wanted to talk about the article you've created. (Human here, not a bot, but Hey man im josh is also a fleshy human being) The problem is that there are some fairly specific standards for articles involving people, namely, the idea of "notability," and I just don't believe that the person in your article is going to qualify. You might check out this page to get an idea of what "notability" signifies. Joyous! | Talk 17:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joyous!

greetings, fellow fleshy human person!

Looking at the notability page, it seems like my subject qualifies under no fewer than three criteria; as a published and cited author, as an academic, and as a researcher (with similar publication and citation creds), and a broad ranging influence on the subjects of business law, partnership law, entrepreneurship, technology law, tech IP, and other subjects.

He has received nearly two dozen awards for his research and publications by multiple academic review and research organizations and think tanks. He is a multidisciplinary chair in a well-regarded academic institution, he holds numerous awards and accolades for his contributions to the body of knowledge and to public understanding of his subjects. He has received millions in grants to perform scores of studies for some of the most well-known and respected institutions and programs in entrepreneursshipand business law research (namely the Kauffman Foundation and USASBE).

Not to be too snarky, but as I write this I'm casually looking at other individuals your organization has deemed influential or notable enough to qualify for their own page. among these are Anna Nicole Smiths attorney and one-time potential baby daddy; a trumpet instructor at the conservatory at the same university as my subject, but who has made no compositions or atrangements, no recordings, and no noteworthy achievements aside from teaching trumpet and presumably playing it in orchestras. These examples and legion more beg the question, wtf?

Could you please elaborate for me how these individuals are clearly notable but my proposed subject is not, so I can understand your criteria better? Have I convinced you yet that my subject IS in fact notable and worthy or an article? What additional information would you require to determine his page is worthy of existence? Would it be helpful for you if I look through, identify, and send directly to you or flag you to other profiles on individuals that seem less noteworthy or notable than the contested subject?

Again, not trying to be snarky, but I cannot fathom how the cost/benefit of this action is in any way good for Wikipedia - I'm not trying to make a page for myself, or making any kind of bad faith effort to create a page for a clearly unqualified person, but for an imminently qualified, influential, and respected academic, researcher, and writer. If I was trying to make a page for a kid in my third grade class who could belch the pledge of allegiance, I'd understand this degree of pushback. But given the current subject's qualifications, this response is simply baffling to me.

best,

Ben Mrbengruber (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! (re: These examples and legion more beg the question, wtf? is such a delightful turn of phrase that I'm going to try really hard to wrench around a conversation in my "actual" life so that I can use it.) Anyway... You've mentioned all sorts of things in the discussion on this page that weren't in the article as it was written, although I will grant that it was deleted pretty swiftly. (Fear not, nothing is EVER completely gone here at Wikipedia--I can get your work back.) My suggestion is: allow me to drop the text of your article into what is called a "sandbox space." That is a sort of sub-page of your userspace that will allow you to add in those references and improve the article without someone bouncing in and tagging it for deletion when you aren't even finished. When it is complete, you can copy/paste it back into the main article space. Let me know if you'd like me to do this. Joyous! | Talk 18:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joyous!

Haha thank you, glad you got a chuckle - and keep it, it's yours!

Yes, please, that would be a wholly acceptable solution - I've been an editor for nearly a decade but still have very few actual edits, and this is my first entirely new article. I tend to add/edit piecemeal, out of a concern that writing too much in a single edit risks some kind of timeout error or the like (comes from a hard-scrabble life in the earlier era of the internet when things could just reload and disappear without warning, long before the advent of my literal and figurative savior, autosave). It's also why I try to always copy and save any text just in a word doc or note app when I edit, but it's great that you're able to retrieve and resurrect the content!

That slow-moving editing style feels safer to my aged sensibilities, but I can see now how that actually makes it much more likely to get deleted because the article gets flagged before I even add much substance. That may or may not be ironic (the definition seems to be ever-shifting and I don't have Alanis' poetic license), but it's for sure frustratingly antagonistic to my own goal. If you'd be so kind as to move it there, I'll edit it in sandbox mode until it's ready for prime time, and I'll probably take a similar tack when I edit existing pages, so I don't run afoul of autodeletes.

best,

Ben Mrbengruber (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Just to make sure I've dropped it in the right spot, look at the very tippy-top of this page for a link that says "sandbox." That should get you to the page where I pasted the deleted information. Let me know if I screwed it up. Joyous! | Talk 20:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joyous!: thank you! Mrbengruber has no idea how lucky he is to have found such a kind Wikipedian to help him out ;) I made some improvements to the sandbox draft – I don't do a lot of BLP work onwiki, so would appreciate a quick glance to see how close it is to meeting notability criteria for academics (if you happen to know OTOH). I'm thinking it could probably stand some fleshing out on the awards & honors side... Accedie^{talk to me} 03:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tony Luppino has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Zero in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources, so does not meet GNG, nor does he meet NACADEMIC. To show notability, you need in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. You should have at least three. Right now, the article is sourced almost primarily from primary sources. The first reference, from Missouri Lawyers is a good source. Find two more like that it will meet GNG. I did a WP:BEFORE, but did not turn up any other in-depth coverage, but perhaps there is more out there.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]