Talk:Allan Cox (author)

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 January 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Untitled[edit]

Can someone help me out here with Wikipedia protocols?

I modeled this bio off the following bios currently here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Tapscott http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_H._Davenport http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Kay

I would view Tapscott and Davenport as being as "notable" as Cox, Alan Kay more so. But all in the same general ballpark. Certainly publishing 8 books is worthy of some note?

Which parts read as "advertisements"? More so than the models I chose? I was striving for a neutral POV. Help me understand how this falls short.

I also thought that I had in fact provided appropriate references and support for the material, although much of it is not available in electronic form. I do have hard copies of the materials I used and can make scans of it available.

Mcgeej (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify: 1. It looks like this is some guy you work for/with. 2. Most of the material are stuff he published. 3. There is a strong association between you and he on google (much written about him is by you). Is there a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest? 4. This reads like his bio from his website slightly updated. 5. The only article you've written on WP is about this guy.

(for example: http://www.socialtext.net/allan-cox--associates-inc/index.cgi?action=revision_list;page_name=allan_cox_associates_inc and http://www.socialtext.net/allan-cox--associates-inc/index.cgi?jim_mcgee)

Kinda suspect IMO. Reboot (talk) 05:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've renominated it through the longer process. Reboot (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed the only article, so far, that I've written here. It's my attempt to learn more about Wikipedia beyond being a user like everyone else. Guess I'm getting more of an education than I would have predicted.

I am not an employee of Allan Cox. I do know him. Based on other examples here (see above), Cox's background seemed to represent a manageable first product. What material is findable via google does show that we are working in the same general space of management leadership. I haven't referenced that here as it wouldn't be appropriate.

What I have done is dug up what I believed to be appropriate secondary supporting materials on Cox. Most of that is print material that predates the web. I've referenced it in the article. Not sure how to deal with print supporting materials that aren't available digitally. I'm open to suggestions and pointers. It does seem to me that relevance/notability does predate the web and google.

He's an author. That means that part of the material will reference his previous written work. it's the fundamental argument for whether he's notable. I've tried to separate that from the supporting material in the article. Mcgeej (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to note is that you've attempted to do this on other wikis where it was also deleted. There are clear guidelines on how to cite print sources here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources You can however be an author of an awful lot of books without being notable (esp in an age of self publishing). The question isn't whether he wrote about himself and his ideas but whether other people did. I've appeared in the New York Times but I'm not notable in the encyclopedia sense. Note that Blogs and other such places are not reliable sources. When I read this I thought "another management consultant website bio using wikipedia as a promotional vehicle". an encyclopedia is for referencing already notable people not bringing them notability. A more well referenced article showing why this person is important would sway me at least. It is hard however to believe that a notable person would have few online references to them Reboot (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand the notability issue and the secondary sources issue. The principal sources I've cited are profiles of Cox done in Chicago Magazine, US News & World Report, and Training Today a publication of ASTD, which is a professional society of training developers). They appear to me to constitute secondary souruces by the definitions here. None are available online. I believe my citations are adequate to trace back to the material in a library. My judgment was that these sources established a threshold level of notability as does a publication record spanning 30 years. Reasonable people can disagree, of course. The problem, as I see it, is that the references establishing notability exist outside of today's web. You see that as proof that Cox is not notable. I see it as an anomaly and have been asking for some advice on how to address the anomaly. Mcgeej (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]