Talk:Michael de Percy

(Redirected from Draft talk:Michael de Percy)
Latest comment: 7 months ago by Cabrils in topic Comments left by AfC reviewers

Contested deletion

edit

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --ESuburb (talk) 10:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)The content has been amended and re-written in my own words. The previous error was of publications using the APA referencing style. I did not think this would represent copyright infringement as the information could be re-written in the APA style and it would be similar in any format. Nevertheless, I have amended the relevant content.Reply

edit

  Prior content in this draft duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://researchprofiles.canberra.edu.au/en/persons/michael-de-percy. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Comments left by AfC reviewers

edit
  •   Comment: Well done on creating the draft, and it may potentially meet the relevant requirements (including WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NPROF) but presently it is not clear that it does. As other reviewers have noted, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. To properly create such a draft page, please see the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’. Please note that many of the references are not to reliable sources. References (and content generally) should be about quality not quantity. Additionally, the draft tends to read too much like a CV, which Wikipedia is not. Also, if you have any connection to the subject, including being paid, you have a conflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link). Please familiarise yourself with these pages before amending the draft. If you feel you can meet these requirements, then please make the necessary amendments before resubmitting the page. It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject. You may also wish to leave a note for me on my talk page and I would be happy to reassess. Cabrils (talk) 03:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
  •   Comment: We read that "His research focuses on transport, telecommunications, and energy policy, leadership, and institutional stasis and change." Well then, what have other scholars in these areas -- scholars independent of him, not having done their doctoral dissertations under him, and working in other universities -- said (in formal reviews, etc, not mere blurbs) about his research, and about the fruits of this research? What have journalists for serious newspapers written about him or his work? Hoary (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply