Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Babcock

The author worked at all of the stations listed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffrey Babcock (talk • contribs) .

Do you have any sources to back this up? —C.Fred (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AFTRA NY records for WABC TV employment. Other employment can be confirmed by news departments of stations, tax returns, extensive tape of stories aired or a conversation with my agent: Joel Weisman at 847.400.5900 ext. 26. --Jeffrey Babcock 00:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, no published sources, then? There's certainly no listing in the WABC news bio section. —C.Fred (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with you. Published sources are very important in establishing verifiability. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with everyone. I love published sources...However for news reporting this isn't very common...outside of information found on Wikipedia. Regarding WABC, I added a notation to the station news bio section in Wikipedia...1st entry and didn't really know what to do when someone deleted it and disappeared me. Any suggestions?

If the goal of Wikipedia is to provide accurate information, I've done that. In spite of an attempt to disappear me. --Jeffrey Babcock 05:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This isn't about disappearing you. This is about the threshold for which notability occurs. Wikipedia is not for tooting one's own horn. I don't have an article. If I'm lucky, I get notable enough for an article in 10–15 years. (If I'm lucky, I also don't do anything to become notorious enough to get an article in that time window also. :) ) If it happens, it'll be because somebody else writes the article about me. That's the other point in play here: writing an article about yourself is frowned upon as vanity. Vanity + no verifiable sources = the article should rightly be deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS Siva:I found this quote on your home page of interest. "I always had a vision that an encyclopedia would contain, however insignificant, all human knowlege and accomplishments. This WILL then be a true work of encyclopedic knowledge. Wikipedia comes close to this fascinating possibility." --Jeffrey Babcock 05:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would everyone be happier if I had someone else submit this information? --Jeffrey Babcock 03:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. C.Fred: Appears? "I have two dogs, a black-and-tan short-hair Dachshund and a terrier mix who appears to have a large fraction of Jack Russell in her." Can we let this ambiguity stand? Should we ask you to delete this information or disappear it? --Jeffrey Babcock 03:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a big difference between user space and article space. If you plan to actually edit Wikipedia, it's fine to have some information on your userpage on what makes you tick. Unless you are particularly notable, it is not fine to have an article in "article space" about yourself, and if there is an article about you, it's generally considered best if you don't edit it yourself. Hope this clears up the confusion. Mak (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As Mak said, the page you cited is my user page in user space—that's why it has the "User:" in front of the name. If you want to move the Jeffrey Babcock article into user space, by all means, do so. Its place in the article space is what's in question here. —C.Fred (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having been bantered around the article space a bit...with no intention of causing such pain...would you think it O.K. to have my agent(s) submit this information? --Jeffrey Babcock 03:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Published verification of background can be found at: http://fa.smithbarney.com/babcock/ --Jeffrey Babcock 04:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Self-published background information is at that location. No progress made. —C.Fred (talk) 05:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even if this is legit, the only thing that says about you is that you are "Second Vice President - Wealth Management". While I congratulate you on that position, I'm afraid it falls quite short of being encyclopedic and bears little if no resemblence to the missive you wrote about yourself. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 05:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Published verification of background at: http://fa.smithbarney.com/babcock/ is not self published...but rather verified by legal department at Smith Barney prior to publication on the web by Smith Barney...not me. The biographical link on the site confirms work at ABC and The Wall St. Journal. The main page provides information on education and associations...with which I guess we could expand my Wikipedia biography. --Jeffrey Babcock 14:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

anhducwiki7

Sunday, August 28, 2022