1697:
self-aggrandizing (if it is) or more neutral in tone? I have read and re-read the notability quidelines (and even have set some of them out above) and it appears to me that it absolutely does meet the notability requirements. But it seems as if (to me)that such editors are not valuing it in terms of the written guidelines, but rather based their own feelings...and the fact that they are upset because it is autobiographical. Some without reading it or without comparing it to the
Knowledge (XXG) notability guidance. Just because it is autobiographical doesn't make it non-notable. I'm not asking until I get the answer I want (Lord knows that is not going to happen) but rather to ask, politely, for GUIDANCE based on the notability issues, not a quick blow-off to go away and then
1533:"The proper way to get your own writing about yourself in if you really think you can meet the inclusion criteria . . . is to make a proposal containing the text you want, instead of just putting it up directly, and seek the consensus of the community through discussion. Not only does this provide independent viewpoints on it that can allow you to discover biases you were not aware of having, it also helps provide an indication of good faith and that you are willing to put the interests of Knowledge (XXG) first instead of standing in a position of conflict of interest.
1595:
didn't) hence my placing it out there for constructive feedback. I'd be delighted to revise it to ensure it is not a self-promoting tone. I think (and could be wrong) that I have attempted to write impartially and in the style that I have seen many other articles address business activities, business ownership, publishing, entrenuership, sales of businesses, real estate development, etc. Some hints along those lines would be helpful and appreciated. Even a total re-write would be welcome.
670:
it is a Paid
Archive, but reading the articles would clearly show they are serious journalistic business articles. You seem to have me in a Catch 22 in that I cannot show them to you because you deleted the texts, yet you disregard them as being valid significant journalitic efforts. That's not very fair. Note too that Wikipdia specifically says what constitue a relaible published source is purposefully "overly broad".
1123:. My concern is that some editors base their belief about notability on what they read versus following Knowledge (XXG) policy on notability. Does that make sense or am I barking up the wrong tree? Also, to show good faith re Wikipeida, I am asking for opinion and edits on this article in subspace as opposed to moving it to article space anytime soon.
1649:
I was writing about, just as I have done extensive writing on other pages.) Someone please give me an example of improving the tone. Unfortunately accomplishments are still accomplishments and they are hard to hide and yet still show notabilty. PLEASE, how do I get real, honest, constructive feedback?
1669:
You are getting real, honest, constructive feedback. You've had four highly experienced
Wikipedians tell you that this article will probably not survive a deletion discussion because the topic is not notable. (Plus however many looked and decided it wasn't worth repeating what we said.) If you insist
1648:
asking for constructive input on the article. Other than two editors offering their offhand coments but not assistance, I am at a loss as to what to do. I am perfectly willing to adjust the tone or make major re-writes with some direction from someone (the tone seems OK to me if it were anyone else
1061:
Nevermind. Since I had not heard back from you re the courtesy request, I got an un-deletion request fulfilled instead. Knowledge (XXG) has an archive service that will archive these news stories and provide a citation for use in articles. I will use that instead of trying to archive them myself.
795:
Your charachterization of the
Business Journal is simply not true. Look at the actual articles they cover (footnoted above). These are not in any manner "promotional" articles. They are a solid news source. You are making a very broad inference from one sentence that says they "serve advertisers"
669:
covering 41 of the nations top markets. I see it quoted liberally throughout
Knowledge (XXG) in citations. Like any newspaper it uses ad revenue but that does diminsh it's news value, any more than ads diminish the New York Times. Articles or the front cover of the ABJ cannot be cited for you since
464:
Excuse me, you didn't look very closely. I am not and never have been a real estate agent and am not selling anything. I did develop one of the largest New
Urbanism projects ($ 400 million) in the five-county Austin metro area as part of a varied career. Nor do I have political ambitions -- rather I
1696:
Well put. I honestly do hear what you are saying. Really, I do, and I appreciate your honesty. What I was getting out was WHY is it not notable, as it appears to me to meet the tests set out by
Knowledge (XXG) for notability, and/or what can be done to re-write it to make it more acceptable, less
1594:
route to an article. My waiting until "someone else writes about you" is one option, but the BIO option is also another allowable and legitimate way to go. I would truly appprecaite you reviewing it in that light as I can say I personally think it meets the notability test (and the original article
1563:
on my part and recognize that I am making a careful and hopefully broader and more well-reasoned attempt to follow policy and to insert a nuetral point of view, and that you or others would read the article on it's merits (rather than recalling the previous attempt without seeing how it differs) and
949:
OK. I understand and I'm certainly sensitive to the issue. Given that I spent many, many hours tracking down these articles on paid archives, can you send me an email copy for my file in order to possibly extract out just the relevant sentences in the future? I have deleted references to the page
644:
Interesting observations re the
Business Journal. Especially your observation about the Austin Business Journal not being relevant. I assume you have not pulled up any of these referneces to read and see that they are legitimate, verifiable third-party articles and not promotional pieces. The ABJ
609:
page of The
Business Journals appears to indicate that the journals are marketing venues rather than sources of independent information, but then "premier media solutions platform for companies strategically targeting business decision makers" is one of those tiresome biz jargon strings that may not
327:
if more than a year old are available only through paid archives (making a normal citation impossible). In such cases I have gone the extra mile by downloading the article text from the paid archive and making it available to readers through
Knowledge (XXG)'s Archive process. I now understand that
1784:
I apologize that I took the route of trying to do this autobiographicaly, instead of some sleezy way through a meat puppet or paid writer. I'm trying to be honest and up-front here and to make the straight-up case for notability. If I cannot, then I'll go away (disappointed) but will go away. But
1436:
as if there is a cabal of editors that decided what gets in and what doesn't. No one controls Knowledge (XXG). Much has changed in this article. Major new bio article hav bene added to meet Wikipeida standards. So please cut me some slack, please read the new article, and allow me to give you my
1037:
Danger - I sincerely would be most appreciative if you will please email me a copy of the original articles texts, or undlete them briefy, which are otherwise now unavailable anywhere, and I will look into using this procedure where apropriate for citing the more important articles currently hidden
896:
Danger, would you consider reveting the deletion of the articles text subpage for just a few days to allow further discussion of the issue among other editors? This would have the added benefit of allowing editors to read the ABJ articles to see that they are serious journalistic business stories
1396:
Frankly, Don, I haven't responded because I don't think you're any closer to being notable as we define it around here than you were the last time you tried. If you're genuinely notable, somebody else will write about you (and more impartially than you can), just as they did about the other, more
758:
As for the article texts, with the exception of the Baytown Sun which were actual copies of microfilm, all of the 40 or so other articles showed article texts, not reproduced copies of articles. It was an editor of Knowledge (XXG) as the one that suggested citing them in this manner. What do you
344:
The proper way to get your own writing about yourself in if you really think you can meet the inclusion criteria . . . is to make a proposal containing the text you want, instead of just putting it up directly, and seek the consensus of the community through discussion. Not only does this provide
1174:. Hometown business profiles are routinely dismissed as evidence of significant coverage because every local media outlet wants to highlight their own local talent -- this does not mean the talent is notable, only that the media outlet wants to get some "local color". Your best bet would be to
64:
with little success on feedback other than a drawn out discussion with one editor as to whether or not a particular newspaper (Austin Business Journal) is indeed a legitimate newspaper (it is). But no edits. Plus I have a "new unreviewed article" template on the draft article itself. I would
765:
which provides no relevant information at all? Using actual citations of Paid Archive references of the actual archive article unfortunately includes my username and password embedded in the citation. That's not fair or probably legal. I appeciate your concern, I really do, but what do you
788:
Rather than basing my evaluation of ABJ on my personal feelings about the articles, I am basing it on what ABJ sys about itself. If I understand correctly, ABJ considers itself primarily a venue for companies to promote themselves. The description appears to be about the content itself, not
820:
where the is no mention at all of thir creating "promotional" articles. I am flabergasted at your questioning of this network of Business Journals across the country as being non-authorative. THey are used a s sources throughout Knowledge (XXG). You cannot "buy" an article in the Business
1535:
That is why I am offered this article on a subpage first for feedback and comment rather than moving it immediately to article space. So far, however, I have received no openly constructive edits, suggestions or assistance which would help me to make it better or to better meet notabiity
303:
Knowledge (XXG) puts a premium on such references in establishing notability as well as verifying facts in the remainder of the article. Such references are provided in nearly all cases, and statements in the article are backed up by third-party, well established, verifiable
687:
I see NOTHING whatsoever in your reference page that indicates this is not a fully credible news source. Look at some actual articles, or the list of articles in each issue, and you will see that your observations and inference based on single ambigious sentence are grossly
345:
independent viewpoints on it that can allow you to discover biases you were not aware of having, it also helps provide an indication of good faith and that you are willing to put the interests of Knowledge (XXG) first instead of standing in a position of conflict of interest.
630:
see note below about not using these references and using archive citations instead. I am not at all happy about the deletion of an entire body of work without any discussion whatsoever. Nor your unwillingness to email me a copy. I will pursue it with the deletion review
465:
ran some of the most major political campaigns in the Austin area including for Nolan Ryan and for a new International Austin airport. I don't see how you get two completely false assumptions out of what you read. If so, I must have done an extremely poor job of writing.
1351:
I am copying this discussion from the help desk because notability and other such questions belong here and not there. Help Desk is for questions about Knowledge (XXG) and not detailed notability and article discussions. Comments welcome below. Thanks.
916:
No. Hosting copyrighted material is not an issue that we can fudge. In addition to violating a core principle (that of free content), it exposes Knowledge (XXG) to legal action. If you would like review of the deletion, you may request one at
605:
I've deleted your collection of texts of copyrighted articles; it is against several policies use Knowledge (XXG) to host copyrighted material. It seems that notability hinges on whether Austin Business Journal is a reliable source. The
204:, but candid input and editing is strongly encouraged. I would prefer that there is discussion here before editing the actual article, but editing it now is certainly your perogative if you wish. Below are my expanatory comments.
950:
of actual articles (which Danger deleted without discussing it first, or discussing it later). Therefore I am, with great hesitation, using the archive page citation in it's place for those articles where needed.
287:
the subject of the BLP -- a very important distinction and a critical part of establishing notability according to Knowledge (XXG) policy. Generally only one such biography reference is needed. Four are provided
328:
his is not kosher regarding copyrighted material, and so I am converting the citations to the actual paid archive citation. I understand if someone asks about or a specic article I can email it to him or her.
1466:
As you can see, the new bio has been much more extensively cited with just these kinds of references since the original draft. The current article has 53 truly excellent, independent, verifiable, high-quality
1766:
Founded and Chaired a citizen's effort to protect an endangered species and was successful in obtaining a protective USF&W 10-A permit for the Georgetown Salamander (you don't see many "developers" doing
435:
I would have suggested feedback, but no-one ever responds there unless it takes MarcusBritish's fancy. I have my doubts about this chap's notability, and I was hoping for a couple of other opinions on that.
250:
in the author of the article, but offering critiques is encouraged (especially on this talk page). The article has been tested for comments on subpage and vetted by others prior to moving it to articlespace.
1760:, mixed-use new urban land development that is the largest ever in the entire 5-county metro area, and it is completely 100% sold out. In partnership with Fort Worth financier Ed Bass of the Bass Brothers.
789:
advertising. (I really wish business people would write in English, so we wouldn't need to dissect their meaning-free prose, but I digress.) This raises concerns about the independence of it's coverage.
44:
below in my "Author's Comments"). I have no intent of moving it to article space "unless and until." I've taken great care to have excellent and diversified citations based on the Knowledge (XXG)
982:
Danger - apparently there is a way to preserve portions of actual articles, especially those behind paywalls, and for purposes of making citations and preventing citation rot as follows located at
666:
for further reference. The Austin Busness Journal is a highly respected weekly business news source (hence the name "Business" in the name) newspaper that is part of the national business network
1744:
Co-founded in the 1970's (well before the age of desktops or even Microsoft or Apple) a national computerized bill vote tracking service on the US Congress and sold it to the Washington Post.
1437:
reasoning re notability versus just an offhand comment that I'm obviously not notable and to wait the rest of my life for someone to come along (with no detail as to why it is not notable):
824:
Lastly, Knowledge (XXG) says that he definition of what is a valid source for purposes of notability should be very broad. This discussion is diverting attention from the real issues.
759:
recommend as the proper citation? Perhaps to show only the short portion of that references soley Donald Martin (the equivelent to a quote, for example) in this manner? To simply use
1428:
Thank you Mike. That's why I am putting it out here for review and not in articlespace. I realize autobiographical articles are discouraged. And so I am and will try hard to prove
246:
Even so, it is impossile to write the article without pointing our positive accomplishments (as one would in writing any BLP, which is what makes it worthy of being a BLP). Please
1103:
Thank you. I will pursue that avenue. I am happy for the article to be re-written as necessary. I realize such articles are discouraged. And so I am and will try hard to prove
200:
in this situation. Although not unheard of, it must be reviewed with the utmost of caution and care by other editors. Great care has been taken by the author to try and ensure a
1776:
Provided 53 extremely well-vetted high-quality independent citations to reference events and items above as well as others (and rejected probbly as many more that were not used).
1750:
Likewise ran the effort to approve bonds for a publicly-built stadium for Nolan Ryan to bring a minor league team (The Round Rock Express) to the Austin-Round Rock metro area.
1747:
Chaired and managed the successful citizen's effort to bring Austin an International airport (Austin Bergstrom International Airport!) and to approve bonds for building same.
1590:
After looking at numerous other biographical articles, I see many that do not have as much grounds for notability as this article does. And Knowledge (XXG) provides for a
1197:
Thanks for your suggestion . I appreciate each one that I get and have posted to every site suggested to me on this page (see above). I posted the site today at
1001:, which provides on-demand web archiving. These services collect and preserve web pages for future use even if the original web page is moved, changed, deleted,
1779:
Provide four independent bio articles (not articles in which I am quoted, but rather where I am the subject of the article) as per notability REQUIREMENTS.
1753:
Founded 21 years ago and then later sold a highly-acclaimed (see articles) Public Affairs firm representing an amazing list of state and national clients.
1166:. Your own image of yourself as a notable person based on profiles in local media does not mesh with Knowledge (XXG)'s image of notability based on
1117:"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
508:"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
1464:"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
994:
281:"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
707:
from the actual articles that are not archive-based and that might be helpful to read to validate the ABJ's legtimacy as a valid news source:
1019:
articles or pages hosted by financially distressed organizations. Once you have the URL for the archived version of the web page, use the
52:(which does not apparently work on a subpage like this)? Or to get other editors to review AND EDIT the article? I have twice posted on
1670:
on asking until you get the answer you want, why don't you just move this to mainspace. Then you can have the issue settled for you at
553:
So it's not so much what you personally think of the biography of the person or what they do as it is wheter it meets Knowledge (XXG)
347:
That is why I am offered this article on a subpage first for feedback and comment rather than moving it immediately to article space.
1825:
Not that is an excuse, but I see hundreds of articles on people and busineses that are less notable. As I'm sure you do as well.
40:, and I am intending to keep it on the subpage until further vetted by other editors as well (see disclosures and explation about
1062:
I also have an admin request in to verify that the Business Journals are legitimate unbiased, credible news sources. A look at
48:
requirements. Here are my questions: What is the proper template(s) to use on the article page or talk page to further elicit
1185:
817:
663:
1028:
897:
and not advertorials. How else can I refute your allegation? Please allow me a fair chance to just make my case. Thanks.
376:
1501:
548:
1066:
should be more than satisfactory re the business coverage, but since you still have doubts I will pursue this further.
1785:
not without making my case based on Knowledge (XXG) rules and guidelines re notability, not based on opinions about me
441:
137:
1012:
1221:
I tend to agree with WikiDan61 above. The article doesn't make it clear why you are notable beyond your local area?
1507:
I HAVE NOW PROVIDED FOUR SUCH BIO ARTICLES. NOT EVEN ONE OF WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL DON MARTIN ARTICLE
998:
659:
93:
enough to warrant an article. I suspect the answer will be no, but I don't want to pre-empt any discussion. --
1839:
1799:
1715:
1683:
1663:
1609:
1413:
1366:
1335:
1312:
1289:
1266:
1230:
1215:
1189:
1137:
1080:
1052:
964:
930:
911:
876:
838:
811:
783:
745:
619:
593:
571:
524:
497:
479:
459:
450:
OK, I looked. Non-notable estate agent with political ambitions. Probably wouldn't last a week in main space.
445:
428:
407:
219:
166:
141:
119:
79:
1509:. I am really working hard to establish true notability and I hope you will look at these actual bio articles.
283:
These are not articles that simply mention the subject or quote the subject, but rather are bio-type articles
796:
too. What publication doesn't serve their advertisers? That does not mean they sell advertiser news stories
1226:
437:
413:
This was the site the adminstrator suggested when I did a {adminhelp}. But I will post it there as well.'
133:
94:
493:
455:
403:
241:
201:
37:
1741:
As a young twenty-year old published, edited and later sold a state-wide newsletter on Texas Government
1637:
1295:
395:
49:
1960:
1408:
1591:
1564:
to consider it on its own merit. A huge amount of time has been spent to greatly and significantly
265:
The first section of Career Summary is intended for the purpose of laying out the specific case for
30:
1881:
1031:
that you are using. The template will automatically incoporate the archived link into reference."
1901:
1222:
861:
65:
appreciate any guidance as to how to get more helpful feedback and/or specific edits. Thank you
1119:
I have provided numerous secondary reliable sources that are independent of me. These are not
723:
NOTE 2: -- I just found a non-paid link that shows the business articles in a the most recent
1629:
1497:
1249:
1162:
544:
540:
101:
86:
61:
33:
1833:
1793:
1709:
1679:
1657:
1603:
1360:
1329:
1306:
1283:
1260:
1209:
1131:
1074:
1046:
958:
926:
905:
872:
832:
805:
777:
739:
615:
589:
565:
518:
489:
473:
451:
422:
399:
370:
213:
160:
113:
73:
17:
1671:
1633:
1487:
1455:
1272:
1108:
918:
610:
mean anything at all. Taken on face-value, it looks like this is not a notable subject. --
554:
530:
485:
197:
148:
129:
90:
57:
53:
27:
1926:
1914:
1402:
1376:
1641:
1318:
1198:
1175:
1179:
510:
I have provided four such secondary reliable sources which are probably worth reading.
990:
89:, the conflict of interest noticeboard, and ask for an opinion as to whether you are
1941:
881:
I will do that on one or two articles that are not in the newspaper's own archives.
1736:
Here are few factoid highlights re notability to consider, as it it appears to me:
1557:"the definition of what is valid for purposes of notability should be very broad."
484:
Well, property developer, businessman, whatever; in my opinion this does not meet
1770:
Am currently developing a startup reputation repair workbook soon to be for sale
1827:
1787:
1703:
1675:
1651:
1597:
1354:
1323:
1300:
1277:
1254:
1203:
1125:
1068:
1040:
952:
922:
899:
868:
826:
799:
771:
733:
611:
585:
559:
512:
467:
416:
364:
207:
154:
107:
67:
768:
What is the proper way to cite a major daily newspaper's Paid Archive articles?
196:
article where the subject is also the author of the article. There is a clear
1459:
1429:
1398:
1112:
1104:
503:
276:
266:
45:
41:
362:, positive or negative, as well as all suggested edits. Thank you very much.
1628:
I have posted this proposed article on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard
1160:
Don, the arguments that occurred above are precisely why Knowledge (XXG)
1004:
557:
criteria. Personal biases and presumptions are not part of the criteria.
727:
issue. Business articles are listed on the left side of the page. See
1382:
607:
1375:
To ensure continuity of the discussions, the discussion below with --
983:
319:
Unfortunately, some of the articles from credible sources such as the
1063:
1015:
web pages that are unstable or prone to changes, like time sensitive
728:
536:
1771:
269:. (It can be deleted if needed). Likewise the inclusion of the four
301:
Independent, highly credible, published, VERIFIABLE references:
1016:
867:
and omit the url parameter to cite articles behind a paywall. --
1492:"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the
667:
193:
1763:
Author of a postcard history book on Austin by Arcadia Press.
279:
of a BLP as well. Knowledge (XXG) policy on notability says
85:
As your major problem is conflict of interest, I'd post at
1871:
What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.
1038:
behind paywalls, using Knowledge (XXG) procedures above.
543:
if he or she has been the subject of multiple published
1701:
That isn't going to happen either and we all know it.
533:, which you cite above, the number one criteria says
244:
and not just written from a third party point of view.
1201:
and will wait to hear what they have to say as well.
662:, one of the premier American daily newspapers. See
192:
FULL DISCLOSURE: This is a draft of a self-written
1386:
He raises a valid point should be discused further.
390:
Jezhotwells comments copied here from the COIN page
1381:-- from the help Desk are cut and pasted here from
857:Sources are not required to be online. You may use
997:, which passively archives many web pages, and
993:service. The two most popular services are the
26:Situation: I have written an autobiographical
1248:Reposted on Conflict of Interest Noticeboard
1011:. Web archiving is especially important when
8:
984:Knowledge (XXG) article on Archive Services
1559:I would be most appreciative if you would
1555:Lastly, Knowledge (XXG) policy says that
703:NOTE: Here are three references from the
658:Over half of the references are from the
360:I sincerely welcome all detailed comments
132:noticeboard to get some more opinions. --
240:Every effort has been taken to ensure a
104:by Austex Sept 17. Thanks for the help.
36:, with great care as to a maintaining a
1867:
1865:
1863:
1859:
1271:Reposted on Editor Assistance Requests
989:"A way to prevent link-rot is to use a
1946:Austin Business Journal (Paid Archive)
1922:
1910:
1899:
1624:So how DO I get constructive feedback?
275:are an important part of establishing
7:
1163:strongly discourages autobiographies
766:recommend as an accetable citation?
1940:Hudgins, Matt (November 10, 2000).
1699:maybe someone will write something.
1432:. I am concerned about your use of
816:Also see Knowledge (XXG) itself at
151:per suggestion Sept 17. Thank you.
1921:Cite has empty unknown parameter:
24:
1504:, and independent of each other."
645:is not a promotional publication.
551:, and independent of each other."
1490:, the number one criteria says '
1121:just hometown business profiles'
317:Dealing with paywall citations:
1959:Chantal, Outon (June 2, 2006).
1178:and let someone else write it.
818:American City Business Journals
664:American City Business Journals
272:Biography-type profile articles
1882:"La Frontera Village for Sale"
1840:14:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
1800:03:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
1716:03:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
1684:23:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
1664:21:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
1610:22:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
1434:"as we define it around here,"
1414:17:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
1367:14:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
1347:Copy discussion from Help Desk
1336:22:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
1313:22:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
1290:16:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
1267:16:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
1231:22:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
1216:22:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
1190:17:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
1138:18:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
1081:14:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
1053:23:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
965:20:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
931:19:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
912:15:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
877:19:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
839:21:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
812:14:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
784:15:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
746:14:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
620:02:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
594:02:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
572:23:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
525:22:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
498:22:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
480:22:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
460:22:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
446:21:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
429:19:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
408:17:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
377:21:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
220:05:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
167:15:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
142:13:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
120:15:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
80:16:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
1:
1632:, Editor Assistance Requests
1496:multiple published articlces
1530:Knowledge (XXG) policy says:
341:Knowledge (XXG) policy says:
1942:"Round Rock offices coming"
1644:and at the Knowledge (XXG)
1454:First, the Knowledge (XXG)
1986:
1756:Simultanously developed a
502:Knowledge (XXG) policy on
178:
130:Editor requests assistance
660:Austin-American Statesman
321:Austin-American Statesman
1961:"Competition heating up"
263:Establishing Notability:
227:
1965:Austin Business Journal
1886:Austin Business Journal
1294:Posted for feedback at
1241:Repostings for feedback
762:"url=www.Statesman.com"
725:Austin Business Journal
705:Austin Business Journal
398:is the venue for this.
325:Austin Business Journal
1909:Check date values in:
1156:Commments by WikiDan61
1317:Posted for review at
242:neutral point of view
202:neutral point of view
38:neutral point of view
977:Web archive services
600:Comments from Danger
1003:or placed behind a
179:AUTHOR'S DISCUSSION
128:You could also try
1199:request an article
1176:request an article
1107:. Knowledge (XXG)
1027:parameters in the
1009:(emphasis is mine)
539:is presumed to be
385:COMMENTS BY OTHERS
1888:. 06 October 2010
1838:
1798:
1714:
1662:
1608:
1561:assume good faith
1498:secondary sources
1365:
1334:
1311:
1288:
1265:
1214:
1136:
1079:
1051:
1029:citation template
963:
910:
837:
810:
782:
744:
584:Commented there.
570:
545:secondary sources
523:
478:
438:Elen of the Roads
427:
375:
248:assume good faith
228:Author's Comments
218:
184:Disclosure of COI
165:
134:Elen of the Roads
118:
95:Elen of the Roads
78:
1977:
1969:
1968:
1956:
1950:
1949:
1937:
1931:
1930:
1924:
1918:
1912:
1907:
1905:
1897:
1895:
1893:
1878:
1872:
1869:
1836:
1830:
1826:
1796:
1790:
1786:
1712:
1706:
1702:
1660:
1654:
1650:
1606:
1600:
1596:
1411:
1405:
1379:
1363:
1357:
1353:
1332:
1326:
1322:
1309:
1303:
1299:
1286:
1280:
1276:
1263:
1257:
1253:
1212:
1206:
1202:
1182:
1172:reliable sources
1134:
1128:
1124:
1077:
1071:
1067:
1049:
1043:
1039:
1026:
1022:
961:
955:
951:
908:
902:
898:
866:
860:
835:
829:
825:
808:
802:
798:
780:
774:
770:
742:
736:
732:
568:
562:
558:
521:
515:
511:
476:
470:
466:
425:
419:
415:
373:
367:
363:
216:
210:
206:
205:
163:
157:
153:
116:
110:
106:
76:
70:
66:
18:User talk:Austex
1985:
1984:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1972:
1958:
1957:
1953:
1939:
1938:
1934:
1920:
1908:
1898:
1891:
1889:
1880:
1879:
1875:
1870:
1861:
1856:
1834:
1828:
1794:
1788:
1710:
1704:
1658:
1652:
1636:, for feedback
1626:
1604:
1598:
1409:
1403:
1377:
1361:
1355:
1349:
1330:
1324:
1307:
1301:
1284:
1278:
1261:
1255:
1243:
1210:
1204:
1188:
1180:
1158:
1132:
1126:
1075:
1069:
1047:
1041:
1024:
1020:
995:Wayback Machine
979:
959:
953:
919:deletion review
906:
900:
864:
858:
833:
827:
806:
800:
778:
772:
740:
734:
602:
566:
560:
519:
513:
474:
468:
423:
417:
392:
387:
371:
365:
230:
214:
208:
191:
186:
181:
161:
155:
114:
108:
74:
68:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1983:
1981:
1971:
1970:
1951:
1932:
1873:
1858:
1857:
1855:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1813:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1781:
1780:
1777:
1774:
1768:
1764:
1761:
1754:
1751:
1748:
1745:
1742:
1738:
1737:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1687:
1686:
1625:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1388:
1387:
1371:
1348:
1345:
1343:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1315:
1292:
1269:
1242:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1184:
1157:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1056:
1055:
978:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
914:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
879:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
822:
814:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
678:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
623:
622:
601:
598:
597:
596:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
527:
433:
432:
431:
391:
388:
386:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
353:
351:
350:
349:
348:
334:
332:
331:
330:
329:
310:
308:
307:
306:
305:
294:
292:
291:
290:
289:
256:
254:
253:
252:
251:
233:
232:
229:
226:
225:
224:
223:
222:
185:
182:
180:
177:
176:
175:
174:
173:
172:
171:
170:
169:
123:
122:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1982:
1966:
1962:
1955:
1952:
1947:
1943:
1936:
1933:
1928:
1916:
1903:
1887:
1883:
1877:
1874:
1868:
1866:
1864:
1860:
1853:
1841:
1837:
1831:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1801:
1797:
1791:
1783:
1782:
1778:
1775:
1773:
1769:
1765:
1762:
1759:
1758:$ 400 million
1755:
1752:
1749:
1746:
1743:
1740:
1739:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1717:
1713:
1707:
1700:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1685:
1681:
1677:
1673:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1661:
1655:
1647:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1623:
1611:
1607:
1601:
1593:
1589:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1568:this article.
1567:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1536:requirements.
1534:
1531:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1508:
1505:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1489:
1486:Secondly, in
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1415:
1412:
1406:
1400:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1385:
1384:
1380:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1358:
1346:
1344:
1337:
1333:
1327:
1320:
1316:
1314:
1310:
1304:
1297:
1293:
1291:
1287:
1281:
1274:
1270:
1268:
1264:
1258:
1251:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1240:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1223:Theroadislong
1220:
1219:
1217:
1213:
1207:
1200:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1164:
1155:
1139:
1135:
1129:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1082:
1078:
1072:
1065:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1054:
1050:
1044:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1030:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1007:
1006:
1000:
996:
992:
991:web archiving
987:
986:
985:
976:
966:
962:
956:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
932:
928:
924:
920:
915:
913:
909:
903:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
880:
878:
874:
870:
863:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
840:
836:
830:
823:
819:
815:
813:
809:
803:
797:
793:
792:
791:
790:
787:
786:
785:
781:
775:
769:
764:
763:
757:
756:
755:
754:
747:
743:
737:
731:
730:
726:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
708:
706:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
689:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
668:
665:
661:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
621:
617:
613:
608:
604:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
583:
573:
569:
563:
556:
552:
550:
546:
542:
538:
532:
528:
526:
522:
516:
509:
505:
501:
500:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
482:
481:
477:
471:
463:
462:
461:
457:
453:
449:
448:
447:
443:
439:
434:
430:
426:
420:
414:
411:
410:
409:
405:
401:
397:
394:
393:
389:
384:
378:
374:
368:
361:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
346:
342:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
326:
322:
318:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
302:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
286:
282:
278:
274:
273:
268:
264:
261:
260:
259:
258:
257:
249:
245:
243:
238:
237:
236:
235:
234:
221:
217:
211:
203:
199:
195:
190:
189:
188:
187:
183:
168:
164:
158:
152:
150:
145:
144:
143:
139:
135:
131:
127:
126:
125:
124:
121:
117:
111:
105:
103:
98:
97:
96:
92:
88:
84:
83:
82:
81:
77:
71:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
43:
39:
35:
32:
29:
19:
1964:
1954:
1945:
1935:
1890:. Retrieved
1885:
1876:
1812:
1757:
1698:
1645:
1627:
1587:
1565:
1560:
1556:
1532:
1529:
1506:
1493:
1491:
1463:
1433:
1374:
1373:
1350:
1342:
1171:
1170:coverage in
1167:
1161:
1159:
1120:
1116:
1025:archivedate=
1008:
1002:
988:
981:
980:
794:
767:
761:
760:
724:
722:
704:
702:
686:
677:
534:
507:
412:
359:
352:
343:
340:
333:
324:
320:
316:
309:
300:
293:
284:
280:
271:
270:
262:
255:
247:
239:
231:
146:
99:
25:
1923:|coauthors=
1638:WP:FEEDBACK
1458:section on
1404:Orange Mike
1399:Don Martins
1378:Orange Mike
1296:WP:FEEDBACK
1168:significant
1111:section on
1021:archiveurl=
490:Jezhotwells
452:Jezhotwells
400:Jezhotwells
396:WP:FEEDBACK
50:WP:FEEDBACK
1892:3 February
1854:References
1592:WP:BLPSELF
1500:which are
1494:subject of
1467:citations.
1460:notability
1430:notability
1321:today --
1113:notability
1105:notability
709:, , and .
688:incorrect.
547:which are
504:notability
277:notability
267:notability
147:Posted at
100:Posted on
46:notability
42:notability
31:WP:BLPSELF
1902:cite news
1383:Help Desk
1181:WikiDan61
862:cite news
1646:Helpdesk
1588:SUMMARY:
1502:reliable
1397:notable
1186:ReadMe!!
1005:pay wall
821:Journal.
549:reliable
304:sources.
1630:WP:COIN
1566:improve
1528:Third,
1370:br: -->
1250:WP:COIN
999:WebCite
631:staff..
541:notable
102:WP:COIN
91:notable
87:WP:COIN
62:WP:COIN
34:WP:AUTO
1911:|date=
1829:Austex
1789:Austex
1767:that!)
1705:Austex
1676:Danger
1672:WP:AfD
1653:Austex
1634:WP:EAR
1599:Austex
1488:WP:BIO
1456:WP:BIO
1356:Austex
1325:Austex
1302:Austex
1279:Austex
1273:WP:EAR
1256:Austex
1205:Austex
1127:Austex
1109:WP:BIO
1070:Austex
1042:Austex
1013:citing
954:Austex
923:Danger
901:Austex
869:Danger
828:Austex
801:Austex
773:Austex
735:Austex
612:Danger
586:Danger
561:Austex
555:WP:BIO
537:person
531:WP:BIO
514:Austex
486:WP:BIO
469:Austex
418:Austex
366:Austex
209:Austex
198:WP:COI
156:Austex
149:WP:EAR
109:Austex
69:Austex
58:WP:RFF
54:WP:EAR
28:WP:BLP
1642:WP:RA
1640:, at
1462:says
1369:: -->
1319:WP:RA
1115:says
506:says
288:here.
285:about
16:<
1927:help
1915:help
1894:2011
1835:Talk
1795:Talk
1772:Here
1711:Talk
1680:talk
1674:. --
1659:Talk
1605:Talk
1410:Talk
1401:. --
1362:Talk
1331:Talk
1308:Talk
1298:--
1285:Talk
1262:Talk
1227:talk
1211:Talk
1133:Talk
1076:Talk
1048:Talk
1023:and
1017:news
960:Talk
927:talk
921:. --
907:Talk
873:talk
834:Talk
807:Talk
779:Talk
741:Talk
729:HERE
616:talk
590:talk
567:Talk
520:Talk
494:talk
475:Talk
456:talk
442:talk
424:Talk
404:talk
372:Talk
323:and
215:Talk
162:Talk
138:talk
115:Talk
75:Talk
60:and
1407:|
1275:--
1252:--
1064:ABJ
535:"A
529:In
194:BLP
1963:.
1944:.
1919:;
1906::
1904:}}
1900:{{
1884:.
1862:^
1832:•
1792:•
1708:•
1682:)
1656:•
1602:•
1359:•
1328:•
1305:•
1282:•
1259:•
1229:)
1218:.
1208:•
1130:•
1073:•
1045:•
957:•
929:)
904:•
875:)
865:}}
859:{{
831:•
804:•
776:•
738:•
618:)
592:)
564:•
517:•
496:)
488:.
472:•
458:)
444:)
436:--
421:•
406:)
369:•
212:•
159:•
140:)
112:•
72:•
56:,
1967:.
1948:.
1929:)
1925:(
1917:)
1913:(
1896:.
1678:(
1225:(
925:(
871:(
614:(
588:(
492:(
454:(
440:(
402:(
136:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.