The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Nellie Bly Cub Reporter Award was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 26 August 2015 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into New York Press Club. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in New York City may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
New York Press Club article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that 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. VWBot ( talk) 06:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that 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. VWBot ( talk) 13:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... perhaps it could be fixed with work, but that doesn't mean that the article should be deleted; the subject is notable, there are references.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 20:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because...
The nominator left a comment: "reviewing admin: please note that the page was largely written by an employee of the subject and is also laced with copyvios from the subject's website"
I don't see any obvious signs of copyvio. On the contrary, a cursory look at the revision history shows multiple contributors. I would encourage nominator to document his concerns more fully. Geo Swan ( talk) 01:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I am at a loss as to why you are reluctant to do so. Geo Swan ( talk) 19:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Tomwsulcer, regarding your re-write of the article, thank you very much, it's hugely improved both over the stub as well as the previous spammy, copyvio version that was taken down by Seraphimblade. There's no reason to get testy and threaten to take me to ANI over this. The fact of the matter is that yesterday you restored a huge amount of content that was deemed spammy by multiple editors, with a confusing edit summary. It was... unseemly and not something most longstanding editors would want to be associated with. In any case, onward and upward. The current version could surely use improvements but it doesn't seem spammy to me. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 16:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Nellie Bly Cub Reporter Award was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 26 August 2015 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into New York Press Club. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in New York City may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
New York Press Club article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that 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. VWBot ( talk) 06:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that 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. VWBot ( talk) 13:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... perhaps it could be fixed with work, but that doesn't mean that the article should be deleted; the subject is notable, there are references.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 20:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because...
The nominator left a comment: "reviewing admin: please note that the page was largely written by an employee of the subject and is also laced with copyvios from the subject's website"
I don't see any obvious signs of copyvio. On the contrary, a cursory look at the revision history shows multiple contributors. I would encourage nominator to document his concerns more fully. Geo Swan ( talk) 01:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I am at a loss as to why you are reluctant to do so. Geo Swan ( talk) 19:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Tomwsulcer, regarding your re-write of the article, thank you very much, it's hugely improved both over the stub as well as the previous spammy, copyvio version that was taken down by Seraphimblade. There's no reason to get testy and threaten to take me to ANI over this. The fact of the matter is that yesterday you restored a huge amount of content that was deemed spammy by multiple editors, with a confusing edit summary. It was... unseemly and not something most longstanding editors would want to be associated with. In any case, onward and upward. The current version could surely use improvements but it doesn't seem spammy to me. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 16:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)