Talk:David E. Aldrich

I am working to fix the reference links

Good Work

Nice job updating this info.Mrmcdonnell (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

October 2009

An SPA came along and tagged this for speedy deletion, in my opinion unfairly. I have plucked a bunch of peacock feathers: this wasn't a bad resume or tenure application, but it was a bad article. Below, please find the puffy section "news coverage."

News Coverage

• Sound Rider: Peckhammer, The next generation of moto entertainment is here (December 2008)
• University Week: Move over, podcasting -- screencasting's a growing trend (January 2008)
• Campus Techology News: U Washington Deploys IP-Based 'Coursecasting' (May 2007)
• Barix AG: University of Washington Standardizes with Barix IP Audio Encoding (May 2007)
• The Daily News: UW to expand podcast offerings (October 2006)
• Seattle Times: Podcasts a big hit at local colleges (April 2006)
• The Office of Learning Technologies: Podcasting at the UW: An Evaluation of Current Use (2006)
• Accenture: New Learning Technologies for Enterprise Learning: Ready for Prime Time? (2005)
• The Daily: Podcasting takes root at the UW (November 2005)
• CNET News: Stanford using iTunes to take lectures global (November 2005)
• Seattle Post-Intelligencer: UW's downloadable lectures have iPods playing a new tune (October 2005)
• University Week: Students get class lectures on demand, thanks to podcasts (October 2005)
• Komo Radio: Interview (October, 2005)
• Metro Networks/Westwood One Radio: Interview (October 2005)
• University Weekly
• UW/CSS Technology Blog
• Classroom Support Services News and Announcement Web Page

Drmies (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

July 2010

I've flagged this page for notability review (most of the articles referencing this individual seem to do so only in passing, or are not from independent sources) and done some cleanup of the text, but couldn't find much in the way of new sources. Note that I've also flagged another page created by the same author(Peckhammer TV) -- that one was previously deleted for non-notability and recreated (by the same author) shortly thereafter, but doesn't appear to have undergone review since. 68.122.35.182 (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This page already survived a challenge in October 2009. A look at the history of the page (references) clearly shows that this person has received significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. It appears that a number of these references were deleted by other authors. Also, the notability criteria are are less stringent than for other article types. It is my understanding that once an article has survived the deletion review process, the article stands. Revision, perhaps. Deletion, no. Souris40 (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The 2009 challenge was unrelated to notability grounds -- pages often go through deletion discussions repeatedly when there are different issues involved. (The issue raised in 2009 was a claim that the page was a promotional piece or resume-equivalent rather than an encyclopedia article.) Also, the 2009 challenge never went to full discussion; one editor posted the speedy deletion template and another removed it, but that's not equivalent to an official ruling. The sources listed here on the talk page (as previously deleted) don't appear to establish notability; they're either not "substantial coverage" (e.g., an article quoting someone as a spokesperson for an organization doesn't establish the notability of that individual), or they're not independent sources because they're published by the subject's employer. If I'm missing something, please clarify -- have multiple reliable third-party sources ever profiled this individual, or otherwise discussed him (as an individual, not just an organizational mouthpiece) at length? If so, identifying these (and excerpting, if they're not available online) would help to support a claim of notability. 68.122.32.35 (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It is valid for a second editor to remove a speedy deletion template; it indicates there is not unanimous support for deletion and therefore an Articles for deletion discussion would be required. I was able to find links to the two newspaper articles with a trivial Google search of the article titles, and even if they were not on line, the policy assume good faith requires we assume they were valid news articles when published. WP:RS does not insist that all sources be online.

I've removed the notability tag -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peckhammer TV determined that Peckhammer TV is notable and that alone makes Aldrich notable, plus the coverage in two major newspapers and in Sound RIDER!.

You could still try to nominate this page at WP:AFD but please read WP:SNOW first; I believe it would be a waste of everyone's time. --Dbratland (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

I've removed the "self-published" tag. The link that it referred to is from a news and announcements page at the University of Washington, and while it does appear to have been posted by Aldrich, it was made in the course of his employment and represents information published for, and presumably reviewed by the University.

Self-published material is acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. The material is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject of the article; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources.