Talk:Simon Zadek

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

File:Simon Zadek .png Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Simon Zadek .png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

puff removed a bit

Almost the entire article is sourced to ... Simon Zadek. I removed the worst of the promotional puff. Collect (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About half the article still consists of a list of Zadek's publications. Without the puff, it's rather clear that there is little context for the list. No third party reviews are there now, and I'm not finding much myself. Google scholar results don't seem to include any on this list among Zadek's most cited publications — his most cited publications tend to be a little older, and I haven't walked into any reviews of those, either. Reviews or other coverage would at least give some context. So I think the glut of self-referenced (down to the personal domain) publications should go, especially considering it was among obviously promotional additions by an editor associated with the subject. Individual publications might be worth replacing, if there's some indication as to their significance. JFHJr (㊟) 17:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]