User talk:Porterwritewiki

I just learned that a previously approved article I had written was deleted. First, reading the trail of comments below, I am a person, not a team of editors and I find the suggestion by DGG that I am "I suspect from the name of the contributor and totally inappropriate style that this is the work of many of our not-very-skilled-paid-editors" to be hostile, personal and insulting. I have never written for Wiki and I am a known writer for other magazines that cover graphic design. Every suggestion APerson made to me for change was made. DGG's suggestion that I cited their own ARCHIVE is incorrect. I did cite their book — which was NOT self published — and I used information that told their history. If that should be cut down, so be it. To be safe, I tried to find any relevant citation in our industry and used it. APerson did not ask me to make fewer citations and all of them are respected (not TRIVIAL) in our industry. Too promotional? It is the brief history of an esteemed FOR PROFIT company that has made a historic impact on this industry and is revered by many of the same people who are featured on this online resource? Please, if someone can guide me on what to remove I will make the effort to do it. I put a lot of time into this and I was certain that this article was superior to ANY of the peer organizations that I was reading on WIKI that are up and acceptable now. As for "name dropping" (another comment by DGG, that is unkind, rude and inaccurate), the names I cite I also quote and they are people on Wiki who are PEERS of Ken Carbone and Leslie Smolan. The pair were just nominated to the AIGA Hall of Fame, affirming my choice to write this article about this agency. Why write it? Because so many of their peers are on Wiki now and if they are Wiki then Carbone Smolan should be too. I have received no payment from CSA for this but I know them personally (of course) and told them I felt they should be on the encyclopedia if people like Pentagram and Stefan Sagmeister and Steven Heller and Massimo Vignelli were.. These people are competitors and peers. And as for "trivial mentions" in publications, most of these are interviews My first reviewer, APerson, was very helpful and I responded to each of their comments and requests/suggestions for changes. When you ask the contributors to be polite and appreciative, how do you regard the acid commentary of an editor like DGG? Other Wiki editors deemed the piece worthy of publication. If Wiki is not a place to talk about such companies as Carbone Smolan and other design firms of note, fine. But pull all of them down. But don't call my promotional when I used so many outside references to verify that the CSA group is notable, important and has made a great impact on the graphic design/communication arts profession. Porterwritewiki (talk)porterwritewikiPorterwritewiki (talk) Carbone Smolan Agency[edit] Carbone Smolan Agency (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|views) – (View log · Stats) (Find sources: "Carbone Smolan Agency" – books · scholar · JSTOR · free images) I think the agency is probably notable, but the article is so promotional that it should be started over--it would have to be rewritten very fundamentally to eliminate the personal anecdotes, the quotes from the founders, the list of clients, the list of influences that amounts to name-dropping, the long list of trivial mentions in various publications, and the many references sourced merely to their own archives. I suspect from the name of the contributor and the totally inappropriate style that this is either the work of many of our not-very-skilled paid editors, or of some good faith editor thinking that this sort of writing is acceptable here on the grounds we have so many articles of business concerns that are the work of such editors. It's time to clean the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Strong Keep - Clearly enough articles to show is notable; easy enough to cut down or tag for improvement if we don't have someone available to do it. Jeremy112233 (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Strong Keep (as person who accepted it at AfC); I raised questions about the tone on the discussion at my talkpage about it and those were answered to my satisfaction. Notability is definitely met, and although the mentions in the sources can be viewed as trivial, there are a lot of them. Article can be easily improved. APerson (talk!) 20:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Slow-delete or incubate per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION and/or WP:G11. APerson may think the article can be easily fixed, but seems not to have done so. APerson should never have accepted the article for creation in the first place: NOTFORPROMOTION seems to disallow such articles. There's an unreasonable backlog of numerous articles tagged as promotional, and it's safe to assume the backlog is steadily growing. Unless someone fixes the article before this AfD finishes, let's cut down the backlog by simply deleting this article. If an unbiased editor really cares, they can recreate it later. —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Porterwritewiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your Articles for Creation Help Desk question on Carbone Smolan Agency

Hello, Porterwritewiki! I'm Ritchie333. I have replied to your question on the Articles for Creation Help Desk about Carbone Smolan Agency.
You can read it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carbone Smolan Agency. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another reply from me in same section linked above. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Carbone Smolan Agency (December 28)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carbone Smolan Agency.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! APerson (talk!) 17:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Porterwritewiki. You have new messages at APerson's talk page.
Message added 03:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

APerson (talk!) 03:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Carbone Smolan Agency was accepted

Carbone Smolan Agency, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

APerson (talk!) 03:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Carbone Smolan Agency for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carbone Smolan Agency is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carbone Smolan Agency until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ways forward

I copy from my reply at User talk:APerson

I have never yet deleted an article , or listed one for deletion, on the sole grounds that it appeared to be written by a paid editor. for one thing, even if we did ban paid editing, there is so much already in WP that perfectly well-meaning people could think that the style they customarily use is expected and appropriate. If I assumed wrong I apologize, but we are under such a deluge of clearly paid promotion that we're getting very defensive. However, that an article is accepted by one editor at AfC does not necessarily mean that it will be kept in the encyclopedia. No one person decides that, but rather the consensus. I am not infallible, and I accept the result of the community. The decision was made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carbone Smolan Agency. I listed it for deletion, and other people commented. Opinion was clearly divided. the closer (User:Slakr) gave a detailed rationale for his close, and the first step normally would be to discuss it with him. However, to facilitate matters, I notified him for you just now, and suggested he come here.

Both he and I were of the opinion that the subject was notable, and an acceptable article could be written. I will gladly put the article back in your user space and make some suggestions for improving it. (I could go in detail into all the things that made it seem overly promotional , but it'll be better done when we have it in front of us.) OK? DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You First, let me thank you for your response. I appreciate your willingness to help me reshape this article. I respect you all for providing this public service. I welcome your help in getting this draft in acceptable shape so that it may be published one day soon. I did not realize that I needed to check in to see the status of the article after APERSON approved it for posting on January 7. I know better now. Let me get back to work on improving this article so it may be published on WIKI.

Why I Drafted the Article Few American graphic design/branding studios survive as long as CSA has. When their 35th anniversary book was published in 2012, I reviewed their book in Communication Arts (I am paid by CA, of course). Other design agencies with which I am familiar (but not personally or professionally connected) have asked me if I could author a WIKI article but, until CSA asked for my help, I had never attempted it. As a long-time contributor to Communication Arts Magazine, I have had the occasion to meet many creative professionals, Ken Carbone among them. Their 35+ year run sets them apart from most. Over the decades they have created some of the most memorable identities and way-finding systems for some of the most respected and visited cultural institutions in the world (more interesting to me than their work for big Fortune 500 companies, but that is my prejudice). I regard them as among the top-ranked communication arts/design agencies in the US. For that reason, I decided to try to place an article about them.

Highest Honor in American Design Since I submitted the article back in December 2013, CSA was selected for the highest honor of our profession…. The AIGA Medal. Only the best of the best are chosen to be an AIGA Medalist. People like Paul Rand, Saul Bass, Ivan Chermayeff, etc. As a journalist who has had the honor to cover creative professionals for many years, CSA, I felt, "deserved" to have a WIKI page.

Citing Peers and Third-Party Publications When writing the story, I reviewed ten or more existing WIKI articles about their peers (Steven Heller, Stefan Sagmeister, Massimo Vignelli, Pentagram) and sought to emulate the key subject headings (History, Education, Current, Clients) and then researched every notable mention in third-party sources that spoke to their history and excellence. One source is the AIGA archives which help establish their notability and presence among the leading design agencies in the US. The Dialog book was one my principal resources, but I did cite others, including FastCompany, Business News, Communication Arts, and other design industry online publications/sources such as Design Matter, Felt+Wire, AIGA's website, that cover notable designers. Perhaps I offered too many. The "name-dropping" suggestion by your earlier is one I can understand upon further reflection. To help establish how "important" they are, I quote other notable designers like Massimo Vignelli who are on WIKI and who have something to say about CSA. I am not averse to deleting any or all of them from the article.

Citing "Dialog" Book One point you made in your earlier comment was that I drew from their archive — that was not wholly accurate. I did quote from the book celebrating they 35th anniversary. This is nettlesome because the book, while not self-published, obviously involved their participation. I strived not to use adjectives and adverbs celebrating their accomplishments contained in the book but rather used only historical information from it (e.g. their selection in1986 as the signage/wayfinding designers for the Louvre which catapulted them to national acclaim). I can cull that article of direct quotes from the two principals and minimized the use of reference to that book about the company. It will diminish the historical context but I am more than willing to do what I can to get the article in acceptable shape to publish. Please advise me on whether or not I can quote them from that book (which I reference about 8 times but can minimize) or if I can interview them directly and quote from my own interview with them.

Conflict of Interest To clarify a few things for the WIKI editorial review team: I am not personal friends with the subject (Ken Carbone and his partner Leslie Smolan) nor have I ever worked for them for hire. I repeat, I have not and will not accept financial renumeration from them. I know that is ethically out of bounds and I would like to feel that I can write other articles about other leading designers and studios in the future that are not compromised by conflict of interest. Right now, my interest in work with you, DGG, on getting that article revised so that you and your editor peers will accept it. This is a learning process for me. And it has been quite an education. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Please help me get this back on track. Porterwritewiki (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)PorterwritewikiPorterwritewiki (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Hello, Porterwritewiki. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. —Unforgettableid (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Unforgettableid. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —Unforgettableid (talk) 05:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Unforgettableid. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Carbone Smolan Agency because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. —Unforgettableid (talk) 05:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Porterwritewiki (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Porterwritewiki writing you. I am working with DGG to address the concerns that led to the deletion of the article mentioned above (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carbone Smolan Agency). I looked in the deletion log but I could not go back to the Feb 23, the date it was delete. I am new to this process. I cannot find the original annotated version anywhere. Can please you tell me if I can retrieve that document and put it back in my Sandbox to work on? After getting advice from editor DGG I will repost in Article for Creation and see what happens. I have the text on my computer. It was the citation formatting I do not wish to recreate. Please, help if you can. Porterwritewiki (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)PortewritewikiPorterwritewiki (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Status and Advice

Based on the discussion on my talk p., I have moved the deleted article to User:Porterwritewiki/Carbone Smolan Agency for improvement. (I moved it there, not back to AfC, to avoid confusion) I'll make some additional suggestions in a few hours. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Porterwritewiki (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)porterwritewikiPorterwritewiki (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Hello DGG. Finally, I have had the opportunity to return to my draft of Carbone Smolan Agency and edit and improve it. Thank you for placing it in the IMPROVEMENT section so I could do so without reentering all the footnotes. When the story was pulled in February some of the comments/critiques were that it used too many footnote references and "dropped" too many names.[reply]

I was also advised to remove some of the superfluous quotes from the principals of the firm and, in general, watch that I do not get too promotional. As I wrote earlier, I am a design journalist and write for a number of magazines including Communication Arts, a 55 year old publication based in Menlo Park, CA. I know these people but will not take compensation from them for doing this feature profile. I am ready to get back into the scrum and work with you and any editor to help me get this article suitable for publication on Wiki. I believe I have answered most of the concerns but I suspect more will be raised and I welcome them.

When you have time, would you review and give me your toughest critique. Please note: many of the references in the feature article are from design industry publications and from the American Institute of Graphic Design, the guild that guides our business. To those unfamiliar with those publications, they might seem obscure but all are well respected in the business of design and advertising. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Porterwritewiki (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)porterwritewikiPorterwritewiki (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to make sure my redraft of the article on Carbone Smolan Design was in the proper place for review. I do not think it is! Yes I am new to Wiki but I am learning the old fashion way: I keep trying! Thank for your attention and consideration: Here is the most recent draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Porterwritewiki/Carbone_Smolan_Agency Porterwritewiki (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing DGG's talk page

Hallo, I've added a Section heading to your note on User talk:DGG, and removed the two presumably accidental signatures at the start of it. There's a lot to learn about editing Wikipedia, but it's an interesting journey. Happy Editing! PamD 13:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking above, you seem to be in the habit of signing talk page contributions at the start as well as at the end, and signing multiple times: that's not the normal procedure in Wikipedia, and is likely to confuse other readers or make them query your editing experience. It's best just to sign once, at the end of your contribution. PamD 13:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. I do do that double Matilda thing but will stop now that I know better. Yep, a lot to learn and, yep, this article has been my inaugural ride — and a bumpy one. I hope to write more about designers in America of note so your constructive advice is most welcome. Will you be one of the editors reading the draft? How do they get assigned…or is it more of a random thing? Do you add the matildas before and after your login name? Porterwritewiki (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)porterwritewikiPorterwritewiki (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checking in with you to learn if my revised story on Carbone Smolan Agency. Several other editors were involved in the original submission and, later, its removal. Since you were the last person I have communicated with about the submission, I thought I would start with you. I know you are all busy and expect to wait. Just wondering if you could offer me any ideas on when I can get input and move the process forward. porterwritewiki Porterwritewiki (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DGG here is the link to the most recent draft of that story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Porterwritewiki/Carbone_Smolan_Agency Porterwritewiki (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Porterwritewiki. You have new messages at APerson's talk page.
Message added 22:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

APerson (talk!) 22:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to see this. (I , like most busy people here, don't watch pages where I have left comments--there are just too many-- you have to ask) You can do that by including {{U|DGG}}, which automatically leaves DGG a notice.

If it is moved into mainspace in its present form, I think I can predict from experience that it will almost certainly be deleted. I don;t make the rules, the community does, and the community decides. The first step for improvement is o remove the various quotes from the company; the second is to remove the name-dropping ad the list of clients (especially when repeated several times) --you can probably include the clients for whose work the company may have won a specific award. BTW, about previous comments, I meant to say "one of our many paid editors" , and if you represent the company directly, that too is considered paid editing. It is very difficult for a person connected with an organization to write a fair article about themselves, For example , sections 3.1 & 3.2 are straight advertisements. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{U|DGG}},Good evening DGG. I have left you a message on your talk page about this long-standing effort to publish an article about Carbone Smolan of NYC. I would like to move it somewhere that it can be reconsidered for publication. Or, should I just start over at this point. Honestly, I believe I have address all the concerns the editors have made — they agree it was notable, they just felt that my drafts were too promotional. I think it is spare enough now to warrant new consideration by you and other WIki Editors. I am not paid to write these stories — I am a design journalist and would like to edit and publish more stories about notable design and advertising agencies in the future that I feel are noteworthy enough to join their peers on these pages such as Pentagram and Stefan Sagmeister, both which are on the WIki pages today. Porterwritewiki (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Carbone Smolan Agency New York (March 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Primefac was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Carbone Smolan Agency New York and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Primefac (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Primefac. I will work on changes this weekend. Many of my references are from third-party online and/or print publications that are relevant to the Graphic Design and Advertising industry. Some are from mainstream publications (BusinessWeek, Fast Company) that help establish NOTABILITY but not necessarily relate the facts in my draft. When I stated a fact, such as "the agency was selected to design the signage system for the Louvre," the third-party evidence/verification of this fact is that the design program later won a notable international design prize. I have strived to STICK TO THE FACTS and offer NO OPINIONS that might be construed as advertising. For basic information on the company history, all of the facts are inside a book that was published several years ago that the agency founders co-authored. I will NOT quote from that book, but I would like to use that book as a reference for FACTS. Do you believe that is acceptable? Porterwritewiki (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Carbone Smolan Agency New York (March 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Carbone Smolan Agency New York and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Porterwritewiki, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Onel5969 (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Carbone Smolan Agency New York

Hello, Porterwritewiki. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Carbone Smolan Agency New York".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Porterwritewiki (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Half of this draft is completely sourced. That which is not sourced does not require sources. It is merely transition words. Only statements of "fact" are sourced. I offer no opinions in this draft but I certainly substantiate any assertions. Background: This article was approved and published in January 2014 with many more sources and footnotes. Then removed March 11. The crtiticisms included that I used too many sources, so I trimmed them down.[reply]

Since then, this company's founders were given the highest honor awarded by the AIGA: Medalists. The list of notable designers who get this award is less than 50 in the 80 year history of this organization. This is the first time two partners were given the award simultaneously. I formatted the citations and removed references to a book about the firm that they co-authored because of complaints from another critic. I worked on this draft off and on for more than 18 months. I finally gave up. The editors, well meaning volunteers, like me, a well meaning design journalist who believes CSA deserves a WIKI notice, may be doing their job. But their advice is contradictory and confusing to ME. So I resubmit the article again with modest changes.

I will continue to resubmit the article until I get it published. Long ago, one of the editors accused me of being a "writer for hire." due to the name of my company (PorterWrite). I am a writer and that is the name of my company. I write for design and advertising journals, and Ken Carbone and Leslie Smolan are among the best in the business. They did not pay me for this effort. But, due to my status in this business, I know them, along with hundreds of others excellent designers, photographers, writers, illustrators, animators and others involved in creative communications. Can we publish the article now, please?Porterwritewiki (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Carbone Smolan Agency New York (October 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was:

This article needs to be about the agency, not the person. You have mixed the two together here. You can do one or the other, but not both in the same article. An agency does not have an Education section, for example. It also is not clear what the bibliography represents. Are these books about the agency? About the person? By the person?

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Carbone Smolan Agency New York and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]