Hello Paul hope you're well. I've noticed that you've edited extensively on the financial issues of multiple EFL clubs. I was wondering whether you thought it might be worthwhile to create spin off articles relating to ownership crises to allow for further detail/avoiding recentism issues on main articles. In the case of Morecambe for example, the spin off article could be named 'Ownership crisis of Morecambe F.C. (2022–2025)'. We could then condense the information on the main page's history section and link to the spin off article. I don't know whether an article like this would pass the notability test but was interested what your thoughts were. All the best Michaeldble (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[]

Hi Michaeldble. Great minds think alike! As each club crisis has unwound, I have pondered on the same question, but each time have held back from creating a spin-off article pending resolution.

If the crisis resulted in the demise of the club (thinking Macclesfield Town), then details of its extinction are probably a suitable conclusion to the history section of the club article. On the other hand, if the troubled club survives (eg: Bury, Southend, Morecambe), I think we could justifiably spin-off the crisis period into a separate article (keeping a brief para and a Main link in the core article). In slightly different circumstances, I did a spin-off relating to Crewe Alexandra to create Sexual abuse cases at Crewe Alexandra F.C. after the latter began to dominate the core article.

Given the significant media coverage normally given to an EFL club in crisis, I think it would meet notability criteria while also helping provide a more measured view of a club's history (avoiding recentism) in the core article. Should we be bold and give it a go, perhaps on Morecambe? Or should we perhaps gauge wider opinion via Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football? Paul W (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[]

I think this would definitely be a good idea as these sorts of events deserve proper coverage and would avoid dominating the main article. Regarding your final point, I think it's worth starting a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football to see what others think. Michaeldble (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[]

Done - see here. Initial reactions are somewhat cautious. Paul W (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[]

Hi Michaeldble. I have been bold and created Morecambe F.C. financial crisis, then hacked out a lot of the recent content in the main Morecambe article. Please let me know what you think (I have also added a note to the wikiproject Talk page to let others know - the dates got dropped after one comment). Regards. Paul W (talk) 09:30, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[]

Southend United F.C. financial crisis and Bury F.C. financial crisis also created. Paul W (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Hello Paul W, thank you for reviewing my draft Draft:Finlay Tunstall. I saw that it was declined for not meeting notability guidelines. I’d like to improve it and wondered if you could advise me on what kind of sources or coverage would make the article suitable for resubmission. I’ve added BBC Sport and Lancashire Telegraph references, but I’m not sure if they are strong enough. I have looked at other wiki pages of footballers similar to the one i have designed for finlay and they seem brief and yet have been approved ? apologies as its my first time trying to do this and finlay is my son and wanted to surprise him for his birthday with a proper page i cxan give examples of other pages that i used as guidance and they have been approved also . Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks! Tunster33 (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[]

Hi Tunster33. Please don't use other articles as guidance; in recent years, the notability criteria for footballers have been tightened up, but articles previously created under WP:FOOTYN still persist but, if they don't meet the current guideline, WP:NSPORT, they may be deleted.

As it stands, the current draft about Finlay Tunstall is almost entirely based on routine/passing mentions (listings in team line-ups, etc, mentions of him by his clubs). It does not cite any significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV - ie: more than passing mentions or routine reporting) in reliable independent secondary sources. These may come in time - we often see articles that are created prematurely (see WP:TOOSOON) but which eventually get added to Wikipedia once the subjects are written about more extensively in reliable published sources.

I have reviewed several draft articles that were initially declined but which were eventually accepted once players became established and more independent coverage followed (I am, for example, also waiting for more reliable sources to talk about draft:Adrien Thibaut - a Crewe player currently on loan at Southport). I would therefore encourage you to be patient - if Finlay progresses, the article should eventually be expanded and published.

In the meantime, it would be helpful to address a few issues with the current draft - for example, reducing overlinking, focusing on key events (not describing every time he is an unused substitute, etc), aggregating starts and substitute appearances (and excluding 'unused sub appearances') in the career statistics table. I have rinsed through these changes. If you wish, I can glance back from time to time.

As Finlay is your son, you have a clear conflict of interest (WP:COI). It would be preferable for you not to edit the draft any further. You can, however, use the draft's Talk pages to suggest updates (ideally, including relevant links to reliable independent secondary sources). Please let me know if you need any further help. Best wishes. Paul W (talk) Paul W (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[]

Hi Paul I will follow your advice and get some amendments and help with the page , see where we ghet with it thx again Tunster33 (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[]

Hi Paul could you take another look at the page , its coming along ok but still needs more info i suspect Tunster33 (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi Tunster33. Thanks for updating the draft. It is still mainly routine reporting, not signifiicant coverage. As I previously said, you may just need to be patient. If Finlay continues to progress, further news coverage should follow and the article might eventually cross the WP:NSPORT threshold (it took around 15 months for Adrien Thibaut to get accepted). Best wishes. Paul W (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:25, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi Smallbones. Apologies for delayed response. I saw your email earlier this week but had a medical emergency (blood clots in my lungs) and have been in hospital much of the past two days. Am only just beginning to catch up. Will reply shortly. Paul W (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Take your time. Take care of yourself. The story will wait. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:19, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Hello Paul W, Thank you for taking the time to review the draft. I understand the concerns regarding notability and the requirement for significant coverage in independent secondary sources. I would like to clarify that Ioannis Vlachos did indeed serve two terms as Mayor of Serres (1995–1998 and 2007–2010), which can be verified through official municipal records and national press reporting of the 2006 election results. My intention is not promotional; I am trying to determine whether additional national-level sources (e.g., broader press coverage related to the Serres Racing Circuit project and his mayoral tenure) would be sufficient to meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOL standards. If you could kindly advise what type or depth of sources would be necessary to establish notability in this case, I would appreciate the guidance before considering resubmission. Thank you again for your time and feedback. FDCaffeine (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi FDCaffeine. What is needed is significant coverage which "addresses the topic directly and in detail ... [and] ... is more than a trivial mention". I accept that he served two terms as mayor, but is there more in-depth coverage about him? Was he the subject of written profiles published in newspapers or magazines, for example? Do published articles state the racing circut was delivered because of his efforts? Municipal records will not be sufficient - "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors." (see WP:REPUTABLE, part of WP:RS). I hope this helps. Happy editing. Paul W (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Please watch page. Thanks for the reminder. Notafly (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Thanks, Notafly. I will keep an eye on the article. (It may be listed for deletion or draftified by another editor if the issues are not addressed, so please keep working on it; I have added a couple of inline citations to get the ball rolling). Happy editing! Paul W (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[]

👁 Information icon
Hi Paul! I noticed that you recently marked edits on Tottenham Hotspur F.C. as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. LenF54 (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Thnaks User:LenF54. I note the Help page also says "rearrangement of text without modification of the content or contextual meaning may be flagged as minor edits". However, if you felt it necessary to comment, then I will refrain from marking such rearrangements as minor. Best wishes. Paul W (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Acknowledged Paul. I fell foul of this in 2023 when I was marking edits as minor, and I decided to flag it with others. I have been pointed in all sorts of directions, such as WP:MOS WP:NOSTATS and WP:GEOLINK, and simply carry on until someone suggests to me that I have made a faux pas or they find another set of guidelines I have not been following for 15 years. I have even been warned for vandalism when I merely made a stupid error, confusing two people with similar names. I agree completely with the "rearrangement of text ......" comment and I wish you well with your continued good-faith editing. LenF54 (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Hello Paul,

I could use a bit of your expertise on something, if you don’t mind. I have been expanding the Construction robots article: restructuring all sections and adding sourced coverage of automated building systems, concrete works, masonry, earthmoving, and 3D printing. Given your work in the industry, I thought you might find it an interesting read — and perhaps spot things I have missed.

I also have a conflict of interest with one company mentioned in the Earthmoving section (Bedrock Robotics), so I filed a formal edit request on Talk:Construction robots rather than editing that part directly. I would be grateful if you could take a look.

Any feedback — on the COI request or the article more broadly, including thoughts on what might be needed toward WP:Good Article status would be very welcome.

Thank you for your time! Alexandra Goncharik ^-sms- 20:08, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi, Alexandra. It is an interesting article, but I think it is way, way off the mark in asserting 55% of projects are using robots on site. For a start the ABB survey did not talk about site use (I've added a citation to the ABB survey misquoted by Construction Dive, and removed the mention of site use). You might also be interested in this analyst view that suggests the robotics market could grow to around $1 billion by 2030 - in a global construction market likely to be $14.8 trillion by 2030. This makes robotics a tiny proportion of overall industry activity.

From my UK perspective, the most common use of autonomous devices involves drones used for surveying and image capture (use of the Boston Dynamics 'Spot the Dog' for image capture is also occasionally cited). Actual physical construction by robots onsite is still incredibly rare (hardly surprising in an industry where 95% of businesses are small-medium-sized and so unlikely to be able to invest in high-tech). There has been some use in factory environments for repetitive production-line-type tasks, including some 3D printing, and offsite fabrication of components for use in Modern methods of construction and DFMA. There is some isolated use in quarrying and earth-moving, and I have also read about robots being used to install trackside cabling and equipment in rail tunnels.

I am attending a London conference (21-22 April) on industrialised construction, and on the second day I am facilitating a panel discussion on the data-driven site. I will keep my eyes and ears open to see if the event shares any strong examples of robotics use. Paul W (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi Paul, thank you very much for taking the time to review the article Construction robots and for correcting the statistic, that was extremely helpful! I have now clarified the wording around the 55% figure to better reflect what it actually represents (i.e. reported use in some form, rather than widespread on-site deployment).

Following your comments, I also looked for more robust sources on actual adoption patterns and added two that I think help ground the article more realistically. One is a recent systematic review in Results in Engineering, which highlights that real-world deployment remains limited and uneven across the construction lifecycle. The other is a 2026 industry piece from Under the Hard Hat, which gives concrete examples of how robotics is currently being used on sites — mostly in areas like surveying, layout, and inspection, rather than core construction tasks.

I have updated the article accordingly to better reflect this distinction between reported usage and practical deployment — your point about how rare on-site robotics still is was particularly useful in guiding that: diff.

On a related note, I revisited my edit request regarding Bedrock Robotics. In light of this broader context, it seems to me that it may still be relevant, as it illustrates exactly the kind of early-stage or pilot-level deployment that characterises much of the current landscape. If you think that would be appropriate to include, I would be very grateful if you could either take another look at the request or let me know if you’d be comfortable with me incorporating it directly into the article.

It would also be very interesting to hear any insights from the conference next week, especially if there are strong real-world examples (or the lack of them) discussed there. Wishing you a great and productive event! Alexandra Goncharik ^-sms- 09:43, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[]

A tag has been placed on Gerhard Lang artist, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please visit the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.

Squawk7700 (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[]

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi Paul W, I see that you participate in WP:Companies. I've proposed some updates to the Bridgewater Associates article and would appreciate your review at Talk:Bridgewater_Associates#Updates_to_"History"_and_"Products"_sections. If you agree with the changes, kindly implement them. Thank you! Jaren Laurel Strategies (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2026 (UTC) Jaren Laurel Strategies (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi Paul, I've seen your edits on Abigail Tarttelin which were helpful in letting me know what else was needed, and this morning I have gone through and provided sources where you added ^{[citation needed]}. As a new editor I am still unsure on a couple of things however, so I hope you don't mind me asking for some advice to help me in future?

Looking through the guidlelines for reliable sources I see that the Identifying and using primary sources page states "straightforward descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source", and "An article about a film: The film itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the plot and the names of the characters." Presumably this means that publicly available films an actor has appeared in, character names, etc, which are noted in a film's end credits do not need an extra source linked to on their article? However, would this also include student films such as La Geode which are not professionally produced or widely known, but are publicly available on youtube? Does the article need a link, or does "any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge" cover the fact that anyone could find the film should they go looking for it themselves? Also, how do these guidelines apply to uncredited appearances (especially those where they may not be easily identifiable on screen), and appearances in films which are either not currently publicly available such as Taxi Rider, or Whatever Happened to Pete Blaggit?. Many thanks for any help you can offer in clearing these up for me. MadeIndescribable (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi, MadeIndescribable. "The film itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the plot and the names of the characters" generally applies to articles about the film, not to those appearing in the cast. I would be looking for a secondary source that lists Tarttelin as having a role in the relevant film, ideally with a weblink to the source so that it can be easily verified. If the source isn't online but is publicly available (for example, in a published book, newspaper, magazine or journal that could be accessed in a public library or archive), then we assume in good faith that the source exists.

If no source exists, then - particularly for something that could be challenged in a biography of a living person - the assertion might be removed; WP:BLP is clear: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living ... persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.". In short, if an editor contests inclusion of content, it needs to be reliably sourced to remain. I hope this helps. Paul W (talk) 10:00, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[]

Paul, thanks for your reply. It does help, and I will bear this in mind when making future additions and edits. MadeIndescribable (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi there, I see you are involved with WP:Companies and was wondering if you would be able to review an edit request for Explora Journeys, a luxury cruise line whose page is in need of updating. You can find the edit request here: Talk:Explora Journeys#Intro and Fleet section. I’d really appreciate your help with this edit. Thank you, Fanette Explora (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[]

Done. Paul W (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[]

I have previously posted this at User talk:Vgb23 and Draft talk:Michael E. Glinsky.

I would really appreciate a response before I resubmit it. I value your feedback.

Dear Paul W,

Thank you for the useful comments! The references have been added, and all seven secondary sources have been brought to the top.

The first eight references establish notability via the secondary sources, and verify the details of Glinsky’s CV (see Thomas Michael O’Neil and John H. Malmberg, who have four such references). The other 70 references are located in context by the text, further establishing notability (see John H. Malmberg, who has 30 such references, one-half of what Glinsky has, owing to the breadth and productivity of Glinsky's work, which is exceptional).

The Earthmatters and Case Alumnus secondary articles verify all of the details in the Personal Details section, and demonstrate that the subject, along with the award citations (with references), meet Wikapedia’s criteria for “inclusion for people."

The four articles cited for Project Excalibur specifically reference R-Project (the code name for Project Excalibur) and “A. Toor”. All the articles describe calibration of x-ray crystals capable of resolving the spectra of the population density of the X-ray laser lasing energy levels, as well as the lasing transition itself. The dates are consistent with the dates (1982 and 1985) for Project Excalibur (1978-1988). The reports on the experiments and -simulations, remain classified.

Whenever terms like “pioneer” and “seminal” and “first” are used, they were corroborated by the references. For instance, Dave DeMartini was labeled as a “pioneer” by a historian in Ref. 13; the subject’s contribution was labeled as “seminal” in Ref. 1, an award citation; and the date of the subject’s cloud-based DaaS (2006 of Ref. 66, and 2003 of Ref. 68) precedes all other known cloud-based DaaSs (circa 2020).

Also note that the subject has been mentored by many notable physicists and mathematicians, and has contributed to many notable scientific results. His H-index is 33 and his most cited article has been cited 4400 times, very good for a theoretical physicist. The subject’s PhD advisors have H-indexes of 17 (Tom O’Neil) and 85 (Marshall Rosenbluth), for reference. Marshall Rosenbluth and Thomas Michael O’Neil, both are notable enough to appear on Wikipedia.

Each one of the 70 references are a significant technical result that supports a claim of what has been done. All the sections have at least one reference, and each substantive claim has a reference. The section “Strategic Defense Initiative @ LLNL” that is indicated to be “not supported by citations”, has four external citations and five internal to Wikipedia citations. This section, as discussed above, does not have more citations because of the subject matter. The section ”Early life and education” that is indicated to have “not sufficient citations”, now has 4 external citations, and 5 internal citations.

Could you please clarify whether the current direction of the draft is appropriate before I resubmit it? Vgb23 (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[]

Thanks Vgb23. The article certainly is more fully referenced than when I reviewed it and now includes some significant coverage.

1. In Wikipedia, when it comes to references, we value quality over quantity. The total number of references is irrelevant. An excessive number may deter some reviewers or mean they only review a small sample of the citations (hence my mention of REFBOMB).
2. I was initally unclear what you meant by "internal citations". It appears you mean wikilinks (or internal links). These are not citations, just links to other Wikipedia pages. The number of wikilinks is immaterial (but we need some to avoid an article becoming a dead end).
3. A subject's association with other people with Wikipedia articles is also largely irrelevant. Notability is not inherited.

Go ahead and resubmit the draft. I won't review it - I generally let other people give a second opinion so that you get new independent thinking. Best wishes and happy editing. Paul W (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[]

Hello @Paul W

Thanks for your comments on the draft of Anthony Okon Placid. It is important to note that the Notability is hinged on Wikipedia Wikipedia:NPOL. His predecessor Benjamin Hundeyin does not meet the Notability of living persons, but as a Force PRO, the Wikipedia:NPOL applied to him on press release. It is in this same vein, that Anthony Okon Placid as a Force PRO merits the Notability. I can remember when I drafted Benneth Igweh, the draft almost didn't see the light of the day on the Mainspace, until an editor referenced the Notability rules which I have read and brought up. I am from Nigeria and it might interest you know that Benjamin Hundeyin is just Assistant Commissioner of Police, junior in rank to Anthony Okon Placid. Anthony Placid Okon has been nominated to the apex thinktank in Nigeria for a Senior Executive Course only for top-level security professionals. Twicebefore (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[]

Hello Twicebefore. WP:NPOL relates to politicians, not police officers. Press releases (and content directly generated from press releases) are not reliable sources, nor do they amount to WP:SIGCOV as required under WP:GNG. I have nominated the Benjamin Hundeyin article for deletion, as I can find no in-depth reliable independent secondary coverage about him, only routine mentions about his appointment and mentions of him as the force's spokesman. Paul W (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[]

Hello @Paul W

Appreciate your insights on this Notability issues

So does that also mean the editor who used the WP:NPOL on deciding the page of Benneth Igweh is not versed enough to know and apply it to an AIG of the Nigeria Police Force who isn't a politician? Wikipedia is a rabbit hole I have to say Twicebefore (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi, Twicebefore. WP:NPOL does not apply to police officers. Citing it in relation to a police official would be inappropriate. Paul W (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[]

Hello @Paul W

It is not inappropriate for Benneth Igweh article, is it? Twicebefore (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi, Twicebefore I don't believe it applies to Igweh at all. NPOL relates only to politicians and judges - not police officers. If there is significant coverage of Igweh in published reliable independent secondary sources, he may be notable per WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC - otherwise the article could be nominated for deletion. Paul W (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi Paul W. In case you may have missed it, I answered you here. I hope you will be able to consider implementing a shortened version of my last edit request which I believe is no longer promotional. Thanks, Fanette Explora (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi Paul, I saw your note on the Draft talk:Martin Pichinson page and wanted to reach out. I'm the article creator and appreciate you clarifying that the draftification was for needing more sources rather than having none. I'd be grateful if you could point me to which specific sections you feel need additional sourcing so I can address them properly. The article currently cites NPR, The Guardian, Logic Magazine, the Deseret News, and a published book (Brunning, The Fleetwood Mac Story, 2004), but I'm happy to strengthen any areas you feel are weak. Thank you for your time. Gkovacs55 Gkovacs55 (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi, Gkovacs55.

1. The Early life and education section is unreferenced, so needs sources
2. Is there a source for "Pichinson co-founded Slater-Pichinson Music, which managed artists and acquired music catalogs."?
3. No sources are given relating to Famous Amos cookies, Jones New York or the major shoe company (Deseret News does not mention any of these - did you mean to use a different source?)
4. The Recognition and public profile section says Pichinson was quoted in six listed publications but the only citation is Pichinson's own company (primary and not a reliable independent source; we cannot rely on the subject's own unsubstantiated claims). I would expect citations for the coverage, and also independent sources for his board role and conference presentations.

Hope this helps. Best wishes. Paul W (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi Paul, thank you for the detailed feedback — very helpful. I've addressed all four points: removed the Early life and education section, removed the Slater-Pichinson Music claim, removed the Famous Amos/Jones New York/shoe company references, and rewrote the Recognition section replacing the Sherwood Partners bio citation with the Smithsonian Lemelson Center Advisory Board page, trimming the publications list to only NPR, The Guardian, and Logic Magazine which are all independently cited in the article. The draft has been resubmitted. Thank you again. Gkovacs55 Gkovacs55 (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi Paul, following up on my message yesterday. Since then I've been able to locate and obtain the published transcript of a Smithsonian Institution oral history interview conducted with Pichinson by the Lemelson Center (interviewers Arthur Daemmrich and Eric Hintz, October 2019 and April 2022, at the National Museum of American History). This has allowed me to substantially expand the article rather than just remove unsourced content.

The article now includes a fully sourced early life and education section, an expanded music career section covering all artists including Nigel Olsson, Flora Purim and Slater-Pichinson Music, a restored transition to restructuring section covering Famous Amos and Craddock Terry, and a significantly expanded Sherwood Partners section covering the founding, the SVB relationship, the dot-com bust, and the Brobeck wind-down. All of these claims are cited to the Smithsonian oral history.

The draft has been resubmitted. Thank you again for your patience and constructive feedback — it led directly to a much stronger article. Gkovacs55 Gkovacs55 (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi, Gkovacs55. Thanks for the update. As it's a Smithsonian transcript, it could be OK, but I am generally cautious about over-reliance upon interviews as the content can be regarded as primary (see the guidance at WP:IV). Corroboration by additional other sources is always helpful in such situations. Best wishes. Paul W (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi Paul, thank you for the pointer to WP:IV — understood. To clarify, the Smithsonian transcript is primarily used to support details that corroborate or expand on what is already covered by the existing independent secondary sources. The core Sherwood Partners narrative — including the ABC revival, the dot-com bust work, and the Silicon Valley profile — is independently supported by NPR, The Guardian, Logic Magazine, and the Deseret News. The oral history is used alongside those sources rather than as the sole basis for the article. For the early life and music career sections, which by their nature are harder to source in secondary literature, the Smithsonian publication provides the most authoritative available record. I hope that addresses your concern. Gkovacs55 (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[]

Thanks for uploading File:SWFC badge 2026.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[]

JPG version that I uploaded got replaced by an SVG version. Paul W (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[]