Sciencegirl5858

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kyle T. Leighton (July 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 SwisterTwister was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Kyle T. Leighton 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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Status

As reviewing administrator, I examined this after your comment on the reviewer's talk page. On that page, you said:

Respectfully, the subject Draft:Kyle T. Leighton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is a professor, author, and notable electrical industry leader as described by Siena Heights University, and the National Association of Electrical Distributors (the governing body of the electrical industry), among other sources. The subject designed an initiative about energy efficient lighting that was adopted by an entire U.S. State. He has also published at least 13 studies nationally and internationally about lighting applications in 7 different publications, and has widely distributed work independent of those pieces by other universities such as University of California, Davis about lighting laws and lighting education. Articles about his work and career have appeared in at least 8 other different reliable sources referenced in the article. He received an international award for a video that explained lighting technology. He received 2 additional awards from 2 notable institutions (1 university) about his research and commitment to lighting technology. All of these facts including the subject are about the same thing: lighting science. Criterion #7 for WP:Academic is described as a "person to have made a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" and isn't defined as a single event. Other criterion of WP:Academic like #2 are in place for what you’re implying. All of the subject’s awards and facts count towards criterion 7 because criterion 7 is a criterion that has been met with totality, or in other words, “substantial”. While the interpretation of notability is broad, everyone should be able to agree that every notable impact or notable act could be recorded differently as each WP:Academic would likely be unique. It does not mean that the subject is not a notable lighting academic because someone may not be familiar with the subject or science. Evidence, and notable institutions clearly indicate that the subject is. GNG and WP:ANYBIO #2 also applies here. Looking forward to your response.[

I replied:

Sciencegirl15858 , let me help out here, as WP:PROF is sort of my specialty. I don't think that guideline applies to him at all. An adjunct professor is not a professor in the usual sense, he's a person teaching a course or two in a university part-time, either as a beginner, or, in this case, as someone from an outside profession or industry. In his linked bio , he is described not as a scientist or engineer, but as a professional public relations executive,"Lauded as one of the top PR professionals in the nationwide electrical industry, he has now represented 6 energy efficient commercial brands." He did not do the studies described in the article, he wrote the press releases and articles in trade magazines. His profile in tedmagazine says "Leighton has by-lined or ghost-written several articles for industry publications". Your article is carefully ambiguous about all this, and it would not have been clear if I had not actually read the references. Your statement here, is an attempt to disguise the facts of his career in the hopes of getting an article. In my opinion this is not good faith editing.

Furthermore, your user history shows you have written nothing else, yet you are familiar with the details of our rules, familiar enough find a guideline which you can use inappropriately in an attempt to justify your article. I remind you or our policy about WP:Sockpuppettry. I also remind you of our guidelines on WP:Conflict of Interest, and our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure.

I have therefore deleted the draft as disruptive promotional editing. ,and am blocking you accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)