Talk:Darius Adamczyk

I recently uploaded this portrait of Adamczyk. Would someone without a COI mind adding it to the article?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Adamczyk is now the acting CEO as well as President, and no longer the CEO-designate. Would someone without a COI mind making the update? Additionally, would it be suitable to include a link to his official bio at Honeywell? They're typically included for CEOs but given that this is only a stub at this point I wouldn't want to make any assumptions. Edwardx if you've got a minute can you take a look?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I've updated and expanded the article. I wonder why the Honeywell bio makes no mention of him having been born in Poland? Edwardx (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Edwardx: that is curious that it's not on his Honeywell bio. My guess is that they elected to keep it focused on his tenure at Honeywell. That got me looking though, and I noticed that there's a discrepancy here between his ages in the lead and in the infobox. I believe he was born in 1966. The source from the lead puts him at age 50, as of April of last year, and gave the 65-66 range, while the infobox source gave the 66-67 range. What are your thoughts?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

We have to go with the reliable sources, and sometimes they only state an age, rather than a birth year, hence the use of the "birth based on age as of date" template. Will change the lead to match the infobox. Edwardx (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Edwardx: His official bio at Honeywell lists his exact birthdate. Can we use this as a more definitive source?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, FacultiesIntact. I have updated the article accordingly. Ideally, we prefer independent sources, but his official bio is fine for things like that. Edwardx (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Adamczyk was recently recognized for a couple of awards. Would it be suitable to create an awards section on his BLP to include them? I drafted it up here, with references included. @Edwardx: what are your thoughts?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

There are so many awards these days, and neither of those are notable (no article about either award on Wikipedia), and that is not independent coverage. Indeed, YouTube is not considered to be a reliable source. So, we should wait until he receives a notable award. Edwardx (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Edwardx: Can you help me understand what makes an award "notable"? My understanding is that it wouldn't be subject to the same kinds of notability requirements that an article subject would be, since it's being included in an article instead of being the primary focus. I'm not trying to pick a fight; I just find the criteria regarding which awards are worthy of inclusion in an article are particularly nebulous. I rarely think it necessary to include every award an article subject has ever won, but I find it usually just comes down to a judgment call. Do you have any additional advice regarding the matter, or is there a specific policy you could direct me to? I'd greatly appreciate it.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

In practice, such matters are assessed case-by-case. As a COI editor, the onus is on you to explain their notability and justify their inclusion. Edwardx (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Edwardx: I can see how an alumni award here is of lower significance, but in the case of the Foreign Policy Association award, the FPA is a 100-year-old organization, and has its own Wikipedia article. As far as YouTube's use as a source, my understanding is that it's considered reliable if it comes from an official source. In this case, it's video of the actual awards dinner wherein Adamczyk was presented with the award. While it's a primary source, I don't think the article otherwise overly relies on them. I think just the one award wouldn't merit a dedicated section in the article, but I think it's worth mentioning under the Career section.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm checking in here because FacultiesIntact requested it, after I had advised him on award-related matters elsewhere. However, I don't have time at the moment to do the specific research on the awards in question. Alumni awards are often sloughed off, because they have a strong inherent bias. As for the FPA award, I will note that the question of seeking reliable third-party sources is not just a matter of verifying the accuracy of the claim that the award was received, for which the FPA itself would be fine. It's that if no one else is reporting it, that's a pretty clear sign that nobody gives a frog about it; if others aren't talking about it, then we should not be. Would do more here, but I've got my company's 20th anniversary celebration at Comic-Con to plan, my wedding to arrange, my wife to murder, and Guilder to frame for it. I’m swamped! --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Have to agree with Nat Gertler, it is the lack of third-party sources that clinches the argument for these awards as being insufficiently notable to include them in the article. Edwardx (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and the civility. I get what you're saying now about the notability issue regarding the FPA award. I appreciate you both taking the time to help me be a better contributor.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)