Talk:Doug Pitt

Apologies for my edit summary.

The article needs a complete rewrite from whatever sources we can find that are clearly independent and more than just pr pieces. Are there any? - Hipal (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC).

I can't add here all of them. From what I've found,

There are several more reputable media sources available (beyond those already cited in the article). We can include these to further strengthen the GNG case. , , , , , , , , , , etc. 현서 김 (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Those are all currently in the article, or are some potential sources? --Hipal (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello Magazine and Hola are poor, highly promotional sources. Treat as a self-published about self. Biz417 and Biz417 Magazine too.

People can be used, though entertainment. The two Vanity Fair pieces are the same article, but can be used, though puff-pieces. The STLMag piece seems ok.

I'm not sure what to make of the Barron's piece. It appears that the author is a contributor of some sort rather than an employee. It's a human interest story. --Hipal (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey Hipal, so sorry again for the super late reply!

Thanks for your review. Do you believe those sources aren't enough? Seems like we need around three for the GNG, right? I've found a few more that might help:, , , , , , . But from what I can see, most of the key info seems to be coming from local papers like the Springfield Business Journal, Springfield Daily Citizen, and Springfield News-Leader. They seem pretty solid and more on-topic, content-wise, but yeah, hard to say if there's any bias. Might be worth leaning on WP:PARTISAN in this case.

like in this article, for example The Hollywood Reporter cites Springfield News-Leader:

The poor sources need to be removed, along with any corresponding content that can't be supported by a BLP-quality reference.

Thanks for looking for potential refs. I'll look them over when I get a chance. --Hipal (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello Hipal, you have been inactive for nearly a month, and I have significantly revised the article, including a complete rewrite of the text and an update of the sources. If you have any suggestions for further improvements, please feel free to proceed without my involvement. It was a pleasure working with you. 현서 김 (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

If my edit summary needs elaboration, let me know. --Hipal (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Responding to @Hipal's restoring the promotional tag after I made some major cuts removing promotional content, I'd like further elaboration on what needs to be cut here since this discussion is stale.

Could you either address what you view as content issues or specify the portions you feel are promotional so it can be resolved either by myself or @현서 김? 🄻🄰 12:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I identified my concerns when I started this discussion, "The article needs a complete rewrite from whatever sources we can find that are clearly independent and more than just pr pieces." --Hipal (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)