Talk:Personal branding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on March 12, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 6 April 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents

[edit] Sources

I'm not comfortable with the level of sources that are used for this article. For instance, the lead doesn't sound right, as 'personal branding' sounds like a process or activity, while the rest of the definition is mainly about the result. It's all taken from one single blog, and the content was most likely inserted by the writer of that blog. For now, however, I have not been able to find a better source, as most of the content on the web is far from neutral (written by authors who'd all be more than happy to help you create your personal brand). In the discussion about deletion of this article, someone mentioned this concept being discussed in the more traditional marketing textbooks. If anyone has those, and can contribute using those, please do! --JoanneB 08:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, I know that this is a very attractive article to use for promoting your services, but please be aware of our policy on external links. Blogs should not be linked, for instance. Also, regarding the content: the article in this version [1] reads like a pamphlet or a book on how to create your own personal brand. That's not really the purpose of an encyclopedia article. I'm trying to revert some of it while keeping the stuff that's worth while. --JoanneB 19:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Joanne: The lead off sentence is not the definition of a Personal Brand. The source is clearly not experienced and his definition should not be the lead sentence. Can I suggest that source #4 be the lead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.106.113.216 (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
It's not up to me to decide, but an source that we're using now is on About.com, which to me is slightly better than a myspace page, in terms of source reliability. But also, that definition is more coherent with our other articles about branding. I understand that this is a field in which there are many, many different views and theories, but that makes it hard to write an article about it. This has been nominated for deletion a couple of times now, and I guess that for a lack of real sources, we might be heading that direction again, eventually. --JoanneB 18:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Joanne: If you want the real sources, why don't you ask the people that have the experience. If the source come to you. Why delete the source? Personally, this whole website can be deleted and it wouldn't change a thing. As far as what personal branding is and who the experts have been are very clear and have been for many years. Tom Peters, Peter Montoya, William Arruda and MEL! Epstein. If you want a source on personal branding, Ask one of those guys. Once again, when the source comes to you and offers a clear definition, you should take it. The lead off sentence and everything else that source writes elsewhere are based on zero hands on experience. Instead of erasing material that would be helpful to your readers/users, can you help make it work with how your website functions. Maybe if you did that, this topic would not ever be deleted and people can have the ability to understand what personal branding is thanks to experienced sources and the freedom of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.106.113.216 (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
I've tried to explain to you via e-mail that it's not your personal expertise that is questioned, it's the books and articles that should be used as sources, reliable sources, which is what's missing here. Also, a certain tone is expected from an encyclopedia, more formal than you're probably used to when presenting or writing a book. --JoanneB 19:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The truth about Personal Branding

It seems like everyone has their own idea as to what a Personal Brand really is. Some like to make it seem very confusing, while others make it very simple. The truth is that a brand is a noun. It's an actual living breathing identity. Branding is a verb, it's the actual communication of your brand. Branded is an adjective, it's the result of your branding efforts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.106.113.216 (talk • contribs).

[edit] references.

I can never get the references system to work properly -

I added: It has been noted that while previous self-help management techinques were about improvement of an individual, this concept rested with the changing the perception of existing traits and abilities.

it's from pg 3 of Daniel J. Lair, Katie Sullivan, and George Cheney (2005). "Marketization and the Recasting of the Professional Self". Management Communication Quarterly 18 (3): 307–343.

can someone add that as a source (it's already in the external links section but is now being used as a source). --Fredrick day 19:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks, I hoped to look up that article myself but didn't have access to it so far. It's quite easy with this system: just add <ref>xxx</ref>, where the xxx is the actual ref almost exactly as you presented it above, except the " replaced with ''. --JoanneB 19:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Who are you, and why are you deleting my contributions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omegalion (talk • contribs).

We are wikipedia editors and we are deleting your material because it is coached in management speak, is not in the right tone for an ecyclopedia (for example we do not "you"), and the source is poor. --Fredrick day 19:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You clearly have no idea what personal branding is. The information that you are using is not only incorrect it is completely unclear. The definition I am providing is from a source that is among the leaders in the personal branding industry. You are incorrect in deleteing my material. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omegalion (talk • contribs).

Let's try this one at a time - are you saying you are trying to quote someone? A quote where someone says "you..." is fine, actual article text that does is not. This is according to the wikipedia manual of style, this is not something I am making up off the top of my head. As for the information I am adding, it is from peer reviewed academic sources --Fredrick day 19:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
If it's unclear, and if there's a better definition, it should not be hard to find it in a marketing text book, for instance. If it's so widespread and well known, it should be possible to find a decent source (and I don't mean a person, but a book, article, or anything else mentioned at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please read that, it might help you understand why we're deleting your stuff. --JoanneB 19:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


This bit: "and it has been noted that while previous self-help management techinques were about improvement of an individual, this concept rested with the changing the perception of existing traits and abilities". should not be in italics as it is not a quote - can some remove it, I cannot actually see any problem in the wikicode but for some reasons it's appearing as italics. --Fredrick day 19:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, there was '' code in it, I don't feel like going back to see when or why it was inserted :-) but it's gone now!. --JoanneB 21:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] brandicapped.com

unless someone can suggest to me eitherwise, I will seek to have brandicapped.com added to the spam blacklist - we have an editor who does not seem to grasp that (self?) promotion is not the purpose of wikipedia - adding this site to the blacklist might help him grasp this. --Fredrick day 14:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the criteria for inclusion in that list are, but it might be a good idea. If you look at the policy at WP:RS, there are very few instances where the inclusion of that site would be warranted in an article. I should also look into our blocking policy regarding evading 3RR blocks. --JoanneB 14:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Omegalion. RJASE1 Talk 15:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Reported for 3RR block evasion here. RJASE1 Talk 15:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
So far as the spam blacklist goes - the blacklist is normally only used for serious crosswiki spam by multiple users - not really appropriate in this case. What I've done is add the link to the "redlist", which means that addition of the link is highlighted in the IRC channels for attention by the humans who monitor link additions. However, since this article is apparently the only one affected (the link does not exist in any other article), the problem is best handled by simply watching this article, IMHO. RJASE1 Talk 17:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you're probably right! Well, I guess it's on a couple of watchlists now, so it should be ok. --JoanneB 18:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy with that. --Fredrick day 18:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
If you ever run into similar issues, feel free to drop a note at WT:WPSPAM. Cheers - RJASE1 Talk 18:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that everyone is happy. What I have learned through my Wikipedia experience is that Wikipedia is a very poor source for people to get information that is based on experienced sources. The editors have made a mockery of the definition of Personal Branding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.106.114.18 (talk • contribs).

I'm truly sorry that you were disappointed by your Wikipedia experience. I guess people have different expectations from Wikipedia, and it's unavoidable that every so often those don't match what Wikipedia aims to be. There are a lot of pages that I could refer you to for more information, but all those have already been emailed to you or have been presented to you in other places, like on this page. The editors of this article have used published secondary sources, coming from text books and peer reviewed, published articles. I don't think that makes it a mockery, it makes it a well researched article. If your opinion differs so much from what has been presented here, I still invite you to come up with secondary sources that meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. If the definition you believe to be correct is wide spread and well accepted, that really shouldn't be hard. --JoanneB 15:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)