User talk:A.chacko233

Welcome!

Hello, A.chacko233, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bennett W. Golub, CRO

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Bennett W. Golub, CRO, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. Praxidicae (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Notes

I saw the deletion notification pop up and wanted to give you some feedback. As it currently stands, the article has a lot of issues that need to be resolved. I do see where you have a copy in your sandbox, so for the time being I would focus on the sandbox article since fixing these issues may take a little while. I'm going to go by section, but first some general notes:

• This needs sources to back up the claims in the article, as well as to show where Golub is notable. The article can make various claims, but secondary, independent reliable sourcing is needed to show that the claims of notability are valid. Keep in mind that a person is not automatically notable for putting out work and being active in their field. This brochure goes over some of the notability standards, as well as how a biography article should be styled. This article is completely unsourced.
• To add to this, what you specifically need to show is how Golub is independently notable outside of BlackRock.
• This needs editing for tone, as this really does come across as favorable towards Golub. You also want to make sure that you're using proper formatting - a good rule of thumb is to look at an article for another person and see how it's structured.

Lead and education

• I turned the background section into the lead. All articles should have them. Keep in mind that this should be a general overview of the article, so the lead should really only list his current job and maybe his most notable ones.
• As with the whole article, this needs sourcing.

Career growth in BlackRock Inc.

• When writing, make sure that avoid anything that would be seen as too indiscriminate or superfluous for the article. For example, I'd remove the statement "a company that he has been working for almost 30 years till now" as the sentence already has a specific date. There's no real need to re-state it.
• You really only need to list what role he performed in the company unless there's a lot of independent, reliable sourcing to justify going into more depth, as otherwise this can be seen as a bit of a resume type of action. I'd remove the following portions:

As a co-head of Risk & Quantitative Analysis Group in BlackRock Solutions until 2009, Golub had led the team to ensure portfolio risks are consistent across mandates, reflect current investment themes within particular strategies, and comply with client-specific risk guideline. Also, by leveraging Aladdin Platform, industry-leading operating system within BlackRock Solutions, to integrating risk, investment and client management to assess and process manager investment, market and liquidity risk.

This entire chunk of content needs to be left out, as it really does seem like it's trying to "sell" Golub to the reader. Phrases like "true to its legacy" come across as promotional and non-neutral, as do euphemisms like "navigate the storms". Also, things like "It showed Dr. Ben Golub as a CRO has been playing a critical role in BlackRock's success" can be seen as original research (especially without sourcing as there's the question of who is saying this) and again, also a form of promotion. Offhand the only thing you really need is the sentence "Dr. Golub is the chair of BlackRock’s Enterprise Risk Management Committee and served as the Chief Risk Officer at BlackRock Inc. since 2009." Some select information can be added in as long as there's enough secondary reliable sources to justify highlighting it.

He has ensured that the BlackRock remains true to its legacy and keeping risk management as a core piece of its fiduciary culture. Golub is responsible for the investment, counterparty, technology and operational risk of all assets managed by BlackRock. Being a Chief Risk Officer, Golub insisted on a research and development project to study data from the bottom, understand the underlying assumptions, and refine the model as needed. Even though it was expensive and unpopular, Golub still pushed hard because of the considerable exposure. And this push led to pulling back some of the investments, refining the strategies and enabling BlackRock to navigate the storms better than just about anyone else during the ensuing financial crisis. Golub made his reputation through his critical thinking and analytical skills in risk management. He helped BlackRock to grow $4.72 trillion assets under management in 2015. In the post-crisis period alone, the company have almost quadrupled and now represent roughly 13% of total assets under management in the US. It showed Dr. Ben Golub as a CRO has been playing a critical role in BlackRock's success.

Previous Career

• This is largely fine, however you need to be careful to avoid phrases like "innovative" because they can be seen as non-neutral and are often used to promote persons, places, and things. Also, make sure that you avoid any superfluous information. For example, the following content just seems unnecessary to the central point of what Golub's prior job was:

First Boston Corporation was an Investment Bank that was founded in 1932 and was later obtained by Credit Suisse. The headquarters was located in New York. Eventually Credit Suisse phased out First Boston Corporation in 2006.

To a degree this sentence is as well. If this is especially novel and noteworthy, it will need a lot of sourcing to back up the claim and show where it's major.

The corporation structured over $25 billion of bonds, along with many innovative collateralized mortgage obligations and asset-backed securities while he was the Vice President.

• The sentence "Due to a failure which resulted in a $100 million by Larry Fink." is incomplete and needs to be cleaned up. He caused a failure that resulted in a $100 million what? Presumably loss, but this is unclear, as are any repercussions.
• Needs sourcing.

Select bibliography

• This section just needs to be split into sections so that the journal articles and book publications (his own books, chapters in books) are more clearly marked.

Achievements and Rewards

• Offhand most of the things in this section look to be stuff that's fairly routine. Sections like this on Wikipedia should really only mention major awards and honors that Golub has received. It's expected that Golub would have written things and become educated, so this shouldn't be in the section. Work accomplishments are things that can potentially be noted in the career section, but only if there's enough coverage to justify mentioning it as this is also something that is expected.
• The Risk Management awards are OK to list here - they should be sourced, however.
• One thing to be cautious of with awards for businesspeople is that there are a lot of industry awards, so not all of them will give notability on Wikipedia. The main things to look for with awards is to make sure that the outlet granting the award is considered to be notable and well respected. Sometimes it'll be easy and there will be an article for the specific award or institution, but other times you'll have to look and see how well covered the award is in sourcing like newspapers and the like.

Offhand this still needs a lot of work for the above issues and again, sourcing is definitely going to be one of the biggest hurdles since you need to find enough coverage that focuses on him as an individual and not just in passing or only in relation to BlackRock. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Shalor (Wiki Ed): I declined the csd and moved to draft. no guarantee it won't be retagged and deleted.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Dlohcierekim: Thanks! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Shalor (Wiki Ed):, no guidance regarding the article's title which is contrary to MOS:TITLE? Your advice that secondary, independent reliable sourcing is needed to show that the claims of notability are valid addresses Praxidicae's valid WP:G11 nomination but ignores the fact that the article is a biography of a living person and liable to WP:BLPPROD.

On the matter of article titles I note that of the 12 titles on the course's dashboard 4 contravene MOS:TITLE, 3 would be WP:A10 deleteable as cover versions of other articles on the list, 1 would be A10 to a subsection of an existing article, and 4 more titles practically invite WP:OR & WP:SYNTH in the hands of a novice editor. Only 3 are entirely problem-free.

How does this situation arise? Other than a course tutor who has next to no experience of wikipedia, just 6 edits, none of them to an actual article, and who hasn't completed the training. Cabayi (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• The title does indeed need to be fixed, but to be honest I felt that the instructions were long enough as they were and that this would be something I'd bring up if/when the article was ready to move live. As far as general titles go, this is something that I will mention to my colleagues. We're always working on improving our training modules and titles would be a good topic to cover. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)