Talk:Soles4Souls

User:Psucarrierae/Soles4Souls → Soles4Souls – Requesting move from save space to main. This is a new article, completely written by me, and thoroughly sourced. I am not sure why I am blocked from moving it myself, so I am requesting that someone else move it please. Psucarrierae (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

=

Requested changes[edit]

My name is Jamie and I work for Soles4Souls. I would like to suggest the current page be stubbed, because almost all of the current content is unsourced or poorly-sourced:

The "Beginnings" section's only citation is to a "brand contributor" guest post at Forbes.
The "Micro-enterprise" section's only citation is to the Soles4Souls website itself.
The "Partner organizations" section's only citations are press releases and broken links.
The "Celebrity Involvement" section's only citations are broken links, short blurbs, the Soles4Souls website, etc.
The Lead's only citations are to Soles4Souls' own website.

I plan to rebuild the page using proper citations and neutral content, but wanted to request trims first to break up my request into smaller pieces and show why I propose replacing the content to better conform to Wikipedia's rules. Jamiemellis (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a good direction to move in. Are you sure that your preferred way is to start by reducing it to a stub? If so, and if there are no objections from others, I'd be happy to do that if you intend to work on it in the near future. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: I'd like to propose this draft as a replacement for the current page. I just thought it would be easier for the responding editor to see what is problematic about the current content before I propose replacing it. Let me know what you think. Jamiemellis (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamiemellis: I took a quick look at it. Not to see that it had no issues, but instead for these two things:

Is it an improvement compared to the current article? I think yes, both for content and wiki-compliance.
Does it have any big problems? I spotted one possible one. It says some pretty rough stuff about the previous CEO. Per WP:BLP you need to be very cautions about that and also have really strong sourcing for whatever you put in there. I took a quick look at the two sources given. At first glance I didn't spot anything supporting the "high salary" statement but I may have missed that. Also it seems a bit biased...it makes it sound that it had trouble due to his practices (e.g. selling the shoes) but in fact those are practices that they do now.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: I removed the reference to him giving himself a high salary and lightened another sentence a bit. Let me know what you think. Jamiemellis (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamiemellis: I made one more proposed tweak. This would make it where I'd suggest subbing it in or else where I'd sub it in if you wish. North8000 (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: I’d prefer if you sub it in, as I think that’s what I’m supposed to do is ask you to make the edit? But I can make the edit if you prefer. Jamiemellis (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's strongly suggested that someone else do it. This is a case where I thought either way would be fine, but I'd be happy to do it. North8000 (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did it. One thing to check (though you're probably way ahead of me on this) is there anything that disappeared (content or references) that should be re-added. My outlook towards potential-COI editors is to expect the best.:-) Disclosure doesn't take you off that hook :-) job #1 here is Wikipedia goals. So far so good! :-) North8000 (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Vandalism[edit]

Hi. My name is Jamie and I work for Soles4Souls. An SPA IP editor recently vandalized the page[1] by adding several fictional references to an advertising company I've never heard of. The reason I think these edits were in bad-faith, and not merely confusion, was because they altered one of the citations to misrepresent the title of the article, in order to make it look like the article was about their advertising company. I wanted to post here to explain my edits, as I feel confident this was just vandalism. Jamiemellis (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]