User talk:Anastasiageva

COI
Hello Anastasiageva. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a black hat practice. Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly. Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:   . If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message.

Jimfbleak - talk to me?  12:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jimfbleak, thanks for enquiring! You're right in that I am employed by a media agency where Audley is a client. However, you'll see I wasn't the creator of the page and I haven't made material changes to the copy itself; my edits extend as far as uploading the images and working with a different Wikipedia editor to ensure that we had the correct licence from the image holders. Where edits have been made, they've been impartial. I will update that document to show that I am indirectly employed and of course won't make any more edits until I hear back from you. Thanks, Anastasiageva (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks you for declaring a COI. I'm aware that yours is not the only likely COI account, but yours was the one I stumbled across, I'll pick up the others, or any new editors, if they edit again, since it's unlikely any non-conflicted editors would extend this article. Although editing an article in which you have a COI is discouraged, it is not actually forbidden, as long as it's transparent. I've already indefinitely blocked one obvious COI editor today for ignoring the COI request!


 * I've deleted the article, which has major problems with referencing and tone. As you say, your account is not the one that started the article, but if you wish to take responsibility for the article, let me know and I'll explain the problems in detail. Deleted text can be restored to a user sub page if it's appropriate to do so, but I haven't checked the text for copyright issues yet.


 * Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Of course, that's fine - I do want to be as transparent as possible and am definitely not looking for some exception to the rules. Given the conflict of interest, am I technically allowed to take responsibility for the article? If not, I'm more than happy to do so, so long as it doesn't breach any further rules. Would definitely be interested in hearing if and how it could be rectified - and again, happy to take responsibility for doing so. Thanks again, Anastasiageva (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * COI editors are discouraged from editing, but not prohibited as long as they are transparent and otherwise follow our rules. Make sure that you declare your interest on your user page as described above and on the article talk page. I'll look at the article next to see what the problems were. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  15:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

More
I deleted your article because
 * it did not provide adequate independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the company, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company claims or interviewing its management. Much of your text was unreferenced or referenced only to affiliated sources
 * it's all about what the company sellas, little about the company itself other than locations. To show notability you need hard facts such as the number of employees, turnover or profits.
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include: '' luxury... luxury retirement village model... aims to fit with the owner’s lifestyle and property
 * also a sales pitch ''Non-residents aged over 55 can purchase an Audley Club membership.

I'll restore the text here shortly Jimfbleak - talk to me?  16:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jim, Thanks for all of the info about the page! I've added my paid disclosure to my user page and will do so on the Audley page if/when it is restored. In the meantime, shall I/somebody else work on the copy and get it approved before publishing? Would appreciate the advice! Thanks again for all your help! Anastasiageva (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jim, hope you're well! I've updated the copy on my sandbox (the top version is the new one; the bottom version is the old.) I've done my best re referencing to ensure that they are all unbiased and in the appropriate places within the copy. Where copy didn't have an appropriate factual reference, I removed it. I'd be grateful for any further feedback - and possibly advice re how to move the information at the bottom (including the information on employee numbers, turnover, etc) into the data graph so it appears at the top of the page. Hope that makes sense - apologies I'm still very new to this! Really appreciate your help :) Thanks Anastasiageva (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You need Template:infobox company, see Tesco for an example of use. You need to incorporate the employment and financial data in the text too, to make it look less like a sales leaflet. Any other financial stuff would also be good. I'd advise removing "luxury", that's an opinion and looks spammy. Add a description to make your refs more intelligible using instead of a bare url. Your first reference is dead. The CQC link just goes to the main site and should be a wikilink Care Quality Commission rather than a ref since it doesn't support your text. What you need is a link to the reports on your company. You need more wikilinks anyway, eg William the Conqueror. To me, it still seems more like a sales leaflet than an objective report about a company, and I'm not sure that it would survive without some more hard facts. Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  14:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

New edits made
Hi Jim, thanks again for all of your help! I've made further edits which are on my sandbox page - I've tried to make it much less salesy, and used a similar company's Wiki page (McCarthy & Stone) as a guideline. I've also created an infobox - thanks so much for your help - that will feature the logo once (if - I hope!) the page goes live again. Appreciate your feedback and would like to hear if this is any better now. Thanks! Anastasiageva (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You need more wikilinks, eg Surrey, Axa, Care Quality Commission, retirement village, most of the towns. Please go through. I've removed the CQC ref since it doesn't support your text, and just links to their site, better done through a wikilink. I think you have misunderstood what I meant by formatting the references to make them more readable. I've fixed the ARCO one as an example of how they should look, you need to do the rest. The tone seems better, when you have done what I've suggested, just try it and see what happens Jimfbleak - talk to me?  17:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi, thanks again :) That's such good news - I know it's still not guaranteed but such good news that it's improved anyway - thanks! I've updated it again on sandbox - hope that's all what you meant! It all looks so much better now, I'm quite proud of my new Wiki knowledge! Really appreciate all your ongoing help :) Ana Anastasiageva (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry - one more thing! The page is live over at Audley retirement, but the page title has a lower case R. This seems uneditable - is that the case? Apologies for my basic knowledge. Thanks! Anastasiageva (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You use the "Move" tab to move it to the correct title and make the lc version a redirect. I've done that for you Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Audley Retirement


A tag has been placed on Audley Retirement, 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, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and 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 removed 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. SmartSE (talk) 10:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Smartse, I've contested the page deletion on the page itself, thanks for letting me know about the notice. I've been working really hard on editing the page to make it as unbiased as possible - please see above comments! Do you have any specific feedback on what is wrong with it? If you can see the above conversation, I've worked to make it fit with Wiki guidelines as much as possible. Would really appreciate some guidance on this! Thanks. Anastasiageva (talk) 11:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Audley Retirement for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Audley Retirement is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Audley Retirement until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SmartSE (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Message
You can't add material to a closed AFD, so I've moved your message here, <b style="font-family:chiller;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  12:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Michig  Hi all, I've been trying to source some of the info that would demonstrate notability and the scale of the business - it's been uploaded to the following page.   Would it be possible to include this as a footnote on a reuploaded Audley Retirement page, and would this help define notability? Thanks! Anastasiageva (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * FWIW, it would be better if the info could be referenced either to an independent source or an official company document such as a annual report, rather than just a change to the company web page <b style="font-family:chiller;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  12:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no argument that this is a substantial enterprise but scale does not equate to notability. What you need to show in the article is that this company has been the "subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." For further guidance please read WP:ORG, WP:RS and WP:CITE. HTH. Just Chilling (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)