User talk:Clco

Speedy deletion nomination of Collective Awareness Platforms for Sustainability and Social Innovation


A tag has been placed on Collective Awareness Platforms for Sustainability and Social Innovation, 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 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Reply
Hi, thanks for message. First, some points you specifically mentioned. I deleted your article because
 * You say that you have no WP:COI with this article, thank you for stating that
 * So this is not a unique case, I wonder if you have also flagged those articles for speedy deletion... there are other Wikipedia pages dedicated to European programs&mdash; The fact that other articles have not been deleted doesn't help you, either they met the criteria or they should be deleted as well. See other stuff exists. Also note that many articles would have been accepted before the notability guidelines were made stricter. Also, as it happens, I deleted a few other Europe-related articles since several had been tagged.
 * Mostly without independent sources or evidence of notability This is a subject of debate&mdash;no it's not, the criteria are clearly defined.
 * it did not provide 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 organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, 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 organisation he claims or interviewing its management. Much of your text was unreferenced, and nearly all the references you did give were to affiliated sites, not independent third-party sources. In some cases I checked, like P2P and Wikirate, the links didn't support what you had written and appeared to just be spam links to affiliated sites. We are not interested in what organisations say about themselves
 * The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:
 * significant coverage in
 * independent,
 * multiple,
 * reliable,
 * secondary sources.
 * Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability. As indicated above, your text has virtually no sources that meet the criteria and as written it's not acceptable on notability grounds


 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced or self-sourced claims presented as fact include:  build on available or emerging networks where data ownership, equal opportunities and inclusiveness are central, unlike other FP7 and H2020 projects, which usually define themselves around technological goals... enabling citizens' participation in democratic processes by developing and applying new tools... better decision making... the community-driven aspect and engagement of civil society, which is to be maintained over a period of time... create alternative solutions to problems... The vision is that individuals and groups can more effectively and sustainably react to societal challenges by acting on the basis of a direct extended awareness of problems and possible solutions.&mdash; and so on. The trouble with self-sourced promos is that they end up as a collections of aims, visions and mission statements rather than facts.
 * Similarly, once you strip away the promo, there is little about the organisation itself. It has coordinators, but you give no other facts, such as where it is based, number of employees or expenditure. Considering the budget runs into millions of euros, you make it remarkably anonymous.
 * the article was created with only one wikilink after the first paragraph, and no independent references, and looks as if was copied from an unknown and possibly copyrighted source. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial but there is no indication that the copied site allows free use. Text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient. I haven't checked for infringements, but others might, so please make sure all your text is original.
 * Not a reason for deletion, but normally organisations get one external link to the main site.

I see that you have a sandboxed version. Rather than delete that too, I've moved it to Draft:Collective Awareness Platforms for Sustainability and Social Innovation so that you can improve it if you wish. Please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. If you do not wish to proceed, let me know and I'll delete the draft.

Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Collective Awareness Platforms for Sustainability and Social Innovation


Hello, Clco. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Collective Awareness Platforms for Sustainability and Social Innovation".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (📧) 09:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)