User talk:Debbieatvoxmedia

Your submission at Articles for creation: Big Blue View (November 15)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Kline was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Big Blue View and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Big_Blue_View Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kline&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Big_Blue_View reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Kline • talk to me! • contribs 01:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023
Hello Debbieatvoxmedia. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. 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. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged 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, broadly construed, 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:Debbieatvoxmedia. 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. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Uhai (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Dear Uhai,
 * I am an employee of Vox Media, my title is Associate Director of NFL, and I have been tasked with creating Wikipedia pages for some of our NFL websites starting with Big Blue View. I am not being paid specifically for this action. I have attempted to follow the instructions for COI and paid editing disclosure, but I am not sure if I've done it correctly.
 * Sincerely, Debbie Debbieatvoxmedia (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Debbie: your disclosure looks fine to me, but the draft, that's not going to be accepted, not like this. You need reliable secondary sources that actually discuss the website, in some depth. There's only two single secondary sources. That ESPN article mentions that there's an article by someone on that website, and there's the Bleacher Report thing, which only offers this trivial mention, "Brown told Ed Valentine of Big Blue View that he has sung in public before". That doesn't suggest notability by our standards. Those sources can't verify "Recognition from major media outlets", and claims like that shouldn't be in an encylopedic article anyway. Forget about mentions: find discussion. You may want to look at this, Notability (web). Drmies (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response! I added more sources and re-applied to publish, there are 17 under the reference box now, do they qualify? I can take out that line "Recognition from major media outlets" if that will have any impact. Debbieatvoxmedia (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Before I even look at that, I'll tell you that articles should not have claims like "it was mentioned in...". Sources that actually discuss the website should be used to verify actual content. We don't write articles to become folders for newspaper clippings. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the only two things that were added that could count as reliable secondary sources are the Bleacher Report things--but those really are minimal in the first place, because of the nature of that website (like to report on sports, not websites), and do they actually discuss the website? If they don't, they really are of no use here. Please see WP:RS also. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The nature of sports media is that other sources quote the website, credit it for news coverage or interview the experts such as Ed Valentine - but don't actually write articles discussing the website. I don't know how to get around this with verified sources and would appreciate any advice. Thanks. Debbieatvoxmedia (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I disagree. Sports media are no different from other media. If an outlet is notable by our standards, it's because other reliable sources have written about them. Look at ESPN BottomLine--it's a bad article and we should cut half of it, but there are plenty references that talk about the subject, and that's what counts. You would need to look at outlets that discuss media, not necessarily other sports media that quote your website. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Big Blue View (November 17)
 Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Big_Blue_View Articles for creation help desk] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Tagishsimon was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising your website.

Tagishsimon (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Big Blue View
Hello, Debbieatvoxmedia. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Big Blue View, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Big Blue View


Hello, Debbieatvoxmedia. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Big Blue View".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 02:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)