User talk:DigitalatPrime

Help me!
Please help me with...

I'm trying to publish the draft page I've created.

DigitalatPrime (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are ready to submit your draft for review, click the "Submit your draft for review" button that I have added to the top of the draft page and follow the instructions. However, I strongly encourage you to continue working on the draft, as it is not suitable at this time for inclusion on Wikipedia. The main issue is that it does not meet the criteria of the Golden Rule. Please read it (and WP:YFA) thoroughly before submitting your draft. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Help me!
I'm not understanding what the Golden Rule actually encompasses. We've written a bio for our company chairman that is slightly different from the version on our website, what else do we need?

This is all of the information that he wants to include, so I'm not sure about what "outside sources" means or where we edit that?

DigitalatPrime (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a free webhost; we are here to write an encyclopedia. In particular, we do not care what your chairman may want to include (or to exclude); a Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable third-party sources have reported about him. The so-called "Golden Rule" sums it up:
 * "Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic."
 * The draft's only source is your own website, not reliable by Wikipedia's standards and certainly not independent. For an obvious example of why that's not acceptable, just take your draft's second sentence: "Pastrick has played key roles within the Democratic National Committee [...]" - who assessed the importance of those roles? Himself. Might he be tempted to overstate the significance of what he did for the DNC? People have been known to do something like that at times. Thus we cannot just take Mr Pastrick's word for how important he was but need an independent assessment. If, say, the Washington Post assessed his roles as significant, that's much more dependable than Mr Pastrick's self-assessment.
 * I do not think the available independent sources suffice to write an encyclopedia article about Mr Pastrick, but those I did find mention that the "big companies" among his clients included Blackwater when that company's "reputation [was] in tatters and its lucrative government contracts in jeopardy". I'm not surprised that particular fact is not among those Mr Pastrick wants to include, but as I said, if Wikipedia were to have an article about Mr Pastrick, he would not get to control its content. I'll also note that you apparently reproduced the information on Mr Pastrick's personal life incorrectly. Huon (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You say "This is all of the information that he wants to include." I'm afraid you have rather the wrong idea about Wikipedia. Nobody WP:OWNs a Wikipedia article, or gets to control it, least of all its subject.


 * Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves, or get their staff to write about them. It has a test for inclusion, called Notability, which looks for references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Significant means more than just listing-type mentions; reliable excludes Youtube, Facebook, blogs, places where anyone can post anything; independent excludes the subject's own website, affiliated ones and anything based on press releases. The test is, have people not connected with the subject thought him significant enough to write substantial comment about?


 * The Golden rule explains what that means, in particular: "We need sources that are independent from the subject of the article. Not: articles written by the topic, paid for by the topic, their website, or their organization. Not a press release written by a publicist...  Not a report put out by an organization owned by the subject."


 * Your draft at present would not be accepted, because it has no sources apart from the company website.


 * In fact, an article should be based primarily on external sources, so that it is an outside view of the subject, not just the story the subject wants to tell. There is good advice from an experienced user at User:Uncle G/On notability:
 * "When writing about subjects that are close to you, don't use your own personal knowledge of the subject, and don't cite yourself, your web site, or the subject's web site. Instead, use what is written about the subject by other people, independently, as your sources. Cite those sources in your very first edit.  If you don't have such sources, don't write."


 * JohnCD (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:R. Scott Pastrick


Hello, DigitalatPrime. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "R. Scott Pastrick".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation 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. 1989 15:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)