User talk:GetAware

November 2017
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Erika Guevara Rosas. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Vanamonde (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Help with the Page for Erika Guevara Rosas
Hi Everyone, I included you all in this message because you have each commented on edits I made to the page for Erika Guevara Rosas recently. I am currently doing a school assignment for my Race and Ethnic Studies Class where we pick a Wiki stub and add to it. The point is to bring awareness to underrepresented individuals and I picked Erika. This is my first time editing on Wikipedia and I am clearly struggling to do so properly. I really appreciate the constructive criticism and suggestions you have each provided so far, as well as that you are taking the time to make Wikipedia reliable. I didn't realize that her opinions even when stated as such should not be in her page. I haven't been able to find background information about her or secondary sources that do more than offer one quote from her. Do any of you have suggestions about what can be added to her page? Thank you so much. --GetAware (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid part of the trouble here is that you have picked a topic for which the claim of notability is very weak. All content added needs to be verifiable and neutral, and some of your additions were neither. Especially in the biography of a living person, it is very important to use reliable sources to support any content you add. So, if you cannot find such sources about this topic, my frank advice to you is to find another, for which sources do exist. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. There are many articles that quote Erika (for example, her view on a specific human rights issue). Could those be used in a section titled "Views on (specific issue)"? Thank you. --GetAware (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A section summarizing her positions might be useful, but in this case I would recommend against it. Such information should ideally rely on secondary sources analyzing a person's position, not just on quotes from that person. Vanamonde (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)