User talk:IJ30ma Irene

Speedy deletion nomination of Yetunde Teriba


A tag has been placed on Yetunde Teriba, 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. Looplips (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Tito Ovia for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tito Ovia 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/Tito Ovia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Celestina007 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you very much for this, really needed the morale boosting. Referencing is really a hard nut to crack especially for Africa-related articles. Will keep trying, mind helping out by sharing your story? Thanks once again. IJ30ma Irene (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Not a story, but an attempt at help
Hi IJ30ma Irene: I saw your post on Deepfriedokra's talk, and had a feeling I'd talked with you, but apparently I haven't, so let me see if I can help a tiny bit. Don't get your hopes up too much, though! One of Wikipedia's strengths, I think personally its greatest strength, is the diversity of its editors. We vary tremendously in how much we edit and over how long a period; in what kinds of tasks we do; and in matters of style, like whether we make big edits repeatedly using "preview" and then go away, or whether we make oodles of tiny edits changing one thing at a time and sometimes changing it back ... and also in where we are from, where we live now, how much education we have, our jobs, our religious and social backgrounds, our native languages (including a dizzying variety of kinds of English), and even the equipment we use to edit and can imagine others using. So I don't think someone's story as an editor is likely to be very helpful to someone else, frankly. (And if you check my user page, you will see I've participated in the project for many years, but not so long as many others have, and that I have written a lot of articles, but list even more that I believe I improved substantially, and that the range of topics is rather wide. It is probably one of the widest of any editor. I consider myself unusual even among editors, a bit of a weirdo in fact.) Also, and I put this after the previous point(s) because I don't want at all to criticize you (and I think your asking for help understanding how we do things is commendable), I highly value the anonymity we are able to have as editors. I don't understand why some editors prefer not to register an account, because their IPs tell where they are located, including in some cases what educational institution or library (it's against the rules to edit here using IP-spoofing like VPNs), but that's their personal choice, and so is some editors' decision to reveal, or to use, their names as well as other personal information. But we don't have to, and that means we can be everything from a house cleaner to a university professor, anywhere on the political spectrum, and if we have any reason to fear persecution, we're supposed to be safe from it here. Not all Wikipedians agree that we should be anonymous, but I believe the option helps to ensure our diversity. So all other Wikipedians can really know about me is that I'm female (I chose a gendered user name) and what my edits reveal.

OK, notability. A few days ago, TJMSmith left you a "welcome" template with links in it; that's the one I usually put on people's pages, in fact, because it has so many links. The main information page on notability is at the end of the left column there. But let me try to summarize, first by showing you this page about the requirements for something or someone to have a new page on Wikipedia. It has links to the policies, but I think it does a good job of summing up. In my own words, with examples: When we decide whether to give something or someone a page on Wikipedia (rather than a brief summary in another article, or just a name in another article, or no mention at all in the encyclopedia), we call that "notability". Some things and people we have agreed are automatically notable: countries, oceans, populated places recognized by their country ... heads of state, members of national legislatures, Olympic medalists, tennis Grand Slam winners, Nobel Prize winners, members of major orders of chivalry and merit like the Legion of Honor ... subjects of study, fields of work, religions, and major subdivisions within them, like agriculture, Romanesque architecture, Big Bang theory, animism ... you get the idea. Everything and everybody else, we use a rule of thumb that several (in effect, at least two and preferably three) books, documentaries, news articles in some medium (including print, nothing absolutely has to be on line), other reference works including specialized encyclopedias, but not including directory listings and most things for which a person or a company submits the text, like most versions of Who's Who ... have devoted at least a segment, a page or two, or one or two detailed paragraphs to that person or thing. To count toward establishing notability, those "sources" can't include things judged unreliable (Here's the main policy page on "reliability"), like the trashier tabloids (what those are obviously varies from country to country), user-generated sites (like the Internet Movie Database and the vast majority of other wikis—and Wikipedia itself), blogs whose content is not checked for accuracy (basically all blogs except newspapers' official blogs by their own journalists), or statements by the subjects themselves, like autobiographies, Facebook, LinkedIn, or even scholarly books and articles (we need reviews of the books and articles saying they are groundbreaking, or a biography or two by other writers). And republications of the same text don't count separately toward notability either. This is called the "general notability guideline" and is our basic underlying standard. But because it's hard to find enough sources in many fields (such as biographies of living academics—they often get widespread coverage only after they die and newspapers publish obituaries; or popular music—notability is different from fame, and especially doesn't include notoriety for one shocking tweet or one bad performance, and which sources and what kind of coverage demonstrate that a performer or a group have made the big time may require specialist knowledge of the genre) we have some special alternative guidelines: look here for a summary, with links, of specialized criteria for people in specific fields. If an article you create is taken to a deletion discussion, those who want to save it should argue based on how the topic meets either the general notability guideline or one or more of the specialized ones; and to avoid that (and to serve the reader, who may want to find out more about the topic as well as check the article's accuracy), new articles should always cite enough reliable sources to establish notability. They can and often should also cite other sources, such as interviews with the person and things the person has written, to support details (such as birth date and where someone grew up). But those don't count toward notability.

Many new Wikipedians do get discouraged, I'm sorry to say. It can be particularly hard to write new articles, because of the reliable sources requirement but also because it can be hard to get the hang of writing in a dry, neutral tone ("neutral point of view"; you may want to tell yourself to be boring). I looked at other biographies to see the standard layout and headings, and got a feel for the style also that way, but people will help with wording as well as with formatting, and it is generally meant to be helpful, although it can be disconcerting when your writing gets all redone, put into templates, and even changed to another spelling system (the last is not supposed to happen, but it does; many English speakers genuinely don't realize there are many national varieties of English). PohranicniStraze gave you some good advice on their talk page, including links to Wikiproject:Women in Red and their guide to writing new articles. I'd also like to point you to the Teahouse, which a bot invited you to at the top of this page; that's a help page for new editors and the people who answer questions there are very patient and good at explaining things. Another option is to submit your articles through articles for creation (AfC) (instructions there, but basically you write the article either in your user space or with a "Draft:" prefix, and when you think it's ready, you add a template asking for it to be reviewed). The advantage of that is that experienced Wikipedians review it and advise you on what needs to be fixed, including demonstrating notability, and it is only moved into "mainspace" when it is reasonably safe from being nominated for either speedy or one-week deletion. The problems are: it can take weeks to get a review; and because we now tell editors who are suspected of advertising or another conflict of interest that they must use the AfC review system, many of the reviewers are focused on keeping out bad articles rather than trying to help improve articles with potential. And because they are a subgroup of experienced editors who have volunteered to apply to review articles, they are less likely than editors in general to have specialized knowledge, including knowledge of African politics and academia. So you run a risk if you mainspace the article yourself as you have been doing, but AfC may not be much help. Alternatively, consider deliberately spending time adding references to and updating existing articles on topics that you are interested in or know about; you probably have access to sources that I, for example, either can't access or don't know about. (Apart from offline sources and local knowledge, you might be surprised how Google results differ depending on geographic location or what the company's computer algorithms decide a person is most interested in.) That's a good way to learn about wording things as well as what kind of references are needed and how to use them to fill out a biography. And it may lead you to new topics you hadn't thought of writing about: it took me a while to realize that that's why we have "red links", because another editor thought the topic was probably notable and linked it as a suggestion; but also when you click on a live link, sometimes you will find it's a redirect to a broader topic, and I have changed some redirects into full articles.

I wrote a huge amount, and I apologize for that. I'm really glad you came back and resumed trying to help us build this encyclopedia; I personally think there are a huge number of notable topics not yet covered, and anyone who thinks otherwise is myopic; and I hope a little bit of my verbiage is useful to you. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello In my excitement I rushed off to the page that brought you here to say my thanks. The way you put in the jokes and jabs made it even more interesting to read that the length was never considered. Glad I voiced out before resolving to be linked to Wikipedia by by just Google search. Though truth be told, sourcing still remains a challenge. I would have to print this out and implement each pointer, one daily. Attempt successful, thanks once again IJ30ma Irene (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Awesome, I'm so glad it looks to be useful! Yngvadottir (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, it is me again. If it isn't stretching you or going against any rules, please help me review this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IJ30ma_Irene/Dr.Justin; what needs to be added/removed, the voice and all. Thanks alot. IJ30ma Irene (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi again! I'd seen User:IJ30ma_Irene/Dr.Justin before, but just gave it a new examination. I'm sorry to say you are still writing in a rather promotional tone for a general encyclopedia (as opposed to a speaker bio, for example). One easy change to make is, refer to him as "Goldston", not as "Dr. Goldston". We don't use honorifics (and, frankly, almost all professors and a lot of other people have PhDs; I have one myself; so within academia it's less common than you might think to use the "Dr.") More broadly, tone down the mentions of the public speaking, especially since it's promoting something (blockchain). I suggest the following for the intro:

"Justin Lee Goldston (born March 3, 1984) is an American academic at Pennsylvania State University Wilkes-Barre, He assisted in the development of the Master's program in Supply Chain Management at Georgetown University, one of the first in the field, and has also spoken widely on blockchain."
 * There should not be any need for references in the introduction, because it should summarize material stated with references in the body of the article; unless you need to footnote just the birth date. Notice also that I didn't refer to him as a professor; Penn State list him only as an assistant professor, and that's an important distinction in the US. He's also at a branch campus; you don't cite his faculty page, which is here. And I didn't mention baseball in the introduction, because it's not important to his notability as an academic or an expert.


 * More importantly, I don't think you've established that he is notable. I don't see any extended articles about him in the references, just material about his TEDx talks that was published to advertise him, and publications by him. He does not have a senior academic position; your best way to establish that he is notable is for many writers independent of him to have written about his important role in his field, but I don't even see him mentioned in the summary of the paper by Jekov, Petkova, Parusheva, and Shoikova; does that paper simply cite him, or is there a statement in it that his work has been very important? If the latter, that would be one, but the sentence needs to say more than that he lectures about it. I'm afraid almost all academics write things, and all business experts give lectures and conference presentations. So you need to cite people saying he's done extraordinary, influential work. I would start by seeing if there was any business press coverage of his assisting in setting up that program at Georgetown, since it was a pioneering program. Even a newspaper article from one of the places he's taught would help.


 * Some hints on presentation, because both readers and Wikipedians expect an article to look a certain way (and it helps in keeping the tone neutral). Separate sections on "Early life and education" (mentioning the baseball only there) and "Career" (not "Biography"); arrange the career section chronologically, with footnotes for all the places he's taught (it's quite common in the US to move from one college or university to another a number of times, so that's ok, but it all has to be documented; sometimes the most recent college has a list on the faculty page that gives the order of appointments). For a living person, everything must have a reference, and personal details are particularly risky, so if you can't find a reliable source for his being married, preferably with his wife's name, just don't have a "Personal life" section. I would make "Research" a sub-heading under "Career". "Publications" is traditionally a separate section, as you have it, but shouldn't be a table, and it should only include books, unless you have references (like review articles) calling one of his articles ground-breaking or highly influential. It's a good idea to footnote all the items in the publications list, but do not use the publisher's own listings unless you also take biographical details from them, and never use Amazon: the idea is that references are information for the reader, but not ads for the reader to buy the book. (The ISBN enables them to buy it; that's enough.) So for example, either:
 * Critical Success Factors in Enterprise Resource Planning Implementation in US Manufacturing, ISBN 978-1948149099 or:
 * —both of those should provide a clickable link on the ISBN that offers the reader a choice of booksellers. It's there in your Amazon footnote, because you provided the ISBN. However in this case it looks as if he used a publish-on-demand company, which is a further problem for establishing his notability. Has anyone reviewed the book in a journal or independent business publication?
 * —both of those should provide a clickable link on the ISBN that offers the reader a choice of booksellers. It's there in your Amazon footnote, because you provided the ISBN. However in this case it looks as if he used a publish-on-demand company, which is a further problem for establishing his notability. Has anyone reviewed the book in a journal or independent business publication?


 * I hope that helps. For what it's worth, your draft in your sandbox, Tito Ovia, looks more notable because there are articles about her; I see there was an article in mainspace that was deleted after an Articles for deletion discussion. Why didn't you post at the discussion about why it should be kept? Anyway, that's what we want to avoid happening with the Goldston article. So see if you can find people writing about him and the importance of his work. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Wow! Wikipedia is harder than I thought, head was just spinning while reading the post. What could I say about Tito when they had already canceled her Forbes achievement. Guess I will just resign (for now I guess) to adding pointers here and there to already published articles. I do not know how you people did it but having an article deleted is a "miss a meal" day. Like waadddaaaaaa. Will just take my L and go back to my articles reading as a random Google searcher. Thanks once again, I really do appreciate. IJ30ma Irene (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

After sending the first message, the "I am not a loser" mantra hit me so I will keep at it no matter how long it takes. Though work on its own is pulling all angles of my trousers. Will just sip coffee, sleeeeeppppppp, coffee again then come back to this, perhaps. (Lol. I am that confused. Long articles just come at me with something different). Well well, the journey continues... IJ30ma Irene (talk) 08:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yay! I had been typing this response:
 * Yes, having an article deleted is horrible. I am sorry :-( I'm going to ping, maybe he can think of some advice to help you understand. We really do need articles and we really do value article writers!
 * Let's see if a wiser head than mine can help you out. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. If you were a counsellor you would be a great one because you do put someone's mental health into consideration. Thank you once again. IJ30ma Irene (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)