User talk:Lengendempire2024

Welcome!
Hi Lengendempire2024! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Leeza Gordon (June 7)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing were:

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:Leeza Gordon 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:Leeza_Gordon Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DoubleGrazing&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Leeza_Gordon reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Dear Wikipedia Editorial Team,
 * I hope this message finds you well. First off I want to say that is site is incredible difficult to naivagate for a first time user.
 * I am a paid contributor who recently submitted an article to Wikipedia. I intend to resumit but am reaching out to get some further clarifcation as I may have misunderstood or not fully understood the guidelines I have read for submission and provide further context regarding the subject.
 * Firstly, I would like to express my appreciation for the feedback provided on my initial submission. I understand the importance of maintaining a neutral point of view and referencing a range of independent, reliable sources.
 * However, I believe there may have been a misunderstanding regarding the selection of sources.
 * To clarify, I utilized approved Wikipedia articles such as those on Oprah Winfrey, T. D. Jakes, Vishanthie Sewpaul, Vishen Lakhiani, Jasvinder Sanghera, and the suicide of Kelly Yeomans to structure my article.
 * links to the articles;
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._D._Jakes *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishanthie_Sewpaul *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishen_Lakhiani *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasvinder_Sangherahttps://en.wikipedia.org/*wiki/Suicide_of_Kelly_Yeomans
 * These articles served as models for formatting and content organization, as they are examples of well-established entries on notable individuals.
 * The subject of my article,Leeza Gordon, is a remarkable individual who has made significant contributions to her field. As a black female entrepreneur, she has overcome numerous obstacles to build a successful business from the ground up.
 * Her dedication to ethical sourcing and advocacy for fair wages has garnered attention from reputable sources, including the British Chamber, Fox EW, and Aspire.
 * Despite her achievements, I believe that Leeza Gordon is not adequately represented on Wikipedia, especially when compared to similar figures in her industry. For instance, individuals from the Derby category, which represents a niche area, as well as her hometown, are more prominently featured across Wikipedia."
 * Therefore, I am committed to providing accurate and verifiable information about her accomplishments to help address this gap.
 * Her dedication to ethical sourcing and advocacy for fair wages has garnered attention from reputable sources.
 * Which leads me to my next point reputable sources. In the context of evaluating sources for inclusion in Wikipedia articles, I understand it's important to prioritize sources that provide verifiable evidence to support the claims made in the article.
 * "The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another. Evaluation of reliability of a source considers the fact for which the source is cited, the context of the fact and cite in the article, incentives of the source to be reliable, the general tone of credibility of the source for the specific fact, etc. For example, a web site that purports to list an artist's works is likely reliable for the fact that the artist authored a specific work, if the web site list meets other criteria for reliability (e.g., not under control of the artist or otherwise questionable), and especially if the list has some further indicia of reliability of existence and publication of the work (ISBN number, publisher stock number, photographs of covers, etc.). Similarly, the publisher's web site is likely to be reliable for the fact that the work exists, for the fact that the work was authored by the purported author, and for publication data (publishers are incentivized to be truthful about the works they publish; publishers do not invite copyright suits or inquiries for works that do not exist). But neither the list web page nor the publisher's web site are per se reliable for any critical, artistic, or commercial evaluation of the work, or any rank ordering of merit,....."
 * These links I believe appears to fall with in the definison on the site. I believe this for the following reasons:
 * https://tryinstantpress.com/meet-leeza-gordon/
 * This website features an article about Leeza Gordon, the subject's articles is specifically about her. I believe it to be considered a reliable source for confirming details about her background, achievements, and contributions. meets Wikipedia's criteria for reliability.
 * https://www.thatsmags.com/guangzhou/post/23516/this-artistic-group-blends-creativity-and-charity-in-guangzhou
 * This article discuss her group and their activities in Guangzhou. which is in English. It mentions Leeza Gordon and her involvement projects and initiatives, I belive it could provide valuable context for her work and contributions.
 * https://www.theaspireseries.com/blog/leeza-gordon
 * This link appears to lead to a blog post specifically about Leeza Gordon. Similar to the first source, since it's focused on the subject of your article, it could serve as a reliable source for information about her background, achievements, and any other relevant details.
 * The publisher's web site are reliable for the fact that the work exists, and the fact that the work was authored by the purported author, and for publication data
 * Additionally, I have included her works as an author on Amazon and her podcasts. Following the structure seen on Tony Robbins Podcast and The Dale Jr. Download, these podcasts, hosted by notable personalities like Tony Robbins and Dale Earnhardt Jr.,
 * Before resubmitting, I would appreciate some guidelines on where to go for assistance with the revised submission.
 * Regard
 * Lengendempire2024! Lengendempire2024 (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Similar questions asked and answered at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Lengendempire2024. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Draft:Leeza Gordon, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the edit COI template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see );
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see );
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I am not editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone. I believe that Leeza Gordon is not adequately represented on Wikipedia, especially when compared to similar figures in her industry. For instance, individuals from the Derby category, which represents a niche area, as well as her hometown, are more prominently featured across Wikipedia. Lengendempire2024 (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought I addressed this already. I am a freelance journalist for a company in Derby. I don't know Leeza Gordon; the only connection we have is she is from Derby and I am from Derby. I still need to go through the policies on this platform as I am still unclear on a few things. It's very difficult to navigate. There may be other platforms that I can explore as it says that I have six months to resubmit it. If I wish to. thx Lengendempire2024 (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You did not directly address the questions. Are you paid? Do you have a personal connection to LG? These questions are separate from any advertising/promoting criticism of the draft. Neither preclude your creating and submitting a draft, but a declaration is needed on your User page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs)


 * You say you have no connection other than your home city, yet you know personal things such as where she went to school, whom she married and when, the fact that she's "currently working towards a PhD", etc. – how do you know all that? None of this is referenced to a published source (which in itself is a problem, per WP:BLP), so where did it come from? And the photo, you uploaded it as your own work, and it seems to have been taken at close quarters; how did that come about? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This information is not a secret; I have done research on my subject before writing an article. As mentioned previously, she has done a lot of work in ethical sourcing and mentoring programs. She is well known in China and is covered in the media there and in her niche for the work she has done.
 * As previously stated, I followed the template of other articles on Wikipedia's page as a framework. I assumed this information was needed, so I researched the subject to gather the relevant information.
 * Here are the links for further reference:
 * British Chambers Link
 * Leeza Gordon's biography on Amazon
 * Leeza Gordon's LinkedIn profile
 * Icymay Business Solutions Company Page on LinkedIn
 * https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-7195164106012708864-opxU?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop
 * Leeza Gordon's Facebook profile
 * Social Projects page on ICYMay Solutions website
 * The Godly CEO: Thriving as a Christian Mompreneur podcast on Spotify
 * Sustainable Success podcast on Spotify
 * To my undertanding these site cant be used as references on the site but as a freelancer I can use these sites to research my subject.
 * Additionally, she is a public figure, She speaks at many events of which I have attened where there are other journalist there not just myself. All this information is readily available with quick google search or wechat search.
 * As I've stated numerous times before, I'm not currently considering featuring the subject on this platform. At the moment, I'm exploring other platforms, and if I do decide to proceed, I have a timeframe of six months to resubmit. Additionally, I'm still in the process of understanding the policies and nuances of this platform, as my knowledge of it is currently quite limited. However, I find it uncomfortable to be accused of dishonesty or to have my integrity questioned. So for this part I have sumbited the information to clear up an confusion. Lengendempire2024 (talk) 04:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nobody is accusing you of anything. You just have to also think how it looks to an outsider, when you register an account and straight away create a draft on a person like this, populate it with a lot of personal information without citing the sources (which must be cited, even if they're of poor quality), add a picture you've taken, and yet deny having any connection with the subject. We would be remiss not to inquire. But okay, you say you have no relationship, so we will leave it at that. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Lengendempire2024. I came across this discussion after seeing your Wikipedia Teahouse question. When you post something like I'm not currently considering featuring the subject on this platform it can give others the impression that (1) you might be misunderstanding how Wikipedia works and (2) you might be more interested in promoting the subject that trying to write an encyclopedic article about the subject. Since those are traits exhibited by many COI/Paid editors, it's not totally unexpected that someone might query you about them. If WP:COI and WP:PAID don't apply to you, then you don't need to worry about them.FWIW, it matters not who tries to create an article about any subject because such an article will ultimately only survive if it's considered to meet WP:NOTABILITY; none of the links you provided above really are useful in establishing Wikipedia notablity and simply trying to create an article based on those is most likely going to not work out well. You mentioned above that the subject has been covered by Chinese media. For reference, WP:SIGCOV isn't only limited to English sources per WP:NONENGLISH and Chinese sources which meet Wikipedia's definition of a WP:RELIABLESOURCE could possibly help establish the subject's Wikipedia notability. So, that might be something worth looking into.As for the "six-month timeline" you mentioned, that's related to speedy deletion criteria G13. Of course, a draft can be deleted at any time for some other serious policy-based reason, but the Wikipedia draft namespace isn't intended to be indefinite hosting space and drafts which have not be edited in any meaningful way for six months are eligble for speedy deletion per G13. At the same time, there's no limit placed on how long you may continue to work on a draft as long as it appears that you're improving it; so, as long as you do that, you may do so at your own pace. One thing I do suggest avoiding is repeatedly submitting what is basically the same declined version of a draft over and over again. In AfC reviewer paralance, a "declined" draft is one that shows some promise but needs more work or better sourcing, whereas a "rejected" draft is one is believed to have zero promise of ever being accepted. There's no limit on the number of times you may submit a draft for review, but drafts which are repeatedly declined for the same reason over and over again seem to eventually end up being rejected; you should, therefore, try to correct the problems pointed out by the AfC reviewers declining the draft before resubmitting. If you have specific questions about why the draft was declined, you can ask either ask the reviewer themselves by posting on their user talk page or ask for help at WP:AFCHELP. Finally, many new users of Wikipedia trying to create articles seem to think that the more content a draft has (both in terms of text and images), the better its chances of being approved. This is actually not really the case and the chances of a draft being accepted can often be improved by removing unsourced clutter and focusing on content which is supported by citations to reliable WP:SECONDARY and WP:INDEPENDENT sources that clearly establish the subject's Wikipedia notability. There's no brightline number when it comes to citing sources, but quality always trumps quantity, and an excessive number of trivial citations is generally not helpful. At least WP:THREE strong relaible sources providing significant coverage should be more than sufficient to convince most AfC reviewers to acceot a draft; moroever, if you're unable to come up with at least three such sources, particularly when the subject is a living person, it just might be WP:TOOSOON for an article to be created. A draft that is well-sourced and verifiable WP:STUB (even without images, tables or other fancy stuff) which clearly established the subject's Wikipedia notability has more of a chance of being approved than a draft full of unsourced or poorly sourced content with an unclear claim of Wikipedia notablity. So, when it comes to drafts, more isn't always better. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Lengendempire2024. I came across this discussion after seeing your Wikipedia Teahouse question. When you post something like I'm not currently considering featuring the subject on this platform it can give others the impression that (1) you might be misunderstanding how Wikipedia works and (2) you might be more interested in promoting the subject that trying to write an encyclopedic article about the subject. Since those are traits exhibited by many COI/Paid editors, it's not totally unexpected that someone might query you about them. If WP:COI and WP:PAID don't apply to you, then you don't need to worry about them.FWIW, it matters not who tries to create an article about any subject because such an article will ultimately only survive if it's considered to meet WP:NOTABILITY; none of the links you provided above really are useful in establishing Wikipedia notablity and simply trying to create an article based on those is most likely going to not work out well. You mentioned above that the subject has been covered by Chinese media. For reference, WP:SIGCOV isn't only limited to English sources per WP:NONENGLISH and Chinese sources which meet Wikipedia's definition of a WP:RELIABLESOURCE could possibly help establish the subject's Wikipedia notability. So, that might be something worth looking into.As for the "six-month timeline" you mentioned, that's related to speedy deletion criteria G13. Of course, a draft can be deleted at any time for some other serious policy-based reason, but the Wikipedia draft namespace isn't intended to be indefinite hosting space and drafts which have not be edited in any meaningful way for six months are eligble for speedy deletion per G13. At the same time, there's no limit placed on how long you may continue to work on a draft as long as it appears that you're improving it; so, as long as you do that, you may do so at your own pace. One thing I do suggest avoiding is repeatedly submitting what is basically the same declined version of a draft over and over again. In AfC reviewer paralance, a "declined" draft is one that shows some promise but needs more work or better sourcing, whereas a "rejected" draft is one is believed to have zero promise of ever being accepted. There's no limit on the number of times you may submit a draft for review, but drafts which are repeatedly declined for the same reason over and over again seem to eventually end up being rejected; you should, therefore, try to correct the problems pointed out by the AfC reviewers declining the draft before resubmitting. If you have specific questions about why the draft was declined, you can ask either ask the reviewer themselves by posting on their user talk page or ask for help at WP:AFCHELP. Finally, many new users of Wikipedia trying to create articles seem to think that the more content a draft has (both in terms of text and images), the better its chances of being approved. This is actually not really the case and the chances of a draft being accepted can often be improved by removing unsourced clutter and focusing on content which is supported by citations to reliable WP:SECONDARY and WP:INDEPENDENT sources that clearly establish the subject's Wikipedia notability. There's no brightline number when it comes to citing sources, but quality always trumps quantity, and an excessive number of trivial citations is generally not helpful. At least WP:THREE strong relaible sources providing significant coverage should be more than sufficient to convince most AfC reviewers to acceot a draft; moroever, if you're unable to come up with at least three such sources, particularly when the subject is a living person, it just might be WP:TOOSOON for an article to be created. A draft that is well-sourced and verifiable WP:STUB (even without images, tables or other fancy stuff) which clearly established the subject's Wikipedia notability has more of a chance of being approved than a draft full of unsourced or poorly sourced content with an unclear claim of Wikipedia notablity. So, when it comes to drafts, more isn't always better. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Lengendempire2024 (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)