Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gryllida/BiographyNotability

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. No consensus to delete, especially with the rewrite. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Gryllida/BiographyNotability


This is essentially a guide on how to ignore policy and get a spam biography into Wikipedia. It actively encourages people to use marketing techniques to manufacture sources. Additionally it’s a NOT violation: Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and this is essentially a how to guide on how to promote a personal brand. Delete with fire. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nomination. We should not be providing any instruction on how to try and meet the written rules of Wikipedia whilst completely destroying the spirit of our rules. We have a hard enough time dealing with promotional material written around bought promotional content on third party sites, without having the additional problem of actually suggesting bought promotional content will guarantee acceptance into the bosom of Wikipedia. Nick (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I read ir differently. I read it as "go develop your business and forget trying to get on Wikipedia". Also emphasizes you need to do things like becoming internationally notable that cause other people to wrote about you.  Legacypac (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure--I see the draft more from LPac's point of view but some parts ought to be deleted.I will wait for Gryllida's comments on the motivations and purpose of this draft. ~ Winged Blades Godric 16:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , regardless of the motivations, it doesn’t have a place as a user space essay as it is more concerned with giving business advice than it is with dealing with matters related to Wikipedia. Ignoring the misrepresentation of sourcing types, etc, it is excluded by WP:NOTHOWTO. WikiHow exists for this type of stuff. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The purpose here is to clearly show startups what they should do instead of using Wikipedia as an advertising platform. Felt that turning them away with a 'go away, Wikipedia will not do what you want' has been done for many years and the new articles queue is still filled with many commercial submissions. I would like to produce them an appealing and attractive alternative that they could use as a replacement for the 'fight with Wikipedia about notability' activity. It is not clear to me, currently, what the replacement activity should be. If you have suggestions about it, and how to avoid it reading as if sources need to be manufactured, please let me know.
 * If not acceptable at English Wikipedia, please move it somewhere, to draft namespace or whatever (thought it is already pretty hard to discover at User namespace already - I tagged it with 'under consturction' now to make it implicit that it is not ready) let me know and I will move the draft to userspace at a sister project until it is further refined and revised, and I am able to query all participants of this discussion for a re-review. --Gryllida (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This would be best on a personal website or non-Wikimedia Foundation project. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Whether or not one thinks it's advice on how to get your company published on here, it certainly isn't an encyclopedic article about anything Notable. KJP1 (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, I see this as a kind of analogue to Alternative outlets. It's designed to provide advice that will get not-quite-notable people and companies off our backs, which is beneficial to the encyclopedia by freeing up capacities of, for example, WP:AFC reviewers that might get fewer autobiographies of such non-notable people to review. Will it do much good? Not necessarily. Will it do harm? I don't see how. Does it answer a frequently asked question about Wikipedia? Yes, certainly. In particular, it stresses that independent sources are needed. If there's an issue with how various kinds of sources are represented, that can be fixed. Huon (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, but mandate links to policy and opposing essays from a "See Also" section. Project-related essay by a long term contributing Wikipedian.  If disputed, added linked to opposing essays or policy.  While the user may object to others editing his essay, I think he has no case to object to this, as the essay addresses a matter of importance to the project, and is not written as a personal opinion.  Links from a "See also" section should be protected from the limited userspace-ownership leeway privileges.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This has absolutely nothing to do with policy: it is a how-to guide on how to run a business and manufacture sourcing and will only be used to coddle spammers. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I read it less negatively. I read it as a how to on staying with Wikipedia's guidelines for coverage of actively promoting companies.   Wikipedia is strongly averse to being used for promoting, but that does not mean than promoting companies are blackballed.  I can see that selective quoting of lines of this essay could be used to strongly criticise it, that it could be more carefully written, but I definitely read a less negative intention to your reading.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, but if the intent is to point people to this at AfC or in IRC, then this will only make the problem worse, and give spammer a false idea of how they can get on here, making life much more difficult for those of us whose main area of work is keeping the spam out, which is why I disagree with Huon that it won't harm the project. Even ignoring the practical negative impacts it will have by misrepresenting our sourcing and inclusion policy, it is also just a how-to guide on branding and business development. That's a WP:NOT violation both as a webhost and as a how-to guide. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I just made some edits to the page attempting to ameliorate the likely misreading of the page which I think you are looking at. I don't care much for the visual presentation style I introduced, but is that helping to prevent the likely misreading of the earlier version?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Think it's better to improve the relevance and efficiency of the WP:RA process instead maybe? I'd be ok with deleting this essay and designing the WP:RA process and somehow incorporating it into the article wizard. (WP:WIZ) --Gryllida (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - It is trying to stay within Wikipedia policies and guidelines by having what sounds like a slightly discouraging tone, but it will nonetheless be taken by spammers as encouragement, and we need to avoid encouraging spammers, even by accident. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

"Perhaps it's better to delete this (I've added a comment explaining why)? I'd submit an author deletion request but now you're a co-author which makes this impossible. --Gryllida (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)"
 * Moved here from my talk page: == Re: notability etc ==


 * Gryllida, you have my blessing to db-u1 your useressay, especially if you agree with TonyBallioni that it is not conveying the information very well. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I really like the idea of telling corp and other self promotors that there is a better plan than usinf Wikipedia as a platform. I'm not seeing this as a "how to manufacture sources" but as good advice for a path that does not involve continued resubmission of promo. Legacypac (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I really don't easily read it that way, and am sure it is not meant to be read that way, but clearly it is a fact that it can be read that way, which is a problem. It needs fixing at a minimum, it can't stay as it is.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * TonyBallioni, please check the current revision. . If that's still misleading from your perspective (after removal of striked out content), please delete it, as I (the author) would not mind it being removed if that is still the case. Thank you. --Gryllida (talk) 07:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It has less of the issues in terms of telling people to manufacture sourcing, but my concern about it being a how-to guide and explaining that other things are better still remains. I'm also concerned that two of your examples of secondary sourcing are not secondary at all: an interview and a testimonial are both primary sources. My general thoughts re: this essay is that we're in TNT territory. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * TonyBallioni, Re "my concern about it being a how-to guide and explaining that other things are better still remains" rephrase please? I'm not familiar with TNT abbriveation.
 * Re sourcing examples - moved like you said, I think you are right. --Gryllida (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep the recent restructuring has shown that we're not in TNT territory, and quite frankly I think telling users too forcefully to go away will have the opposite effect. Already, a browse of undisclosed paid editing companies for Wikipedia shows that they use the intimidating nature of creating a first article as a way of attracting new business in a "hey, Wikipedia is hard, let us do the job for you" kinda way. To even more forcefully tell new users to go away would only bolster this false reputation, and mean that article subjects automatically go to these UPE companies straight away. I've read the userpage a few times, but I can't see how it could be read as a "hey spammers, here's a three point guide to game our systems and get an article" as suggested above. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.