Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 May 30

= May 30 =

Request on 05:35:06, 30 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Iamthekanadian
Here's the story. I'm new. I work for a charity, LiveWorkPlay. We had an article on Wikipedia for probably ten years. I didn't create it or edit but I was aware of it I just discovered it had been deleted. It seemed mainly because some didn't like the sourcing many of the links to media sources had expired so fair enough. I asked for undelete but this didn't seem likely. So I got the advice to create new Draft:LiveWorkPlay. I declared conflict of interest. I worked on the article for about 6 hours. I used 95% secondary sources. For my troubles I got accused of being a paid editor and also a very long message saying that the article read like an advertisement and too many internal sources - I have degrees in history education and linguistics - to me the content was blandly factual and excessively sourced - other feedback - not notable enough - too promotional - help.me understand how to demonstrate "notability" but avoid being "promotional" - the article certainly isn't going to sell anything or make money for anyone. All facts stated are sourced. I've looked at other articles for similar organizations and frankly they seem totally inferior - not nearly as well sourced and read like a brochure.

I don't understand what I was supposed to do - very aggressive comments about my being a "paid editor" I was given the advice to write the article - how else does it happen? I asked for help and other people did help edit - I feel like a criminal and I'm just not getting what that's all about. My preference was to try to fix the old article. I didn't want to write it. I thought what I wrote was pretty solid. And the criticism didn't match up to the article I am really upset and confused about the accusation of the references being self generated when they are not they are almost 100% secondary and I'm not getting paid one penny - I declared the conflict of interest immediately which seems fair but the insistence on paid editor does not. Ultimately after all this I'd just like to see an acceptable article. If someone can do that - because I clearly don't understand the sourcing and promotional issues - that would be great.

Iamthekanadian (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I was forced into identifying as a paid editor. I have read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure over and over. I do work for the organization in the article. But I sm absolutely NOT being paid directly or indirectly for anything to do with Wikipedia. In was accused of being some sort of dark operative I never hid that I worked for the organization and I disclosed it immediately as a conflict of interest. In was told the article could not be edited or approved if I did not identify as a paid editor. I do not underhand why I was accused in this way and forced in this way. I would like this to be removed. Other editors have already volunteered to ensure neutrality. This has been a very negative and punitive experience.

Iamthekanadian (talk) 06:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You have found out the hard way that diving right in to creating an article(the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia) without any experience in editing Wikipedia in general often leads to hurt feelings and disappointment as things happen to your work that you don't understand. It would be like building a house without knowing anything about electrical work, plumbing, getting permits, or anything about the process itself.  I'm sorry this has happened.
 * You do meet the definition of a paid editor. Any paid editing relationship with a subject you are editing about must be disclosed per the Terms of Use.  You do not have to be specifically paid to edit or specifically directed to edit.
 * You have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is for. It is not a place to merely tell about something and what it does.  Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about(in this case) an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization wants to say about itself, only in what others completely unconnected with the organization choose to say about it.  Most of the sources you have offered are not acceptable for establishing notability, because they are brief mentions, announcements of routine activities, or similar sources.  Please review the notability criteria for more information, as well as Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, respectfully, I have degrees in history, education, and linguistics and have written articles for journals, and I've been a Wikipedua user for I guess 15+ years, so it's not quite like the plumbing analogy, but thanks for the help.

Where does it say that anyone who is employed by an organization is a paid editor? Like, the plumber who works for the Buccaneers can't edit the Buccaneers page without declaring as a paid editor?

I have read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure five times and that's not what I'm seeing.

As for the article itself, it seems like a few neutral people have had a go at it - I guess you are saying the third party sources aren't significant enough - that's obviously an opinion to which you are entitled but that's a far cry from the accusation that I used internal sources and was engaged in dark ops. But I get it. I'm the basis guy. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamthekanadian (talk • contribs)
 * I don't see where you were "accused of dark ops", but please understand that many paid editors are very sneaky and that may cause other editors to be jaded. We have no way to know what your employer has told you(i.e. whether to edit or not, whether you are "on the clock" or not) this is why any paid relationship with a subject must be disclosed- as lomg as conceivably you could be editing as part of your job duties(even if you actually aren't, again, we have no way to know this). You created this account three days ago so I was going by that history.  It's still the case that many readers don't understand what actually goes into an article- even ones who are professional writers in other areas, because Wikipedia writing is very different. I've dealt with journalists and other professionals who had great difficulty here despite success in their careers.  331dot (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I will reiterate that I had IMMEDIATELY declared a conflict of interest, which makes sense. I even disclosed IMMEDIATELY that I worked for the organization. The policy on paid editors is not as clear as some seem to think it is - why not just say "If you work for Disney as a ticket taker, if you edit Cinderella you have to identify as a paid contributor." Seems like that would be very clear. I'm no genius but I can't be the first person to read the terms and reach a different conclusion. And yes I was accused of dark ops despite IMMEDIATELY being fully transparent. I think I was lucky enough to find at least one editor who just wants to address any deficiencies and not accuse me or insult me so hopefully it works out and it's not just a bad experience.

My mistake I don't see "black ops" only "dark hat." It was part of a very long lecture about my deficits and I musremembered it. Apologies.

08:58:12, 30 May 2021 review of draft by 178.112.35.225
Please perform a quick review of this article. It seems to be important! 178.112.35.225 (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You have submitted the draft and it is pending; as noted, "This may take 5 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,794 pending submissions waiting for review." There is no way to guarantee a speedy review; do you have a particular need for one? 331dot (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As such, Wikipedia would profit from an article about this person, so I think! Thank you. - 178.112.35.225 (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Search engines and The Sun are not acceptable sources (the former is too sparse and the latter is deprecated). I cannot assess the Financial Times or Der Standard sources because they are walled. https://meaww.com/who-priscila-bergmair-pornhub-tycoon-bernd-bergmair-wife-quit-company-child-abuse is too sparse on details about Bernd specifically. Only the Dossier source is acceptable of the four I can assess. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 08:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

13:19:30, 30 May 2021 review of draft by SCarolinagal
How do I add a title to my draft? I started writing in sandbox and am not sure how to change the title from my user sandbox to an actual title. SCarolinagal (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC) SCarolinagal (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Changing a title requires a page move; if you submit your draft and it is accepted, the reviewer will place it at the proper title. In the future, if you use Articles for creation to create a draft, you can pick the title then. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

15:54:32, 30 May 2021 review of submission by Indianheros
Indianheros (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Please give some advice that how to improve the article

16:00:15, 30 May 2021 review of draft by JMKrasuski
I’ve created this page as a record of the history of a nonprofit organization and I followed the format of a multitude of other Wikipedia pages covering similar nonprofits, so I am not sure how to go about making the wording sound less like an “advertisement” for a business as the page rejection stated, and more like an encyclopedia article. It contains unbiased content, simple and straightforward stated facts about the organization and its history, and has a lot of resources to demonstrate the historical accuracy. I would love any help or advice I could get to bring this page to the public.

JMKrasuski (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft is an advertisement because it just tells about your organization and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization says about itself, but in what others completely unaffiliated with it choose on their own to say about it.  "Significant coverage" does not include things like staff interviews, brief mentions, announcements of routine activities, press releases, any materials put out by the organization, or other primary sources.
 * I see that you are writing about your own organization- this is usually very difficult for people in your position to do as required by Wikipedia. Successfully creating a new article is the hardest task to perform on Wikipedia- and it's even more difficult with a conflict of interest. We don't want just basic facts- any organization may give those on its own website or social media accounts. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

17:58:21, 30 May 2021 review of draft by Emat20211
Create this article please

Emat20211 (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Help for create this article: Draft:Ezequiel Matthysse, thanks! Emat20211 (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)Ezemat20211
 * Please review all of the URL's in this draft. URL's must not contain spaces, and when they do, this needs to be replaced with %20. I don't want to use find&replace to do that because I couldn't infer the correct version for the first few URLs I have tested. When I highlight the URL in my browser and open it in a new tab, it needs to bring up exactly the page you were looking at. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Clever! I've already corrected everything you mentioned to me about URLs and other things. Thanks for pointing me out! Now if you are going to be able to create the article Draft: Ezequiel Matthysse with peace of mind and check the references and quotes about Ezequiel Matthysse. Thank you very much again and I hope you notify me when my draft Draft: Ezequiel Matthysse is finally published on wikipedia (it takes a lot of work). Thank you very much again and God bless you!

20:45:09, 30 May 2021 review of draft by 2603:3023:802:8F00:71D3:85CA:2CD:9E08
My article submission keeps getting declined due to lack of citations. I have seen articles for people that are less notable than Jimmy Bontatibus, so I'm having trouble figuring out what kinds of citations I need? I have linked to many reputable film websites and reviews and keep getting my draft declined. Thanks! 2603:3023:802:8F00:71D3:85CA:2CD:9E08 (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The overwhelming majority of your sources either have a connexion to subject or no editorial oversight (i.e. IMDb) and thus are useless for notability. Only the rogerebert.com source comes close to helping for notability, and it alone cannot do that. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 08:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

21:35:18, 30 May 2021 review of draft by Hatebomb76
hello, this draft page already exists in the article space. Can this draft paged be merged, redirected to Jeff Janiak or deleted ? thanks

Hatebomb76 (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Since all the content is already in article space, I'd recommend just clicking "edit" on the draft and adding to the top. Once you do this, someone will come along and delete the article for you. Thank you! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)