Draft talk:Darren Dione Aquino

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (Darren Dione Aquino is a candidate for New York City Mayor and he also is the CEO of adaadvocates.com. He deserves to be on the list with everybody else.) --LiquidBinaryTTV (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles summarise what independent and reliable secondary sources have previously published about a subject. This draft cites no such source, therefore this is you writing what you want to tell the world about this person, or possibly what he wants you to tell. Either way, it is pretty much the definition of promotion, see WP:YESPROMO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

ok so what do you suggest? he cant have a profile on here like most of the other candidates? doesnt make sense. Im not promoting anything. Im only trying to create a who page for him. LiquidBinaryTTV (talk) 08:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

As I explained, you are promoting – him. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting anything, or to be used in political campaigning and the like. We also don't have 'profiles', not a single one; we have encyclopaedia articles on subjects which are deemed notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word (click on the word 'notable' to see what this means). If you can find sources that meet the WP:GNG standard for notability, you can compose a new draft by summarising what they say, and that may then possibly be acceptable to publish. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

PS: I see you've removed the two external sources from the draft, 'to make it non-promotional'. While this may help slightly, that wasn't the point; it's not those links that made this draft promotional. It's the fact that this is you telling the world about this person, rather than summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about him. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

ok i think i see what you mean. the content itself needs to be cited from sources. does all of the content need cited? or most of it. LiquidBinaryTTV (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@LiquidBinaryTTV:

Okay, I've cancelled the speedy deletion request for now, pending further improvement and a second review.

To answer your question of what needs to be referenced, the answer is – pretty much everything. Articles on living people (see WP:BLP) have particularly strict referencing requirements. Anything potentially controversial or contentious, ie. something that a reader might want to challenge, must be clearly supported with an inline citation to a reliable published source, so that the statement can be verified. Also, all private personal and family details (such as WP:DOB) must be supported, so that we aren't disclosing anything sensitive that isn't already in the public domain.

I'll also add one related point: you shouldn't write what you want, and then try to find sources that support that; this is called editing WP:BACKWARDS, and is seldom, if ever, successful. Instead you need to first find a few sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, summarise what they have said, and cite each source against the information it has provided. This may require you to rewrite some or all of the draft, but it is pretty much the only way to end up with an acceptable draft. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

i appreciate your patience with me. its my first time doing this, can be overwhelming but i think get it now. check out my latest edit if you dont mind and let me know if its suitable. thanks! LiquidBinaryTTV (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@LiquidBinaryTTV:

We're heading in the right direction, but there is still a lot of work to be done.

When you cite a source inline, a hyperlink to the source appears automatically in the footnotes of the 'References' section. There is no need to add the source again in that section, as this just creates duplicate links.

Regarding the quality of your sources, taking each of them in turn:

1. Twitter/X is not considered a reliable source, as it is user-generated. If that interview appears someone on a streaming site like YouTube or Vimeo, please cite that directly instead. Note, though, that interviews are not independent (it is the person himself talking), and may or may not be reliable, therefore they cannot be used to establish notability.
2. NY Post is not considered a reliable publication.
3. IMDb is mostly user-generated, so again not reliable.
4. Primary source, and therefore cannot be used to establish notability. It may be used to verify straightforward non-contentious factual information, but in this case you are only pointing to the website home page, so you need to make sure that page actually supports something in this draft.
5. Seems okay source, at least on the face of it (I cannot actually check it, since it's not available in Europe).
6. You cannot cite Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia. We don't consider Wikipedia a reliable source (!), as bizarre as that may seem, because it is user-generated.
7. As #4.

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

ok no worries. this isnt worth anymore effort. i appreciate your time. have a great day LiquidBinaryTTV (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Please don't remove the earlier decline notices or other AfC review templates from the draft, they must remain there until the draft is accepted. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (i added references and sources. i think thats what i was missing. PLEASE let me know if im doing this right. thank you very much) --LiquidBinaryTTV (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)