User talk:Jakeyboy1989

IN RESPONSE TO Speedy deletion nomination of Queensland Young Greens

Can't you review my draft?

Once again: your draft is at User:Jakeyboy1989/Queensland Young Greens. What is at Queensland Young Greens is a duplicate and confusing draft that we've repeatedly tried to delete so that you can focus on your userspace draft, so we won't have two separate versions floating around. Please allow the not-ready article at Queensland Young Greens to be deleted and focus on improving the draft I saved for you at User:Jakeyboy1989/Queensland Young Greens so that we can get it published. Having both an articlespace and userspace draft can cause (as you see here) a lot of hassle, so just stick with your Userspace draft, find a few good neutral, third-party sources and we'll be set. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, it's all covered under "Notability"

I feel I've responded to your messages several times, and that you continue to ignore what I'm explaining. The standards for articles about organisations and companies are laid out in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Those standards require you to have multiple third-party sources. If we didn't have those standards, we'd have 10,000 articles about everyone's dart league down at the corner pub they started last week. Lacking any other inarguable objective measure to define notability, we default to "if your organisation is worth writing about, someone will have written about it before Wikipedia does." Your article simply does not have third-party sources. Interestingly enough, one of the few Google hits for "Queensland Young Greens" is a "Marxist critique" which you didn't attempt to add to the article.

You persist in accusing me of somehow picking on your article; you came asking for advice, I gave it to you, you ignored it, I moved to protect your article by userifying your draft, and then you go complaining that I "deleted" it. Frankly, I'm not thrilled about pushing this dialogue further if you're going to continue to ignore all good advice. If you want to go to someone else and ask them for advice, I'm certainly not stopping you. However, any editor with any familiarity with Wikipedia is going to tell you the same. The policy explicity says: "If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I don't see how much clearer I can be. If you find some other aspect of Australian politics that you'd be interested in writing about, and can (in the case of organistations or people) find multiple references, then by all means try again and post to request for Feedback, but I'm not going to say "your article is fine" when it doesn't meet the guidelines. Are you tracking my concern here? MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Matt, Thanks for your response. The point I am trying to make is that I followed the template of similar youth wings in Australia. They also don't have any third party references because the majority of information comes from the political websites. Of course I am going to raise concerns about why my article is being deleted, yet comparable parties remain untouched. It is inconsistent and appears that you may have some political agenda.

I appreciate what you are saying, however, I have placed a number of sources there. They are the only sources on the net. As to the marxist critique I'm looking for a way to include this within the article, thank you for providing the link.

This is the first article I've written and I just followed what other comparable articles did... I'm just confused as to why mine is unacceptable, whilst their's is fine.. Do you understand what I mean from looking at the other comparable articles??

Thanks for the assistance. I do appreciate it, the process has just been alot more frustrating then I had envisaged.. Next time I will focus on a different topic..

No worries, I think we just personality-clashed here a little bit; I'm usually pretty chill, but I got a little brusquer than I should have. I just felt like you were both ignoring and accusing me, so got a little testy, but I think we're just miscommunicating. I did indeed follow up on the other unreferenced .org articles you mentioned, and messaged involved authors saying "you need citations, or it gets deleted". One article, Young LNP has now been redirected to the main LNP page by another author, and I did also propose Young Greens of Sweden for deletion (neither English nor Swedish version had external footnotes), and then messaged a good 5 people or so soliciting footnotes. I note that you yourself stepped up to the plate and provided two news references in Swedish; great work, and that's exactly what we need to find for QYG before it moves out of drafting space.

I totally agree that there are other articles which do not meet WP standards. Technically, all articles should have references, and organizations, people, bands, businesses, etc. are required to have references or be Speedily Deleted. If there are existing articles of those types which don't have references, it's mostly because nobody is holding said article up to scrutiny; that is, anyone who happens there either doesn't know the standard, or turns a blind eye because they like the article. Since you asked for Feedback, I reckoned it'd be honestly unfair to you to offer to turn a blind eye and then just hope that nobody else ever scrutinises it. The best bet is to come out strong with an unassailable new article.

If you simply can't find references at the immediate moment, you could always put the QYG as a section of the Queensland Greens overall party, and then later down the road once more articles are available about them, split it off as its own section. You can even leave categories at the YQG page so that the redirect will send people directly to that particular section of the QGs.

Hope this clears things up, and that I sound a little more reasonable and less like a jerk, and feel free to write me with any questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Matt. Just about to go to bed but wanted to quickly reply to your message. Thanks again, I appreciate the feedback. I'm the one that should be apologising. I just was a bit confused as to what was going on. I understand the process now..

Can you have a look at the draft I have so far... Added a few more links, references, etc.. Is it any better? Still trying to find some additional news sources but haven't had so much luck. They don't appear to get much coverage in the media in Australia.

If it's not acceptable yet, if I add it to the QLD Greens site, is there a way to add the info box also and keep it the same layout as what it would look like on it's own?

Thanks again for taking the time to reply to all my posts :) I thought I would update the Swedish Greens site. I'm Australian but I can speak Swedish so it made sense.

Appreciate your thoughts on my latest version. Cheers Jakeyboy1989 (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for footnoting the Swedish Greens page; I was totally sure that references could be added, but put it up for PROD (proposed deletion in 7 days) to stir folks up to finally get around to doing it with Swedish language sources. So thanks again for stepping up to the plate. I saw your addition to Queensland Greens, and that seems the easiest compromise at this time. Should the YQG get some more third-party media coverage in the future, a split off to form a YQG page would work. Glad that we got back on the same page together and found a good solution, and I hope you'll find more interesting things to write about and improve here on WP now that the process is a more fleshed out. One of the key points of advice for new articles is "references first, then article." It's really, really hard to write a good and credible article without references, and for people/orgs/biz/bands/books/etc. it's absolutely mandatory, so finding good references comes first. Thanks again for your good work, and looking forward to seeing more from you in the future. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Sorry I didn't realise. I'll try it now :) Jakeyboy1989 (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)