User talk:MiaStegner

Potential Conflict of Interest

Hello, MiaStegner. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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 organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must 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 WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:Mia Stegner

Draft:Mia Stegner, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Mia Stegner and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Mia Stegner during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mia Stegner (January 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiDan61 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Still insufficient claims of notability. Coverage is either trivial or of local interest only. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mia Stegner and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Mia Stegner, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MiaStegner! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On drafts

Hi, Mia— I am the editor who recently commented on your AfC submission, implying that you might be notable enough for Wikipedia. That comment didn't get much support! But I am contacting you here in your talk page to offer you some more encouragement and some advice. Whether or not you are notable right now today, you may very well become notable in the future, and there are some steps you can take to make the existence of a future article on you more likely. I don't claim to be an expert here! But I've done some reading and these are things that may help you.

Avoid using any references to anything that you yourself authored. An article that you wrote for a magazine is still an article that you wrote— that makes it a primary source, and not useful for establishing notability. You will need references to named authors who have written about you in order to satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements.
The books you have written have all been published by a self-service publishing agency. Other editors can see this. If you want to itemize your book publications as evidence of your notability, the publisher of those books will need to be an independent company that does not allow authors to self-publish. I know that getting your work in front of such publishers can be very hard! Wikipedia, however, doesn't care— if you are notable, then a publisher will be willing to pick up your work. Keep that in mind for the future! Also keep in mind that simply having been published is not in itself enough to qualify you for notability!
To be considered notable, there needs to be evidence of you having been the in-depth subject of discussion in multiple reliable verifiable independent published secondary sources. These can be newspaper articles, magazine articles, etc., but they need to be newspapers/ magazines with broad circulation (appearing, for example, in The Advocate would be a clear sign of notability!). Websites can sometimes be considered useful for this purpose, but they are less solid indicators of notability than a published newspaper. They are best avoided for this reason.
Keep in mind that even having been the subject of such sources may not qualify you as notable if most of the article on you consists of references to things you yourself wrote. You may be better off presenting a shorter article on you that contains only the best references rather than a longer article that has a number of self-references. Length is not the only or even the most important indicator of notability. References are. Good, solid references.
Be prepared to never see your own draft on you being published on Wikipedia. Although autobiographies are describes as acceptable in theory, in practice this is simply almost never the case. No one will sympathize with you for not seeing your autobiography published, and if you try to publish the article directly yourself it will most likely be deleted AS an autobiography (and despite the COI declaration you have in your user page, which needs to have the nowiki and code parameters removed from around it in order for it to function correctly).

I don't want to overwhelm you with this! You sound to me like you are a path to notability, and that it will come to you soon no matter what. There are also many, many people in the world who are (right now) much more notable than you and still do not have Wikipedia articles (and perhaps never will!). Wikipedia isn't fair or even very kind (usually). But if you want to end up here someday, please take all of that into consideration, yes? You are welcome to leave me a message here if you have any questions. Good luck!! A loose noose (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]