User talk:NickyFusco

Welcome!

Hello, NickyFusco, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as User:NickyFusco/sandbox, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

Article development
Standard layout
Lead section
The perfect article
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Melcous (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:NickyFusco/sandbox

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:NickyFusco/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Melcous (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Hello NickyFusco. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:NickyFusco. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=NickyFusco|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @331dot . We are not intending to do paid advocacy. The company I was "Sandboxing" for was founded last year, and we are getting feedback (from Investors, Twitter, and one major Media/Press outlet) that we should have a wikipedia page to bring everything together on what the company does, why it exists as a consortium, and why it is relevant in today's economy. I am the CEO/Founder, so I feel that it is my responsibility to do the initial edits so that the Public/Press/etc. have access, in a similar way to peers like us.

We are setting up the Wiki page the same as other financial data companies did, with them as a template to assure we are doing it correctly.

In effect, can I please just have what was written back into an un-published Sandbox, as this is my first time using Wikipedia as a publisher.

Sources referencing the business include the below, if this is the first thing that we should be publishing?

- 1 - https://www.economist.com/business/2022/06/28/the-great-silicon-valley-shake-out

- 2 - https://fortune.com/2022/08/04/growth-stage-private-companies-performance-nasdaq/

- 3 - https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/fintechs-next-big-down-round-may-have-an-upside-2022-08-24/

etc...

Please advise, as I'm happy to start fresh to get this right, but don't want to lose the work done in the personal nickyfusco/sandbox NickyFusco (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are not significant coverage of your company and do or establish notability. You seem to have some- albeit common- misunderstandings about Wikipedia. Please see my response to your help desk post. I would add that Wikipedia is not a place for companies to "set up pages"; articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic. What you describe here as your purpose is considered promotional here- you don't have to be soliciting or selling something.

The text can be emailed to you, but it won't be permitted here in that form. To succeed in writing about your company, you must set aside everything you know about it and all materials from it, and only write based on the content of independent sources with significant coverage.

Lastly, as the CEO you meet the definition of a paid editor according to our rules, please follow the instructions above to disclose. 331dot (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @331dot. This is actually more clear now. The sources are not exclusively about our company, but do reference our information. What about something like this: https://www.marketsmedia.com/apevue-tackles-last-frontier-of-independent-pre-ipo-pricing/

It is purely about the launch of our business, and why it exists.

For the paid editor, there are about 20 links above. Can you please let me know which one?

Further, where do I start if a Sandbox is not the appropriate place...? NickyFusco (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The post I placed at the start of this section has the instructions to declare, but it would be sufficient if you just write a statement on your user page saying that you are the CEO of the company you intend to edit about.

The source you provided is primarily an interview with you or comments by you, which is not an independent source. "Purely about the launch of our business and why it exists" according to you and the business is, to be frank, not what Wikipedia is interested in. Wikipedia needs sources that decide on their own to write about the significance of your company, and not based on materials from or prompting by the company. If the sources you have offered here are representative of what exists at present, your company does not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Not every company merits a Wikipedia article- the vast majority do not. This is the case even within the same field- that a competitor merits an article is not relevant. It could also be that articles about others in your field are also inappropriate and simply have not been addressed yet.

When you say "we are getting feedback (from Investors, Twitter, and one major Media/Press outlet) that we should have a wikipedia page to bring everything together on what the company does" you are being given bad advice by people who misunderstand what Wikipedia actually is for. There are places to do that- this isn't one. It's not my intention to shoot down your plans- and feel free to get additional advice- but I must be honest. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your candor. I think there is merit in trying to introduce the company or market segment which there's not much written on, since the business is now being used by notable firms on wikipedia and sourced quite consistently in Independent Press (since you mention that Fortune and The Economist's publication of our datasets, certainly central to those articles, is more about the data than the company which creates the data), so maybe we write educationally about the data in the context of the market rather than the company being the only business that exists with such data. Comparing to somewhat comparable competitors seemed to be the easiest path, but perhaps the wrong one for the Sandbox (which didn't include any sources).

Is it perhaps reasonable to write about the market around where the business operates, which is likely seen as a new type of asset class, differentiated from common stocks, bonds, currencies, and commodities? It would be like writing about coinbase before cryptocurrencies were in wikipedia, in such case.

Will try again in due time, aligned to the wikipedia framework, or request others opine which is what the community is more about. NickyFusco (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a better shot at writing about your field in general than your company in particular- though you would need to do that via WP:AFC or your Sandbox. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]