User talk:Sadfatandalone

Admin Help

{{adminhelp}}

I am looking for help on keeping/improving the article on Emily Schooley. Like many other Toronto and Canadian actors there is not a lot of published material about her outside of what is online; her page was online Wikipedia and fine for over a year before getting vandalized and then summarily deleted after people from Gamergate came over to harass it. The person (Winner 42) says they would not have nominated the article for deletion had they known fully about the vandalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Winner_42#Emily_Schooley_AFD_request

I have restored the page as I (and other fans) feel she at least meets basic notability as she is known for work in the Toronto theatre and Canadian horror movie circles and she has a notable amount of following on social media. I have tried to provide as many sources as I can to prove she has a fan following and has been interviewed by outside unbiased sources but I am being told that many of them do not meet guidelines.

I am very confused overall and concerned as to why her article has been unfairly vandalized and discriminated against when so many other actresses of equal standing have not had their articles touched, or they are listed as a stub with hardly any citations but are not facing deletion. Sadfatandalone (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you create an article from new, then the current polices and guidelines will be applied. These have become more strict over the years, especially with regard to living people, even more once the BLP policy came into force. Yes, we know there are a lot of stub articles that pre-date the BLP policy, which do need to go, and they do get tagged and deleted - it's a slow process, Wikipedia is never quick. In addition, It's really difficult to create a new article direct, once you press the first save - it's likely to get reviewed at any time - with such a large deletion history (5 times), it's going to get lots of attention. If you want to keep working on it then my suggestion is get it userfied as a draft article, you can then look through the 84 edits and pick out the good parts, and then try to improve it to a full article - from the draft article you can directly submit it to WP:AfC to get feedback and hopefully approval, without the danger of someone trying to delete it. If you want it userfied, drop me a note. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ron that would be great. I will leave you a note on your talk page as well. Sadfatandalone (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Schooley

Hello Sadfatandalone: I wanted to drop by and talk to you for a second. I went back and looked at the above referenced article and all of the arguments that were made at the time of it's AfD. The article was deleted on multiple occasions as I can see. I am not an administrator, but I am an editor that has been here for a long time and have created as well as worked on many articles. I am also an entertainment historian by trade. After looking at a great deal of the links and sources that were placed upon this page I can see in many instances why various editors had a problem with the articles WP:Notability. Most of the stuff that was sourced were from places where the subject had placed the information herself either personally or through her agents. This is a hard thing to accept into the article because it has no third party sourcing. I can go out and create a web page and say I am the King of Siam, but that does not make it so or reliable. I would suggest that if you are going to attempt to recreate the article based on your aforementioned arguments, you may want to make sure that all of your sources are clear and reliable first. I would recommend that you go back and look at the sources that former editors called into question and steer clear of those sources as I can assure you they will be called back into question. If you choose to use those same sources and cites I am afraid that this article is going to suffer the same fate once again. So, I wanted to drop by and be an encouragement to you in this effort and to also suggest that you do your homework for sourcing ahead of time as to save a great deal of argument and frustration should it be nominated again in an AfD debate. Please let me know if I can be of any help to you. Happy editing! --Canyouhearmenow 14:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the encouragement. It has been frustrating especially seeing a few of the established editors gunning for deletion immediately, one re-nominated it for deletion as soon as I had it back up. There is another Toronto news article about her now but I still don't know if that would be enough. It seems like this place is very elitist at times.Sadfatandalone (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. We are here to be an encouragement to each other. I do agree with Ronhjones that you should move for a userfied process. This will save you a lot of frustration. You may want to use your WP:Sandbox to create the article and add the sources. Then once you have it to where you would like to submit it, contact me and I will look it over and see what hurdles it may have if any. Right now this article is a hot bed with editors and they will eat you alive if you try to resubmit this without having notable sources and formatting. Let me know how I can help. Good luck! --Canyouhearmenow 00:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article now at User:Sadfatandalone/Emily Schooley. I've removed the very blatant copyright violations - it still needs a bit of a re-write here and there - use https://tools.wmflabs.org/dupdet/compare.php?url1=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUser%3ASadfatandalone%2FEmily_Schooley&url2=http%3A%2F%2Femilyschooley.com%2Fabout%2Fabout.html&minwords=3&minchars=13&removequotations=&removenumbers= to compare with web page and re-write those bits. Do remember to use the green button in the banner to submit when you have finished. If moved back to mainspace without formal approval, then it's very likely to get swiftly tagged for deletion. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Emily Schooley (April 21)

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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:Emily Schooley and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
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 get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Fiddle Faddle 08:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Teahouse, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! Fiddle Faddle 08:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]