This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A page I created was deleted within hours of my posting it and there appears to be no way to contest the deletion. I'm confused because when I see that a page I created months ago has also been nominated for speedy deletion, yet it remains up, while the more recent one was deleted almost immediately and I apparently have no recourse.
The policy cited was notability and User:Deb who is responsible for the deletion had a very subjective interpretation of the policy. It was suggested that the page sounded promotional, which I think is often a danger when profiling a living subject. I maintain that my tone was neutral, but it's hard to convey what's notable about someone without listing their accomplishments, which can't help but sound like you're promoting them. In this case, every thing I said had been reported by major media sources which I cited assiduously.
JEric Miller (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
@JEric Miller: n Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it is then at some point(often, but not always, relatively soon) evaluated by an administrator. If the administrator feels the criterion or criteria given are valid, the page can be deleted without delay or discussion. The speedy deletion tag provides a means to contest it, but if you are unable to before the page is deleted, you can then visit WP:DRV, Deletion Review, to make your case there. That is the way to contest a speedy deletion after the fact. I can't see the page to know if it was correct(though admins can and one will likely comment here), at least two people thought the given criteria were valid. 331dot (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I would clarify that the speedy deletion criteria are meant as instant-fail criteria that would be disputed by very few and where the community has decided the judgement of administrators is sufficient. You may want to read more about speedy deletions at WP:CSD. If a page does not meet the speedy deletion criteria, it would then be brought to a full deletion discussion for the community to comment on. 331dot (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer; I can't tell if it's auto-generated, as so much on this site is. I have read all relevant policies and pages and I don't like being continually re-routed to them. You mention RHaworth, a name I did not see mentioned in connection with the deletion. Is that an administrator? I'm glad to know that two people, at least, made the decision, though I would prefer to be able to communicate with them directly, which the system seems set up to defeat. This all feels very one-sided and unfair, and reading some of the other communications on this page I see an attitude from administrators that is frankly ugly and makes me regret the significant effort I've put into actively participating in Wikipedia. It's not terribly helpful to discuss all of these policies in general without being able to examine the actions taken in the specific case at hand, and I have trouble recognizing how a "full deletion discussion for the community to comment on" is achieved in a matter of hours. The only comment I'm privy to is by User:Deb and I'm not clear on whether she is an administrator or who ultimately made the decision.
@JEric Miller:I assure you I wrote the above. I can only offer general answers as I am not an administrator with access to the specific information. You posted on Deb's user page, which is close to the correct place(The user talk page) to communicate with someone. As Deb could theoretically be anywhere in the world, they may not have seen your message yet. RHaworth is the administrator who actually performed the deletion(If you click the article title on your user talk page it tells you). As I indicated, speedy deletions may occur without delay, even immediately as long as an administrator determines the criteria is valid. You can formally contest the speedy deletion at the place I indicated. I mentioned full discussion as what happens in non-speedy deletion cases only, there was no discussion in this case and one is not required. I'm sorry you have not had a good experience, but in my time on this page I have found the people here helpful and sincere. 331dot (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification; my observation about some of the snarky-sounding comments I saw made in response to other cases was not referring to your answers, which have been helpful. I posted where I did in regard to User:Deb because I clicked on a link that said "This is not my talk page; to communicate with me click here" which did not give me a chance to communicate with her but instead routed me to a policy page, from which I am supposed to recognize the veracity of her actions. It's a kind of "talk to the hand" sort of position.
And I'm afraid I'm still not getting it. The article title on my talk page is not an active link and it not clickable as far as I can determine. I tried clicking on the active link present in your mention of RHaworth, which takes me to his page but I don't see how to communicate with him from there. BTW, you said you can't see the article so how were you able to determine that he is the administrator who deleted it?
I am going to try and see this through, but the overwhelming bureaucracy of the Wikipedia structure is spirit-crushing.JEric Miller (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)When I clicked the link you speak of, it took me to User talk:Deb, their user talk page. It does have essentially a FAQ on it, but it is the proper place to communicate with them and is not a formal policy page. If you click the "New section" tab, it will open up an edit window for you. If you ended up at a different page, please link to it. 331dot (talk)
When you get to RHaworth's user page, click the "Talk" tab at the top left of the page, this will take you to their user talk page. I will also link there directly, User talk:RHaworth. If you click D.King Gallery it will show you who deleted the page.331dot (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
The page I was talking about was Deb's user page, which I didn't recognize as such; thanks for clearing that up. The page she took issue with was about Averell Smith. I did not, in fact, realize that the D. King Gallery page had been deleted. On my talk page it says it has been nominated for speedy deletion, not that it already has been deleted, and there is a link for me to contest the deletion. Since both pages have been deleted, it seems inconsistent that I can simply contest the deletion of one, but must follow the more involved process you cited for the other. I appreciate the direct link to RHaworth, but since he is the one who deleted the D. King Gallery article (which I am not contesting), it unfortunately doesn't help. There is no such available information for the Averell Smith page I labored over, since it was never moved or deleted. Despite all the hard work I put into it, it apparently never existed, except for Deb, who didn't like it and decided no one else should get to choose whether or not they like it either. Is Deb an administrator? I assume so, since no one else has been presented as responsible for the deletion, but how do I identify people as administrators?JEric Miller (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Deb deleted the page as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I have read the deleted page. Although I can see that it may be promotional, I am very surprised to see it described as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I hope that Deb explains this. -- Hoary (talk) 07:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I too have read the deleted article, JEric Miller, and I agree with Deb and must disagree with Hoary. The deleted article began: "Averell Smith, commonly called by his nickname, 'Ace,' is a well-known political advisor and public relations consultant who has been a key figure in many winning campaigns, primarily for Democratic Party candidates and initiatives, though he has done work for other party candidates as well. He is particularly recognized for the effectiveness of his opposition research, being dubbed 'Doctor Death' by opponents of his clients, but his work has also encompassed a variety of campaign strategies that have helped produce victories for his clients, both independently and as part of the consulting firm SCN, which he founded in 1997 with partners Sean Clegg and Dan Newman." In my eyes, this is overtly promotional wording, and that promotional tone infuses the entire deleted article, which closes with promotional language about his upcoming baseball book. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotionalism and we insist that our articles comply with the neutral point of view. So, I think that Deb's deletion was justified. All that being said, I believe that Ace Smith is notable, and that Wikipedia ought to have a truly neutral article about him. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I've also read the deleted article, and agree with the deletion and firmly disagree with Hoary. That article was clearly a promotional piece about how very good that individual is at their job. I would've also G11'd it without a moment's hesitation. SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
@JEric Miller: The fact that Deb deleted the article(sorry I misunderstood which) would mean that they are an administrator, as only admins can delete pages. Admins usually state they are such on their user page, but if they don't you can check a username against WP:ADMINLIST to see if they are one. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
•Hi JEric Miller. You’re frustrated and that’s understandable, but I don’t think the post you left at User talk:Deb#7 March 2018 is going to help resolve this situation. Deb, like all administrators, have been selected by the WP:COMMUNITY the task of trying to keep the Wikipedia up to standard. Sometimes, this may mean deleting articles or removing content which is not up to Wikipedia’s standards. These are not always popular decisions to make, but they are necessary, so it’s a good idea to try and WP:AGF when discussing them instead of immediately implying inappropriate behavior. Administrators are chosen because the community feels they can be trusted to act in the best interest of Wikipedia. Mistakes are made by administrators, but there are ways to resolve them without posting “What gives you the right?” Types of messages on their user talk page. There is no “my page” on Wikipedia; editors may create/edit articles, but there are no ownership rights associated with any of that per WP:OWN. This means that any page can be tagged/nominated for deletion by any editor at any time. A deleted article can be restored; so, if the community determines that a mistake was made, it will be rectified. However, it’s best to wait until Deb responds before automatically assuming a mistake was made. Deb did post a couple of notifications on your user talk, so I don’t see any reason to believe she won’t clarify things further. FWIW, I’m not an admin, so I cannot see what was deleted; three admins, however, have looked at the article and the assessment of two of them was that Deb acted as the community wants her to act. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I've replied to JEric's comments on my talk page. I can only reiterate that the page I deleted was promotional.Deb (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I too harrumphed when I read, in the very first sentence, that Smith is "well-known" (a term that's redundant even when accurate) and that he "has been a key figure". Both indeed smack of promotion. I didn't click on the related link, because it was to somewhere behind the Great Wall of Murdoch. Instead, I persevered. He is particularly recognized for the effectiveness of his opposition research, being dubbed “Doctor Death” by opponents of his clients, [...]. Again, not encouraging. However, this time there was a reference that I could look at: “Clinton sends her ’stopper’ to Texas” (San Francisco Chronicle). Yes, this is indeed from that article, which also provides evidence for "Ace" and more. I mean, if we are to believe the SF Chronicle, Smith really is recognized for the effectiveness of his opposition research, blah blah. Now, the Chronicle is not an encyclopedia; and an encyclopedia article should perhaps be more staid than even a broadsheet. But I'm not aware that insufficient staidness implies promotionalism. ¶ The other specific mentioned above is the claim by Cullen328 (who, interestingly, concedes that Smith merits an article) that the article ends with promotional language about [Smith's] upcoming baseball book. Sounds bad! So let's take a look. I quote, complete and verbatim: April 2018 saw the release of Smith’s first book, The Pitcher and the Dictator: Satchel Paige’s Unlikely Season in the Dominican Republic, which details the true story of Paige and his teammates time in the Dominican Republic. The first oddity here is that "April 2018 [future] saw [past]" anything whatever. I wondered if "2018" might have been a typo for "2017" or earlier. Here is the book at some online retailer. Publication date, we're told, is: "April 1, 2018". The book has got one review. This review really does sound promotional, but this shouldn't condemn the product; rather, what's interesting is that it's by somebody who's made a "Verified Purchase". Also, that Amazon says the book "Ships when available in 1-2 days" (note days, not weeks). Well, I happen not to like this (well established) use of the verb see, and an apostrophe has gone missing; but if "April" were cut, I don't see any significant problem; and I don't see anything promotional -- let alone unambiguously promotional, which is the claim. (Moreover, this book is put out not by blurb.com or similar but instead by an actual university press, and a good one, too.) ¶ And yes, there are other problems with the article as well. However, I still fail to see how the faithful summarizing of what's written in [what purports to be] a news article within a pretty decent US broadsheet, etc etc, is promotional, let alone how it is unambiguously so. ¶ And so I stand by my first comment. I do see unambiguous advertising or promotion from time to time (and I'd see it very much more often if I patrolled new pages); when I do, BLAMMO! I do not see it here. -- Hoary (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh, darn it! Internet connection went down while I was in the middle of replying. Okay, I looked at it again and I still find the wording promotional and I think Cullen has said it all. I'd just note that (besides the fact that he created it at "Averell smith", which seems odd as he's clearly not illiterate), JEric added the notability tag himself prior to accusing me of deleting an article on someone who was notable! I don't dispute the notability, but I have no doubt that the article was created at this present moment in order to advertise the new book, and I'm a a little suspicious that there could be a COI ("we authors, ma'am"). There is nothing to stop JEric from recreating the article in NPOV language, and he didn't even ask me to userfy it prior to going off on one. Deb (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
You have no doubt that the article was created at this present moment in order to advertise the new book? No doubt? What ever happened to WP:AGF? As for me, I doubt it considerably. If it were created in order to advertise the new book, then (i) why does it emphasize Smith's experience and prowess as a political operative (hardly one of the more conventionally endearing careers), and (ii) why does it say nothing, zero, squat about Smith's experience or prowess as a biographer, historian, scholar/writer on issues of race and/or the Dominican Republic, or baseball commentator? Well, conceivably because it's stunningly incompetent as a book advert; but I find this hard to believe considering that the editor has (unlike so many other WP editors) got the knack of finding decent sources, citing them, etc etc. ¶ "There is nothing", you say, "to stop JEric from recreating the article in NPOV language". Two points. First, this implies that the previous draft was in "point-of-view language", which you have hardly shown. Secondly, there is something: you have "deleted" it. Of course it isn't really deleted, and several people hereabouts can still read it; however, JEric cannot. ¶ Considering that you "don't dispute the notability" of the biographee, how about this: "undelete it", make it available at Draft:Averell Smith, and on its talk page tell JEric just what the problems are. (If there are many, just identify and comment on a handful of the most egregious.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Hey! At this point, I am guessing that this Teahouse discussion is longer, and has taken editors more time, than creating and deleting the original article in question. As already noted, the subject of the disputed article is probably notable. How about the creator try again, and the rest of us can finish our morning cup of coffee (or whatever beverage is appropriate in the time zones you are in). David notMD (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Better. I deleted all mention of the book, as not even published yet! Wait for published reviews. Toned down laudatory wording. Needs citations. David notMD (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Everyone, let me say thanks for weighing in and I’m glad to participate in this discussion, which is what I felt was missing when my article was summarily dismissed. My attempt to maintain a neutral voice may have been defeated by the overwhelmingly positive tone of the sources I was referencing. It is hard to discuss what is notable about someone without sounding like you are praising them. Would I be promoting Hilary Clinton if I said that she is a former Senator, Secretary of State, and First Lady of the United States of America? It is as Hoary said: the language I used directly reflected that of the (major media) sources I cited. Deb, if you had provided the specific instances of language that you’ve now cited, I would have been happy to address those; in fact I don’t disagree with you. I felt hamstrung by the neutrality requirement to not put my own spin on it; the problem was that the newspaper coverage of Smith was not terribly neutral. Hoary made this case for me better than I could have myself; if you took the time to read the cited sources, I think you’d see what both of us were talking about. I’d be happy to re-do the page if that was an option but as Hoary pointed out, you suggested that I do so even though your action had prevented me from doing it. That’s not a terribly helpful approach, and it bears out a lot of negative things I’ve read about the treatment of new editors. It also wasn’t clear to me how to contest the deletion. I don’t agree with you and Cullen about the language I used in connection with the book, which consisted of the book’s title, publisher, and a very brief summary of its subject. I said nothing remotely positive or negative about the book, said nothing at all about it beyond the fact that it exists. If the issue is the publication date, then I wish you had just said so, because I was unsure how to approach that. The official publication date is still a few weeks away, but it is apparently already available to purchase (I will also make note that I in no way cited or steered readers towards a place where they could purchase it). I thought it appropriate to include this mention of the book since it is the subject’s first book and it is being issued from a legitimate, recognized publisher, but if the date is the issue then please confirm that. While I think the general consensus that the language in the overall page appears biased (which I’m happy to change), the emphasis by several people on the section about the “language” in the section of the book is perplexing. The only descriptive words I use are “first” (describing the book) and “true” (describing the story it tells). How can stating the title of a book or its publisher be considered “laudatory” as David notMD says? I find that characterization bizarre. In terms of a COI, I am not Averell Smith, don’t know him and have never met him. I’m not interested in promoting him and, given that his clients are some of the most famous and powerful people in the world, I seriously doubt that he needs to advertise on Wikipedia. I don’t really have an opinion about him or his work one way or the other but I would argue that he is a significant public figure. As for my initial response to your deleting the page, like I pointed out to 331dot earlier, the message from you on my talk page was not consistent with the notification I got about another page: you were not identified clearly to me as an administrator nor as the person who was taking issue with the page (apparently you’re both). As I’ve said, it would’ve been helpful if you could have given specific examples; at the very least you could’ve identified WHICH policy was the issue, rather than referring me to an FAQ laundry list of potential problems. I honestly thought initially that notability was the issue and I’m confused by your saying I “created the notability tag” myself. Forgive my inexperience, but I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Likewise, I noticed the mistake in the article’s title too late and couldn’t figure out how to fix it. I am new to participating in Wikipedia and—though in reading the room, I doubt this will gain much sympathy—I find the bureaucracy of it overwhelming. I find long-form IRS forms ridiculously simple by comparison. Though I wish this process had gone a little differently, I am sincerely glad for the feedback, much of which I find entirely valid and which I think will improve the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JEric Miller (talk • contribs) 00:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, User:JEric Miller. It's worth noting that I only saw your above statement by chance because, apart from not signing it, you didn't take the necessary steps to bring it to my attention - luckily, I happened to check back. I had asked you about a COI in my reply to you on my Talk page a couple of days ago but you didn't respond to that. Fine, I'm happy to take your word, and I'm sorry I misjudged you in that respect. Articles that suddenly spring up shortly before a new book comes out and are in promotional language are typically created by associates of the author. When you have been here a bit longer, you'll start to see the tell-tale signs. Take a look at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as spam any day and you'll probably see a few examples. Administrators are here to keep the encyclopedia clean, not to enter into long detailed arguments with their creators except when they are asked straight questions. In response to your other question above, you did create the article with a notability tag already on it - I guess because you copied from another article that had that tag on it. The warnings, signed with my name, that I gave you on your page after deleting it referred you to policy pages that would have helped you understand, but you chose instead to start berating me for taking the standard course of action. Another misconception you seem to have is that you could not re-do the page because "your action had prevented me from doing it." You could have recreated the page at any time as long as you abided by the NPOV rule. There is nothing to stop anyone creating an article under any new title, regardless of whether it has previously been deleted, as long as the page is not protected. The work David notMD has done on your draft is outstanding and worthy of your thanks. I can assure you that not many people would have gone to that much trouble to help you bring it up to standard. I look forward to seeing you make some good contributions in the future, and hope never to find myself deleting any of your other contributions. Deb (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I deleted all mention of the book because is too soon. Separately, I toned down laudatory and imprecise language in an attempt to save you from another deletion. If you are unhappy with what I did, revert it. And while you are at it, also revert the help Hoary - a very experienced editor - provided. David notMD (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Might Wikipedia perhaps benefit from trying harder to be patient with the minor mistakes of new editors?Come on, Deb, you're an administrator; being berated from time to time goes with the job. Plus you were hardly "berated". Also, while JEric Miller could indeed have re-created the article either from scratch or from a copy on his own computer, your deletion of it would otherwise have been a major hindrance -- and an unnecessary one, given the ease of moving it either to draft space (as I did) or to a sandbox in his userspace. You say Articles that suddenly spring up shortly before a new book comes out and are in promotional language are typically created by associates of the author. This may indeed be true. But it was unlikely to apply here, given that (i) the book appears to be about baseball and a tyrant's self-aggrandisement or whatever, whereas (ii) the rest of the deleted article didn't even hint at the biographee's likely proficiency to write about either area. Still, let's suppose for a moment that the article was indeed promotional. This is no reason for speedy deletion.Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G11 says (in full, and without any extra emphasis added by me):
This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. However, "promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc.
If you still maintain that the draft was exclusively promotional; well, I still maintain that it was not. By contrast, here [sorry, non-admins won't be able to see this] is an example of an exclusively promotional non-article about a (seemingly insignificant) future event, a non-article rightly zapped by Anthony Appleyard. And as long as we're discussing the future, David notMD and others have, on balance, improved the draft; but in places I believe they've been overzealous. David removed the minor paragraph about the book. (Contrary to my earlier inference, this book hasn't yet been published. So I made a mistake, and not for the first time.) David's edit summary: "Removed section. Wait until the book is actually published and there has been a published review in a reputable source, to use as a citation". If I understand the implications right, this surprises me. I have never heard that a review is needed as evidence that a book has been published. I see no reason why anything beyond an OCLC record (demonstrating possession by one or more libraries) would ever be required. Not a crystal ball tells gung-ho, would-be article creators that no they mustn't create articles about United States presidential election, 2032 and very much else. It certainly doesn't suggest any welcome for what are essentially product announcements even within larger articles, but I'd say that a very brief description of the impending publication of this book, backed up with a note (my preference) or reference to this University of Nebraska Press page, wouldn't violate what's written. (No, of course a book's publisher should not normally be taken as a "reliable source" for the book. But here it wouldn't be to back any claim that the book is original, readable, authoritative, etc; it would merely show that the book is on the verge of publication.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
I am a (non-notable) scientist who has two history books published. I also used to be a Boston street performer. If my science career was sufficient to be notable, I would not expect my present and past hobbies to be in the article. Something about early life and education, yes. About significant involvement in philanthropic activity, yes. The book is not about Ace's profession. To get out of draft and not get deleted (again) this article needs to be a decent stub. Which means A) citations, and B) stay on topic. Any padding adds risk. David notMD (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Why was he allowed no time to contest a speedy deletion, in the first place. There’s no doubt that this speedy nomination rule is oft times abused. Especially by Admins who have vast experience and knowledge of the far ranging policies that now exist. Who specialize in article assessment, and who obviously start out with pre-written templates containing all the reasons that could bring about a delete and then tailoring them to fit. What happened to contribute and fix it. It takes months to build a house but only a day to pull it down. At the point before a speedy delete some account of the writers’ past record should be taken into account. A valued judgment on whether or not the article is malicious in some way could be made. Good Faith could be assumed. Some slack could be meted out. Time could be given to fix it. Speedy should mean 24 hours or even a week, not 24 minutes. Admin’s forget that when newbies are faced with scatter gun, Thor hammer type judgements, and speedy deletes they are faced with a mountain of policy to wade through before a response can be made; and then the time has to be put in to fix the article. I for one am very much against issuing a warning, and then deleting in a twinkle. Stop, your dead! I thought the project wants Editors, why crush them and lose them. BeckenhamBear (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
No, BeckenhamBear, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" is rightly one of several reasons for speedy deletion. The deletion should come as quickly as possible. When I see unambiguous advertising or promotion, I delete it, instantly. ¶ Now, on occasion I've seen evidence of this or that dreadful failing, instantly deleted the article ... and then had it pointed out to me that I'd misread/misunderstood this or that. So I'd been wrong. I think and hope that at this point I've always admitted that I'd been wrong, and maybe even apologized for the trouble caused. I'm still waiting for Deb either (A) to say how this draft was among "pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION", or (B) to admit that he or she made a mistake. -- Hoary (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
David notMD, if your science career is notable, you're welcome to get an article (as long as it conforms to en:WP policies). And if your history books are non-trivial (as evidenced in any of a number of ways, including but not limited to publication by a university press), then mention of them within the article about you is welcome too. Why should it not be? Where do you find these policies that you cite? ¶ Of course, Wikipedia is bristling with policies. Everything is hugely more complex now than it was in, say, back in the day when Deb became an admin. So I decided to check this need to "stay on topic" by examining the result of one of the most stringent tests of biographical significance: a biographical article recently promoted to "featured" status. It's Anne Hathaway, promoted in January. The opening paragraph of this article says that Hathaway is an "American actress and singer" who's been paid lots of money, received lots of awards for acting, and has been in films that have made lots of money. The article has a section, "Personal life and other work", that might instead be titled "Stuff about her that has little or nothing to do with the reasons why she merits an article". Not only did this stuff get through the (excruciatingly nit-picking) nomination process, it doesn't seem even to be mentioned there. Did this nomination process improperly overlook something, David? Or are the requirements for brand new articles more stringent than those for featured articles? Or is this "need" just something that you imagine? -- Hoary (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
review procedure - existing article
I've come across an article which I feel is massively too long and bloated in prose and also has something like 50 photos in it. Its obviously one experienced editor's pet project and I feel as a relative newbie any amendments I made would be reverted and given the articles low footfall a talk mention for consensus would get no response (someone else mentioned there it was overlong and promotional in tone some years ago and only the creator replied). Therefore I am asking is there a way that I can draw the attention of experienced editors to look at it? Lyndaship (talk) 08:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
@Lyndaship: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It would help a lot if you pointed out which article you are talking about. You can put a message called a maintenance tag or template at the top of the article, which eventually other editors should see. There are many specific ones located at WP:TC but if you don't want to leaf through them to find a specific one(wouldn't blame you) you could just use one of the general ones listed near the top of that page. Or, if you point out the article, I might be able to glance at it and add an appropriate template. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Wow! I counted well over 100 images. And content that went far beyond the topic. This appears to be a one-person (Rosser1954) project dating back many years. It might be appropriate for an administrator to contact this editor and have a discussion about the article. David notMD (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Rosser1954 has contributed to, and created, many other articles. And it's competently done, though it includes a lot of marginal material. I wouldn't want to discourage him. Maproom (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Draft keeps being declined - need help with editing
Hello, dear Wikipedia community!
My draft keeps being declined by Theroadislong (only one user). As the user constantly mentions, my article is written in "totally inappropriate tone" and is a "blatant advertising". (The link on the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ESforce_Holding) Reason from the template: "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia". "Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed".
I used reliable sources with neutral publications, and my article contains only the history of the Holding, nothing more, nothing less. ESforce Holding is very popular in my country, but doesn't have an article on Wiki. So, I decided to write one. However, my article still can't fit... I need help from friendly Wikipedia community, maybe I will get a helpful advice - how can I improve this article.
Thank you very much! MariaKR09:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
It's not "keeps being declined" by one editor. You created the article. It was tagged for Speedy deletion by one editor. You protested, so it was moved into Draft space to give you more time to work on it. Another editor rejected it. I tend to agree with Theroadislong that the article - as written - is too promotional in tone. Sadly, I am not equipped to read the references that are in Russian, but even if all references are from reputable, independent sources, I recommend making the article shorter as a goal for being more neutral. Lastly, have you replied to the question on your own connection to ESforce? This appears to be the only Wikipedia article you have worked on, which hints at the possibility that you have a COI or even a PAID connection. Good luck with your endeavor. David notMD (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I made a small start in removing the promotional tosh. But it's hard work. It would probably easier to delete the existing draft, and find someone unconnected with the company, who can start again from the beginning. Maproom (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] Having had a quick glance myself, I wouldn't go so far as to say "totally" or "blatant" (perhaps because of Maproom's efforts), but to me it definitely reads as somewhat tonally inappropriate and verging on advertising: phrases like "market leader", "integrates all key areas", "provide a 90-percent reach" sound very much like PR puffery even if true, and in any case we require verifiability rather than "truth".
Many of the references are, not unreasonably, in Russian, but this does mean that properly evaluating their:
content (do they actually support the passages that cite them?);
reliability as sources (the current Ref 2, for example, looks like a self-generated entry on a user-editable website); and
independence from the subject (the current Ref 5 reads like a regurgitated press release, common in trade journals and news media but not acceptably independent);
would need a Russian-literate editor – I am not one. (I see no evidence that @Theroadislong: is, though he may be, but like me he can have legitimate misgivings merely from what he can see along the lines above.)
I suggest you try soliciting help from the links included in the 'Submission declined' template (after "If you require extra help . . ."), but note that, from his user page, Theroadislong has health issues and may himself not be able to respond quickly. However, remember that Wikipedia has no deadlines, so be prepared to spend some weeks on working with others to get this article into publishable shape. FWIW, I think the subject probably isnotable in the Wikipedia sense, but that has to be demonstrated from good sources in the appropriate encyclopedic style. {the poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.211.131.202 (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Removal of maintenance template - conflict of interest
I would like to now remove the Maintenance Template, but I have a conflict of interest (which I have expressed on my own page).
Great if someone can please advise on how to proceed. I am conscious that no one with a COI should remove these templates, but I believe that the matter has now been resolved.
@Vialeoneiv: Thank you for adding some, but there are still paragraphs and whole sections without citations. There is no hard-and-fast rule on when an article is "well sourced" enough for this template to be removed, but ideally every statement should either be supported by a reference to a reliable source, or removed. – Joe (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Is it OK to re-use Wikipedia content with attribution?
I'm putting together a demo of a semantic knowledge base on a particular set of topics such as cognitive science. This is for a non-profit and I'm donating my time because the subject is so interesting. I'm looking at a bunch of different possible tools but one is called Semantic MediaWiki. It's an add-on to the same Mediawiki technology that powers Wikipedia. I like it over some expensive commercial tools because it's simple but powerful and I already know how to edit Wikipedia pages. I want to put together a demo, this is strictly internal just a few people will see it and what we are building will be completely free to the public. Kind of like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy but different topics and more high tech. Anyway, I would like to copy a bunch of pages from Wikipedia into my Sandbox at Semantic Mediawiki, just to give people a quick idea of what it would look llike and to have some actual content in it. I was wondering, is that considered kosher? I've seen lots of sites that I know regularly steal wikipedia content. It was funny once I was on a site and thinking "I really like the way this guy writes" and then I remembered no wonder, I wrote it but on a Wikipedia page. Sorry, I digress, I was wondering is this OK and is there some boilerplate text I should use? I could just have a link to the Wikipedia page, and if we go this route that is probably what I would do eventually but I think it might be easier for the sake of the first demo to just copy some pages (not a lot, 10-20) from Wikipedia. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@MadScientistX11: Yes, it is OK to reuse text with attribution. See WP:REUSE. Not all images are freely licensed, so if you are looking to reuse an image you will need to check the license for the ones you want to reuse. RudolfRed (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I will check any images. These are all science and philosophy topics so I doubt there would be copyrighted images but I remember getting notifications about this when I even put some articles with pictures into my Sandbox so I'll definitely check for that. I may just remove images just to make sure because this is all just for a quick proof of concept. Thanks very much for the help. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
@MRD2014: although "copyrighted–not copyrighted" is a good heuristics, it's not actually correct. All of Wikipedia's text, and some (most) images are copyrighted. The copyright holders (you and me) just have chosen to waive some of their rights. CC-BY-SA and other free licenses are copyrighted but with only "some rights reserved", enough to allow re-use of any kind, in contrast to "all rights reserved".Fair-use images have all rights reserved, or at least enough to prohibit some uses. Only public domain content is not copyrighted. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Caesar Augustus
On the right side of the page, underneath his statue, it shows that Caesar ruled from "16 JAN 27 B.C. to his death on 19 August 14 A.D. (40 years.)" The error here is that someone got tripped up on B.C. and A.D., as by this account Caesar would have been in power for 87 years. This is not the only place this error in tabulation occurs. Shouldn't this page be correctly edited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.206.58.23 (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I think you have mistaken how BC and AD work.
January 27 BC to December 1 BC is a period of 27 years (not 73, you have to count BC dates down, not up);
(there was/is of course no year 0 BC/AD in historical usage, though some sciences use one, which shifts all BC dates back 1 year);
January 1 AD to August 14 AD is a period of 13 years and 8 months;
Total 40 years and 8 months. If it helps, try drawing a timeline:
[Edited to add: your post below wasn't showing when I wrote the above. Not trying to rub it in :-) .] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.211.131.202 (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The1337gamer says "The whole point of having "2012" in the title and a disambiguation page Need for Speed: Most Wanted is to remove the need for a hatnote. There are no ambiguous redirects here, so a hatnote is not needed." when he reverted my edit the second time.
I strongly disagree. Users can come in from any place, for example by clicking a direct link to one of these two articles from a website or YouTube clip. I know I have been confused by this, thinking "Wait, that game was older.. wasn't it?" and it took me a while to figure out some idiot at EA thought it was a great idea to have two games with the exact same title. To our readers, I think this is a very useful hatnote. I'm sure it's totally obvious to a "1337 gamer", but we are not all that.
But if I'm wrong, that's fine too. In that case I'll be happy to start killing "unneeded" hatnotes. I don't personally agree with that, but if I'm wrong I'm wrong. Better to be consistent in that case. Alexis Jazz (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
In most cases The1337gamer would be correct. However, WP:DLINKS does contain the advice:
There is not always a need to add disambiguation links to a page whose name already clearly distinguishes itself from the generic term. However, for some topics this is a good idea. For example, Treaty of Paris (1796) should include a hatnote point to the disambiguation page Treaty of Paris (disambiguation), since many users might not know that there is more than one treaty with this name, and we cannot predict what external search engines will link to.
I would say that logic applies here, since as you say readers may arrive at one of the two articles from outside of Wikipedia, and be unaware that there are two titles with the same name. – Joe (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Suggestions about references
I received help from a volunteer archivist in a small town who provided me important dates for my article which is now under review. She has not replied to my email asking for further clarification on her reference sources. Standard searches on Google have not helped. Her references have not been accepted by the editors and include:
Manitoba Record of Births
1911 Canada Census Record
Canada Census 1921.
Border Crossing Document from Canada to the U.S. 1890-1960.
Convenience link: Margaret Helen Bayly - I agree with the very good advice given on your talkpage, but maybe someone else here has additional suggestions. Btw, I took the liberty to format your post a bit and include a header to separate it from the previous topic. GermanJoe (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Gracenoteseeker. The problem is that what the archivist has done, as you would expect, is archival research. That is, she has consulted the original documents you have listed above held in archives. That would be a fine basis for writing an original biography of Bayly, perhaps for publication in a local history journal, but Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. We are an encyclopaedia, and as such we require articles to be based on literature that has already been reviewed and published by reliable sources. Specifically, we prefer secondary sources. The references you have cited are not published, meaning that our readers' can't reasonably verify the information in them, and they are primary, meaning that we have no assurance that your use of the information is appropriate from a scholarly point of view.
You will need to look for secondary sources on Bayly to base the article on, e.g. newspaper obituaries, entries in biographical dictionaries, etc. If these aren't forthcoming, then unfortunately she is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. – Joe (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
On reading the article, I find it difficult to understand how the subject merits a separate article, whether or not she is notable in the Wikipedia sense of being publicly well-documented. Many of the details included which are specific to her are unencyclopaedic trivia, and much of the article is about more noteworthy individuals with whom she was associated: she may merit passing references in articles about some of them, but this does not confer notability on her. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.211.131.202 (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
For my money, I'd wait until the AfD spun out, but like 90.211.131.202, I don't expect the article to survive it. I advocated deletion myself. It's regrettable that the times relegated women to being helpmeets and hostesses, but no one would imagine that a man with this CV would qualify for an article. Ravenswing 20:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
contrary to your comment, english is my first language in which i have a phd,i do not however understand computer jargon i was asking how to edit
i have been advertising for wikipedia on my 9 billion sites (international syndicated)
if you can send a reply in english, i can make contributions and edits. until that point in time, i will only be able to ask my readers to donate to your endeavor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbmnj (talk • contribs) 04:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
@Kbmnj: I assume by "your comment," you are referring to the message that Robert McClenon left on your user talk page a year and a half ago. This is not Robert McClenon's talk page, so a title addressing a "you" really addresses any reader who passes by, not just a single user you didn't name. You can think of user talk pages as if they were that user's office, and this page (the teahouse) as if it were lobby that everyone's office is connected to.
User:Kbmnj - First, what do you mean about advertising? The use of Wikipedia for advertising is not permitted. Second, your above post is difficult to understand. If English is your first language, then maybe you simply do not have a comprehensible message. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Kbmnj, If you have a qualification in the language, I'm puzzled about why you choose not to use standard English punctuation, and especially capitalisation. You will appreciate that encyclopaedic language is required for articles, though it doesn't matter much on this page. We appreciate your efforts to advertise Wikipedia, but it is already very well known. There is advice on your talk page about how to make edits. Dbfirs20:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd say that being the 5th most viewed website in the world, with billions of hits a month, Wikipedia's doing pretty well without needing advertising help. Ravenswing 21:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Teahouse folks, good to see you again. I was wondering about the page [1] which I moved and copyedited yesterday. It seems non-notable, especially as there's no corresponding page for men. However, I don't want to scare off an editor with an overzealous deletion nomination (I've done almost none so far). Can someone help me with this judgement call? Airbornemihir (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Airbornemihir, and welcome to the Teahouse. Notability for stand-alone lists works like this: has the topic received significant coverage, as a group, in reliable sources? In this context, that would mean not just "Jane Doe was on the Red Channels list" or "Janie Roe was on the list", but something more like "all of these women were on the list, here's what it meant and why it matters". With a quick Google search, I can find articles that are exactly the thing. There is something to this effect on Google Books as well. Whether all of this amounts to significant coverage, I don't know. But that's where the judgement call should be. That there is no corresponding article for men does not play a part here, really (for obvious reasons, you won't find a lot of sources that discuss men on the list in the context that they are men). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Airbornemihir: My quick take on this is that it is indeed likely to be a notable List, but that better references are needed, or that at the very least, every article itself demonstrates these women were genuinely on that list. I've added a {{citation needed}} templ;ate, and have linked both ways to the Red Channels page. The List also needs some categories - probably just the same ones as used in the Red Channels page. Pinging @Rosiestep: as its probably worth alerting the Women in Red project to this new list. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Finnusertop and Nick Moyes: Great, it looks like there's no need to start a deletion discussion, then. Thanks for informing me in passing about WOMRED; I'd noticed the name before but I'd never looked up what the WikiProject actually does. Feel free to archive this. Airbornemihir (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
How can one break the stereotype in office environment, where women are not allowed to be in decisive and are not given the exposure???
Unlike the poem competition and debate competitions on woman empowerment where we argue in words and win the one, this question gets humongous once you are the one facing the reality day-in and day out. There lies the huge question whether to stay quiet or to speak up. The question gets more when the female colleague are lesser co-operative in your aspiration of speaking up and come up with the stories where you hear the women in higher hierarchy being demoralized by the rest of the authority. Why can not the men mass accept that the woman can be in a leadership position and they can follow without being humiliated? What could be the major factor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.104.74 (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but the Teahouse is a place where editors ask questions about editing Wikipedia. I'm sure there are any number of forums and chat rooms where you can talk philosophy. Ravenswing 22:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I deleted some of the added content and citations. Referencing for health & medicine topics strongly recommends using only reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and government or major non-gov't agencies. NOT individual clinical trials or case studies. Also, the style is not to present some literature in favor and some not. Rather, it is to present nothing unless there is a body of work that approaches a scientific consensus. Sometimes it is appropriate to have a Research section toward the end of the article, where science in process can be presented. But even that should not be a dump for all half-baked content. I commend you for being bold in your additions to this article. And I implore you to make them better. David notMD (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Unambiguous advertising
Hey all,
I work for Everex as Brand and Communications Manager here and I tried creating a wikipage for Everex which was speedily deleted because I never attached the references.
The second time around, I tried adding with references with only small details about the company from a neutral perspective with references. I do not know where I went wrong and it would be awesome if any one of you can guide me through the process! Thanks a lot!
@Pdpiam: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, you do need to review the conflict of interest policy at WP:COI and the paid editing policy at WP:PAID before you do anything else; reading the latter policy is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use for paid editors.
I cannot see your second attempt(though an administrator can) but I can say that you seem to have a very common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a place to promote a business or even merely tell the world about a business. Wikipedia has no interest in what a business wishes to say about itself or how it wants to be portrayed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, Wikipedia is only interested in what third parties write about article subjects such as a business. Primary sources like press releases, interviews with company staff, routine business announcements, and brief mentions are not acceptable sources for establishing notability. The notability guidelines for businesses are listed at WP:ORG, and you should review those as well.
As you work for the business, it will be difficult(though not impossible) for you to write in the neutral point of view Wikipedia requires. In order for you to be successful in writing about your employer, you would need to forget everything you know about it and only write based on what third party, independent reliable sources state about it. As I stated, that does not include primary sources. If your business has not been sufficiently written about in independent sources, it will not be possible for their to be an article about it here at this time. Not every business merits an article here.
If you have reviewed the notability guidelines and truly feel that your business does merit an article, you should not directly create the page yourself, instead submitting a draft for review through Articles for Creation, where it can be reviewed by an independent editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. Again, though, if you cannot find proper sources, you should wait for your business to become sufficiently notable(as Wikipedia defines it) and allow others who notice it to write about it. If you just want to tell the world about your business, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Collapse section formatting
Hi, I have an article with an excessive bibliography listing. I would like to have an expand/collapse format so that the individual issues are collapsed by default. Is this easy to do?
Hi Epididymus. That's probably not a good idea. MOS:COLLAPSE recommends against using collapse templates in articles and specifically prohibits content being hidden by default. If the length of the bibliography (or any other list) is a problem, it's best tackled by cutting it down to a reasonable size or forking it to a new article, e.g. bibliography of X.
The real problem is that it's for a comic writer and so it has individual issues listed in a collection, which makes it super long. Do you think it'd be better to make it separate or just axe the individual titles for each title? Epididymus (talk) 07:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
