This is an archive of past discussions with User:Joe Decker. 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 talk page.
Upcoming: Wikimania. There will be several talks and workshops related to Wikidata. Say hi at the "Ask Us Anything" session for Wikidata if you're there.
Other Noteworthy Stuff
A new database report lists people categorized as dead in Wikipedia, but lacking Property:P570 (date of death). It's updated several times during the day. There are about 20 to 30 new entries each day. There is currently some backlog from the Arabic, Marathi, and Thai Wikipedias. Items updated first in Wikidata wont appear in the report. They are listed directly in Wikidata's recent deaths report.
First, my apologies for the delay in getting back to you.
So, here's the deal. The article, as a proposed deletion is eligible to be restored on request. What will likely happen if I do that is that someone will ask for it to be considered for deletion using the WP:AFD, "articles for deletion" process, and what you've presented so far probably won't be enough to qualify the article to stay. The basic threshold we need to meet for sources is the general notability guideline, which is unfortunately full of words being used in specific-to-Wikipedia senses. I made an attempt to make a more accessible presentation of the requirement at one point at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable. Basically we need to sources, but each has to be reliable (IMDB isn't considered so), has to provide signficant coverage (think a couple paragraphs or so), not be routine concern announcements or the like, and so on. So, your call, but if you have more in the way of sources, or can get some assistance at WikiProject Music (google should provide) for sources that would meet those requirements, it might be wiser to start there before asking me to restore. Best of luck either way! --j⚛e deckertalk17:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
John Banks Elliott
Dear Joe Decker,
Can you please help resolve a problem with wiki/User:NeilN who thinks the article about the Ambassador is not my own and I have no right to access it. He has sent me a warning about violating the three-revert rule on John Banks Elliott of which I do not understand. I did extend the article as it is time it was completed in a befitting manner. Please have a look, as NeilN is trying to bring up things that have already been discussed and closed. Thank you, kind regards,Dorothyelliott (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dorothy,
I"m away at the moment and won't be able to provide a lot of assistance, a certain amount of back and forth is part of our process here, I do understand that it's frustrating. I think fro the moment my best suggestion is to ask for assistance at the WP:Teahouse. I see that NeilN has some concerns about whether particular claims are neutral and sourced, and that is something that an uninvolved opinion might be helpful with. Sorry I can't be of help at the moment! --j⚛e deckertalk17:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Request to bring back page for host Oliver Trevena
Oliver Trevena is best known for for regularly hosting the celebrity chat show Young Hollywood. He was born and raised in East Sussex, England and is the youngest of four sons. Oliver trained at the South East Theatre Society & RADA. In his early acting days, he starred in William Shakespeare's "A Midsummer Night's Dream". Later, he starred in a variety of plays, including "The King and I", "Bugsy Malone" and even "Oliver". He has since starred in movies like, The Long Road (2008), Ready? OK!(2008) and TV appearances in The Good Guys, Leverage, The Forgotten and How to Rock. He was engaged to Laura Vandervoort for over a year. He has his own luxury luggage line with S.Mkellar and is a brand ambassador for Allsaints clothing. He is a spokesman for the non-profit organization Not For Sale and R.I.S.E. & Stand Inc.
Our inclusion criteria for people, WP:BASIC, requires more than a few web links, it requires links which are reliable (e.g., from journalists and an organization with a reputation for fact-checking), independent (interviews, pages from the fellow himself or people he's working with don't count), and in-depth (individual photos at Getty, etc., don't count.) Based on my experience, I don't believe that the sources you've provided here meet that criteria. You are welcome to appeal my decision at WP:DRV.
You may also take a look at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable. I'm still working on refining it, but my hope is to provide a more step-by-step (if still not simple) approach to explaining what we need in terms of demonstrating notability. I hope that it will be helpful.
Hi there, I am attempting to create a wiki page for Paul Soubry. The content that you are citing as copyrighted is actually content that I have written for Mr Soubry as his marketing manager at New Flyer. How can I get it approved? or do I need to create all new content for this page.
thanks,
Jody Stadnyk,
Marketing Manager
New Flyer.
Thank you for explaining. Since the work was done for hire, you are not the owner of the copyright of the material, and in any case, we'd need a license to use it. When you go to edit here, did you notice, or do you now notice, the text which says " you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution"? That's an agreement than only the owner of the copyright can make. If the owner of the copyright of the text would like to do so, instructions for doing so are at WP:Donating copyrighted materials.
However, do note that such material is usually not suitable for inclusion in any case, as it's rarely written in an entirely arm's length manner. Generally, it's best to actually start by finding material which is written independently in journalistic sources about the subject, and to summarize (not copy) what they talk about, what they emphasize, and so on.
Hello, Joe Decker. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "The Jubilee Project".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13. An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional Britain Group (2nd nomination)
In regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional Britain Group (2nd nomination), in Britain, or, in the United Kingdom, "Searchlight" ("The Searchlight magazine") are a far-left non-membership-based Trotskyist (non-aligned) (or, "anti-fascist", as they would like to call themselves and the magazine that they publish) political organisation, founded in 1975 and refounded in 2011 by Gerry and Sonia Gable, and whose main purpose is to publish the far-left general-Trotskyite otherwise-fringe political magazine under the same name, which focuses upon exposing the British Far Right, as they would see it, real or otherwise. It certainly cannot be reliably used for a test of a subject's general (rather than specific political) notability for the purpose of Wikipedia, outside of the myopic and very specialist anti-far-right sole obsession, real or imagined, of the British far-left. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Good to know. Doesn't appear to be an issue in any case, as even if it were such a source it wasn't sufficient for notability. --j⚛e deckertalk19:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm nominating this for deletion. A google search turned up nothing that indicates notoriety. I fell onto this researching another John Hagmann currently in the news for all the wrong reasons! You were the last significant editor of this Hagmann page, and I also saw that you are active @ AfD. I've never put a link in a title before, but it seems efficient. Is it kosher? Regards Tapered (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
PS I don't think that his association with the very notable Stern, and one cite of it, is sufficient for WP:N. Tapered (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
No concerns, I added a reference during a very frenetic attempt to dig through and find more seriously problematic unsourced BLPs (and add at least *something* in the way of a source to those that aren't. I suspect this guy exists and that this isn't an attack piece, but he may very well not be notable. Thanks for the notification. --j⚛e deckertalk07:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The Spanish article hasn't been deleted: es:Calito Soul, someone just made a spelling mistake when linking it to the AFD. Not that it should matter much, I doubt anyone would speedy renominate, but just letting you know in case they do and if it affected how you interpreted the consensus. Cheers, Vrac (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi I recently wanted to work on this page and saw it had been deleted for poor notability and references. I believe I have the proper references and am requesting if I may submit some changes to the page and see if it gets accepted. Thank you so very much for your time and will be here patiently waiting for your response at your earliest convenience. Vlolv (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thanks ... really the key step is showing me the references. I'll give my opinion when I see them as to whether they're sufficient to override the previous community consensus, and if they are, I'll restore. If not, I'll show you how you can appeal my decision. Fair?
I do realize that newer editors at Wikipedia often find it difficult to make rhyme or reasons of our notability requirements. You may also take a look at User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable. I'm still working on refining it, but my hope is to provide a more step-by-step (if still not simple) approach to explaining what we need in terms of demonstrating notability. As the topic is a band, you will also wish to be aware that routine announcements are generally not considered toward this standard. I look forward to your reply. --j⚛e deckertalk06:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your reply, I have gathered my references and will list them here for you. Let me know where to go from there if there is a place to go from there. Again thank you so very much for your time.
Before they were The night runners they were illusion confusion and made it to top 16 on XFactor USA
[1]
judges houses video 8.84 million viewers as illusion confusion on judges house 2 episode of xfactor usa 2011
[2]
Hi. I will be working through that list when I get a chance, and crossing off the ones that should have been excluded, see the essay I linked. --j⚛e deckertalk18:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Yes I would like to know where do I go from here? Do I attempt a draft with those references are they good enough? Vlolv (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks -- I had been hoping to look through today... the morass of Youtube links and press releases identified as press releases made me doubt there was any meat underneath. You just saved me a lot of trouble, most appreciated! --j⚛e deckertalk19:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry to have wasted your time and not included the body of the resubmitted article.
I have now posted it with some interim revisions and citations.
Again, thank you for your guidance and expertise. ArtistInWordyThings (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC) >
Thank you Joe for the link to the resources for new editors! Actually I'm an "occasional" contributor who still has much to learn. As an example in 2006 I dredged up big chunks of minutiae about the history of Ashfield NSW but left it on the Talk page because it would have pulled the article out of balance...
In regard to the most recent edits, I do understand that the "Jumpdrive" and "XO" topics do not yet have sufficient arm's length references. If the game gets 4 or 5 independent sources covering it (in a central way, not just a mention) I will fix and resubmit it in a year or so. Meanwhile I may visit the Teahouse to discuss a topic I am pondering about Albert Aramburu, whose name was given to an island in Richardson Bay:
... There aren't many electronic third party sources about the guy because his career (ending as head of the California Conservation Corps) was mostly pre internet. But from the topics you linked, it seems that I can refer to (reputable) California newspapers for the purpose of notability. So I can still do this one; it will just take more work! Anyway, thank you again!
Juliannechat (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind note!
With respect to Jumpdrive, that may be the best answer, but you may also try the VideoGames wikiproject and leave a note, there are some folks there who may know of offline sources that are relevant, or specialist sources that I wouldn't know about as a generalist.
With respect to Aramburu -- I do want to emphasize that offline sources are fine. Harder to find, for sure, but they're certainly allowed. I did take a look at a couple of periodical databases I have access to (Highbeam, NYT archives, not that I would have expected the latter to find anything) and didn't find quite enough, but I'm more than willing to believe that there's stuff out there. What I am seeing is mostly about the island, consider, if there's not enough for a biography, seeing if there's enough for an article on the island, which would provide a mention of Al, and we could create a redirect to the island. This is a pretty common sort of refactoring we do when dealing with people who end up largely being known for one thing, but .. again, offline sources could entirely save the day as well.
Hi. And thanks for finally closing that article. However, in your closing remarks, you say, "... I would recommend that any newer participants opining for deletion ...." Excuse my presumptiveness, but don't you mean "participants opining for keeping"? Onel5969TT me14:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I noticed Doug Batchelor posted above. Ill take the page plus talk page as well. I notice there are some reliable sources, many criticizing his creationist beliefs. I may work on it, but am interested in seeing what condition the article was in. Valoemtalkcontrib06:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I've recently come across the Janet Emerson Bashen article. I attempted to improve it by updating the references and removing some of the unnecessary ramblings, but I could not find any secondary sources to support its notability per WP:BASIC. As such, I plan on proposing the article for deletion once again. Seeing as you were the admin who closed the previous discussion as no consensus (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Emerson Bashen), I felt that you should be notified. Given that it has been nearly a year since the previous deletion discussion, do you think it should be handled through a deletion review, or simply be proposed again? I plan on notifying all editors heavily involved in the article when/if the deletion is proposed. Thanks. Greedo804:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, @Greedo8:. I'd definitely recommend simply putting it at AfD again. While we don't appreciate, in many cases, renominations right after a previous AfD, it's been more than long enough. Thanks for the note! --j⚛e deckertalk17:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Doug Batchelor
Would you please kindly explain why you moved Doug Batchelor to a user page? This is one of the most significant, influential, and sometimes controversial figures currently within the Seventh-Day Adventist movement, and is way, way, way beyond notable. Yup, article needs much better sourcing, but I don't believe userfication is the correct action here. But of course I may not be seeing the whole picture. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)
I originally deleted it as a result of closing an AfD discussion. I restored it on request from a user who believes, as you do, that there's enough material to establish notability, but given the deletion closure, but in this case, to override the AfD consensus, Valoem and/or you will have to "show me" that there's enough new evidence to override a community consensus. --j⚛e deckertalk01:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Joseph Hanna
Hi there. I am not sure if this is something you can do, but would it be possible to receive a copy of the page for Joseph Hanna, which I believe you deleted in August of 2014? 208.83.121.42 (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Can do, just drop me an email using the "email this user" link at left, and include an email address I can send a copy of the page to. --j⚛e deckertalk01:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The Surgery Ship - copyright information
Hi, just wondering if you could explain what the copyright infringements are that you cite as a reason not to publish the page on "The Surgery Ship". If you identify them, I can respond. Many thanks, Madeleine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhetherton (talk • contribs) 09:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I am writing to you as sometime back you flagged an article as having overly promotional wording.
The message on screen reads: This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by removing promotional content and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view. (September 2014)
Since then I've tried to edit a few times and removed the parts that seemed to me overly promotional. But the message is still there.
Is there some way to remove the message? Am I missing something?
Also, there's another message on the page which dates back earlier saying:
This biographical article needs additional citations for verification, as its only attribution is to IMDb. IMDb may not be a reliable source for biographical information. Please help by adding additional, reliable sources for verification. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (January 2013)
If it is possible, I'd be so grateful for your advice on what can be done about this. I did not create the original article but I am interested in cleaning it up as Max is my father-in-law. I know all the details to be correct, having heard them from him directly and from others who worked with him. But there simply isn't anything on the internet that I can link to to verify his TV work. If you have time time, your advice would be very welcome. We do have copies of all the books and I could scan photos in of those if there is someone to send them to and if this would help verify that he did write the books. And some of the bios in the books reference the documentary version that came before some of the books, or the movie that came after, so I could probably provide supporting evidence of some, but not all.
Hi, just wondering if you could explain what the copyright infringements are that you cite as a reason not to publish the page on "The Surgery Ship". If you identify them, I can respond. Many thanks, Madeleine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhetherton (talk • contribs) 09:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
I am writing to you as sometime back you flagged an article as having overly promotional wording.
The message on screen reads: This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by removing promotional content and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view. (September 2014)
Since then I've tried to edit a few times and removed the parts that seemed to me overly promotional. But the message is still there.
Is there some way to remove the message? Am I missing something?
Also, there's another message on the page which dates back earlier saying:
This biographical article needs additional citations for verification, as its only attribution is to IMDb. IMDb may not be a reliable source for biographical information. Please help by adding additional, reliable sources for verification. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (January 2013)
If it is possible, I'd be so grateful for your advice on what can be done about this. I did not create the original article but I am interested in cleaning it up as Max is my father-in-law. I know all the details to be correct, having heard them from him directly and from others who worked with him. But there simply isn't anything on the internet that I can link to to verify his TV work. If you have time time, your advice would be very welcome. We do have copies of all the books and I could scan photos in of those if there is someone to send them to and if this would help verify that he did write the books. And some of the bios in the books reference the documentary version that came before some of the books, or the movie that came after, so I could probably provide supporting evidence of some, but not all.
Generally, if you believe you've addressed the problem, and the tag doesn't indicate otherwise, it's okay to remove it. If someone contests it, then you discuss on the talk page. WP:BRD applies in most circumstances, and might be some helpful guidance.
As for IMDB, yes, it's possible to game IMDB submissions. Generally, we look for reliable sources with strong editorial processes. This not only verifies the information is accurate, but also gives a third-party, neutral grounding in what aspects of a subject warrant coverage, and which don't, in other words, it helps us reduce "spin".
Because you do have a stake in the game, that is, you are related to the subject, you will want to review WP:PSCOI. I am not suggesting you've done anything wrong, just letting you know what your COI policies are. Thank you for noting that. --j⚛e deckertalk17:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
FABRIZIO MOREIRA
hey sorry to come here but you Proposed deletion of Fabrizio Moreira on 2012 i added a couple of well known sources of information from mayor news papers and now we are on 2015 is there a way to remove the tags? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inuevayork (talk • contribs) 00:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Joe. I appreciate you taking the time to reply. The more I learn about Wikipedia, the more I realize I do not know!
Books64 (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The database size lists have been updated. These control special page update frequency and which wikis use global abuse filters. [3]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from October 13. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from October 14. It will be on all Wikipedias from October 15 (calendar).
You will be able to upload images to Wikimedia Commons using the visual editor. When the image is uploaded it will be added to the article you're editing. [4]
Pages that show citation error messages will automatically be placed in a hidden category. [5]
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 13 October at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Discussion has started on English WikiProject Football about using Wikidata for player squad templates (example) and player club history (example). Needs more input on best practices and commitment to update data.
You'll now get redirected to the mobile view automatically on mobile devices (example)
Made it possible to use more entities on a page via Lua without running into Lua's memory limit
Added the Article Placeholder extension’s results to the search result page (this is one of a few remaining blockers before we can put it on a testsystem for you to try out and give feedback)
Added option to create a new article from Article Placeholder
More work on the new datatype for properties
More work on making meaningful edit summaries on the client. Found a few remaining bugs during testing.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Tech News is trying to make reading the newsletter easier. The icon means the item is in the newsletter every week, but with new dates. The icon means the item is mainly relevant for readers with technical knowledge. You can leave feedback on this change.
Timestamps in the protection log will now be in the user's timezone. Previously they would show Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). [8]
Problems
A problem with MediaWiki made some pages show no content on October 14. This has now been fixed. [9]
Some templates were misplaced in the Flow description bar. This could make it impossible to click on links. This will be fixed this week. [10]
The deployment of the new MediaWiki version was stopped on October 14. No new code was deployed for the rest of week. This meant planned changes did not happen. [11]
Changes this week
Changes that were planned to happen last week will happen this week. [12]
Wikispecies, Meta and MediaWiki.org will be able to use Wikidata for sitelinks. [13][14][15][16]
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 20 October at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from October 27. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from October 28. It will be on all Wikipedias from October 29 (calendar).
The first time you use the visual editor, pop-ups will explain why and when you should use the citation and link tools. [17]
You will be able to upload images to Wikimedia Commons from inside the wikitext editor by clicking "Upload" in the "Insert file" dialog. You will also be able to drag and drop them into an article when using the visual editor. [18][19]
When you edit a code block in visual editor, you will have the syntax highlighted. [20][21]
Index and Page namespaces on Wikisource will be defined as content namespaces in $wgContentNamespaces. [22]
Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message. Sent to users on my mailing list. To opt-out forever, just remove your name.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes this week
You can use TemplateData to indicate how you want a template to be displayed in wikitext. Tools like VisualEditor that edit templates will soon use this information. [23]
Echo notification icons in MonoBook will look more like other icons in the theme. [24]
Wikis can make the welcome notification link to a specific page. [25]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from November 17. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from November 18. It will be on all Wikipedias from November 19 (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 17 November at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
Internet Explorer 8 will no longer have JavaScript support. You will still be able to browse and edit Wikipedia, but will not be able to use some features. This can be solved by upgrading to a newer version or switching to a different browser. The change will happen in January 2016. [26][27]
I was hoping you would be able to provide some guidance on the best way to get an article published? I work in the Hedge Fund industry and there is no current page in existence for the company I work for. I am aware of the COI rules and am conscious of the need for neutrality whilst writing.
I have put together some text which contains a number of third party references.
In terms of article-writing strategy here, I think the key thing is starting from the right references. What the Wikipedia community is looking for in terms of those is complicated, third-party is definitely part of it, but arm's length third-party is really more like it.
What this means is that the community generally discounts the neutrality of sources that look like press releases (e.g., most things printed in business journals), that look like interviews, and reporting of routine corporate events (hirings, firings, etc.) What's left? Sources that provide a broader arm's-length view of a company. If you can find a couple such articles, that's a great place to start, looking first for the information provided in them (and which parts are emphasized or frequently mentioned), and using that as guidance for the main article content. From there, very routine factual information (employee count, headquarters location, name of CEO, things of that sort) can of course be filled in from other sources.
Finally, I would suggest that you try writing the article through our Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. There's a group of volunteers who work on draft articles and try and provide some feedback on how a draft is doing with respect to our neutrality and notability guidelines. While not perfect, and while it could be faster, the nice thing about AfC is that most articles that make it through this process never end up never facing a deletion process, and those can be pretty drawn-out and frustrating.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
A new Pageview API has been announced. Feedback is requested to help decide which data to add to it next.
Changes this week
There are no MediaWiki deployments this week (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the Language Engineering team. The topic is: Content Translation updates and Questions & Answers. The meeting will be on 25 November at 13:00 (UTC). See how to join.
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 24 November at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
No thanks. I'm a volunteer here, and have a backlog of writing projects on fields I'm more familiar with in hand. You may want consider adding your topic
I known the latins languages are very close, but there are some differences (perhaps this differences that made each one to be a separate language... )
Would you please userfy this article for me so I can improve it? I wasn't aware that it was even up for deletion because the nominator never notified me. Erpertblah, blah, blah...00:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of that, in another AfD (in which the article was later undeleted after I rationalized with that deleting admin), I brought up the issue about my not having been notified (of the original prod; not the AfD (the user in question didn't create the AfD discussion): [29], [30]); but then not even a week later, s/he did it again. Erpertblah, blah, blah...00:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Sadly (at least to me), we've never gotten consensus that such notifications are required. Most of tools do it pretty automatically, so it shouldn't be a hardship for most editors. Humph. --joe deckertalk04:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Just for the record, the reason Erpert no longer receives courtesy notices from me is that he's announced that several editors (including Spartaz and myself) aren't welcome to post anything on his talk page, and responds with hostility and extreme rudeness even to mandatory notices. See [31], [32], [33], [34]. All he needs to do is to commit to stopping this, which he wouldn't do when the same issue was raised last week. If he wants a punching bag, he can buy one. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
@Rich Farmbrough: There was a consensus to delete, so I can't REFUND per se, I can draftify it if you like, though. (or if I'm missing new evidence that should be obvious, feel free to apply clue!) Cheers, --joe deckertalk02:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey, giving you a head's up that I've recreated the page for this person. At the AfD last month @Bearcat: said that they were OK with the article being created again with sourcing. The guy's work has received some reviews that were listed on Rotten Tomatoes and the scanty coverage for his other films should be enough for the director to pass notability guidelines as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)11:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the note! There's a review of Deviation[35], although I don't have a Highbeam subscription anymore so I can't see the whole thing. --joe deckertalk15:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
.svg){kind=logo}
