Echezuria

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sal Jobe (November 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Etothepi was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sal Jobe and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Sal Jobe, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

•≈20+π^{(talk to me!)} 18:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Echezuria! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! •≈20+π(talk to me!) 18:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sal Jobe (December 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sal Jobe and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Sal Jobe, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Theroadislong I must say, I am at a loss as to why you believe that the subject is not deemed worthy of Wikipedia page, when the subject is a known figure, having featured in a number of films. Granted he is no Tom Hanks. This is not a rant but wanting to learn from this and add correct information in wikipedia (all of which that was added is factual). When one does a search on google, and even before you fully type the subject's name, the phrase "Sal Job Actor" comes up. Clearly demonstrating that the subject is a known figure.

The one that we are really at a loss to comprehend why "IMDb" is not being accepted as reference, as they are the trusted reference site for the film industry. Can you therefore point me in the right direction so I can reference the subjects acting career?

I followed the example of other high profile pages for actors like Tom Cruise and Tom Hanks, both of whom use IMDb as references, examples below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cruise#cite_note-29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cruise#cite_note-59

I also deleted the subject's website, so it would not be seen that wikipedia was being used as a page to promote the subject. I note that many Wikipedia entries have the subject's website.

Your help and guidance will be greatly appreciated.Echezuria (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Being "known" is not one of Wikipedia's criteria, being notable is though. Please also see other stuff exists. Please see WP:RS for help with identifying reliable sources, IMDb is absolutely not a reliable source as it is user edited and your draft makes VERY heavy use of it. Theroadislong (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Theroadislong Thank you once again for your valued advice and guidance. I will reference other sources and show that the subject is, a notable subject. I will in deed look for other references, to reference the subject and resubmit. I will follow your opinion on IMDb and not reference IMDb. In saying that, I am struggling to comprehend why IMDb is not a trusted source for you, when it is widely used within wikipedia as source reference. In fact I have ran a search on the wikipedia site (site:wikipedia.org IMDb) and according to google, the word "IMDb" is used in wikipedia.org 291,000,000 times. Once again, I am not looking to be controversial, I just want to understand why I am being penalised for referencing IMDb, when it is so widely used within wikipedia itself as reference material. And as I stated previously, I looked at popular pages in wikipedia, so as to follow best standards. Echezuria (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

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

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

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Echezuria. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Echezuria|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. John from Idegon (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

(talk) I am not receiving compensation directly or indirectly for this. The question that I am struggling to understand is why I am not allowed to reference IMDb, when it is so widely used within Wikipedia itself. Having said this, in order to comply to Wikipedia and the advice I am being given here, I will omit those reference Echezuria (talk) 09:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The fact that other poor pages exist here is not in any way a justification to add more. IMDb's use as a source is extremely limited, as you have told multiple times, due to the fact it is user edited. It's unacceptability is sometimes ignored (example might be to provide a complete reference to the main cast of a film, where that information is certainly readly available in separate sources for each entry), that doesn't make it any less proper. But hey, one of our rules is to ignore all rules. You would need to make policy based compelling arguments and a consensus to do so. Also, you may be confused on WP:V and WP:N. You need yo satisfy N in order to have an article. Facts in the article must meet V. A source can to fine to show V and not demonstrate N at all. John from Idegon (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

(talk) Thank you for your sound advice. I won't mention the dreaded IMDb again ...oops I just did :-)) Will redraft and fingers crossed, it will pass the test and be published and make Wikipedia a better place.

Your thread has been archived

Hi Echezuria! You created a thread called Page submission not accepted because it is deemed to be more of an advertisement. at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Sal Jobe

Hello, Echezuria. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sal Jobe".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)