Sonofjoat

Welcome!

Hello, Sonofjoat, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Adam and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Winston Sterzel) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Winston Sterzel, Sonofjoat!

Wikipedia editor L3X1 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Reviewed!

To reply, leave a comment on L3X1's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

L3X1 (distant write) 02:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Winston Sterzel

Hi! I'm the content expert for your class and I received a notification that one of your pages, Winston Sterzel had been proposed for deletion. The nominator was concerned that Sterzel doesn't pass notability guidelines. The best way to meet the concerns would be to try to find some more sourcing for the page that is in-depth and reliable. This can be extremely difficult to do for YouTube personalities, as most of them do not gain a lot (if any) coverage in most of the conventional reliable sources like newspapers and some gain even less coverage in the online websites that are more likely to cover them. Even the most subscribed person on YouTube, PewDiePie, failed notability guidelines until about 6 months before he achieved the feat of most subscriptions, which is a sign of how difficult it is for YT and Internet personalities to pass guidelines.

Here's a rundown of the sourcing that you have so far:

1. IMDb is not considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia because it's a site that anyone can edit for the most part and their site moderation is fairly lax.
2. The Nanfang would likely be considered a self-published source on Wikipedia because there's not a lot on the site about its editorial process and they do accept user submissions. They also have a list of "popular bloggers" at the bottom of the page, which also causes concern because blogs are usually less likely to be edited for accuracy, tone, and the other things that something like a newspaper or website like IGN would do for their articles.
3. That's Online looks better than The Nanfang, however what concerned me was specifically this message on their about page: "We provide an array of digital advertising solutions, with a commitment to establishing the most productive and efficient way to ensure maximum exposure, tailored to the product or service being marketed to your target audience." This gives off the impression that interested parties can actually buy advertising or marketing packages that may include articles, meaning that the source would not be truly independent of the person. It's possible it could still be considered reliable but it's not the strongest source that you could have.
4. GlobalSouthAfricans.com is a website that is run by Brand South Africa, a branding company whose purpose is to promote South Africa and increase the visibility and credibility of South Africa and its people - especially people abroad. This makes it a primary source of sorts, since the site can be seen as having a bias in this situation.
5. Limitless Laowai looks to be a podcast that does some marketing work of sorts with their show to a certain degree, enough to where it'd be unlikely to be seen as a reliable source on here. It's also an interview, which tend to be seen as primary sources by many Wikipedians since part of the content comes from the person themself and there's no true guarantee of fact checking. I don't always agree with this, but I can see where they're coming from.
6. This last source is an IMDb link. IMDb can't be seen as a reliable source and movies aren't always a sign of notability - although if you can show where the movie/miniseries has received reviews in indepdent and reliable sources, that can always help establish notability.

I hope that this doesn't discourage you - it's fairly difficult to find sourcing for Internet personalities and as far as the sourcing above, a lot of the stuff I pointed out above would be things that most people wouldn't know to look for with a source as far as Wikipedia goes, as Wikipedia's guidelines for sourcing can be a little different from sourcing guidelines for other projects or avenues. Don't let this discourage you! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Winston Sterzel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Winston Sterzel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winston Sterzel (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Shritwod (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)