Sources said

Welcome!

Hello, Sources said, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Wizard191 (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aliyah Jazmine (February 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Liance 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 User:Sources said/Aliyah Jazmine 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 User:Sources said/Aliyah Jazmine, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

-Liance^{talk/contribs} 05:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Sources said! 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! -Liancetalk/contribs 05:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

A page you created has been nominated for deletion because it is a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and has unsourced content, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create articles about living people that are entirely negative in tone and unsourced. Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability and any negative information we use must be reliably sourced, and our articles must be balanced. Negative, unreferenced biographies of living people, along with attack pages, are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy may be blocked from editing. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

To whom it may concern:

The above citations and remarks are simply not applicable to my proposed article at its current stage of development. I must question whether my initial draft was read with any care at all.

My aim in starting the article was to create a space for reliable evidence refuting false & defamatory heresay, and to create a forum for others to present facts in support of the subject person, a popular public figure. Certain, more experienced editors, have observed that sourcing reliable documentation may take rigorous detective work.

In order for me to post a properly documented article for publication, I DO expect diligent research to take some time. I hoped that by starting a publicly accessible draft, other users might come forward with material that meets your standards.

My draft was ostensibly deleted on the grounds that it is "entirely negative". How it can be construed as such defies logic. To an objective and attentive reader, it has no negative or defamatory content whatsoever, and is certainly far from being entirely negative. It isn't even partly negative by face value, implication, or intent.

The tone of my opening draft is objective and positive, if not sympathetic. I summarized potentially negative statements about the subject in social media sources, with one sentence, and tentatively categorized them as unsubstantiated hearsay. These can be treated in more detail as the article develops.

Prematurely destroying my sincere, good-faith creative work, out of hand, was not called for. One reviewer who supported its deletion openly mocked my interest in the subject as frivolous —A popular figure model whose career is threatened by slanderous & questionable publicity— even though Wikipedia has hundreds of articles about sports & entertainment figures.

Please read the article more carefully and directly quote to me any passages you find potentially defamatory or offensive, so they can be re-written. If not, as a financial donor/supporter of the wiki project, I must appeal for a review of this premature & unjustified deletion, by a ranking referee.

Sources said (talk) 04:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Sources said, I do not have time to reply to this at length (nor do I have access to the original draft as I am not an administrator), but I can mention a few things you pointed out right away.
  1. I understand that it's frustrating that it seems like it's impossible to start due to essentially needing both sources and text at the same time, but this is an unfortunate effect of Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living people ("BLPs"). Essentially every claim must be sourced—otherwise it can lead to things like the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident.
  2. If I recall correctly, I agree that "entirely negative" may be a bit extreme. As I said before, Wikipedia treats BLPs very seriously—if a page about a living person has no reliable sources but has mostly contentious material (which yours was), then they should be deleted. I don't know enough about this specific criteria (called G10) to say much more—hopefully someone else can chime in there.
  3. While deletion is permanent, deletion of a good faith creation is rough—I understand that it probably feels like a slap in the face, and I'm sorry for that. You have to understand, though, that sometimes assuming good faith isn't the best choice. Imagine if, for example, someone wrote the exact same draft you had, but conjectured—not based on any reliable source—that the subject was "on the run", or any number of other untrue accusations. As reliable sources had not written on what the situation was, it was unfair to theorize based on limited information what the potential circumstance could be.
  I hope this helps, and I'm sorry if this doesn't answer all your questions or is poorly written—I need to go sleep :). Perryprog (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  Sources said, Perryprog basically covered everything I have to say. You're absolutely correct that the draft was not directly attacking the subject. However, it had no sources and the majority of the draft covered a controversy involving negative gossip about the subject (and I'll add that there appears to be no coverage of this controversy in reliable sources, Google just gives me sketchy gossip sites). As such, I opted to delete the draft out of an abundance of caution. I do believe that you wrote that in good faith and were trying to cover the situation neutrally, but biographies of living people are very touchy areas. I am not willing to restore the draft, but you are welcome to appeal my deletion at our deletion review noticeboard. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)