Timmrotter

European Forum of Deposit Insurers

@Jimfbleak and @Malik Shabazz, I was the author of the article - why did you delete it? The EFDI is a relevant European institution and the article was completely based on facts.Timmrotter (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I deleted your article because

• it was a copyright violation of the EFDI website. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient. I note that Malik Shabazz gave the same rationale for his earlier deletion. Note that a close paraphrase is still a copyright infringement.
• it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. All your refs were to the organisation itself, obviously not independent
• it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Your text concentrates solely on what the organisation claims to do, with no third-party sources to verify the claims or what has actually been achieved. We are told nothing about the boring factual stuff, such as how many employees, how it is funded or what it spends, and no indication as to how its outcomes are measured or monitored.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

There was a short discussion about the article here before its deletion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

European Forum of Deposit Insurers

Hello, Tim! The reasons for deleting the article are given at this community discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Forum of Deposit Insurers (2nd nomination). It was deleted for being too promotional, for using mostly primary sources (i.e., the company's own website and press releases), and for not being notable (not meeting the requirements at WP:GNG or WP:ORG). I see that you attempted to improve it based on the feedback you got after the two previous deletions. Since your improved version was deleted by community discussion, you still have a ways to go. The main thing needed is substantial coverage by outside sources to demonstrate that the organization is WP:notable, and to make it less promotional (promotional means non-neutral, designed to make the organization look good).

Here is what I will do: I will restore the article to your private user space, where you can work on it and improve it without the threat of having it deleted again. The restored article will be at User:Timmrotter/European Forum of Deposit Insurers.

Here are some of my suggestions:

• Remove the lists of members, associate members, and observers. They take up too much of the article and they are basically clutter. That's the kind of thing that made people call it promotional.
• Try to find outside references, particularly any references to the Forum by respected newspapers or other independent media. That's the most essential thing. Outside references will help with both the promotional and notability issues. If you aren't sure how to cite the references, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Just a suggestion to make it more Wiki-friendly: Instead of the "EFDI in short" section, use an infobox. The format can be found at Template:Infobox company. Copy the entire format of the short version, including the curly brackets in front and behind, paste it into the article at the top, and fill in the appropriate areas. You may want to use the "page preview" feature before saving it, to see if you have got the formatting right.
• I notice that an earlier deletion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Forum of Deposit Insurers, was for copyright violation. Copy-pasting is a serious no-no. Be careful not to copy-paste anything directly from the website or any place else - unless you put it in quotes and cite it, and don't do too much of that. You can take information from the website, but rewrite it in your own words. Wikipedia is very careful about copyright and will not use anything that has been previously published, even online. See WP:NPS.

When you think you have it ready, let me know. If I think it is sufficiently improved from the original version, I will put a note on the article's talk page saying so; otherwise it will probably be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:G4 as soon as you move it into article space. If I think it is likely to be deleted again, I will tell you, or explain what the problems still are. Ask any questions you like here at your talk page; I will see it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

One other comment: I notice that you are what we call a special purpose account, meaning that everything you do here is related to one subject, namely, this Forum. I have to ask, do you have some kind of connection to the Forum, such as working for it, or being paid to write about it? Wikipedia does allow WP:paid editing, but only if it is disclosed. If someone conceals a conflict of interest which is later discovered, they are likely to be blocked from editing, since that is a violation of the Terms of Use. So if you do have some connection like that, please say so now. Or else explain why you are so focused on this one subject to the exclusion of all else. Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Melanie, thx for your immediate answer. I will have a look at your remarks and try to rework the article as requested. For sure, there is no copyright violation - I know that that's an absolut no-go. Regarding your additional remark about my edits here on Wikipedia. I mentioned my professional background as a Digital Consultant on https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Timmrotter: We are working for several corporate clients, mentioned on our webpage rotter-media.com, too. Among them there's the German Banker's Association, too - which has close relations to EFDI. I worked on the German Banker's Association page here, too. It's not only about EFDI. But you are right, I should add the explanation from the German site here on the English version, too. I will do so asap. Thx--Timmrotter (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Melanie, my user page is set-up. Thx again for the hint.

Dear MelanieN, thank you again for your help. I have done the requested editing know, with more external references, without the list and with a short infobox. Hope it has been sufficiently improved now so that it can be published. Would be great if you could have a look. What will be the next steps now? Best, Timm

Dear MelanieN, did you find a minute to have a look at the new version, already? Best, Timm

Dear MelanieN, are you still active here on Wikipedia? Any chance to get the page published now? Best,Timmrotter (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Tim! Sorry, I didn't get your earlier pings because the "ping" function only works if you sign your note with the ~~~~ signature - as you did just now. I'll take a look at the new version and get back to you. --MelanieN (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thx Melanie, Good to know about the ping function. Looking forward to your feedback - best, Timmrotter (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I hate to tell you this, but this article does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for an organization, see WP:ORG. Not even close. You have done your best to follow earlier suggestions and create a workable article, but the most basic requirement is for OUTSIDE coverage - reporting ABOUT this organization by independent sources, such as newspapers - and that coverage apparently just doesn't exist. Without it, there is no way this article will be accepted at Wikipedia. Looking at the references in your draft: #1 is a press release: not independent. #2 is a dead link. #3 is just a registry listing, not coverage. #4 is a dead link. #5 does not mention EFDI. #6 is a press release, not independent. And #7 is a bad link. Is the EFDI just too low-profile to get coverage in actual newspapers? Because without such coverage from independent reliable sources, this is just not going to be accepted, at least not at the English Wikipedia (I don't know about the other language Wikipedias, they have different rules). As WP:ORG says, "If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Wikipedia has criteria for what kind of articles it has here, and the most basic is WP:Notability, which means that other, major, independent sources have taken the subject seriously enough to report on it. If you re-introduce this to the encyclopedia, it will almost certainly get deleted again. And you don't want that to happen; it has been deleted three times already, and if it happens a fourth time, the subject will probably get locked so that it can't get created again. --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Melanie, First of all, apologize for the bad experience with the bad links. Links have to work properly, of course, and be sure: they did when I edited the article. I am going to check that and will research for other kinds of sources to refer to. Thanks for the detailed and helpful feedback. Timmrotter (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Zeb.rolfes.schierenbeck.associates

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Zeb.rolfes.schierenbeck.associates, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
• It is a draft which has not been edited in over six months. (See section G13 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CptViraj (📧) 08:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)