User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2020/May

John Paul Gomez

I'm very late for this, but thanks for creating John Paul Gomez. Even though the page is only three months old, your work is better than 80% of the chess bio pages we have. If you want to create any more or improve articles in Category:Chess grandmasters or any other chess articles, that would be great. Quale (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words Quale. I actually only created that article after seeing Gomez mentioned in De La Salle Green Archers and inquiring about him on WT:CHESS#John Paul Gomez. The advice I received at WT:CHESS was most helpful so I can’t really take all the credit for the article. — Marchjuly (talk) 05:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I've added explicit references to the DVD and its liner notes--satisfied?

Re: Call of the Wild: Dog of the Yukon Someone with my experience should have realized the importance of documenting a source in order to prove that it is sourced. But then, even smart veterans occasionally make dumb rookie mistakes. It's only natural that someone might think that something is OR if the source isn't explicitly mentioned. But my remarks were taken from a "reliable source" all along. But given how many bad actors and inexperienced newbies there are, I guess I should have expected such an oversight would make the powers-that-be assume the worst. But then, it's been a while since I last did a major edit.RobertGustafson (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

You should try and keep all discussion related to this on the article's talk page because that's where any consensus regarding it is going to end up being established. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I simply now compare and contrast the info in the 2 source

Re: Call of the Wild: Dog of the Yukon (Why won't the link work? The text and grammar are correct.)

I now simply say what's in the DVD and what's in the liner notes in a compare-and-contrast format. Since both sources are now referenced, and I'm not explicitly making the clearly deducible inference, there's no chance of any OR, while I still bring the fact to the readers' attention. (It's one thing to speculate; it's another to cite a source that says "There's 2 here, and 2 there", and then argue "there's 4 overall"--figuratively speaking. Simple intellectual "arithmetic" isn't original reasearch. Making an inference when there's a reasonable case for a different conclusion IS. But hopefully, I've played it your way sufficiently. As a logic-minded person, I don't place an overriding value on arguing by authority; that is, if somebody otherwise "reliable" says something, it "must" true, even when it isn't; or that something's only "true" if someone else says so. But encylopedias are about recitation, not logic, right?)— Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertGustafson (talk • contribs) 14:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Robert: Please keep the discussion about this on the article's talk page because article talk pages are where any disagreements about article content should discussed and resolved. I've said as much above; so, please use the article talk page instead. Posting here doesn't help you establish the consensus you're trying to establish because nobody else who might be watching the article or interested in participating in the discussion is most likely going to be watching my user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

My bad! It's my fault for fixating on the central point instead of reading everything you say. I was just trying to make sure that you got my arguments, not knowing if you'd be looking there. But I know better now!— Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertGustafson (talk • contribs) 14:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Notability Assistance

Thank you for your help and links. I'm gathering a number of sources for citation.Crashingdown Man (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're referring to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1059#Notability Assistance. I'm glad you find my reply to your question helpful. Good luck with your draft. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Edits to Charles Hazlewood's page

HI March/July

Thank you for taking the time to respond so fully. I'm afraid it's been a long time since I originally wrote this page and I am now utterly lost in the wiki maze! I have submitted something for review but I have no idea if it is acceptable in the format it is.

Please advise:

I am Charles's wife- i entirely see the point about objectivity but there is no-one else to update the page. The page needs to up and current OR withdrawn (as it is out of date) by this Sunday when Charles will be interviewed on desert island discs. He will be sharing with the listeners the story of his childhood abuse, so we are expecting a lot of interest in him in the coming week.

Obviously 5 weeks is to long to wait for an OK on an edit. Can you suggest the simplest way forward for a dunce like me? (trying to work this out is slightly unravelling me...)

Is the quickest simplest option to delete the page? Can we get something simple up for Sunday, if so how?

Really appreciate your guidance - and sorry for being a tortoise brain.

Kind regards

Henrietta Henri of Wells (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

As Charles’s wife you most certainly would be considered to have a conflict of interest with respect to anything written about him on Wikipedia. Moreover, while your desire to update the article is understandable, Wikipedia’s role is not really to promote your husband’s activities in anyway (even indirectly) and the fact that you’re expecting the article to have more people looking at it due to his recent activity isn’t really of a concern to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia article content is really only intended to reflect what can be verified in reliable sources and often this means that there’s often a lag between the time something happens and any mention of it in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia needs to wait until something has happened and is reported upon before it can be added to an article. In this sense, there are really WP:NODEADLINES when it comes to improving articles and you might find it better and that you have more control over whatever information about your husband that you feel needs to get by using other means like social media or personal websites, etc.

If you have concerns about the content of the article, the thing to do would be to follow the advice given in WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement and WP:COIADVICE by making edit requests on the article’s talk page. You could also try seeking assistance at WP:BLPN and WP:COIN. Please try and remember that all editors are WP:VOLUNTEERs so you may not get immediate responses to any posts you make. There’s not a lot that can be done about such a thing and trying to speed things up on your own might actually not work out in your favor and may unintentionally make it harder for you to achieve your proposed changes. — Marchjuly (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Henri of Wells - I don't have much to add at this point because my reading of both the existing article and your draft was brief and not detailed. I did think, without knowing that you have a conflict of interest, that your draft was non-neutral and was written from the subject's perspective (which is how you should have written it). As User:Marchjuly says, Wikipedia has no deadline to do anything in the next four days. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

In that case it is currently a very inaccurate version Coffee having replaced it with a 2011. We have no interest in using Wiki to promote his work: merely to provide an accurate record. As this is going to take more time than we have. Please advise advise me on how to delete the page. Many thanks

Henri of Wells (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You can find out why pages (particularly Wikipedia articles) are deleted in Wikipedia:Deletion, but this is rarely done so because the subject of an article wants it deleted due to it being outdated. When such request are made, often the response received is WP:PRESERVE and WP:BLPDEL when the subject is deemed to be Wikipedia notable for the article to have been written in the first place. You could try requesting a deletion of the article per WP:BLPREQUESTDEL, but again this is only done when there are really serious issues involved like defamatory content, copyright violations or the article is an attack page, etc. If the problems are so serious and insurmountable that saving the page wouldn't be of any benefit at all to Wikipedia, then an administrator may decide to speedy delete it; in most cases, however, a WP:CONSENSUS reached through WP:COMMUNITY discussion needs to be established for a page to be deleted. Simply being filled with out-dated information is generally not considered the type of problem that cannot be overcome and one that typically warrants deletion.

You can nominate the article for deletion as explained in WP:AFD; a discussion about it will then take place and anyone who's interested in the matter can join in. The Wikipedia notability of the article's subject (since Wikipedia notability or a lack thereof is one of the main reasons for deleting an article) will be assessed and the discussion will be closed when an WP:ADMINISTRATOR feels a consensus has been established to either keep the article or delete it. Arguments made either way will be assessed in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and while some might understand and even sympathize with your husband's situation, ultimately it's going to be what is best from a Wikipedia standpoint that is what is done, and it simply might take more than a few days to figure out what such a thing might be.

After reading some of your comments, it does seem like you might be misunderstanding the purpose of a WP:ARTICLE; it seems like you and your husband only want the article to be deleted because it doesn't (at least not currently) contain the information that you want it to contain. I'm not trying to offend you or your husband in any way by suggesting such a thing because it's something that probably many subjects of articles feel when they read about themselves on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles, however, don't require the permission of their subjects to be created or deleted. My guess is that the editor who created the article felt that your husband was Wikipedia notable enough for an article to be written about him. Perhaps at that time, the article content was more up-to-date and reflective of what was actually going on in your husband's career, but over the years it just wasn't updated. If that's the primary reason you want the page deleted, then you should instead propose changes on the article's talk page using edit requests and give others unconnected with the subject a chance to assess them. If what you propose is supported by what is said about your husband in reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia) and is otherwise in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, then perhaps those reviewing your requests will make the changes you want made; if not, they most likely won't. I can't think of any real way for you to speed things up to achieve the result you seem to want by the time you want it and it's probably going to take a bit of time either way (i.e. improvement or deletion). Maybe the thing to do if you're so concerned about time would be to create your "own" official website (if one doesn't currently exist) for your husband where you'd both would have total control of the information you want others to know about him. You can then direct others to check there for the most recent information about him, and even point out that the Wikipedia article (by no fault of your own is out of date). Perhaps one of the things listed in WP:ALTERNATIVE would work better for you than Wikipedia.

Anyway, I'm not sure if there's anything else I can suggest. I will ask an administrator to take a look at this discussion and perhaps they might be able to suggest something else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank-you, I appreciate your taking the time to explain all this. Indeed we do not need Wiki to promote him in anyway - trust me - less attention would be welcome! And we have a website www.charleshazlewood.com that comes top in google searches so a Wiki page is not necessary to our purposes in any way.

But it is never comfortable for there to be inaccurate information in such a public site on oneself, and then it seemingly to be so hard to alter it is a further challenge. As an early contributor and supporter of Wiki I share the intention that it serve as a dispassionate and accurate source. (I remember directing my 11 year old son to it in the early days when he did a school project on Tibetan refugees, he wrote 'the Tibetans are ungrateful people who don't realise what the Chinese have done for them...!). So I get it.

However, It would be most helpful if the version that was existant prior Coffee's intervention was restored - because it seems an even more outdated version was uploaded then. The restoration of the text as it was on prior to May 21 that would at least take us back to a less inaccurate version. If it were possible to do this the gesture would be much appreciated.

I will now hand this over to someone else to see if they can make better headway than myself.

Thank-you for taking the trouble to guardian Wiki. Kind regards.Henri of Wells (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The best place for you to point out any problems you think there are with the article is going to be at Talk:Charles Hazlewood. Article talk pages are generally the best place to discuss issues related to articles because that is where anyone who is interested in the subject matter is likely going to be watching. So, if there's information in the article that's out of date that you feel needs to be changed, then thing to do do would be to make an edit request explaining why per WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement. There are editors who simply go around trying to help with these requests and making a formal edit request will add the article to a list of outstanding edit requests like Category:Requested edits. Editors helping out with these request most likely work down the list and try to answer them as quickly as possible. You can help move things along by making your request as specific as possible and provide any corroborating reliable sources to aid in verification. It's also often a good idea to not try and request an entire re-writing of an article at once, but rather to break things up a bit and try and improve things gradually. Long walls of text types of requests that try to request too many things at once might be passed over by someone pressed for time, or might only be capable of being partially answered.

As for the edits that Coffee made to the article, please try and assume good faith since Coffee was almost certainly just doing what they thought was best for Wikipedia and was trying to bring the article more in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Articles about living persons, in particular, are subject to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and any content poorly sourced or otherwise deemed to be not really in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines can be removed at any time. Coffee has been around quite a long time and wouldn't have simply removed content just for the sake of removing it. If you really want to know the specific reasons why Coffee removed the content, you could always ask them by posting a question on the article's talk page and then WP:PINGing them or adding a Template:Please see to their user talk page. After looking at Coffee's edit and the content that they removed, I don't really see anything egregious or too unusual about their edit. The fact that they removed content that might've been in the article for a long time, doesn't mean it should've been added in the first place; it could've been added in good faith by someone over the years and simply went unnoticed until an experienced editor like Coffee came along. Regardless, this is the kind of content dispute that is going to best be resolved through article talk page discussion per WP:DR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Henri of Wells, I have an idea for you that might work as a partial solution. Sometimes two or more of Wikipedia's policies can be in conflict with each other in certain circumstances, and it's not always obvious how to proceed. The policies in this case, WP:BLP, WP:Verifiability, and WP:COI. I might be treading on thin ice here, so I'm pinging Marchjuly as well for an additional opinion on this, but in my opnion, Wikipedia's strong policies on biographies of living people give you an opening to violate WP:COI, which might work (and I stress *might*) in the following way:

1. First, read WP:DISCLOSE. Now, go to your User talk page, and create a new section called COI disclosure, and add some text to that section, on the order of: "I have a conflict of interest for any articles relating to Charles Hazlewood", and sign it with four tildes (~~~~). You could add your relationship to the disclosure, if you wish, which might make it stronger, but I don't think it's necessary.
2. Go to the Charles Hazlewood article, and find an assertion of fact that is both:
   • inaccurate, in your opinion, and
   • not followed by a citation (i.e., a bracketed number like this)
3. Edit the Charles Hazlewood article, and delete just that one assertion and nothing more. This might be less than a whole sentence, and might be just a single expression or a word. Don't click any buttons yet.
4. In the Edit summary input field near the bottom of the editing window, paste the following: Remove unsourced content per [[WP:BLPREMOVE]]. See my [[User talk:Henri of Wells#COI disclosure|COI disclosure]]. exactly as shown.
5. Click the Show preview button. Look at the two columns, and make sure you are about to delete only the one assertion that you intended to. Also look at the preview of your Edit summary near the bottom, which should look like this:
   • (Remove unsourced content per WP:BLPREMOVE. See my COI disclosure.)
6. If that all looks good, click the blue PUBLISH CHANGES button.
7. Now, repeat steps 2–6 as many times as necessary, deleting anything that is both unsourced, and inaccurate. It's very important that you don't delete anything during this procedure that is sourced, no matter how certain you are that it is inaccurate. If you have a published source that convincingly demonstrates the inaccuracy of one of the deleted assertions, you could add that to the end of the edit summary for that deletion: just add the url (if it's online) or the title, date, and page number of a book, magazine, or newspaper article right into the edit summary, before you hit PUBLISH. That will make it much harder for someone to undo your deletion.
8. Finally, I would recommend a last, optional step: add a new section to Talk:Charles Hazlewood, entitled, "Edits per BLPREMOVE and COI disclosure" and just say briefly what you are doing, and that you are aware of both WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:COIEDIT, and add a link to the disclosure on your User Talk page.

This procedure is my own opinion, and is based on the fact that Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy is stronger than WP:COI policy, and in particular, that WP:BLPREMOVE, which says, "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced" trumps WP:COIEDIT, which says that you are "strongly discouraged", not that you are "forbidden" from editing articles with which you have a conflict of interest. By adding the edit summary I suggested above, including the disclosure link with every edit, it shows that you are familiar with these two policies, and that in your opinion, you believe your edit contrary to COIEDIT is justified.

This, in my opinion, will grant you some latitude in making these changes. At a very minimum, you could not be sanctioned for them; at worst, they would be reverted by another editor, and you will be no worse off, than you are now. But if you carry this out carefully, and conservatively, and take great care not to delete anything that is followed by a footnote, then you should be okay. (The meaning of "followed by a footnote" might not always be clear—how far away is "followed by"? when in doubt, don't delete.) Feel free to ask questions, if any of this is not clear (please {{reply}} or {{ping}} me if you do), and also to pay attention to any reply that Marchjuly might offer. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: What you’ve posted is true and OK in principle as explained in WP:COIADVICE, WP:BLPSELF and WP:BLPREMOVE in the case of a clear-cut WP:BLP violations and any editor (even those who might have a COI); however, what is considered a BLP violation to the subject of an article and what is considered a BLP violation by the WP:COMMUNITY at large is not always in agreement per WP:CRYBLP. Removing WP:PUFFERY and poorly sourced content isn’t a clear-cut BLP violation even if the subject prefers that such content be re-added to the article and continuing to try and re-add such content isn’t likely going to considered an exemption from the three-revert rule. For sure, clear-cut BLP violations should be removed asap, but it shouldn’t be replaced by other questionably unsourced and otherwise problematic content just because its more up to date. Article content (particularly content cited by reliable sources) isn’t simply removed because it’s no longer current. If there are ways to WP:PRESERVE it while incorporating more recent content, then it seems that is what should be done. Anyway, I’ve looked at the edit made by Coffee that Henri of Wells has taken issue with and I didn’t see anything being re-added that resembles a BLP violation, but you or anyone else may remove such content if you think it is. My suggestion if you do so, however, would be to clarify why on the article’s talk page because simply linking to BLPREMOVE in your edit summary is unlikely to be enough. You might also want to follow up with a post at WP:BLPN to see if others agree with your assessment. Just for reference another editor named Maproom subsequently removed the same content after it was re-added by Henri of Wells, so I would say there’s is no clear-cut agreement that this type of thing falls under BLPREMOVE, and it probably best to discuss things on the talk page instead. — Marchjuly (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Georgii Nelepp edits

Hi, MarchJuly, I read that my recent edit was reverted and would you to reconsider. Let me note that I provided two web addresses that had somehow been deleted, the sites of two Russian documentaries used in the article. Otherwise readers cannot access them.

Following Teahouse instructions, I posted on the article talk page my carefully considered responses to Voceditenore's edits, expecting to be able to discuss them. I have not heard back. My recent edit concerns one of the issues I wanted to discuss, the use of social media sources (#6 in my post). I am not using social media discussions as sources of fact but as expressions of how some Nelepp fans feel about him. I want to describe a change in fan sympathy.

Here's what I wrote earlier: "(6) Deletion of former reference #8, links to social media and forum discussions of Nelepp’s alleged career as a Stalin informant: This is a controversial and important part of his legacy. Both sites (a forum in Kino Theater’s Nelepp entry and a vk.com discussion of Nelepp) contain sympathetic responses to Nelepp even in the KGB context. In the recent Teahouse discussion of Nelepp references, Tenryuu wrote, “social media discussions are not seen as reliable independent sources.” However, I’m not using these discussions as reliable independent sources of fact. I am not weighing them to determine, say, whether Nelepp did indeed work for the KGB. Rather I am invoking the discussions as expressions of fan sentiment, specifically a respect for Nelepp regardless of his possible secretive work for Stalin. Vishnevskaya’s account of the spitting incident presents a characterization of Nelepp as an informant. However, there is a more recent depiction. A blanket prohibition of social media sources regardless of their usage leaves me inaccurately with only Vishnevskaya."

I'm sorry to be trouble, but I really had hoped to contribute to the improvement of the Georgii Nelepp article. Opera Snob (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It's better for you to discuss article content on the relevant article's talk page because it makes it much easier for anyone who's interested in the article or in what's being discussed to participate in the discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I did. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Georgii_Nelepp. I haven't gotten any response to it. I would like to discuss this with Voceditenore. Please advise on how to open the conversation with him/her. S/he has not responded to my post. Can you help? Also, the web addresses of the two Russian documentaries used in the article have been deleted. Readers who want to consult them cannot. Could you put them back? “Георгий Нэлепп - слава и гордость Мариинского и Большого театров/ Georgy Nelepp: Fame and pride of the Mariinsky and Bolshoi theatres” at (Redacted). The other is "Георгий Нэлепп звезда советской оперы/Georgi Nelepp: Soviet Opera Star"at (Redacted). No encyclopedia would give an internet source without a reference. The references stand in the article as it now appears, but the web addresses are missing. I know you're busy and I am very grateful for your help. Opera Snob (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

If you want to discuss things with Voceditenore on the articles talk page, you can try WP:PINGing them to the discussion. You might also try adding Template:Please see or posting a polite message inviting them to the discussion you started. Editors sometimes get WP:BUSY which means they might not respond right away. Other times, they might not respond at all if they just don’t want. All you can do is ask. You can also try seeking assistance on the talk pages of any WikiProjects whose the scope the article falls under. If you go to the very top of the article’s talk page, you’ll usually find the names of the WikiProject’s listed there.

You need to be very careful with adding links to YouTube to articles for the reasons explained in WP:RSPYT, WP:YOUTUBE, WP:ELNEVER, and WP:COPYLINK. Many people who upload content to YouTube do upload their own original creations, but many others upload stuff created by others without the original creators permission to do so. Those YouTube videos you link to appear to be a case of the later and thus links to them cannot be added to any Wikipedia page. (Please don’t add links to them again.) If you’ve seen the documentaries, and feel they qualify as a reliable source, you can do so without providing any links to them. Just follows what’s written in WP:SAYWHERE and WP:CITEHOW and provide as much information as you can about the source. Reliable sources don’t need to be available online; they just need to be published and accessible. If the person(s) who created the documentaries have official websites (or official YouTube channels) and have uploaded the documentaries to their websites, then you probably can link to those websites.

Fan opinions, etc. about the subjects of articles or about what sources cited in support of article content is pretty much always going to be considered user-generated and original research, and thus not acceptable for citing for any purpose on in for Wikipedia articles. If these fans are recognized as “experts’ on Nelepp who have been published in reliable source or treated by reliable source as such, then perhaps their opinions/theories might be relevant and worth mentioning in the article. Whatever opinions common fans or self-proclaimed “experts” may have about Nelepp, however, is not really something worth mentioning in the article. If you’re aware of reliable sources that dispute what Vishnevskaya has gone on record saying, then perhaps you can add content about this disagreement/conflict among reliable sources and cite these other sources in support so as to present both sides of the issue. The other alternative would be to start a discussion about the Vishnevskaya source at WP:RSN or WP:FTN to see whether it’s reliable or WP:UNDUE. You can find a little more information on this thing in WP:INACCURACY. If the Vishnevskaya source is deemed unreliable or undue for Wikipedia’s purposes, any content related to it can possibly be removed. — Marchjuly (talk) 06:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hello! I Just wanted to drop by to thank you for working on some of the ultimate-related pages recently. Your suggestions/edits are helping us learn the finer details of editing and how to improve the pages we are contributing to. We are a small group of mostly new editors collaboratively working to improve the information on these pages and are trying to learn all we can to ensure that we're doing everything correctly. Your comments have been helpful to us. Cheers! Kac266 (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You’re welcome Kac266, but I’m not sure your latest addition to Columbus Pride (ultimate) is really a good thing from a Wikipedia perspective. You seem to be trying to embed a mini-biography about this person into an article about the team. I realize you’re doing this in WP:AGF, but that’s not really what “Notable .... “ sections in Wikipedia articles are intended for.

Such sections are not intended to be places to add short bios about entries who might not otherwise meet WP:BIO. This type of attempt often meets with resistance from other editors with things like WP:WTAF, WP:BIO1E, WP:Namechecking and WP:PSEUDO being commonly cited.

So, if you feel the person meets WP:BIO, WP:NSPORT or some other WP:SNG, then create an article about them (even a stub) and then add that type of bio content to that. The only thing which should really be in the team article is their name and then perhaps a single statement stating why they are “notable” in the context of the team, not bio details about the person itself. Ideally, all of the bio details about the person can then be found by clicking on the link to the article about them; if there’s no such article, then a single statement establishing the connection between the primary subject of the article and the individual entry and why the entry is considered notable to the team supported by a citation to a WP:SECONDARY source is all that really should be done. If you want feedback from others on this try asking at WP:THQ or perhaps the talk pages of concerned WikiProjects. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this feedback, and I believe I understand what you are saying. Would you be able/willing to talk with me a bit further about this? I don't want to impose, so you can say no or let me know if this is better suited for a particular WP and I can take it there, but we seem to be constantly encountering difficulties/guidelines that despite many hours of reading guidelines we are not aware of and this is understandably frustrating when we are trying to do things as correctly as we can, while men's pages in our sport have been up for years with far fewer references and/or only sport-specific references -- to be clear, I'm absolutely not saying that we should do poor work because others have 'gotten away' with it, but the differential amount of pushback is..surprising. We had a few articles - about some of the most objectively notable people in the sport in the past several decades - with quite a few sources, including many that we felt were independent/verifiable/etc. and with some being non-ultimate-specific, sent unilaterally to draft space because 'ultimate isn't notable' and/or because 'sport-specific publications cannot be used towards establishing notability'. The former reason seems pretty off-base; as for the latter, aside from the fact that we do have non-sport-specific references and have since strengthened these further, it doesn't really align with my repeated (but admittedly inexpert) readings of the various major guidelines pages about independent & verifiable sources. That said, if it is demonstrably the case that topic-specific publications do not contribute to establishing notability of subtopics within that topic, I would absolutely appreciate direction to that information, and we of course will accept that and continue working hard to locate and utilize non-sport-related sources, as we have been already regardless.

The reason I describe all that in detail is because we have subsequently felt that it is essentially impossible - and undesirable - for us to create pages for any individuals in our sport, but that it was more reasonable/attainable to flesh out existing team pages that we felt confident about Notability for with some information about major personnel who were particularly important but did not yet have multiple non-sport-specific independent verifiable references discussing them, with the intention of making/moving these into full pages as soon as we were more confident that they would independently meet GNG. We have been focusing on people who have made particularly major contributions to the sport & its development, established themselves at the top of the sport nationally and internationally, etc. - although ultimate doesn't have specific NG (yet?), we felt that this aligned with the spirit of other sports' guidelines while still following GNG for creating separate pages until such time as ultimate does have its own specific guidelines. In other words, we felt it prudent to be conservative about page creation given the pushback some of our pages had received despite our best efforts.

I guess the TL;DR question is - if an individual does not have multiple (independent/verifiable/etc. of course) sources about them from non-sport-specific publications, in our current understanding they cannot meet GNG (is this in fact accurate?) - but if they do not merit their own page, and only their specific contributions to an organization can be noted on that organization's page, then it would seem that a large amount of actually important information will necessarily be excluded? It would seem strange & unwieldy to me to create a Notable personnel list on e.g. USA Ultimate but would that actually be better suited for these types of people who have played on multiple championship national & international teams (Team USA), etc. since those accomplishments are under the umbrella of USAU? Any other constructive thoughts? I appreciate your time and advice if you are able to give it. Thank you, and apologies for my inexperience using Wikitext..

(Sorry, just wanted to add - This text from WP:WTAF - "editors are encouraged to write the article first...don't worry that the article, even if it is just a stub with only a couple of sources, will be exposed to the new pages patrol, which, after all, is much more focused on article improvement than on article deletion" has 100% not been our experience, as a decent number of our new pages, even those which we believe were fairly well-sourced and developed, have been marked for deletion (in two cases PROD by someone with an expressed malicious intent) or sent unilaterally to draft space.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kac266 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The WP:COMMUNITY wants us and encourages us to be WP:BOLD in trying to improve existing articles and trying to create new articles. It understands that mistakes are going to be made and is willing to assume good faith when they are as long as the person making the mistake doesn't keep repeating them over and over again and starts becoming more of a disruption or is otherwise causing problems that the community has to devote time and energy to sorting out. No article is really perfect because if it was, then the page could simply be locked and preserved in said perfect state forever; however, the idea is to keep moving forward and improving things instead of moving backwards and making things worse. As long as you keep trying to do that, you'll should be OK. You might sometimes find that your idea of an improvement is not always shared by others. When that happens the best thing you can do is state your case as best as you can in terms of relevant policies and guidelines, and hope that the WP:CONSENSUS agrees with you. It's not really about WP:WINNING and the very nature of Wikipedia means that sometimes the result is going to end up not being the one you desire; so, often the best thing to do when that happens is to move on to working on other things, at least for the time being.

It's unfortunate but the fact of the matter is that Wikipedia editing is not always a fair fight so to speak. Wikipedia's role is not really to try and fix the world's problems or otherwise balance the unbalanced playing field people often have to deal with in their daily lives. Wikipedia articles are, in principle, really only intended to reflect what real-world reliable sources are saying about their subjects. Some subjects are likely to receive more regular and significant coverage in reliable sources which makes it relatively easier to try and create articles about them; others perhaps not as much which means it's going to be more of a struggle. Because of its high name recognition, many seem to associate being written about on Wikipedia as some kind of great thing, but this is not always necessarily the case and some find out the hard way that they have very little control over the articles they create or that are written about them.

In principle, every subject of an article is expected to meet WP:GNG; in reality, however, things are always so clear cut which is why over the years the community has developed various WP:SNGs to provide guidance when things are a bit gray. Sometimes even these sub-guidelines aren't of much help and things end up being assessed on a case by case basis. When there isn't a specific sub-guideline that covers a particular subject area, the best that the community can do is to move back a step and try to assess things based on next broadest guideline. For NFL players, the discussion may start at WP:GNG, move to WP:BIO, then move to WP:NSPORT and finally end up at WP:NGRIDIRON; for scientists and academics, it may start at WP:GNG, move to WP:BIO and then move to WP:PROF; for companies and organizations, it may start at WP:GNG and then move to WP:NORG. Basically, the assessing of notability tends to start at the widest most broadest definition and then gets narrowed down a bit to whatever subject-specific criteria have been established by the community. These sub-guidelines didn't just appear out of the blue because somebody wanted to start writing articles about certain subjects and was having a hard time meeting WP:GNG; they were basically created by the community through community discussions that most likely started as a proposal that ultimately ended up being endorsed through consensus. Right now, the best the community has to work with in assessing the notability of ultimate players is probably WP:NSPORT, but in some ways that might not be specific enough. So, maybe you should try discussing your concerns or ideas about this at WT:SPORT or WT:SPORTBIO and see what some others think; perhaps you can propose some sort of SNG for ultimate players to help clarify their Wikipedia notability that's a little more specific than those that already exist. Maybe you find others in agreement and a consensus will be established in support of your idea.

If you create an article that is nominated or tagged for deletion, try not to take it personally or automatically assume any malicious intent. The more you assume that the other person acted in good-faith because they are WP:HERE, the more likely others are going to be willing to do the same with respect to you and your edits. Being reverted or having something you created on Wikipedia is the risk each editor agrees to when they click the "Publish changes" button. Not everything I want to write about is probably suitable for Wikipedia and my idea of what's important or relevant might not jive with the opinions of the rest of the community. That doesn't make what I want to write about any less relevant or important in a real sense, it just means that maybe there is a some place other than Wikipedia where it would be better to try and do so. Even though you're not required to do so, often working on drafts and submitting them to WP:AFC for review can really help you get a feel for the reasons why some articles may end up deleted. AfC reviewers typically are quite experienced at assessing things like notability and usually provide suggestions on things they feel need improving when they decline a draft. It's not a 100% guarantee, but it does seem to be that case the drafts upgraded to article status via AfC do seem to have a bit more staying power than those directly added to the WP:MAINSPACE by their creators with any sort of third-party review since AfC reviewers tend to try avoid accepting drafts that they see as likely candidates for deletion. Of course, like anything in life, your mileage may vary a bit based upon the AfC reviewer you decides to assess your draft, but there's no limit place on the number of times you can resubmit a draft for review as long as you keep improving it and avoid simply submitting the same declined version over and over again.

Your account is fairly new and you appear to be somewhat of a WP:SPA; I'm not stating this to try and insult you, but every editor learns about editing on the fly and what they're exposed to is, in a sense, what they allow themselves to be exposed to. So, if you limit yourself to editing a specific type or genre of article, everything you learn about Wikipedia is going to be seen through that particular prism. If you try and expand your Wikipedia horizons a bit, you might find yourself starting to understand why some editors do the things they do. Wikipedia editing doesn't always have to be about creating new articles; it can also involve maintaining and improving existing articles, particularly since there are more than six million of them and many are in need of some attention. You used the word "we" quite a bit to refer to yourself (and perhaps others working with you). It's OK to work with others in trying to improve article and that's why there are WikiProjects and WP:EDITATHONs, etc. The ultimate goal of every editor, however, is to always try as best as they can to be WP:HERE; so, when you start phrasing things in such a way, are a new account without a fairly well-established track record of editing and also appear to be a WP:SPA, others might mistakenly assume WP:APPARENTCOI, WP:UPE or just have a general feeling that you're more here for your own reasons than you are here for Wikipedia.

Anyway, I apologize for the WP:TEXTWALL or if I didn't completely give you the answer you were hoping to get. You can always try places like the Wikipedia Teahouse for general questions or try asking for assistance on the talk pages of WikiProjects which cover subjects that interest you if you have more subject-specific questions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Show me what Wikipedia rule restricts Tea House question

Show me what Wikipedia rule restricts Tea House questions ([1])? I asked about administrator abuse on deletion policy. It's not canvassing. Where is the rule about Tea House? Thanks so much ahead. PoetVeches (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The Teahouse is intended to be a friendly place where editors can ask questions about things related to Wikipedia. That’s the scope of the page and that’s what the hosts try to keep the page focused on. The Teahouse is only meant to be a sort first step to get some basic information on Wikipedia; it’s not really intended to be a place to have long detailed discussions about specific articles or Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia has quite a number of other noticeboards that are much better suited for discussing such things.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by “administrator abuse”, but the place to discuss that would be at WP:ANI; however, before you start a discussion at ANI, I suggest you carefully read through the instructions given at the top of the ANI page as well as Wikipedia:ANI advice because any claims made about other editors are going to be expected to be supported by WP:DIFFs and others are also going to look at your involvement in what’s being discussed when they try and sort things out.

ANI is really intended to be a place to go when all other attempts to resolve a situation have been tried and have not been successful. So, if you haven’t tried discussing things with the other editor first, you should at least try to do that first before going to ANI. The WP:COMMUNITY takes claims like administrator abuse quite seriously, but the community looks at the entire situation and listens to both sides before taking action; it also doesn’t really have a ton of sympathy for unsupported or frivolous claims. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)