Omni Flames (talk | contribs) →Jordan Schaul: Delete |
|||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
Dear Semartse: I'm just repsonding to the sentiment of much more experienced editors than myself and the comments made by some of the editors above. I would also add that I see numerous biographical articles that have been accepted that rely exclusively or almost exclusively on primary sources (and are tagged as such) and they seem to meet the notability guidelines and have not been proposed for deletion. It seems that you really have a strong desire to delete my page. It seems rather targeted and also coincidentally coincides with concerns about my editing history and it is fairly and perhaps blatantly obvious. I've done my best to be honest, fair and objective and respond to feedback. If you want to use this as an example to punish me and make an example out of me, there is not much I can do about it, but I do appreciate your consideration. Thanks[[User:Jpop73|Jpop73]] ([[User talk:Jpop73|talk]]) 22:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC) |
Dear Semartse: I'm just repsonding to the sentiment of much more experienced editors than myself and the comments made by some of the editors above. I would also add that I see numerous biographical articles that have been accepted that rely exclusively or almost exclusively on primary sources (and are tagged as such) and they seem to meet the notability guidelines and have not been proposed for deletion. It seems that you really have a strong desire to delete my page. It seems rather targeted and also coincidentally coincides with concerns about my editing history and it is fairly and perhaps blatantly obvious. I've done my best to be honest, fair and objective and respond to feedback. If you want to use this as an example to punish me and make an example out of me, there is not much I can do about it, but I do appreciate your consideration. Thanks[[User:Jpop73|Jpop73]] ([[User talk:Jpop73|talk]]) 22:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
* '''Delete''' As clearly lacks notability for an article. [[User:Omni Flames|<span style="color:blue; font-family:Segoe UI; text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #CC4E5C">Omni Flames</span>]] <sup>'''[[User_talk:Omni Flames|<span style="color:#00B88A;">let's talk about it</span>]]'''</sup> 22:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:18, 14 April 2016
- Jordan Schaul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm unable to find any coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The references cited are mainly primary sources written by the subject or biographies on sites where he writes, which are of no use for establishing notability. A long way of meeting the requirements of WP:BIO SmartSE (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as a G4, or failing that just delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I hadn't noticed the previous AFD before nominating this again but have since checked the deleted version and it is substantially different so G4 doesn't apply. SmartSE (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I recovered this 2004 story about the subject at Cleveland Jewish News before realizing it was already cited via HighBeam. At any rate the other link is here, full story for consideration by those without HighBeam access. Brianhe (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy delete if this appears to be a recreated article.Other than some minor TV appearances, does not assert notability. If all else fails, I'd say purge considering it's been created by a COI editor or at least that will set an example to what happen to paid editors. Donnie Park (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- SmartSE said above that this version is "substantially different" from the 2010 version, which means it is not a recreation. The other statement about setting an example is not policy based. Brianhe (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment Dear Editors, I really apologize for creating such concern here and for other pages I have recently created. I have had a blast contributing to Wikipedia and yes, I have been compensated for a few articles recently. I made note of it on the respective pages. I do now regret that I accepted compensation. I didn't realize it would upset the editorial community as it has and I apologize for it. I inquired about compensation in the chat room when some one asked me to create a page, and an editor kindly directed me to how to follow procedure. In addition, I admit that I've made a lot of mistakes since I started contributing both to my own page and to others I have either edited or created, but I have really tried to be as neutral and objective as possible. In some instances, I lost perspective and was corrected. I'm still learning and I use both the chat room and talk pages of other editors to help me navigate around. I was really alarmed by this notice and tonight reached out to an editor who I have been consulting with and this what they responded with when I asked if I could be blocked or banned from editing my own page to avoid any concern:
"jordan Schaul page
Hi, Jpop. I'm not sure, but I believe any editor can voluntarily pledge to topic-ban themselves from editing a particular article. I haven't run across this before, but you might try posting a query outlining your and the other editor's concerns at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. You might also make a case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Schaul (2nd nomination) — and do feel free to mention that you've worked with me over the last year or two on trying to make the article read neutrally and encyclopedically, including with a Criticism section. (Since I've edited the article, I haven't weighed in on the deletion discussion. But I hope these two suggestions help._ --Tenebrae (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)"
With this said, I would gladly topic-ban myself from editing this article or post query as suggested if you all think that would make sense. I would just ask for someone to instruct me on how to do it. I appreciate all your concerns and I don't want to cause any conflict regarding this page or others. I've really enjoyed Wikipedia immensely and hope to get a better understanding of policy. I really like to write in this encyclopedic style, but I realize that I need to pay close attention to guidelines and policies. Thank you for letting me share. I welcome any more feedback either here or on my page. RegardsJpop73 (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
'Dear Editors, Thank you for sharing this proposed deletion debate in other discussions. I hope the editors will adhere to policy based protocols and not take punitive measures because of the fact that I disclosed that I was compensated for creating a few biographies in the recent past. I certainly thought that I was following policy as I mentioned above by disclosing such information.
My biographical entry on the National Geographic website (http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/author/jschaul/) is a fairly current and accurate account of my career as a zoologist and nature writer. However, it does not include my more recent board service to ZooNation (http://zoonation.org/about-us/leadership/) or Nsefu Wildlife Conservation Foundation (http://nsefuwildlife.com/board-of-directors.html) or my board service to the Northwest Autism Foundation. My writings include articles about my colleagues as well as my own conservation projects, including this wood bison project (http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2010/08/12/wood_bison_return_to_alaska_range/).
In addition, I have a verified Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/jordan.schaul/?fref=ts) with 7000 plus followers, which emphasizes my work as a writer. I don't know if a verified social media account in itself establishes notability, but it is not something listed on my Wikipedia profile and so I thought I would share it. Thank you again for letting me contribute to this discussion. I appreciate itJpop73 (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as still nothing to suggest any solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment Dear SwisterTwister, Thank you for your note. With respect, I'm not sure I understand what "solid independent notability" means. As a journalist, including 4 years writing for NAT GEO, I feel that I established independent notability as my articles were featured as front page articles online, but many were cross posted in numerous other publications. According to Wikipedia policy, as I understand, journalists don't neccesssarily get secondary coverage, but they can be deemed notable for their contributions to primary resources.
On another note, I noticed that the first attempt to delete this article was unsuccessful and that was before new references were added and the article was changed and updated. So may I ask what is different this time? Thanks againJpop73 (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- The first attempt to delete this article in 2010 was successful. However, you recreated it. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Dear (talk), My apologies. I just clicked on the link above and it does say that the result was delete. I misunderstood and I apologize. I completely misread the top part. Sorry for the oversightJpop73 (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Dear Editors,
- In reviewing references, I just noticed mention of my IUCN role as a bear expert as mentioned in this quote in Discovery News in the following article, which I forgot I was featured in and not the author of. Again, I'm a journalist, but I do contribute my expertise to media sources, as this example suggests. In addition, my radio interviews include me as a subject as well as the interviewer like a segment I did for Minnesota Public Radio. So I wonder if my dual role may add to confusion. I also write a lot of opinion pieces, which I think are different than straight news: http://news.discovery.com/animals/zoo-animals/bears-cubs-drought-120814.htm Hence, I wonder if my article should be focused more on journalism than on zoology?
- "In arid regions of the Southwest, my concern would be that water associated with human dwellings along with some succulent food resources could draw bears into more populated areas," said Jordan Schaul of the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center and outreach coordinator for the IUCN BSG."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpop73 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 13 April 2016
- @Jpop73: The crucial thing that we require to include a biography is that sources exist that are written about you rather than by you. There are many journalists but only relatively few of them are notable. It is not up to us as editors to judge what you have written or what you have done and decide whether or not it is notable, other reputable independent sources need to have done so. SmartSE (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Again, here is another secondary source that was also noted on the COI page:
"Here is one example of a media outlet, which interviewed me on the future of zoos for Minnesota Public Radio. This a secondary reference, not a primary source, but is just one example that the editors refuse to consider as a source where my expertise on zoos was valued. The coverage was on me as the subject of the interview. http://www.mprnews.org/story/2012/07/12/daily-circuit-future-of-zoos I just don't understand why the editors/administrators who nominated my article for deletion continue to dismiss this kind of information.Jpop73 (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)"Jpop73 (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Smartse, I understand, but I was invited to contribute to relatively notable publications and I'm also a content expert and for example contributed both as an ex officio council member of the International Association for Bear Research & Management and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's Bear Specialist Group. I don't think that I am a typical journalist and if you read the criticisms section on my page, you'll see that although controversial, my opinions were noted and addressed in the articles of others. In addition, some in the editorial community feel that this is retribution for my paid contributions and is not a coincidence, particularly given that I recieved 12 messages in one day stating that my own article and others I created have been proposed for deletion. They further question why my own article was reviewed and accepted a long time ago and suddenly due to to controversy over me following policy over paid contributions, my article is now being proposed for deletion. It seems a little suspicious to myself and others. ThanksJpop73 (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
In addition this was noted by one editor, in support of my argument: "I have strong reason to believe that this suite of articles was written by a well meaning individual. Note that by disclosing the articles he was paid to create, he is following our terms of service More than one article up for deletion is legitimately notable. If it's excessively promotional, take the promotional fluff out. Basically, none of this stuff would be up for deletion if he hadn't FOLLOWED our terms of services and declared the two articles he was paid to create. When I have more time I will be back with further comments, but I hope you all realize that if you AFD articles on notable subjects by someone who created two disclosed paid articles, all you're going to do is ensure that no paid editor discloses, and that's actually doing more active harm to Wikipedia than before we got the damn TOS amendment on paid editing in place in the first place? @WWB, Keilana, and Floquenbeam: - please take a look at these if you have a chance and happen to have more time than I, because I'm in crunch time, but it's a horrible idea to AFD notable subjects written by someone who followed our terms of service by disclosing the two articles he was paid to write. What do you all posting here view as a better situation: people spending hundreds of hours tracking anonymous paid editing groups that take actions to avoid our detection, or someone who has written about legitimately notable subjects without payment following our TOS and disclosing what he was paid to do so they could receive extra scrutiny? This chain of actions is the best way possible to drive good actors off and increase the market for the six Wiki-PR or bigger groups I'm currently aware of. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page 01:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)"
- I'm afraid that you're conflating different issues. This discussion is only about whether or not you are notable and your editing here is irrelevant. I've replied to Kevin at the COI noticeboard which is the place for that discussion. SmartSE (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Semartse: I'm just repsonding to the sentiment of much more experienced editors than myself and the comments made by some of the editors above. I would also add that I see numerous biographical articles that have been accepted that rely exclusively or almost exclusively on primary sources (and are tagged as such) and they seem to meet the notability guidelines and have not been proposed for deletion. It seems that you really have a strong desire to delete my page. It seems rather targeted and also coincidentally coincides with concerns about my editing history and it is fairly and perhaps blatantly obvious. I've done my best to be honest, fair and objective and respond to feedback. If you want to use this as an example to punish me and make an example out of me, there is not much I can do about it, but I do appreciate your consideration. ThanksJpop73 (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete As clearly lacks notability for an article. Omni Flames let's talk about it 22:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)