EL-738

Welcome!

Hello, EL-738, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Alex Vatanka, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Gparyani (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alex Vatanka

The article Alex Vatanka has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Gparyani (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Alex Vatanka

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 Alex Vatanka requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or an organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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. New Media Theorist (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, EL-738. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Ashenai (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Stand alone articles

Hello EL-738, They are not my requirements, they are Wikipedia requirements. We are not a resume hosting service nor personal directory.

We are an encyclopedia where the subjects/articles are topics that independent / third-party reliably published sources have found worthy of covering in a significant manner.

Alex Vatanka appears to be a run-of-the-mill writer/opinionista. I am not seeing coverage of reliably published sources that do not have a connection to him. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that you claim to have the copyright to an obviously professionally shot image of the subject, do you have a conflict of interest that needs to be disclosed? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi!

Thank you for the reply.

I have provided secondary and tertiary references such as books and newspaper. There are substantial sources from reputable (which have internal fact-checking) news and media outlets covering Mr. Vatanka's work. I have gone through all of the reference guidelines and think that I have proved notability, reliability, and neutrality.

From your statement that he's a "run-of-the-mill writer/opinionista", I'm hoping your bias will not overcome your role in helping individuals like myself familiarizing the public with personnel working on issues that are value to society. There is a limited pool of individuals that cover Iran as closely as people like Vatanka. Offering insight to his work allows for public discussion and knowledge. I believe my lack of experience in writing Articles has caused an issue. I haven't taken a neutral stance on the value of the content, because I think this is a great outlet to inform.

Can you please tell me what I'm missing? I've updated the article and gotten rid of some of the garbage and unnecessary stuff, and added more detail as to what this guy does. I learned about him in class, and I tried to look him up, but found no wiki. So I decided to make my first wiki. Thanks in advance for your help.

there seem to be 2 important aspects of this discussion, so I have split the response. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

copyright and / or conflict of interest

So do you have a conflict of interest or is the claim on the upload of the picture (that you own the copyright and therefore have legitimate right to release the image for EVERYONE to use), incorrect? Wikipedia takes WP:COPYRIGHT issues seriously.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Response/copyright

I do not claim a conflict of interest. I tried twice to upload an image and it got taken down. I must have incorrectly selected an option which claimed the picture was mine. I will take down the picture and I apologize about the confusion and integrity of this matter.

notability

The issue is that you have not provided the required content and sources to clearly show that the subject meets the requirements for a stand alone article: that unrelated third parties have found the subject worthy of discussing. The article reads as a typical promotional speakers' introduction.

Wikipedia is not here to fix any "limited pool of individuals" nor serve as a promotional platform to elevate the credentials of an individual or type of scholarship. If third parties have not written about him, or he has has not yet made a significant mark in some other way , then it is premature for Wikipedia to have an article about him. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Response Notability

I don't think this is true, as I have just as much notability depicted as many other living persons that may be lesser-known in Wikipedia's eye. I can happily and gladly provide examples as I have referenced them prior to starting this article. I don't see a consistency in what Wikipedia deems notable and "worthy" across the board.

pointing out that "other stuff is bad too!!!" is always an unconvincing position from which to make a claim. there are over 4,000,000,000 articles and most most dont meet the general content requirements - but that is not a reason to let 4,000,000,001 be non compliant.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

i will repeat the question which must be answered: Which sources, not related to the subject, discuss the subject in a significant way? or alternately Which sources validate that he is a scholar of the type that Wikipedia finds worthy of having an article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I have provided scholarly articles that he has written, and here are a couple of examples where he has been cited: - https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/-the-shiites-of-pakistan-a-minority-under-siege_094955419328.pdf - Kytömäki, Elli, and Valerie Yankey-Wayne. "Five Years of Implementing the United Nations Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons." (2006). I can provide all the papers he's been cited in worthy papers throughout eu and usa.

people write scholarly articles all the time. that doesnt mean they meet the requirements for a Wikipedia article. Which sources, not related to the subject, discuss the subject in a significant way? or alternately Which sources validate that he is a scholar of the type that Wikipedia finds worthy of having an article? --- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your rationale doesn't add up. If he has been cited in scholarly articles about subject matters in which the individual at hand does extensive research on, how does that not give credibility? It seems like you want someone to have written an autobiography on him for Vatanka to be Wikipedia notable. This is ludicrous. From going through your user page, it seems as though there have been multiple warning signaled to you by Wikipedia for unfair and inaccurate edits. I'm not sure if I'm making my case to the right personnel here.

you can choose to not listen to me and the policies that i have linked to you, but when the article gets deleted because it doesn't meet the criteria dont say you were not warned. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You can see that I have done what you have asked, but there has been no help or guidance, even though I have provided all that is needed for notability. If I need to rewrite it in a different manner, please advise me. I appreciate your help and warnings, I hope you understand that.

As i have been advising you, you need to write it so that it demonstrates that the subject has been discussed in a significant manner by third parties or that the subject meets the special criteria for academics (or even perhaps the special criteria for entertainers) . without that, the article will be taken to the articles for deletion and will be deleted. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I will work on the revision shortly. I have school work at the moment. Thanks again!

RedPen, would this be a good example to go off of? I'm looking through people who work on Iran issues and trying to find good examples: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Rosen

From an organization and format, Nir_Rosen is bad. Good articles don't have "controversy" sections and we use big people words like "and" not "&". Our overall coverage of journalists is pretty abyssal. As a "reasonable more than stub" Doris Jean Austin would be model. The content is almost entirely based on third parties, and the organization is reasonable for the content presented and likely would work for most journalists. Since we build the articles based on what third parties say about the subject, its pretty hard to say what "a good article about X " will look like until you know what the sources have to offer.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

For people, the body of an article will generally be : where and when they were born, what their parents did, where they got their education. Then it will expand on what they have done that has made people think they are worthy of discussing. And then some evalutory placement of their work in the context of the world/other professionals. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, excellent. Thank you very much. I would rewrite this article when a get a chance shortly. That example you provided was great. Thanks.

Hi RedPen! I updated the wiki page. I found a third party article in which someone wrote about him being an election monitor in Kazakhstan, and then I included names of an academician and professor who reviewed his book. From the search, the reviews were done by the editor I.B. Tauris.