FromAbilityToNeed

Your submission at Articles for creation: RAAAF (February 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Curb Safe Charmer were:  The comment the reviewer left 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:RAAAF and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, FromAbilityToNeed! Having an article draft 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! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: RAAAF (July 4)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Mcmatter was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi McMatter, I noticed that you rejected my draft for being unambiguously promotional. I contested a speedy deletion and this was granted, but the article still seems to be rejected. At first I did not quite understand why the article was rejected for this reason (also because the first time the article was declined this reason was not mentioned), but through the help desk I was pointed at how at least some of my sentences were not sufficiently neutral. Since then, the discussion in the help desk seems to have moved towards whether or not the topic is notable, instead of whether or not my article is unambiguously promotional (which I certainly do not intend it to be). Could you perhaps take another look or give me some more information with respect to why you think there should never be a Wikipedia article on this topic (which is what I understand rejection to mean)?

I thank you in advance for your response!

FromAbilityToNeed (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I have vacated the rejection, but I would recommend you double check WP:42 and WP:ORGCRIT and resubmit when you feel it meets those criteria. As is I would probably decline it. It still does not have enough coverage to meet the ORGCRIT criteria. Only 2 of the 5 sources even mention RAAAF and there is still some subjective peacock phrasing in the draft. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I am going to work on this before resubmitting. FromAbilityToNeed (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi McMatter, I invite you to take another look. Thank you for the link to WP:ORGCRIT. This I found particularly useful. Amongst other things, I have included as references two scholarly articles in peer reviewed journals that deal rather explicitly with RAAAF (and I took care to check that these articles are not authored by any of the members of RAAAF). With respect to the peacock phrasing, I removed a lot of adjectives and tried to use words that I reckon are more neutral (I removed 'experimental' in 'experimental architects', used the word 'large' instead of 'radical', 'cultural heritage site' instead of 'location of cultural significance' etc.). I hope I am moving in the right direction. Thank you again for your time! FromAbilityToNeed (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:RAAAF

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:RAAAF, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, FromAbilityToNeed. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Draft:RAAAF, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi DoubleGrazing,

May I ask what makes you suspect that I have a CoI? I am certainly interested in RAAAF and their works, but I am not a paid actor, nor am I the owner or a member of RAAAF. (Edit: if I am to continue working on this article and engage in adding sources and discussing the validity of the sources I provide, I do really want to be taken in good faith.) I thank you in advance for taking the time to respond.

Best,

FromAbilityToNeed (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Your entire edit history, both here and on the Dutch Wikipedia, is about RAAAF.

The images you've uploaded to Commons show authorship as User:FromAbilityToNeed|Ronald Rietveld, and you marked them as your 'own work' when uploading.

BR, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, right. Now I understand. Well the images were the property of Ronald Rietveld. And I contacted him to ask if he would be ok with giving up the rights for the image by having it on wikipedia. So I did mention his name there, because it was originally his image. I did not intend to claim I am Ronald Rietveld, as I am definitely not. 62.195.10.124 (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The above message was still me btw, I was just logged out. FromAbilityToNeed (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I see. I don't know what should happen to these images, that being the case. You should not have uploaded them as your own work, that much is clear, but whether they need to be deleted and uploaded by the owner, or can be simply reclassified (once some evidence of the permission has been seen), I'm not sure. I'll raise this on Commons, where folks know much more about copyright than I do.

Going back to the COI question, you've said you're not Rietveld, and you're "not a paid actor, nor [...] the owner or a member of RAAAF". So how would you describe your relationship to RAAAF or Rietveld? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I have the mail in which I ask and am given permission for posting the images (I don't know if I can actually use this as evidence of the permission, as I probably should not divulge mail addresses), but there is a post on the talk page of the wikimedia commons where I bring up an earlier issue with these images, and the respondent says I 'correctly referred to the VRT procedure', see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FromAbilityToNeed#c-LPfi-20230508181800-File%3ARAAAF_-_Bunker_599.jpg).

As for the COI: I am a Dutch philosophy graduate who is interested in RAAAF's art practice for its connection to academic philosophy and I have had some contact with Ronald Rietveld in that context. FromAbilityToNeed (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi DoubleGrazing, I would like to know if you think I can proceed with the article or if the fact that I asked Rietveld to give permission to publish these images is a COI in your opinion? FromAbilityToNeed (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

This will be a longer answer than you may have anticipated!

Firstly, it's not for me to say whether you can proceed. By that I mean, even if I say it's probably okay, someone else may take a different view. That someone could be an administrator, and if they think you have an undisclosed COI, they may block you. And it's always going to be more difficult to get unblocked than to avoid getting blocked in the first place.

Normally I would say that if you've been in contact with the subject, you probably have an actual COI, and certainly have a perceived one. The perceived one is unavoidable, as it looks possible, likely even, to an outsider that some sort of relationship exists between people who communicate to seek and grant permission to use one party's proprietary materials.

Looking at it another way, let's say there is no actual COI, but you declare one all the same. No harm done, nobody is going to penalise you for being overly cautious. All it means is that you cannot publish this article directly, and must instead go through the AfC review process, but you're doing that already anyway. Whereas if an actual COI does exist, and you don't declare it, that's a clear policy violation, and may get you sanctioned. So if you're unsure, I would always advise erring on the side of caution and declaring.

Having said all of that, only you know the true nature of your relationship, if any, and ultimately it is your call how you wish to play this. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your elaborate response! Then I hope that what I said above suffices as declaration of potential COI. To repeat: I am a Dutch philosophy graduate who is interested in RAAAF's art practice for its connection to academic philosophy and I have had some contact with Ronald Rietveld in that context. FromAbilityToNeed (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

With respect to the article then: I wanted to discuss the reason why the article was declined, which came up as well when I submitted it before, namely: "The sources either provide passing or no mention of RAAAF, or they discuss individual works, not the company. For notability per WP:ORGCRIT, we need to see significant coverage, directly of the company, in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources." I thought that the two academic publications that I added after the first time this came up should suffice for notability according to the WP:ORGCRIT. In source #7, for example, RAAAF is explicitly mentioned in the first line of the abstract, not just in reference to a specific work, but with in relation to their art practice with respect to historically burdened heritage.

Furtermore, I noticed that my first reference has been marked with "Failed verification". I do not quite understand why this is, as the source is the offical webpage of the Amsterdam University Medical center. FromAbilityToNeed (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

From memory, ref #7 was the only one that did cover the subject in significant extent. We need "multiple" (usually interpreted as 3+) such sources. If there are others which you believe also provide significant coverage, feel free to flag them up.

The first source wasn't working when I reviewed this, but now is, so I've removed the failed ver'n tag. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Well, I now added two more sources very similar to the original source #7 (which now became #8). The new sources are #6 and #9. Respectively: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1059712321989099 and https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1059712320983041. Regretfully the full articles are not open access, however the abstracts and reference lists are. I now chose these articles because they were written by leading academics in psychology and philosophy. The abstracts already explicitly mention RAAAF as an philosophical art practice (I would say pretty much in the way I summarized it in the article). If needed, there are still many more academic sources. FromAbilityToNeed (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I have access to Sage journals via the Wikipedia library, so can see the full papers, and have checked them out. They do seem to provide significant coverage of RAAAF. I think this draft could be resubmitted now. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you---and thank you for all your comments and help, it was really appreciated. I will resubmit the article then, and we'll see what happens. FromAbilityToNeed (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: RAAAF (November 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 DoubleGrazing was:  The comment the reviewer left 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:RAAAF and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: RAAAF has been accepted

RAAAF, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)