This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Black Lives Matter, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Black Lives Matter on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Black Lives MatterWikipedia:WikiProject Black Lives MatterTemplate:WikiProject Black Lives MatterBlack Lives Matter articles
I have restored the tags EAWH removed about notability and added a paid tag per discussion on the creators talk page. It should not be removed until a consensus is reached here as it is very clear that the sources are almost entirely primary or otherwise not indicative of notability. Also pinging ToBeFree, Jimfbleak and Justlettersandnumbers based on the continued and unanswered discussion on the other talk. Praxidicae (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this is now in mainspace? After all the history, warnings and sockpuppetry blocks. Well, I'll wait for the deletion discussion to be closed; let's keep the well-reasoned paid editing concern visible on the article for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you about the notability of the article and the quality of the sources, but that is now a discussion at AfD. Could you please explain the concern about who wrote the article and why when the article currently consists of three sentences, all well-sourced?--EAWH (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other than one single source which I disagree with you about how much of it is substantially about this subject, the rest are either passing mentions, quotes, interviews or written by it's founders. Praxidicae (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, let's save the discussion of notability for the AfD page. I am asking for an explanation of the paid tag for an article that now consists of TWO well-sourced sentences.--EAWH (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the crux of your argument is that "look we can source two sentences!", well...that's not much of an argument. As far as the paid tag, feel free to read the creators talk page. Praxidicae (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You put two tags on this page. The notability tag is being discussed at AfD. That leaves the paid tag. I looked at the edit history, and I understand why there was a concern about the motivations of the initial editor(s) of the page, in its previous versions. However, the page has now been edited by multiple additional editors. I do not understand why the paid tag remains, when the objectivity of the page in its current form, and the motivations of the more recent editors, are not in dispute.--EAWH (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have also removed the unnecessary filler info for its namesake as its doing nothing but WP:COATRACKing it. We know she is notable. This is about "The Sadie Collective" which is named after her but has nothing to do with her directly. Praxidicae (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is far from "unnecessary filler info." It is relevant to the article about the organization. Alexander is far from a household name; having a clause--not even a sentence--introducing her is appropriate. It will not affect the outcome of the AfD. I am adding it back.DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No it makes it appear like it's more notable than it is by hanging your hat on someone else's name when in fact it's actually not relevant to the article since it's covered in her article. The sentence strongly suggests that Sadie Collective would be notable because she was the first to do xyz. It would be like me naming something "The Wikipedia Collection" and putting all the Wikipedia stats in it simply because I chose to name it after Wikipedia. Praxidicae (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EAWH please restore the tags as they were being discussed here and I specifically made a request that they not be removed until a consensus is reached. This is bordering on edit warring. Praxidicae (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, this is leading nowhere. It's okay. The reason given in the edit summary for removing the tag seems to be appropriate. Sockpuppetry and undisclosed connections should not have been rewarded by publishing the article, and the draft should have been deleted without discussion. The page could then have been re-created from scratch by someone uninvolved, resulting in an article that never had paid editing problems in the first place. We have now reached the same goal in a more controversial way. It's too late to complain about how this went. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
