Template:Did you know nominations/Bell Let's Talk
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Article has a number of templates on it indicating issues with it, which appear to be appropriate (far too much detail and reliance on primary sources, for example); closing as unsuccessful.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Bell Let's Talk
[edit]
Bell Let's Talk logo
- ... that #BellLetsTalk, the hashtag for Bell Canada's mental health awareness campaign Bell Let's Talk "was the most used Canadian hashtag of 2018 on Twitter"? Source: Twitter: https://blog.twitter.com/en_ca/topics/insights/2018/Canadian_Twitter_brand_campaigns_2018.html
- ALT1:... that during its Bell Let's Talk campaign, Bell Canada donates 5 cents to mental health initiatives for every use of the hashtag #BellLetsTalk? Source: USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2019/01/30/what-bellletstalk-mental-health-campaign-raise-awareness/2721505002/
5x expanded by Kae14 (talk). Nominated by Jaobar (talk) at 01:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC).
Tagged with {{self-published}} for almost a month now. Daniel Case (talk) 07:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Dear Daniel Case, thank you for this comment. The flag is unjustified, as many of the citations are not from self-published sources. The initiative is contentious as discussed here: Talk:Bell_Let's_Talk#Removing_self-published_flag. I have removed the flag. I should add that I've restored a considerable amount of content that was removed without justification the other day. Again, evidence that this particular topic is contentious. --Jaobar (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Daniel Case, I'm about to leave some comments on the talk page, and I'm going to tag the page with a COI template, a sourcing template, and a promotional template. I strongly suggest no one consider putting this on the front page. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Drmies: As long as the tags are on the pages, it won't happen. Daniel Case (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jaobar: I will give you a week to address Drmies's and Daniel Case's concerns; if you are unable to do so, this will be marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Nominator has been unable to respond to pings to address the issues. Marking for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Dear Narutolovehinata5, thank you for your note. Unfortunately, Drmies and I have not reached agreement in terms of the issues raised. If all that is required to move DYK forward is the removing of the flag, I would support that. It remains unclear to me how a local image added to the commons = conflict of interest. It is also unclear to me how commentary about local university initiatives in the context of a broader organizational campaign is equivalent to promotion or marketing. These seem to be considerable overstatements. I can note this on the talk page for the article, but I am sure the disagreement will continue. What do you recommend? Best, --Jaobar (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, since this, with its re-insertion of trivial, self-sourced, primarily sourced, and promotional material, nothing has happened. I don't see where you tried to improve the article or the sourcing, for instance, or put forward an effort on the talk page to improve the article. So the last notes you left were edit summaries and talk page comments about BITE and violations of AGF and all that; no wonder we haven't reached agreement. Oh, I'm accused of being uncivil too. I'll repeat what I said on the talk page--"-I do know that you are employed by York U, and that a significant chunk of the non-noteworthy and promotional content in the article relates to York". So that I would base the COI tag on a Commons image is not true; what is true is that the Commons image (File:YU Lets Talk Wall.jpg) looks, to me, like an expression of COI. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Dear Drmies, thank you for your comment. I say again, I am not the individual who edited the article or the individual who added the picture to the commons. I did nominate the article for DYK, on behalf of a student who 5X expanded the article for a class assignment. COI has a clear and negative connotation, which is not appropriate in the current context. Its use here, as an argument-ender, is the reason I have suggested violation of Wikipedia conduct policy. --Jaobar (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, since this, with its re-insertion of trivial, self-sourced, primarily sourced, and promotional material, nothing has happened. I don't see where you tried to improve the article or the sourcing, for instance, or put forward an effort on the talk page to improve the article. So the last notes you left were edit summaries and talk page comments about BITE and violations of AGF and all that; no wonder we haven't reached agreement. Oh, I'm accused of being uncivil too. I'll repeat what I said on the talk page--"-I do know that you are employed by York U, and that a significant chunk of the non-noteworthy and promotional content in the article relates to York". So that I would base the COI tag on a Commons image is not true; what is true is that the Commons image (File:YU Lets Talk Wall.jpg) looks, to me, like an expression of COI. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Dear Narutolovehinata5, thank you for your note. Unfortunately, Drmies and I have not reached agreement in terms of the issues raised. If all that is required to move DYK forward is the removing of the flag, I would support that. It remains unclear to me how a local image added to the commons = conflict of interest. It is also unclear to me how commentary about local university initiatives in the context of a broader organizational campaign is equivalent to promotion or marketing. These seem to be considerable overstatements. I can note this on the talk page for the article, but I am sure the disagreement will continue. What do you recommend? Best, --Jaobar (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
