User talk:Adamafsar

This is Adamafsar's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (October 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

no independent sources?

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Adamafsar/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Adamafsar/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adamafsar! Having an article 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! Theroadislong (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (October 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Robert McClenon were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Mind Allies, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please do not submit multiple copies of drafts. It does not increase the likelihood that one of them will be accepted into article space, and annoys the reviewers. It is likely to be seen as an effort to game the system, and may result in the drafts being nominated for deletion. This draft is written from the viewpoint of the company, focusing on what the company says about itself. Corporate notability is based on what independent reliable sources have written about the company.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Adamafsar/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Adamafsar/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Adamafsar/sandbox

Hello, Adamafsar. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Mind Allies

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 Mind Allies 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 company, corporation or organization that does not credibly 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 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. MB 03:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi McMatter,

I apologies for that. I only saw the T&C after which stated for me to not remove that. I will leave this there.

Again sorry for inconvenience Adamafsar (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have already submitted a content, do I need to submit another? Adamafsar (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no it is still there and the deleting admin should read it before they assess the deletion. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. I have attached as much as credible sources to my knowledge. I do feel that this article should remain as it brings exposure on the deadly topic and tackles the silent killer we are facing today and can help many people including myself to find the right support when we hit rock bottom.

I do ask that many factors are taken into consideration Adamafsar (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As another note, articles need to have references that are not connected to the subject to prove that it is considered notable for Wikipedia. So if someone else has written about it in detail in a reliable source then you need to use those to help your case that it is worth inclusion in the encyclopedia. We don't include something just because it does good things. Please check WP:ORGDEPTH for more info. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about the members such as NSPA? Doesn’t that count? No one could just sign up and write stuff on it. It is a body that is regulated by department of health and is something that they publish on their website along with a bio on the company Adamafsar (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since they are a part of the NSPA it cannot be used to establish notability since it is not independent, has any newspaper or magazine taken time to write about the group? This would be what we would be looking for. A real simple notability check is has anyone outside of the circle of the group noticed and taken the time to publish detailed information about them. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

Hello Adamafsar. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Adamafsar. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Adamafsar|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. GSS ^💬 04:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm this is not a paid work. I am someone who basically received support from the organisation that basically saved my life when I was rock bottom. I was surprised they didn’t have a Wikipedia page as it would help many people. So I decided to create one. It is my first time doing so, so I do apologies if I’m not playing by the books as I am unaware.

However, I most certainly feel if information of mental health organisations like these small ones are out there, then more lives can be saved Adamafsar (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t volunteer or provide any mental health support, but I can help others find support much sooner Adamafsar (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Pinging GSS so they see the message above. Thank you for declaring that you have no conflict of interest, but hat doesn't mean you can write what you like, you must follow the guidance below:

you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, logs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company or organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls. Most of your refs are the organisation or its affiliates, not independent third-party sources.
The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:

significant coverage in
independent,
multiple,
reliable,
secondary sources.

Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability. You say nothing about number of employees, income or expenditure, or outcomes. it's just what they claim to do.

You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews. You present what they claim as real facts, but there s no independent assessment to support their claims, and how is going the extra mile to try to save a life a fact
There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.

I can see that this is a worthy organisation and is probably notable, and that it means a lot to you. However, we need real facts rather than what amounts to a fan page sourced to the organisation itself. Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. I hope this helps Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim,

Thanks for the information. I will wait some time before I look to publish, I will try to gather as much as reliable source, information and will change the tone of the content.

Sorry for inconvenience, thanks for the advice. Is it possible to get the page back but as a draft to work on? Adamafsar (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]