User talk:Jmjosh90/Archive 1/Archives/2023/January

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jmjosh90. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Reply

Hi and welcome.
Since the article was bad enough to be speedied even as a draft, I think there is some groundwork to be done before effectively recreating as another draft.

I note that you are a student at BYU. If you have a conflict of interest , you must declare it. If you work directly or indirectly for an organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. If you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, 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:Jmjosh90. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Jmjosh90/Archive 1/Archives/2023|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message. Also read the following regarding writing an article:

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

It worries me that your draft talks about media mentions. That isn't the same as an independent third-party source. Most of your sources are either affiliated with the church or organisations close to it, except one that doesn't mention Justserve, but in any case they are quoting people working on behalf of the organisation or organisation news releases. For example, the claim JustServe facilitated efforts to collect food and supplies sent to people affected by the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is sourced to a senior church official and a Justserve press release. The rest are much the same, the organisation and its leaders praising themselves.

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.

The organisation appears to have no headquarters, employees, management, income or expenditure. Where are any real facts to show notability?

You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.

This is a classic promo — bit of history, "this is what we do", no real facts
The list of projects is basically a self-serving list of "ccordinated", "facilitated", again with no real facts. For example JustServe coordinated the construction of a lanai for the Women’s Community Correctional Center is in Hawaii How much did they spend? How many employees/volunteers were involved? How did they coordinate the project?

There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

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.

If you have a conflict of interest, you must disclose the nature of that COI. You also need, I think, how you intend to find proper sources and real facts, the article as it stands has no legs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Jimfbleak thanks for responding to me. I am not a paid Wikipedia editor for Brigham Young University or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am an employee of Brigham Young University and a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. After doing some reading in the help files, it looks like I have an apparent COI with the Just Serve organization, but only as it relates to the organization's ties to the Church or the University. I have never been compensated monetarily or otherwise for anything related to the Just Serve organization including but not limited to being asked to write or paid to write on Wikipedia about the organization. However now after going through several news articles more carefully, I realize that the organization is run almost exclusively by members of the church. Is that enough to have to declare a COI?

Regardless of my personal COI, that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't notable enough to be a separate article from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the way that LDS Philanthropies is. Right?

For the Just Serve article I went mining through google news for references from established news organizations which for events usually bears fruit in the form of relaible sources, but I guess it's a little bit harder than that with organizations.

So after re-considering the criteria checking again I found these articles which according to my judgement establish notability.

These articles definitely seem to meet the 5 criteria:

These articles make brief mentions of the organization as a service opportunity aggregator but are from more well-known media outlets:

And these articles establish the types of activities the organization sponsors:

Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding the criteria for notability as far as it relates to organizations and thanks for all your help.

Jmjosh90 17:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

What you have said regarding COI is pretty much what I assumed, otherwise you would have been blocked outright. Just being a member of an organisation is a different kettle of fish from being an employee or official, and it could be notable independently of the church. We have a bit of a problem in that we appear to be about 7-8 time zones apart, so I'm just preparing to knock off for the evening. I'll respond properly tomorrow . Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven't checked all of the refs, and a couple are blocked here, but prnewswire.com is not an acceptable source. Forbes can be OK, but you need to check whether it is just posting what the organisation says. These two sites are highlighted by a script I use, so they are bound to be picked up by reviewers. stgeorgeutah.com seems to be just a promo for the organisation. If you are easily finding refs, it is likely that they won't all be worthwhile. What you need is independent sources with real facts. In the refs I checked, I diodn't see anything about staffingm, income or expenditure, which I would have thought was pretty basic. It's OK if necessary to use the organisation as a source for that, so if LDS say we fund this organisation $x per year, it spends $y dollars, and we have z paid staff running it, that's good. From your first draft, the whole thing could have been run by two people in a bedroom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)