User talk:Deepfriedokra/g11

`

Adjusting for biographies

I use this as a template message to educate those whose pages I delete per WP:G11. But it's geared more toward biographies. What catchphrases and content help you recognise a G11 biography? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to track down a mystery colonel so I've not much free time, but let me put some thought into this and i'll come back to it a little later on. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

This looks pretty good just as it is, although I am sure it could be improved further. I look for such things as statements of opinion or adjectives of quality not part of cited quotations, excessive history; mission statements for organizations; lists of partners rather than description of activities; blurbs and testimonials; excess reliance on self-published sources; excessive detail on parts of the subjects bio or history not relevant to the reasons for notability; resume/CV structure; excessive lists of minor publications; and name-dropping, particularly with mentions of celebrities. Probably other things, those spring to mind off-hand. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I use Template:Steps to Article and User:DESiegel/CreateWarn as advice, but those are not designed for cases where pages have been deleted particularly, although they can be used in such cases. You might look at the way I incorporate different guidelines for different types of page in Steps to Article, based on a type parameter. I usually fill these in from User:DESiegel/Tools, a semi-random list of useful links and skeletons. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I would concur with DESiegel; mission statements or "vision" statements are a big tipoff for me. I think you are wise to highlight that promotional does not equate to commercial gain. 331dot (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I increasingly use a very simple signal: in most cases, a professional photograph is indicative of advertising, especially the the copyright statement claims the contributor took it themselves. This is a signal to us, but it is not a reason to give by itself for using G11, because there are circumstances where such photographs are in fact available and the contributor doesn't understand the importance of an accurate copyright explanation. But almost all other indications of promotionalism are ones that might be used vy good fait editors who are writing what they think we want, but which are in fact promotional clichés: awards they won in high school, or student government positions; a paragraph at the end describing hobbies, sometimes expanded into a full section like "they also write poetry..."; names and accomplishments of multiple relatives; statements of being influenced by every famous person in the field; multiple social media locations; names and titles of the dignitary who gave them an award--especially when accompanied by a photo of the ceremony; a long list of places they have been, or notable people they have had some vague association with; and what I personally really detest, an appealing or pathetic description of how they became interested in their field in early childhood, or their socioeconomic difficulties or handicaps.

I do not use a prebuilt form, but I do use keyboard macros for commonly occurring phrases. I often try to include some specifics about the particular claims, indicating I have read the actual article, rather than pure boilerplate generalities. This may sound like work, but with some practice it can be done quite quickly.

There is no single wording that's always appropriate. There are different situations.. The basic difference is between the good faith contributor who is trying to write an honest article, even if that article is describing themselves, and the COI editor who is trying to write promotional material, either for themselves, or for a client, or for someone they admire. The first group of editors needs assistance; the second group needs to be discouraged./ I am not inclined to devote much effort to the person who knows they are writing publicity--all that need be said is that this is an advertisement or advocacy--they know perfectly well what this means, even if they should try to pretend not to. There's an advantage in setting it out in detail, to close off anticipated common loopholes and objections, but I do not worry excessively if the fit is not exact. On the other hand, for the person trying seriously to write an article, but who has been misled about our expectations, the response needs to be individually tailored. It's necessary to explain not only why this is hopeless, but what would be need if they were to try over--indeed, in such a case I am very reluctant to use G11 at all, instead of a draftify or decline, depending on whether its an article or a draft. This is a difficult distinction to make sometimes--I have several times mistaken actual good faith editors at an editathon for paid editors, and these can make me feel quite guilty.

There's also a difference between advertising in the common sense, consisting of a request to purchase or to contribute, and advocacy, which we treat as advertising, but the contributor may not realise. This is so often misunderstood, that I think it's thepriority for dividing up the standard template, or at least always using a wider phrase than "advertising" DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I can agree with muc h of the above. But please note, my user page uses a professional photo of me, one dating from around the time I started editing here. It happens I secured the copyright for other reasons. If I had attempted an autobio here I would probably have used it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I will add that I have seen publishers at conventions such as the MLA offering to take professional-type headshots of attendees; it's just a warning signal, not evidence. DGG ( talk ) 07:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• This needs some tweaking for phrasing. I like the mention of mission statements and visions. I'll add a separate section for a proposed revision of this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Right.

Revision

has been deleted
Hello, Deepfriedokra. Thank you for helping to build Wikipedia-- the world's largest free content encyclopedia. has been deleted as meeting WP:CSD#G11, as it was seen as 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. This article needs to be rewritten from scratch from reliable, third party sources unconnected to the subject.

Information on content and common pitfalls to avoid can be located here and here, however be aware that this is not an exhaustive list. Pages can sometimes avoid these pitfalls and still be seen as an ad copy or unambiguously promotional, particularly if the editor appears to be a paid editor or has some other conflict of interest. Please review these policies, including the FAQ page on organizations to determine if this applies to you.

Common mistakes or beliefs about promotional editing center on the assumption that promotional editing only applies to promotion for commercial gain. Some tags or G11 nominations are met with confusion by creators, particularly if they spend much time reading or creating corporate documents, mission/vision statements, or similar copy for their organization. The frequent exposure to promotional tone may make it difficult to notice non-neutral phrases or styles, as the editor has grown accustomed to seeing it as everyday writing or speech. This can be difficult, but not impossible, to unlearn.

Another common assumption is that the prohibition against promotional editing applies only to businesses or organizations. Anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc. and CV/resumé's are by their nature promotional.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia-- subjects must meet notability guidelines with reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and providing verifiable information. That generally means someone unconnected with the subject needs to have written a great deal about the subject. Please see this page on citing sources. This page has templates you can use in citing your sources. Place the template {{references}} at the bottom of the page, and references cited in the text will appear there. The WP:TEAHOUSE and the new user tutorial can assist with any questions and avoiding these pitfalls.

• I wanted to make some sections a bit more succinct and to avoid bare "links", so to speak. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Summary G11 biography traits

Some or all may apply. Over all tone and impression determines.

• DESiegel

  statements of opinion or adjectives of quality not part of cited quotations, excessive history; mission statements for organizations; lists of partners rather than description of activities; blurbs and testimonials; excess reliance on self-published sources; excessive detail on parts of the subjects bio or history not relevant to the reasons for notability; resume/CV structure; excessive lists of minor publications; and name-dropping, particularly with mentions of celebrities

• DGG

  a professional photograph . . . promotional clichés: awards they won in high school, or student government positions; a paragraph at the end describing hobbies, sometimes expanded into a full section like "they also write poetry..."; names and accomplishments of multiple relatives; statements of being influenced by every famous person in the field; multiple social media locations; names and titles of the dignitary who gave them an award--especially when accompanied by a photo of the ceremony; a long list of places they have been, or notable people they have had some vague association with;... an appealing or pathetic description of how they became interested in their field in early childhood, or their socioeconomic difficulties or handicaps.

dead link

FYI, Information on content and common pitfalls to avoid can be located here and here There is a dead link at the second here. Noticed it in the message you placed on User talk:Newteacher1. – robertsky (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)