User talk:IJslayer

Welcome!

Hello, IJslayer, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Weekly Challenger

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 The Weekly Challenger, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
• It appears to be a clear copyright infringement of http://theweeklychallenger.com/about/history-and-legacy/. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

  If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. However, even if you use one of these processes to release copyrighted material to Wikipedia, it still needs to comply with the other policies and guidelines to be eligible for inclusion. If you would like any assistance with this, you can ask a question at the help desk.

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. Praxidicae (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Copyright

Hello, I received a notification that you had posted material that was taken verbatim from content that had previously been published elsewhere to your article. This is seen as a copyright issue and plagiarism, even if you were to include the original source as a citation. Always be careful when writing article content - a good way to avoid doing this is to take notes while reading and write your article from those notes.

Unless the material is explicitly marked as falling into the public domain or was released under a compatible Creative Commons license, it should be assumed that the content is copyrighted in a way that would prohibit it from being used verbatim elsewhere. It's always best to write things in your own words, as this can help prevent issues like this from arising. I would like for you to review the module on plagiarism and copyright, thanks. --Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft

I've moved the article back to your userspace (User:IJjslayer/sandboxforfinaldraft) and removed the copyrighted material, however there are still several issues to address before this could be moved back. I'll go over them here.

• The first issue is neutrality. There are words and phrases here that come across as non-neutral, which can also make the content seem promotional. This was also exacerbated by the use of copyrighted text, as the material was written in order to promote the newspaper - something that's fine elsewhere and even encouraged, but it would still violate Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines.For example, here's some of the content you have:

They are based out of Pinellas County and commit to bringing the community news that the bigger news papers do not cover. The Weekly Challenger has had a huge impact on bringing the community news about the African American community, as well as news the main newspapers don’t cover. Many people feel this news is more interesting and more relevant to personal life. It keeps the community together and keeps everyone on the same page.

In this you cite the same thing twice, but in different wording: that the paper covers news that the bigger newspapers don't cover. Definitely try to avoid redundancy. It's also a claim that could be disputed, so it's very important to attribute this claim to a specific source, which will also help it seem like less of an opinion or non-neutral statement. Something like "According to..." or "state that they..."

The claims of the WC having a big impact, people feeling that it is more interesting and relevant, and keeping the community together and informed are all written like a personal opinion and aren't backed up with any sourcing, which is very important. Just like with the other note, this is content that must be sourced and if these claims have been made, they should absolutely be attributed. If it's the newspaper making these claims, be very careful and selective about what you include - it's best to only include a few of their claims and to more rely on what is said about them in independent and reliable sources.

• The second issue is copyright, which I've covered in a separate message.

• The third issue is sourcing - you predominantly used primary sources for the article. These are fine for backing up basic details, but you also need multiple independent, secondary reliable sources to establish how the newspaper is notable. Something like this is OK, but you'll need more independent and reliable sources to really be able to establish notability.

I hope this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)