User talk:SinisterInklings

Welcome!

Hello, SinisterInklings, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Hammersoft (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Dowdy

Unless you can find some secondary sources that attest to this person's notability such that he would pass a WP:GNG review, it's likely this article will be deleted. I'm finding no news sources that mention him [1]. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Brad Dowdy

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 Brad Dowdy 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 person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it 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 removed 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. Hammersoft (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Dowdy article

As you know, this article was previously speedy deleted for lack of notability [2]. You've recreated this article. There are several problems:

You should be aware that your original creation of the article and this iteration of the article have both violated terms of licensing under which the original content is licensed. The original, as I'm sure you're aware, is located at http://stationery.wiki/index.php?title=Brad_Dowdy. That page is clearly licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0. Even the instructions on the editing window from that wiki state "all contributions to Stationery Wiki are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike". The important part of this that you are missing is the "attribution" part. From the link to the license decription; "Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use." You have failed to do this. Thus, you stand in violation of the license.
The images on the article are all, by default, copyrighted to Brad Dowdy. Checking their sources, I see no indication that these images are available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 you've indicated in your uploads on Commons. Therefore we have a conundrum; if you are not Brad Dowdy, you can not release his rights to these images under the license you have stipulated without his consent. If you are in fact Brad Dowdy (note; I am not asking you if you are), then your writing this article about yourself stands in violation of our Wikipedia:Autobiography guideline, which states "Avoid writing or editing an article about yourself, other than to correct unambiguous errors of fact." If so, your efforts here are self promotion.
While it is apparent you have considered secondary sources, I feel you are not understanding what reliable sources are for our purposes. The sources you have indicated are to blogs, a marketing firm, or barely mention Dowdy in passing. None of these count as reliable sources that support having an article about Brad Dowdy.

I'm going to do a bit more digging, but barring presentation of considerably more relevant secondary sources, I'll be placing this article for deletion at WP:AFD. Please help me; is there something I'm missing that attests to his notability? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the wikipedia page per the attribution mentioned. I am new to creating content on wikipedia and am trying to keep this page as updated and compliant with the rules provided. I am one of the people who also assists on the maintenance of the Brad Dowdy Page on Stationery Wiki. Also, I believe that these images should be available under fair use, no? Do I need to provide a source for them in order to use them on this webpage, even though I am not Brad Dowdy. As for his notability, as there are Wikipedia pages for youtube vloggers, content creators, famous people and organizations, Brad Dowdy is amongst the most notable people within the writing instrument and paraphernalia community. I believe that if there are pages for people that are notable within their own communities, that Brad Dowdy should also be allowed to have an article within this encyclopedia, which promotes educated information about notable people and events within their own niches. I urge you to rethink your deletion placement for this article and to read more into who Mr.Dowdy is. SinisterInklings (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to respond! I truly appreciate it. Many people new to Wikipedia that run into article creation issues just vanish rather than try to work with us. I'm sorry the procedures here are, at times, arcane but it is out of necessity. A smaller wiki such as the stationery wiki does not face the issues we face. To your points;

Since you are not Brad Dowdy, I will have to place the images you uploaded on Commons for deletion as you do not have the right to release those images under the license stipulated. I'm very sorry.
Can we use them under fair use? No, we can't. While fair use law would, in some cases, permit the use of an image of him in other media in the world, here we can not. We have a very strict policy on how non-free images are use. This can be found at WP:NFCC. That policy almost universally forbids the use of non-free images to depict living people, as the presumption is we can find or create free content images of the subject given the subject is alive.
We do not include articles on people because there are articles on other people with similar interests/occupations. Each article must stand on its own merits. See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists for an essay about this topic.
If Brad is notable within his field, then reliable, secondary sources should be able to be found that supports such notability. That is, unless the field is itself obscure/niche and attracts little in the way of notability itself. I can't speak to the pen/stationery world's notability. Instead, I rely on the location of secondary sources that point to his notability. If I pump "Brad Dowdy" into news.google.com, I get...nothing. Doing the same for news on Yahoo, I get...nothing again. This isn't an absolute; it's possible there are reliable, secondary sources out there for him. But, if there's nothing in the news about him it's a pretty good indication he is not notable. Have a look at the general notability guideline. That says in part, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list". We don't have that here. The sources you indicate are largely non-secondary sources, or if secondary are trivial mentions. Let me give you an example; Let's say we had a company, called "Widgets, Inc." and a journalist for a major news outlet wrote an article about a particular product (let's say, gear sprockets) that is made by many companies, including Widgets, Inc., called and talked to John Doe from Widgets, Inc. and then quoted Mr. Doe in an article about gear sprockets. Such an article doesn't make Widgets, Inc. notable, nor does it make John Doe notable. These are trivial mentions. The subject of the article is gear sprockets, not Mr. Doe or his company. Does that help clarify?
You assert he is notable within his community. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. I don't know. I presume you are accurate. But, even if you are accurate, it's meaningless. We have to be able to verify things, and not just go off of what a well-meaning editor tells us. See Wikipedia:Verifiablity. I'm sure you can appreciate that we also get plenty of not so well-meaning editors who come here trying to promote, this, that, or the other person/product. If we can't verify what they say, but accept it as truth anyway, we end up with an encyclopedia that is full of misinformation. We can't allow that. We have to be able to verify things.

I've asked you to give me something to go on to sustain this person's notability. So far, what we have is insufficient. I hope you can help. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed all five images for deletion on Commons. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by SinisterInklings. Please understand, I'm not trying to make things harder for you, but rather trying to ensure we have properly licensed content here (and on Commons). --Hammersoft (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've now added [3] information regarding traffic statistics for the site he runs. This is a clear cut example of using a primary source as a reference, rather than a secondary source. I took a look at a site metrics site which contradicts this, claiming 300k visits in June [4]. Even so, the site traffic to his site doesn't support his own personal notability; it would support notability for the site (which honestly isn't that high, though I've not taken a closer look).

I know this may seem all convoluted, but let's just focus on secondary sources. Do you have any news articles written about Mr. Dowdy that aren't press releases written about him by him or his company? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Brad Dowdy

The article Brad Dowdy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability not established through multiple independent reliable sources per WP:GNG. See also User_talk:SinisterInklings#Brad_Dowdy_article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]