EMS1508

Hello, EMS1508, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Un assiolo (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Getting started

• Introduction
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Intuitive guide to Wikipedia

Finding your way around

• Table of contents
• Directories and indexes
• Department directory

Editing articles

• How to develop an article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help

• Frequently asked questions
• Cheatsheet
• Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
• The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
• Help pages
• Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

• Community Portal
• Join a WikiProject
• Follow Wikipedia etiquette
• Practice civility
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Un assiolo (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your user page may not meet Wikipedia's user page guidelines. It is intended for basic information about yourself, your interests and goals as they relate to editing Wikipedia, as well as disclosures of conflicts of interest and paid editing. Although a lot of freedom is allowed in personalizing your user page, it is not:

• an encyclopedia article (and should not be styled to look like one)
• a workspace for a draft article
• a personal website, blog, or social media site
• a space for self-promotion or other advertising
• a CV, resumé or lengthy autobiography

The user page guidelines have additional information on what is and what is not considered acceptable content. Please use your user sandbox or the draft article space to practice editing or to create new articles. You already have a draft article, Draft:World Climate Foundation. Please focus your efforts there. In the meantime, I have restored your original (and properly done) disclosure of paid editing. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Article style

I have fixed a number of mistakes in your draft article, Draft:World Climate Foundation. These were mainly syntax errors with the references that kept them from being formatted properly. Please see Help:Footnotes for further guidance on how to format these properly.

I also changed some other things to align it with Wikipedia's manual of style, which is used for a consistent appearance:

• references are placed after punctuation marks
• section headings are given level 2 syntax by default (e.g. == Heading ==)
• section headings are written in sentence case

You can see more about the manual of style in the introductory guide Help:Introduction to the Manual of Style/1. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Drm310, really appreciate the fixes and tips! EMS1508 (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have a hunch that your draft will be declined, though, for a few reasons:

1. We require an organization to meet the notability criteria for organizations to merit inclusion. This requires you to demonstrate that the organization has already received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization itself.
2. Wikipedia heavily favours sources with established reputations for fact-checking and editorial oversight. This would include mainstream news organizations, academic press, and reputable publishers of newspapers, books and magazines. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources has a list of commonly-discussed sources and evaluations of their reliability.
3. Citing the organization's own website is a primary source. While primary sources can be used sparingly to verify basic facts and figures, they will not count towards establishing notability. This is true with any self-published source that lacks independence from the organization.
4. Interviews with the organization's personnel are also considered primary sources. For the same reason, they won't count towards notability.
5. Press releases are considered self-published and often promotional, so expect that to be challenged.
6. Social media sources are also considered self-published sources, because they almost always lack editorial oversight. They are often rejected outright, unless it is the official account of an existing reliable source.

--Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I suspected as much, but thought the coverage in places like Reuters, IPE, Ritzau might meet that criteria.

To be honest, I just had to get this submitted to get the CEO off my back so I can't say I'm going to be personally crestfallen if it gets declined. I'm only doing some temporary part-time work for this organisation so it's very much their problem after that. EMS1508 (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that you, but probably more importantly the CEO, needs to read the essay entitled "Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia". Some corporate high-ups feel that their company is entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because the company exists, and then get very indignant when they find out that it is not true. Of course, every business is going to think that they are great and important, but Wikipedia isn't interested in what companies say about themselves. We're interested in what other independent sources have chosen to publish about the company without any sort of inducement.

Maybe the outside sources you used will be enough to pass the notability threshold, but I will leave that up to the reviewer's judgement. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I should mention that while your draft article is awaiting review, you are free to continue editing and improving it. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Drm310, appreciate that and will keep the article in my back pocket.

I did notice however that this one managed to get the all clear, when it is a very similar organisation but there are fewer independent sources than I've provided, and more examples of flower self-promotional language: European Climate Foundation - Wikipedia.

Is this just an oversight or is the fact that it's led by Laurence Tubiana that main reason it has been approved? EMS1508 (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)