Joebyday

• Welcome!

Hello, Joebyday, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Beeblebrox (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

James Gillespie's Primary School moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to James Gillespie's Primary School. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Justiyaya 13:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hiya! An article cannot only contain WP:Primary sources and needs to establish notability through significant coverage in reliable, independent and secondary sources. Would love to see you submit the article with those sources, but I don't think it's ready just now Justiyaya 13:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC) (please  mention me on reply)

@Justiyaya: I've been thinking about this exchange for a couple of months and I wanted to take a moment to reply. First, I think that your engagement met the bar for basic politeness, and I don't want to suggest that this wasn't the case. You are an editor; you have been doing this a while; you had the right to act rapidly as you did. You invited me to continue to work and submit my revisions to you.

But: this set of interactions was very demoralising for my kids, to whom I was demonstrating the democratic, decentralised nature of wikipedia editing with a topic they cared about. We were not done building the page! We were actively working on text on paper, drafting it and considering language, before uploading it. I understand that your view was that the page stub we'd created wasn't baked yet, but we were actively baking it, and having it disappear (despite being accurate) mid-process made my kids much less, rather than more, interested in participating in wikipedia in the future.

To be honest, I think the policy should change; I think a longer period of time working in public is appropriate for pages that are accurate and well-sourced before they're declared not notable. But what I wanted you to hear was that your polite, no-nonsense, very rapid and non-participatory decision made wikipedia feel like a castle rather than the open knowledge community I was trying to welcome my kids into, and _that_'s why I think the policy should be to leave truthful pages up for longer. They're much, much less likely to become participants in the community now than they would have otherwise, and they're *exactly* the kind of people that editors should want to spark joy about participation. It's a counter-productive long-term move.

Noteworthiness is important; but unlike lack of sources or ginned-up controversy or false claims, Wikipedia can stand (say) 96 or even 128 hours of non-noteworthiness rather than 8 or 12, if it helps people feel like they are able to participate as first-class citizens while they are stretching their wings.

Do with that what you will (likely, because you're very busy, not too much). Best wishes to you and the rest of the hardworking editors of wikipedia. Joebyday (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Have been a bit busy lately but I'll reply when I have a minute. Thanks for your message Justiyaya 23:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Joebyday, thanks for your detailed message surrounding the draftificaiton. I would certainly help expand the article if I had a chance, but there are a few other policies that come into play after taking a closer look. The article is not well sourced at the time that I found it. The article consisted of one primary source (the school's website) and one government website, neither of which could be considered reliable and significant.

I don't think it is correct to say that I've disappeared the page, the template message at the start of this thread should make very clear where the page has gone: I've moved it to draftspace where you may work on it undisturbed until ready and the template also provides a way to contest that change, by moving the page back.

I'd agree, however, that Wikipedia does sometimes seem like a castle that is unwelcome to newcomers, the task that you chose (creating a new article) is however one of the hardest on Wikipedia. My first article got rejected the first time I submitted it through articles for creation and I haven't really gotten the hang of it until after making at least a few hundred edits.

On the policy side of things, the current policy is for patrollers to wait an hour before requesting deletion or draftifying. The discussion for it was quite a while ago. I'm not sure if asking about it would be a good idea, I think one hour is a good place to be but what you are proposing is quite a significant change to the system right now.

If you'd like to continue writing the article, the first thing to do is to ensure that the subject of the article meets the general notability guidelines. I think you should also review the conflict of interest guidelines if you are related to the school personally. If you are interested in using Wikipedia in a classroom setting for higher education, you might benefit from WikiEdu.

Feel free to write back for advice, thanks for the ping! Justiyaya 06:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)