Robertseetzen

Speedy deletion nomination of C2PA

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 C2PA, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be 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. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. 31.183.251.209 (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Content Authenticity Initiative (June 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Stuartyeates was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Content Authenticity Initiative and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Content Authenticity Initiative, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Stuartyeates (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Robertseetzen! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Stuartyeates (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Content Authenticity Initiative has been accepted

Content Authenticity Initiative, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for declaring that you have no conflict of interest. That doesn't mean you can write what you like, you must follow the guidance below:

• you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, logs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company or organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls

• Your text is mostly completely unsourced, and most of the sources you do give are to the organisation itself or related sites, rather than the independent third-party sources we require

• The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:

1. significant coverage in
2. independent,
3. multiple,
4. reliable,
5. secondary sources.

Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability.

• Apart from the near total lack of independent sources, you tell us almost nothing about the association you are writing about. You tell us what organisation are represented, almost as an afterthought, but I have no idea whether C2PA has any headquarters or staff, how it is funded or how it spends its funds. Even its organisational structure is unclear.

• You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.

• Most of your page isn't discussing the organisation at all, rather It's promoting its product, with unsourced or self-sourced claims like Unlike known standards for metadata such as Exif or IPTC, this data is secured against forgery. Manipulation of the metadata and the actual content of a file is still possible, but can be detected with a high degree of certainty due to the use of cryptographic methods. where the source is the organisation, not an independent evaluation. Much of the rest of the text is the same, claims about the provenance metadata sourced to C2PA itself or to nothing at all.

• There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
• You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

I didn't check.

You ask, Do you understand what the C2PA standard is about? I don't claim to be an expert, but I understand the principles. However, I do understand organisations, which is what your article purports to be about.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. If you think you can make this into a proper article with independent sources, either about the organisation or about provenance metadata, let me know and I'll sandbox it for you Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

More

• I deleted the article when I did because it had been tagged for speedy deletion by another editor, and I agreed with the tag. The first line of your text was "The Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) is an association founded in February 2021" which indicates that you are writing about the association, which basically you didn't do. That's why I wrote above If you think you can make this into a proper article with independent sources, either about the organisation or about provenance metadata, let me know and I'll sandbox it for you. Having established your topic in the first sentence, you then proceeded to ignore it and write about the provenance metadata instead, you need to decide what your topic is.

• the comments about url links in text and copyright were just for completeness, I don't believe I accused you of doing either

• You complain your work has gone, when I've made it clear I will sandbox it on request.

• You said As I wrote, the article was almost only a technical description of the open standard created by the C2PA and its members. That's not true, you had multiple value judgements and opinions as to the effectiveness of the provenance metadata, either unsourced or sourced to its originators, you didn't just say how it worked,
• You said . It is completely impossible to write a technical explanation about a technical standard without citing the standard documents. Much of your text wasn't even cited to that, the whole of the Cryptographic verification and most of Evidential value of cryptographic integrity sections are unsourced and appear to be entirely your own views.

• While it's self-evident that you need to source the technical standard (if that's what you meant to write about) as I've said above you shouldn't have commentary. Also, you imply on the one hand that C2PA is important, and on the other hand fail to give independent sources that would surely exist if this really is the best thing since sliced bread Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Robertseetzen

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Robertseetzen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Theroadislong (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)