User talk:GeneralNotability/Archives/2019/November

This is an archive of past discussions with User:GeneralNotability. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello Creffet. Some people we think interesting to create an article of an NGO (as there are many other ones here), because the project is really beautifull and this serves to enlarge the knowledge of it (public knowledge is the aim of wikipedia). What do you think interesting to mark this article Draft:The Bodhi Tree Educational Foundation, still in draft, as Speedy Deletion? Draft version means that many people is still worknig on it. Luis7Arroyo (talk • contribs) 00:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Luis7Arroyo, the tone of the page was not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia isn't the place for an "about us" or for the organization to talk about its mission. We need reliable, third-party sources with significant coverage of the organization. Also, if you are affiliated with the organization, it would be best if you just wait for someone unaffiliated to write the article. creffett (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Creffet, please specify where exactly it is said that it is forbidden on wikipedia rules that any organization could be not defined by "its mission", because I think that it is precisely the aim of this site. Moreover, it is known that third party links are needed, and that is why this article it still "Draft". Waiting for third users to link it. Little by little. But if you delete it, there are only roadblocks to the construction of public knowledge. That is why I ask you to please remove the Speedy Deletion tag. Luis7Arroyo (talk • contribs) 00:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Luis7Arroyo, I didn't say an organization isn't defined by its mission, I said that this is not the place for an organization to talk about its mission. While drafts are indeed collaborative, you shouldn't rely on other people to do the work - either the third-party sources exist or they don't. Finally, you say I'm blocking public knowledge; again, if there isn't significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, then the article doesn't belong here. I'm not going to remove the speedy deletion tag, but an administrator will get the final decision about whether or not the page should be speedily deleted. creffett (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello GeneralNotability/Archives/2019,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 840 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

• It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
• It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

• Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
• Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Administrator changes GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran Bureaucrat changes DeltaQuad • Pakaran Interface administrator changes MSGJ

CheckUser changes L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47 Ivanvector DeltaQuad Oversight changes L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

• The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

• A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

16:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I see that you have put this up for deletion as a copyright violation. When I first created this article, some copyright violations were suspected. However, it turns out that the suspicions were erroneous. I forget the exact details. But, it was something like this. I created the article "Clutter family murders". Some of the material for the new Clutter family murders article was taken directly from the article In Cold Blood. Someone suspected that the material was a copyright violation. (They stated that the material for Clutter family murders and for In Cold Blood was copied from some other website. Some other editor looked into it further. They said that it was "reverse copyright". They said that the website in question -- I forget the actual website name -- actually had copied the material from Wikipedia. I would like someone to please remove the "speedy deletion request". I am placing a "help request" tag on the Talk Page for Clutter family murders. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Help desk#Clutter family murders. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro, replied at the help desk entry. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

the headline says all. I recreated the article and I want to know what is wrong with the article. How can I show you the article?

Jicco123 (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Jicco123, I have absolutely no idea what article you're talking about or why you're asking me to look at your version. Perhaps you've confused me with somebody else? ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, ViperSnake151 reported me and he said "Their edits to Mixer have been very questionable" Now I want to show my article. And I want to know what's wrong with the article.

Jicco123 (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Jicco123, that's fine, but I don't really have anything to do with that dispute. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Creffet,

I added a few external links which contained great in-depth interviews of biographical character to different persons. I am sure these interviews would be of great value. However, they got removed due to "inappropriate links" by you. However, under external links it says that "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other article". Would it be better if I chose to use these as references in the Wikipedia article of the persons rather than adding it as a external links? Hope this is the right place to write this.

Methici (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Methici, there's two problems. First, blogs (and other self-published sources) aren't generally considered a reliable source, and in particular, Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people. Second, you appear to have a conflict of interest, since every edit you've made has involved adding links to the same organization's webpage, and per the external links policy you linked, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent. The policy also explicitly mentions that non-profit and for-profit organizations are held to the same standard. creffett (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for the welcome! Bobatealee (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bobatealee: Thank you! Please feel free to leave a note on my talk page (this page) if you have any questions. I hope you enjoy editing here! creffett (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I've declined your A7 of Gregory S. Brown. As someone employed in an academic role by a major university that is, in my thinking, a credible claim of significance. Feel free to ping me or leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I'm not sure I agree with that being a credible claim of significance, but I'll accept your judgment. I feel pretty confident that the subject fails NACADEMIC, so I'll consider taking it to PROD or AfD after I've done a BEFORE search (and double-checked the NACADEMIC rules). creffett (talk) 04:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I do error on the side of keeping for A7. In this case even if the academic piece isn't a CCOS, having at least one book published by an Academic Publisher is definitely a CCOS (and a possible source of notability beyond NACADEMIC). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Renamed user374765hdkfhudj requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Willbb234 on Allied pilots, Hawkeye7 on the defence of Australia and logistics in Indochina, Nick-D on Australian commandos Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports back on a high-profile history symposium

22:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding FamedOnes, see the deleted history of their userpage. Home Lander (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Home Lander, I'll take your word for it. creffett (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi ! -> one or more external links you added to Minicom have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia :

That's why I did not add the information directly to minicom page but rather to my personal Wiki. but this information is hard to find on the internet, when people do not say that it's not possible to have user level configuration or to run as normal user, so I added it here as external link (there's no official website for this too) And from my point of view, it is as relevant as the other links like "11.7 Using minicom and seyon" or "Pitux Minicom Floppy"

Also, I do not understand why you removed my comment about the outdated man page ?

And why did you add a broken link in place of mine ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathael (talk • contribs) 19:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Nathael, per the external links policy, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent - I'm sure your intentions are good, but links to your "tips" site just aren't appropriate for an encyclopedia. We also don't need warnings about the contents of links. As for broken links, I just reverted to the last version, we especially don't like people saying that a link is broken and using that as their excuse to insert a link to their own stuff. Finally, the "using minicom and seyon" link is at least somewhat useful because it's a link to a well-known and respectable publisher, but you're right about the minicom floppy link, that needs to go. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Woo ... First, I did not use the fact that the link is broken as an excuse to add mine. I found a broken link and removed it. You'll notice that I made three different edits, not a single edit. I was working on my wiki and found this broken link while looking for information on the subject while writting my own page.

Then, for the information about outdated information on one link, I thought that the goal was to keep wikipedia accurate. I'll try to get the up-to-date minicom page pushed to a site dedicated to maintaining man pages like http://man7.org/ or The Linux man-pages project (https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/) and update the link once it's done.

And last, as for the link to my own page, OK, I don't know if anyone else will bother to spend time refering to this information, let Google do the job of making it accessible to others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathael (talk • contribs) 11:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on User:Mirishehu/sandbox/Hooray Health & Protection. I do not think that User:Mirishehu/sandbox/Hooray Health & Protection fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because As a plausible draft, this is specifically exempt from WP:CSD#U5. I request that you consider not re-tagging User:Mirishehu/sandbox/Hooray Health & Protection for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Just a friendly heads up on Deva Holding A.S.. I declined your speedy deletion request because there are plenty of claims of importance, which is a lower standard than notability. If the page needs to go, try PROD or AfD.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit to Johns Creek, Georgia. I'm not getting much discussion from other editors at Talk:Johns Creek, Georgia#Government section. If you are able to comment I'd appreciate it. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm just replying to a message I found saying information had been deleted by me, which is not correct. I've never deleted anything from Wikipedia. I don't expect I could have done editing unintentionally, so it must be an error, I did not delete any information about Jack Mingo.

Thank-you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

S.B. Ringgold — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.158.213.153 (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

It was probably done by somebody else using the same IP, common if you're on a shared IP. Don't worry about it. creffett (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Creffett, Honestly I'm an unexperienced new comer here so it will be hard for me to get the point of those rules. I apologize for my fault to bring you unnecessary addtional check and operation, but I wonder whether there to be a safer place to save my articles for future referece or improvement on this website with no regard to so-called Unambiguous advertising or promotion? I didn't expect the articles in my sandbox can easily be deleted with no notification. I mean user sandbox should be personal data, right? I do not refuse the open for admins, but I think users should have more liberty to decide what the content in their sandbox be like. Wish you can understand it's not a easy work for me to retype the article after deletion, leaving me no materials left, twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adachi Sakura (talk • contribs) 14:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Adachi Sakura, advertising isn't appropriate on Wikipedia regardless of where it's posted. You can ask the deleting admin to send you a copy of the article, but the tone of the article is not appropriate and will need a significant rework to not get deleted immediately. creffett (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frank Quitely, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page JLA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Creffett,

I added a disclosure to my userpage as recommended. I'm an independent contractor, not anyone's employee, so feel free to lmk if I got the formatting wrong. Also, when I submitted the article I thought I disclosed my relationship in the talk page. I've never contributed for me so apologies if I missed a step or got anything wrong. I think that the point of view of the article itself is neutral, but will be happy to correct any problem areas in this respect. I also think the organization is of sufficient notability to warrant a page (mainly because it is a division of Gannett). If we need to more forward with another approach, etc., please lmk.

I look forward to hearing from you!

--Jgranden (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Jgranden, thanks for the message. You don't need to say that you're paying yourself - if the money is coming from LOCALiQ, then just say that you're being paid by LOCALiQ (the exact financial relationship doesn't matter, we're just concerned where the money is coming from). From a quick look at the article, the biggest problem is the lack of independent sources. Almost every source on the page is in some way affiliated with LOCALiQ (the company website, a USA Today article, a Gannett shareholder report). The mantra to remember for notability is the general notability guideline: significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Also, notability isn't inherited - having a notable parent doesn't make a subsidiary inherently notable. I'd suggest starting with establishing notability by finding significant external coverage - without that, there's no point in writing an article, since articles about non-notable subjects will never get published. creffett (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

20:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

What is meant by "secondary coverage"? I'd include it in the Deepin Desktop Environment article if I understood what the gentleman who reverted my edits meant. Is it the same as secondary sources? --Deus omnipotens sum (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Deus omnipotens sum, yes - basically, we want articles and such with significant coverage from reliable sources unaffiliated with DDE. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello there Creffett!

I recently constructed an article titled "Mount Vernon (Company)" that was tagged for speedy deletion & then shortly after deleted. I would first like to request that my draft page please be recovered so I can edit it further for review and appeal. I also saw the reasoning for this decision tagged as a violation of Wikipedia rules against Advertising & Self Promotion. I want to make sure that I am appropriately adhering to the guidelines for proper, unbiased reporting on articles. So far I've tried to keep the article as unbiased & objective as possible; give readers an accurate, sourced depiction of the facts regarding company operations, notable achievements in the professional field by our members and company history. Mount Vernon Co is an officially registered LLC based out of Los Angeles that operates in the music industry & like-minded business ventures; and currently has RIAA 5x platinum certified artists/producers running under the label arm as well as strong connections and documented working history with various Record Labels (Atlantic, RocNation, Interscope, Warner Chappell, Republic), Music Publishing Companys & known Public Entities (Artists, Musicians, Designers, ETC). We would like another chance to objectively establish ourselves in the public domain clearly for more people to be properly educated and aware of who we are and what we do. Also as far as having proper direct articles from third party sources. Mount Vernon Co itself is still fairly new in its formation (EST 2017) but the members who comprise the company all have distinguished accolades with legitimate sources to back the information provided. I look forward to hearing back from you, and thank you for your time! Maineywhiles (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Maineywhiles, thanks for the message. I see Jimfbleak left you a message already, but here's my take:

• I'm not an administrator, so I can't recover it for you, you'll have to ask the deleting adminstrator (probably Jimfbleak)
• You appear to have a conflict of interest with the company, and so are discouraged from writing about it.
• If your company isn't the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, then it isn't sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. Please also keep in mind that notability isn't inherited - having notable members doesn't make an organization notable (and vice-versa)
• In short, while I understand that you want to objectively establish [y]ourselves in the public domain..., Wikipedia isn't the right place for that. Our interest is about what other people say about a company, not what the company wants to say about themselves.

^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Creffet,

So firstly, thank you for giving me another chance and supporting my unblock appeal!

I read your comment with regards to "interest in counter-vandalism" and was wondering what I can do to help out with this, I remember participating in something known as "CUVA" but seeing as it's been a while I'm not sure if new information cropped up since then. I also found this tool on my account that helps in rolling back vandal actions labelled as "TW" which I think helped massively back then.

Looking forward to hearing from you. MikeTheEditor104 (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

MikeTheEditor104, welcome back! I wasn't around in 2015, so I can't say for sure, but I'm pretty confident things have changed in the meantime. I think the program you're referring to is WP:CVUA, and I'd recommend taking another run through it as a refresher. I'd offer to mentor you through it, but, uh, I never actually went through it myself, I mostly self-taught. The "TW" tool you see is WP:TWINKLE, and it's a great tool - it gives you a rollback-like capability, the ability to quickly leave welcome and warning messages on user talk pages (so if you see someone vandalizing, you can leave them a vandalism warning). Anyway, if you want to get started, I highly recommend starting out with the recent changes patrol -- it's a good way to catch vandalism early. Again, if you ever have questions while doing these things, you're always welcome to post on my talk page. Probably the most important lesson I've learned on Wikipedia: if you're not sure about something, step back and ask for help, very few things around here are so time-critical that you can't take the time to ask for a second opinion. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, your recent BRFA (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Creffbot) has been approved for a trial. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Xaosflux, thanks! Will review your comments and go through a limited trial when I'm back at my personal computer later today. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

16:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Creffett,

The NARU Academy information page was requested for speedy deletion (and was done as such). The reason cited was A7 regarding no indication of importance. However, the reason why I was providing information on NARU Academy is because of their activism regarding female and overall equality in sports, which was stated in the description I gave about the company. To elaborate on one of the camps provided on the page, the FC Barcelona Girl's Camp was the first female soccer camp offered by the FC Barcelona club team and was very influential for my daughter and her club team. Please, explain how I did not explain the importance of this company and its historical significance to Wikipedia. In addition, if you still feel that the content should not be on Wikipedia as is, I am interested in hearing your suggestions and amending the page.

Thank you.

return 0;

Hi Cameron.Sherry1, thanks for the message. I can't see the page anymore since it's now-deleted, but I most likely tagged it because it didn't establish notability in the Wikipedia way - by showing significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If you can find sources external to the organization which talk about it and its activism, then by all means that's a reasonable claim of significance. You can contact the administrator who deleted the page to get a copy of it if you have sources like that and you'd like to try again. creffett (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Creffett, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)