User talk:Kekki1978/Feedback:Rick Shutter

Please help me with...

I expect to receive compensation from Rick Shutter, a musician, for writing an encyclopedic Wikipedia article about him. Per the recommendation in the Paid editing (guidance essay), I have declared my COI on the COI Noticeboard. I have also declared it in an earlier edit summary for this draft, as required. I have read Wikipedia's policies regarding paid editing, COIs, BLPs, and the Five Pillars, and I have strived to abide by these policies. I invite editors both on the COI Noticeboard and here on the article talk page to review this article and offer feedback. Thank you.

Kekki1978 (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello. Thank you for abiding by the rules, it really does make things easier for everyone. I have glanced at the article and it looks reasonably good. Perhaps a little too promotional, but nothing that can't be fixed. My advice to you is to put {{subst:submit}} at the top of the draft. An wikipedia:Articles for Creation volunteer will review it and either move it to mainspace or give you feedback for improvement. This is the best strategy for editors with COI as it allows the article to be reviewed by a very experienced volunteer following a detailed checklist. The queue for AfC is currently about 3 weeks, so please keep working on the article while it is waiting for review. Good luck, and thank you for contributing. Happy Squirrel (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --Kekki1978 (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

CSD G11 applies to pages that are "exclusively" promotional and would have to be "fundamentally re-written" to become encyclopedic. Regarding the former, this page is not "exclusively" promotional; it contains historical information. Regarding the latter, feedback from the previous commenter states that his opinion is that the page would not need to be "fundamentally re-written" to become encyclopedic.

The subject complies with notability requirements. CSD G11 also states that when this is true, replacing text with a neutral point of view is preferable to speedy deletion.

This page is a draft located in userspace; it is not an encyclopedic article located in namespace. I placed it in userspace in order to request confirmation or dissent as to whether this draft successfully complies with Wikipedia guidelines. It's one thing to communicate an opinion that a draft would qualify for speedy deletion were it to become an article; it seems counterproductive to speedily delete a draft about which an editor is seeking opinions.

If there is more appropriate way (or "space") in which to seek opinions, please let me know.

Thank you. Kekki1978 (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC) [reply ]