Editing Eurovision Wiki:Teahouse (section)

== Working the process... ==

{{Courtesy link|Draft:Jim Carroll (futurist)}}

Hi folks, I'm an author.I've written 43 books - 34 of them in the 1990s that have sold over 1 million copies, all about the Internet; one was #1 in two major national newspapers in Canada. I have literally hundreds of press clippings related tom the books that came from my publisher's clipping service (Prentice Hall) that relate to the stories of the books, and which feature information on everything I was doing and saying the media through the 90s. From there, I segued into that into a new role from 2001 on, and I've spoken at hundreds of conferences all over the world, including some very high profile events. There have been TV interviews, magazine interviews, conference brochures, and all kinds of information online about these events, my observations on the world, interviews ... again, I have hundreds of items. I've hosted multiple national radio shows. I've been an expert witness in various litigations where the court record identifies me and my role within the case documents that are available online. I worked hard to create an article, and noted my conflict of interest in my ID. My first subvmission was declined and I have just reworked it to bring it down to bare minimums. I guess I am wondering - I am trying to go about this in a way that provides proof-of-work, but how can this be done when so much has disappeared into link-rot and is often only available with what I have. I can link much of it to a Proquest ID or a copy I've uploaded to the Internet archive, but I've been warned this could result in a copyright strike. I'm trying to work within the process, but am still very confused about the process. (There was an article with respect to my background up to 2015, but it was taken down for being too vague, link rot, promotional, etc) [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-15414-15|&#126;2026-15414-15]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-15414-15|talk]]) 13:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

:A lot of people come here and say the same thing. But as an author, you'll know you often have to meet the style for a particular publication. I've marked up your draft to show you what needs changing to achieve an encyclopedic tone and to remove puffery and promotional material. But you'll also need to convert your table of publications to a bullet pointed list, suggest Chicago ADA style biblio references with your names first etc. However, I didn't even look for SIG COV which is the only way the draft will qualify for a Wikipedia article. Refer [[WP:42]]. I'm happy to look after you've made the changes I suggest. It'll be a bit stilted so you can introduce wording to make it flow (but avoid superlatives). [[User:Mmemaigret|MmeMaigret]] ([[User talk:Mmemaigret|talk]]) 13:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:You are allowed to create your own article on Wikipedia, and you have successfully declared your CoI in the header. As editor MmmeMaigret has already done, this article has uncited statements such as ''"known for his early work on the Canadian internet".'' The article also contains a lot of signs of [[Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing#Promotional and advertisement-like language|LLM writing]], such as the repeated lists of publications that the author has been named in. We expressly forbid LLMs to write entire articles on Wikipedia. 
:Don't let this discourage you, though! Sometimes we all make mistakes and what's important is that you learn from them. It's okay, we're not mad. If you can shape up your draft it is likely it would be accepted. [[User:Emholt1|Ethan (Emholt1)   :)]] ([[User talk:Emholt1|talk]]) 13:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:Hello, @[[User:~2026-15414-15|~2026-15414-15]]. 
:One of the things that makes it ''so'' difficult to successfully write an [[WP:autobiography|autobiography]] in Wikipedia is this: 
:{{HD/WINI}}
:So the question is, which of your sources meet ''all'' the requirements in [[WP:golden rule|golden rule]]? That is, they are reliably published, produced with no involvement whatever from you or your associates, and contain significant coverage of you, not just of your work? [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 14:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::hi folks . thanks dor the insight. i have a substantial number of articles that would meet the significant coverage issue, including cover story magazine articles that were done on me. I'll spend some time accumulating a list of these some of which were referenced in my original draft and will post them here with a question as to how I can invest frame these in the draft and not run up against issues. There's also a national CBC TV interview with Peter Mansbridge, the host of the national news, that goes for an hour that is available in the CBC historical archives, as well as other references like that. Perhaps if I can provide a list here some of you might be able to provide me guidance on how to work from here I qualified for an 01 Visa dash person extra extraordinary ability with USCIS how much of this material was also included in that Visa application process. So I have lots of SIG I just don't know how to position it. [[User:Dibblethorpe|Dibblethorpe]] ([[User talk:Dibblethorpe|talk]]) 14:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Dibblethorpe|Dibblethorpe]]: So, the problem I foresee you running into is the question of what constitutes a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], especially as it relates to notability. First of all, please note that "notability" is a Wikipedia term of art--it's not just "fame" or "known to the public". The [[WP:BASIC|basic notability guideline for people]], following the [[WP:GNG|general notability guideline]], says that {{tq|"people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."}} It further says that {{tq|Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.}} This is the subtlety in writing an autobiographical article that many new users miss. Interviews, in particular, are primary sources, since they're the subject talking about themself, and so don't contribute towards Wikipedia notability. Similarly, a "where are they now"-type article from a subject's alma mater, for example, is not independent of the subject and cannot be used to demonstrate notability. Please keep these in mind while evaluating notability. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ&nbsp;Keeper]]&nbsp;[[User Talk: Writ Keeper|&#9863;]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|&#9812;]] 14:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::::I've got multiple things like this:
::::https://archive.org/details/profit-magazine-1995-jim-carroll
::::https://archive.org/details/carroll-archive-2002_link_colourcopy-lr
::::https://archive.org/details/carroll-archive-2006businessedge
::::https://archive.org/details/carroll-archive-2002feb_budapest_cover_colour
::::https://archive.org/details/carroll-archive-2003may_camag_meet_the_experts
::::https://archive.org/details/carroll-archive-1997_vanc_sun_networks
::::https://archive.org/details/carroll-archive-1999feb_tocomputes_cover
::::https://archive.org/details/pga-of-america-jim-carroll-keynote/page/n3/mode/2up  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Dibblethorpe|Dibblethorpe]] ([[User talk:Dibblethorpe#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dibblethorpe|contribs]]) 16:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::Even a great little cover story from 1989 (I almost got fired for this one)
::::https://archive.org/details/oa-magazine-1989-jim-carroll
::::There are literally hundreds more. Independent sources, reliable publications, local and national newspapers, magazines.
::::There's this interview with the CBC Natiional's Peter Mansbridge:
::::https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/1.3592701
::::Then I have literally hundreds of third party conference brochures where I'm the opening or closing keynote; some pretty high profile events. Relevant? Useless? Heck, I did an event with Jimmy Wales in St. Andrews in 2011....
::::So I guess my real question is - how do I package all this into a form that is acceptable to a Wikipedia article. I would love guidance as I continue to dig into this.
::::And I guess a key question - the draft won't disappear, correct? I have time to work with this?
::::I'm entirely open to working within the guidance offered here. [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-15414-15|&#126;2026-15414-15]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-15414-15|talk]]) 15:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::Drafts are only deleted after 6 months of inactivity, unless they are candidates for [[WP:Speedy deletion]], which is unlikely in your case. I suggest you don't try to include "literally hundreds" of citations but submit the draft for review after creating it with just a handful of [[WP:42|really good sources]]. See [[WP:BACKWARDS]] for the pitfalls of not doing it that way. [[User:Michael D. Turnbull|Mike Turnbull]] ([[User talk:Michael D. Turnbull|talk]]) 16:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::The Profit Magazine, Business Edge, and Office Automation articles seem to be your three best sources. [[User:Mmemaigret|MmeMaigret]] ([[User talk:Mmemaigret|talk]]) 21:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::Thank you for the guidance. [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-15414-15|&#126;2026-15414-15]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-15414-15|talk]]) 14:47, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::Did you actually read [[WP:Golden Rule]] as suggested? If you had, you wouldn't be mentioning interviews.
:::::Also, explain why, exactly, do you want an article about yourself on Wikipedia? Is it vanity? Pride? Publicity? Search engine optimization? None of those are valid reasons for an article to exist here.
:::::If you are truly notable, someone will eventually come along and write about you. Whether that happens next week or 10 years from now or after you're long gone, shouldn't matter to you in the slightest. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] (who / me) <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 05:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)