User talk:Timtrent/Archive 35

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Timtrent. 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.

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

→

Page Peer_Community_In created while Draft:Peer_Community_In re-submitted for review

Hello Timtrent, I'm writing to you because you have been the last reviewer of Draft:Peer_Community_in. You rejected it and the paper has been resubmitted by another user after they tried to address the issues.

I'm the creator of the first version of the draft and the French version as well, and I was just checking if an Italian version already exist; I then noticed that somebody, few days ago, translated the French version without realizing that a draft was currently under review: Peer Community In.

So, apparently there's no bot checking if a draft of a new page is present before allowing users to create one... 🤔 I will write on the talk pages to point out the issue. I'm just writing directly to you as well since, as a more experienced user, you may know better how to handle such cases. Natematic (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Natematic, The article seems likely to remain on the English Language Wikipedia, so I think no action is required. I have some concerns about the logo on Commons, but Commons is an entirely separate site with very particular rules. You will already know that I have flagged it for attention there. Logos are a complex copyright issue.

I am afraid I do not recall the original draft Fiddle Faddle 09:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I created the English version of the article without realizing that it existed as a draft or that there was any discussion about it. Sorry and feel free to replace or whatever you see convenient. And thanks for creating it properly in the first place! jbc (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Jordi Burguet Castell, There is no argument from me over this. If the article is good enough in terms of notability and verifiability it will and should stay. My only real issue is the logo on Commons Fiddle Faddle 10:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Joseph_Marion_Gambescia_Sr

Should I be working with you or I dream of Horses on this Draft page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgambesc (talk • contribs) 17:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Tgambesc, Neither. I am a reviewer, not a mentor nor a guide. I have given you firm advice already. I can think of nothing to add to what I have said. You have substantial work to do if you want this draft to be accepted, the more so since it had not only been declined, but rejected.

When I use the pronoun 'you', I do mean you. Fiddle Faddle 20:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I am only looking for directions how to re-submit an article after I made the revisions. --Tgambesc (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Tgambesc, Since you have not made any substantive changes you will waste your time and the time of reviewers. Read my comments and act on them. Then, only then, is it valid to submit for review

Thank you for signing your post. Fiddle Faddle 20:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand. I have several revisions planned. Once I am done, how do I resubmit? Do I remove the comments in the header and add the submit template again?--Tgambesc (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Tgambesc, You click the "Ask for advice" button and hope you have done sufficient. Or you ask the rejecting reviewer if they are happy that it be resubmitted. Or both. Fiddle Faddle 21:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I have 2 reviewers at this point. Who I contact both of them or just the one of them? If just one, then which one? Thanks again for for the time. --Tgambesc (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Tgambesc, You have had one review, by me, where I gave a fully reasoned decline for your draft. I dream of horses rejected your draft after you had made no worthwhile changes. I think it unlikely that either of us, being both ordinary people and volunteer Wikipedia editors, have any interest in the draft. I cannot speak for them, though.

I tell you again that your draft is muddled. I see that you have written what the Gambescia family wish to see. I have told you that this is a serious error.

I also note that you have a substantial WP:COI, albeit a declared one. The WP:AFC process is intended to be able to cope with COI, but it requires good material to work with. I tend not to be very interested in assisting COI editors produce vanity pieces.

I almost never offer second reviews of drafts unless there is a very good reason to do so. There are many reviewers, each with different opinions. If you will forgive me, please read the banner at the head of this page. Fiddle Faddle 22:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Did Some Work

I took what you said you heart and have been fixing up that https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Roam_(musician) article. If you're interested feel free to take a look at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IronThumb3000 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

IronThumb3000, even though I am interested I am short of time right now. Thank you for listening. All reviewers want to accept drafts. Every viable new article improves Wikipedia Fiddle Faddle 18:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Declined article

Hello, Timtrent The article is about A tiktok influencer who is well know in the community but doesn't have much coverage due to his rapid growth. I believe as time goes by he will gain more coverage from new articles and news outlets. In conclusion I believe the article is well written and all information is valid and retrieved from valid sources. Reeda shah Badawi has been 10 million times in the span of 28 day on the tiktok platform. Thank you so much for your time and please let me know what I could do to make a strong situated article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OfficalLove (talk • contribs) 03:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

OfficalLove, Wikipedia reports on what others say about people. It is not the place for them to make a reputation. It records the reputation that others state they have made.

For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

You have confirmed that there is little or no coverage. When there is some this perosn may qualify for an article. Fiddle Faddle 07:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback

I edited the document and removed colon before category names. Click here. But, these categories didn't go outside the green box (template documentation) and the template are not shown in every single categories. Can you fix this?

@Seokgjin: can you help me to fix it?! -St3095 ^(?) 11:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

St3095, I am not a template documentation expert, but thank you for asking for help. I am unable to solve what ought to be a very simple problem. I'm sorry. Fiddle Faddle 11:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Anushka Sen

Hello sir, Can you please help me in this Draft:Anushka Sen about referencing. What type of references should be given so that it would be approved. Can you please give me some idea giving some examples. Jenifree (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Jenifree, i have answered on your talk page Fiddle Faddle 13:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Request on 16:44:02, 1 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Aficia

Aficia (talk · contribs)
- User:Aficia/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for reviewing my article submission. If possible, can you tell me what would constitute sufficient content, for this and any freestanding article? Thank you for your help. Aficia (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Aficia (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Aficia, I think there is a strong probability that this is unsuitable to be a stand alone topic. You might ask the AFC Helpdesk for other opinions if you disagree with me. Agreeing with me means your work will see publication sooner than trying for a stand alone article. I am content for you to agree or disagree

I did not check it for excellence of referencing. I simply reviewed far enough to consider it would not stand alone. Any edits you make to the main article need excellence of referecomg. See WP:42 as a guide Fiddle Faddle 16:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Entry

Hi There!

Thanks for your notes on my entry for 'Jack Houghteling'. I'm curious as to what specifically you thought didn't suffice about the entry, and how (if possible!) I might make it better.

Thanks so much and appreciate your input.

Best, Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack.houghteling (talk • contribs) 21:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack.houghteling, For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle 21:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you so much for that explanation - it makes sense. Would you say that the entry is fixable if I just stuck to a 1:1 fact to source ratio and to 3rd person sources?

Appreciate your advice. Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack.houghteling (talk • contribs) 21:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack.houghteling, As long as you can find the correct references you will have no trouble. Ditch facts that cannot be referenced. Remember that having COI means that you may only edit the draft. Once accepted as an article you must request others to edit it. See {{Request edit}} Fiddle Faddle 21:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi!

Tried once again with leaner copy (and a more 3d approach). Look forward to hearing how you think it looks - thanks!

Best, Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack.houghteling (talk • contribs) 21:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack.houghteling, The immediate question is one that is hard to hear since you are writing about yourself. This is Wikipedia and the question is asked all the time.

"In what manner is Jack Houghteling notable?"

I ask this deliberately about you un the third person since that is the place you must stand in order to decided if this road is worth walking.

As an example, I have written a book. Before I retired I was also a renowned expert in my field. Neither of those two facts make me notable in a wikipedia sense. I am only notable to those who have a fellow feeling towards me. I would be astounded were I to warrant an article here

Wikipedia is a brutal place, especially for those writing their own life. Fiddle Faddle 21:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi!

I appreciate that frankness. I guess what I'd say is that I am an award-longlisted writer with a compelling/idiosyncratic political background and am making a Wikipedia entry because Wiki is a common place for writers (both established as well as up-and-coming) to record their backgrounds and art. I get what you're trying to say, and of course I will heed whatever judgment you ultimately make (whether it's best to wait on a Wikipedia page, etc.), but my above explanation - and, most especially, my being a soon-to-be-published writer - is my main reason for creating the page.

Thanks again for your input and look forward to hearing what you think.

Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack.houghteling (talk • contribs) 21:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack.houghteling, The thing is, the reasons are the wrong ones for you to create the page. Your honesty does you credit. If I paraphrase, you wish to be here because that will also give your forthcoming book a leg up.

This is a challenge, because Wikipedia is a place where reputations are reported, not where they are created.

So we are back to facts. Are there sufficient facts about JH to create an article? Are those facts ones which show JH's notability? Indeed, can you write about JH as a third party or do you stand too close to his accomplishments to see what is and is not notable?

My view of the second draft is that it shows a decent gentleman doing a decent job in life. That's lovely to know, but is not enough to get JH's article over the line of acceptance. So what has JH done that is both notable and has been reported upon in sources that pass WP:42?

I said this was a brutal place to write for. It's pretty hard to create an article about anything or anyone, let alone about one's self. Your draft as it stands is likely to be pushed back to you (0.99 probability) as failing to pass the notability threshold. That's ok but also discouraging for you. Fiddle Faddle 22:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yup, I get that. The reason I remain a bit confused is that the information provided in the edited entry is, in fact, factual and un-embellished (from my perspective and in my opinion, of course!), but I do get that the information present is not particularly abundant; that - at least at the moment - it revolves around one run for office and one novel (with a non-primary award attached) and a day job.

So the bottom line you'd say is that the article in question should have more 3rd party sources? Should be more centered on already existing and more abundant news/accomplishments/notability? Could it theoretically be written by me if the first two questions are answered in the affirmative? Asking more than anything because - if I am so lucky as to have a page in the future! - I want to make sure I don't make these same mistakes again, as I'm sure you can understand.

Thanks so much for your time and hope you're staying safe.

Best, Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack.houghteling (talk • contribs) 22:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack.houghteling, All I can do to answer that is to point you at what might be the slimmest page I have written that passes notability, Elsie Reasoner Ralph. I took that one on as a challenge because the sourcing was slim and the facts scarce. But Elsie has one major thing going for her. She has a unique notability. Despite paucity of information she make the cut.

Much the same can be said for E. E. Speight whose notability is slimmer than Elsie's. The Today grammar is actually notable, but who would know?

Keith White (yachtsman) is one where referencing is difficult , yet Keith was notable

Chris W. Allen passes our notability criteria for an academic

Edward Upcott passes for a sports perosn

Christopher Pole-Carew is notable precisely because he is less than pleasant

I'm using examples because they are easier than pure description

It all comes back to "Can JH, that third party you know better than do I, be viewed as notable?" More sources? Not necessarily. What you need is a hook to hang JH's hat on, and then to work form there. It may simply be too soon for the article.

Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. Fiddle Faddle 23:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi!

Here is a fellow writer, Brian Allen Carr (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Allen_Carr), who has a very to-the-point entry. Would something tighter like this potentially work, in which I mention my novel, that it won an award and then mention my former political candidacy) all in about a paragraph?

Thanks and let me know! Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack.houghteling (talk • contribs) 23:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack.houghteling, This article is borderline, and is vulnerable to being proposed for a deletion process. However "was the winner of the inaugural Texas Observer Story Prize" probably saves it, though this depends on the status of the prize. That is not a thing I am an expert in , and would need others to judge. I see it as a borderline notable prize. I could determine its notability by researching an article on it.

One thing that may perplex you: no article on Wikipedia sets any sort of precedent for any other article.

Older articles here often have poor adherence to notability and verifiability they get weeded out. This one has two references, one of which is a dead link. Were I to send it for a deletion discussion it would be unlikely to survive it in my view. Others may disagree. That is what consensus is about here..

That brings me to drafts. Our review brief is to accept a draft if it has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. I raise that to 60% because I hope to encourage new editors to aim for a higher standard, and 60% makes survival more likely. Had Carr been a draft I would have pushed it back for more work.

Consensus is important for your draft, too. Other reviewers may disagree with my opinion. That's why I almost never re-review a draft. Fiddle Faddle 23:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Mason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack.houghteling (talk • contribs) 23:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack.houghteling, Mason is notable: "In May 2020, Mason was the recipient of the $50,000 Simpson/Joyce Carol Oates Literary Prize" Fiddle Faddle 23:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments above on those entries. Here is my last go (if this doesn't fly, then it just might not have enough objective muster atm)! All the sources I would use (except, perhaps, for my Medium concession post) would be 3rd party:

Jack Houghteling (born 1991) is an American novelist, journalist, and former political candidate. His debut novel Goodman is forthcoming with Adelaide Books in January 2022 and was longlisted for Dzank Books Prize for fiction, which praised the novel’s “considerable skill.” Houghteling has also worked as a journalist for FT Specialist, a division of the Financial Times, since 2016, and has freelanced for a number of publications, including Teen Vogue.

In 2018, Houghteling ran for the New York state senate in District 18, which represents the neighborhoods of Williamsburg, Bushwick, Cypress Hills and Greenpoint, but dropped out before the Democratic primary, electing to endorse Julia Salazar, who went on to defeat incumbent Martin Dilan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack.houghteling (talk • contribs) 23:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack.houghteling, Emotionally I would like to say yes. But if I did, and if I accepted it, then I would actually hurt your case.

Let us assume I accepted it and another editor sent it to Articles for discussion/deletion. It might survive that, but I doubt it. So let's assume it fails and is deleted.

Once deleted, Wikipedia has chosen a set of harsh rules. To re-create it afresh the new article must be substantially different for the prior one, different enough to completely solve any notability issues. If not it is allowed to be deleted pretty much on sight.

This means that, intellectually, my duty to you is not to accept it unless and until I view it as having a cracking good chance of not being deleted. If I accepted it then it would hurt the chances of there ever being that article.

Win the election, win the literary prize, and the while matter changes overnight

I think you are caught in it being too soon for the article

Again, others may have a different view. I am just an editor, with absolutely no power. But so is everyone else. You and I are equals here. Fiddle Faddle 00:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack.houghteling, have a look at WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPOL, both of which are very tightly drawn Fiddle Faddle 00:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Got it, and I very much appreciate that explanation. That information is ever-valuable and I certainly understand what you're saying (and very much feel like you're voicing what you believe is best for me).

Well then, unless you think/say otherwise, I guess I'll consider this a matter of being 'in draft'/'not yet ready' and save a copy to my email? Perhaps a year from now, when the book comes out, will be a good time to revisit, depending on circumstances and availability of any news/reviews/awards, etc. Would very much appreciate your sage advice if you have any! As you so eloquently put it (and which I wholeheartedly agree with!), it's not about me or any one person; it's about the world of info and people that Wikipedia so brilliantly tries to map.

Thanks so much for all your help and keep well.

All the best. Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack.houghteling (talk • contribs) 00:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack.houghteling, I think that makes sense. Treat this as having been a great, albeit tough, learning experience. When it is time to have an article le my hope and expectation for you is that someone else will have written it already.

Meanwhile, pick up this new learning and edit and write other articles in areas that interest you. But avoid politics. They are a minefield for editors here,

Why not see if that prize is notable? Research an article on it! Fiddle Faddle 00:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack.houghteling (talk • contribs) 00:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Do these articles get anywhere or no?

http://www.independentpublisher.com/article.php?page=1599

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/print/20071203/16938-the-future-of-publishing.html

http://necessaryfiction.com/writerinres/TheFutureofIndiePublishingDzancBooksandtheConceptualConglomerate

Also, would it make a different if the Salazar-Dilan race was notable?

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/a-triumphant-primary-night-for-julia-salazar-and-the-dsa-in-brooklyn

Thank you for continuing to answer my questions! Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack.houghteling (talk • contribs) 00:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack.houghteling, I'll look in the morning Fiddle Faddle 00:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack.houghteling (talk • contribs) 01:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack.houghteling, Looking at these:

http://www.independentpublisher.com/article.php?page=1599 is a reference for the publisher. That publisher is a pleasant, small publisher. It likely merits an article in its own right, but notability is not inherited, so is not of use to you
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/print/20071203/16938-the-future-of-publishing.html $5,000 beats any royalty cheque I've had from my own work! This element ought to be added to its own article. I still doubt that the prize per se is notable, and being longlisted, while interesting, is a reference for the novel, not so much the author. And yes, a notable work may be created by an author lacking notability in a Wikipedia sense
http://necessaryfiction.com/writerinres/TheFutureofIndiePublishingDzancBooksandtheConceptualConglomerate is interesting, but is written by a Dzanc founder about Dzanc. Thus it is a primary source and is not authoritative. It can be used for checking simple facts, but not substantive ones. It is also a reference for Dzanc.
Would it make a different if the Salazar-Dilan race was notable? - No. See WP:NPOL
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/a-triumphant-primary-night-for-julia-salazar-and-the-dsa-in-brooklyn makes no reference that I can find to JH, so cannot be relevant

It seems to me that JH may be notable to friends, family, colleagues, opponents, supporters, all of which is excellent in a real life sense, but has not yet broken the Wikipedia threshold of notability. Fiddle Faddle 08:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Understood!

Well, it sounds like you've answered all my questions at this point! Thank you for running me through the difference between objectively notable and not. It seems like the novel and award (nor the brief office run) is enough to be considered objectively notable, and - though I have questions about where goes the line between notable and un-notable - I understand that for me that that line has not yet been crossed.

Thanks again and til we meet again (and until there's been a shift - if ever there will be - in the standards of objective notability!).

All best, Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack.houghteling (talk • contribs) 12:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack.houghteling, The difference seems subtle until it is obvious. Captain Tom was an ordinary, decent bloke this time last year, Then he raised some £39m for charity in a very few weeks just before his 100th birthday

One might argue that he is notable for one event, and that the article ought to be titled to do with the fund-raising effort, but he is notable for doing what he did at the age he did it. and without expecting a result wider than friends and family.

The problem you will find is that you cannot be the best judge of your own notability. When your novel becomes a genuine best seller, it may become suitable for an article. You might not until you have written several. Your judgement ought to be "I might be notable in my real life, but I am not until others have reported my putative notability in mainstream media. At that point, the more so if there are three separate sources of my notability, I may be worthy of an article."

Wikipedia is a great leveller. An article is also a two edged sword. Anything a person does that is good is grist to the mill, but so is any scandal, and Wikipedia is one of the best google indexed sites there is. In real terms the longer you can stay away from it the better!

Seriously please become a general editor here. I suggest it for a very important reason. Writing for Wikipedia is a very difficult discipline. I guarantee that it will improve your other writing, be it factual, fiction, journalistic. Fiddle Faddle 13:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I will!

I will indeed take you up on that. I hope if you can glean anything from our (very nice) correspondence it's that I really love Wikipedia! What a special unique tool. Please keep me posted if you have any ideas or pointers re: how I can be an effective writer and editor on here.

All the best and be well :D

Jack

PS - once again, thank you for the very clear and helpful guidance on my previously attempted article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack.houghteling (talk • contribs) 13:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack.houghteling, The best guidance I have is encapsulated in User:Timtrent/A good article.

What I do to create an article is to research to find references. Then I select the facts i wish to assert from those references. I marshal them into a storyboard, and write the article very tightly based on just those references. I do this in draft space.

I write flat, neutral, dull-but-worthy prose. I treat it as an exercise in restraint

I am confident in my ability to create articles, so I move my own drafts to main namespace once they are ready. I am not always correct! It took me time to learn how to play with other children here!

Once in main space I act as their father, not their mother. I watch them with interest but I do not wrap them in warm towels to preserve them from harm! Fiddle Faddle 13:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

This is so helpful!

"What I do to create an article is to research to find references. Then I select the facts i wish to assert from those references. I marshal them into a storyboard, and write the article very tightly based on just those references. I do this in draft space."

As is everything else - well put! Thank you! Jack.houghteling (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack.houghteling (talk • contribs) 13:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

draft:Phoenix Rise

Thank you for your note regarding the draft:Phoenix Rise entry. It is much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arielnewroman (talk • contribs) 22:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Arielnewroman, I would have reviewed it, but I don't feel competent in music biographies. I stick to what I am good at Fiddle Faddle 22:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I dealt with this on the help desk. I've done rescue work on music biographies (must remember to fix up Kat Wright when I've got a mo), and I'm especially keen on getting women music biographies sorted out for my chums over at Women in Red ... I would have improved and passed this draft if I could. But I'm totally stuck for sources to do so. I don't particularly like newcomers disappearing because I can't get their draft accepted, but I'm at a loss as to what else to do. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, it's difficult. Accepting it too soon will damn it to swift deletion and pr0bable issue if re-created. I'm not sure that Arielnewroman is aware of that problem and that all reviewers want to accept drafts Fiddle Faddle 23:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the help and assistance from both of you. Despite my frustrations. I have resubmitted as the artist meets the specific criteria 11) WP:MUSICBIO and The BBC links evidence this. However, I am also aware that further coverage would be helpful in ensuring that the profile is approved and cemented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arielnewroman (talk • contribs) 23:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Arielnewroman, Another reviewer has responded to your draft talk page message. Fiddle Faddle 00:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Timtrent (talk · contribs) Just saw, thank you. I have asked the reviewer to decline the article submission whilst I find more sources to avoid deletion if accepted. Thank you for warning me about this also. The artist has been placed on rotation and I have linked a post by The BBC DJ to show this but unfortunately, it comes in the form of a twitter post so I'm aware that this isn't a credible wikipedia source. Again, I appreciate you taking the time to help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arielnewroman (talk • contribs) 00:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

My entry on Bhaswar Banerjee

Thank you for your notes on my entry “Bhaswar Banerjee”. But I am shocked to see you declined it. Dr. Bhaswar Banerjee won the second highest state award of Bangladesh “Ekushey Padak” this year. And I linked it to the government gadget page. He is a very notable cultural personality in this country. He won many more awards and his contribution in recitation, theatre, film and media is huge. I would like to know how can I improve the article? Should I add some newspaper links? Or TV shows/interview links? Or what else? Tithi234 (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Tithi234, Please confirm that you have read the big pink notice on the draft, not simply seen that the draft has been pushed back for further work. It's hard to explain it any better than that. I will try if you need me to Fiddle Faddle 08:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have read your note. I want to know if I add newspaper and other media links will it be accepted as reference? I will rewrite the text not to look like an advertisement rather informative. Please help me to rewrite my article. Tithi234 (talk) 08:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Tithi234, THere are very strict criteria for acceptable references. There are full details in the notice, but wp:42 summarises that well.

I'm sure you will do just fine by yourself. Fiddle Faddle 10:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Servants of Christ the King

Dear Timtrent, just wanted to thank you for the encouragement re probable notability. Am continuing to work on, Many thanks Jacantha (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Jacantha, while online references are not essential, if you can find online versions of the print works you are using as references this will aid the next reviewer. I find the topic baffling, but the entity does appear to meet our criteria. So I want you to have the best chance possible of having it accepted Fiddle Faddle 20:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Anushka Sen

Timtrent, this is my last try to make this article better i have tried many times to make this article better and to meet the acting notability but i couldn't. If you can then please help me to improve references until it gets reviewed. I don't know from where and how should I collect references that would meet the acting notability.Thanks, Jenifree 14:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Jenifree, Since neither you nor I can find any then we must conclude that there are none. She fails WP:NACTOR Fiddle Faddle 14:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Sevants of Christ the King

Very much appreciating your further comment - the answer to this may be obvious, but not to a beginner !

please may I ask as I would like this to get through and don't want to hinder. Unfortunately there is no online copy for 'An Adventure in Discipleship' which I quote from and as it is still in copyright that won't be straightforward to achieve. Brian Bridge's book Treasury of Blessings is available as a free download, which I have added for now. But it is not a secondary source. Do you think it will more help or hinder. Before I submit again. Jacantha (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Jacantha, As long as you can give full details of the book/document - See {{Cite book}} for example - then this will be absolutely fine. I am make no comment as a reviewer of the draft itself, just about the technical usage of a non-online work.

The references must pass the criteria outlined in WP:42. If they do that, and there is a sufficient variety of sources (three or more) then the draft will stand a very good chance of acceptance Fiddle Faddle 12:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank youJacantha (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Jacantha, don't forget that you can continue to improve the draft after submission and after it becomes an article.

I don't often do second reviews and there is no reason to make an exception here. Different sets of eyes are always best. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. Fiddle Faddle 13:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Zulaykho

Hello friend, do not be tired, please pass the article to the reader Draft:Zulaykho (singer). This is the name of her fame and they are known by this name.--القاسم عريان (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It was not ready to be an article. Please await a review. Fiddle Faddle 09:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Engblu (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

79.23.94.85 (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Engblu (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, as i'm not sure where to answer to your kind reply; so i'm trying here. I am trying to read through all the documents you've linked to and find it all bemusing . However a few quick questions if thats ok. I dont see there being a COI in the article having seen other's on a similar subject in this field. Yes i am writing about myself, once again having spoken to other who have done the same and their pages it seems ( to me anyway ) I'm following how those pages have been written. Where do i declare this ? I'm quite happy of course to do so and of course edit down the content where required. You mention being "notable", i'm no big egotist i'm simply trying to create a reference page so i can update the references to works listed on other pages as they are incorrect, marked to other's with a similar name etc. This has come about with fans emailing me to notify me of these errors on various pages.

I'm not sure how or if i have the "extra element" as you have put it below, but i feel the works completed are of significance to many and notable, again having followed other pages in this field.

I appreciate the tie taken to reply, i simply would like a reference page as explained.

May thanks.

Engblu, The answer appears here. Are you associated professionally or personally with Mr Lyon? if so you must declare it. Please see WP:COI and/or WP:PAID. Even if closely associated with, or even being Mr Lyon you are entitled to create and edit the draft on the gentleman. To understand more about references you may find that reading WP:42 and WP:THREE help. Your objective is to assert and verify that the gentleman is notable in a Wikipedia sense. This means that he must not just be a decent chap doing his job well, but that there must be an almost indefinable extra element to him. There's a lot to read here, so please ask again after you've read and digested the advice and started to put it into practice Fiddle Faddle 22:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)79.23.94.85 (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

79.23.94.85 (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Engblu and IP editor 79.23.94.85, Wikipedia can be bemusing, perplexing, unless and until one understands what it is, and all it is. Wikipedia is just a distillation of knowledge that others have written about the topics and people when there are articles on them. It is no more than that.

In many ways this makes Wikipedia a bland entity full of bland writing. It also contains many articles that ought not to be here, and misses many that ought to be here.

Those that ought not to be here are those most offten referenced by those new to the game here as "but other material like this is present, thus so should my treatise on (whatever topic). In time those are either deleted or improved.

You are proposing that Mr Lyon have an article. That is a great thing, though one can never write an autobiography dispassionately unless one is particlarly specially adept. Autopbiographies get the good bits out and omit the less than stellar.

You make the declaration on your user page that you are Mr Lyon. I think WP:COI details how. If not then some research will show you.

Notability is harder. If Mr Lyon is just a gentleman doing his job very well, I will predict that he will always fail our criteria until that changes. He will be prosperous (more than his peers, if he so desires), known as highly competent, but not quakifying for an article here.

Now, you mention the works completed. Let us assume that ine is of star quality. I am afraid that means simply that it gets an article. Those who contributed to it may warrant an article, but theior notability is not inherited from the star quality work in the same was that a parent of a notable child is not inherently notable, and nor is the child of a notable parent

I'm afraid I have lost track of the origin of this conversation, so thank you, 79.23.94.85, for bringing it here. Fiddle Faddle 13:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thank you. My point being, following other articles etc of a similar nature and using similar criteria, links and ref's , i don't see why this article would be distant from those, indeed if anything this one has more information and links associated to it than others i have seen and researched to understand the criteria. I will edit "down" the article, slim back it's content further, read the advisory notes provided, again and resubmit. I do not pretend to be an expert but again, so far i do not see this article being so different from those others. Lyon not being correctly quoted in articles on his works and incorrect entires on them seems to be contradictory to the point of Wikipedia. Thanks again for your help. 79.23.94.85 (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

One is often tempted to use other articles as a yardstick against which to compare one's own. That argument will never prevail because one article sets any standard for any other. No article here sets a precedent for any other.

Wikipedia can be a harsh place. Standards have risen over the years. An article accepted 15 years ago may well not be acceptable today.

Are you and Engblu the same perosn, one logged im and the other not logged in? If so please log in. Fiddle Faddle 17:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Poobah

Hello, I am quite stunned and shocked aboutt the threat to delete my new article, as I don't even understand the reasons. I am not associated with the band, I don't even come from the same country. I just think it is one of the many important, yet underrated bands I wanted to introduce to the public in future. I am asked to change the article, but I do not even know where and what. Before writing the article I checked other bandpages to get the necessary references right. They all ad the official bandpage, discogs, etc. Could you please tell me exactly what parts I am expected to remove? I and some more people put a lot in work of it and I don't want to waste all rhat witchout even knowing why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GegenkulturForschung (talk • contribs) 23:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I am quite stunned and shocked about the threat to delete my new article about the band Poobah00:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)GegenkulturForschung (talk), as I don't even understand the reasons. I am not associated with the band, I don't even come from the same country. I just think it is one of the many important, yet underrated bands I wanted to introduce to the public in future. I am asked to change the article, but I do not even know where and what. Before writing the article I checked other band pages to get the necessary references right. Most of them added the official bandpage, discogs, etc. Could you please tell me exactly what parts I am expected to remove? I and some more people put a lot in work of it and I don't want to waste all that witchout even knowing why. ^[1]

GegenkulturForschung (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

GegenkulturForschung, Please read the notice at Poobah (band) which explains that you ave created an advertisement for the band's wares. Remove all the links to Amazon, please.

You may remove the notice on the article page (NOT the talk page) but please only do that when you have done the work.

The proposed deletion is part of our quality control mechanism. Fiddle Faddle 09:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

References

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Poobah_(band)

   GegenkulturForschung, Please read the notice at Poobah (band) which explains that you ave created an advertisement for the band's wares. Remove all the links to Amazon, please.
   You may remove the notice on the article page (NOT the talk page) but please only do that when you have done the work.
   The proposed deletion is part of our quality control mechanism. Fiddle Faddle 09:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I have just removed the amazon-links as requested. But to clarify: These are not merchandice or ware of the band. The (american) Band sells no comics, nor does the (german) comic sell any records. There is obvious a mutual sympathy of the comic and a number of bands, (most of them not even existing anymore for decades) but no business association whatever, you can research that if you would not believe me. The comic itself is a free webcomic, free for all as wikipedia. Some of the chapters are available as printo for collectors, but I doubt anyone makes any money from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GegenkulturForschung (talk • contribs) 09:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot the signature. I am just on Wikipedia for a few days.GegenkulturForschung (talk) 09:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

GegenkulturForschung, They were (eg) music tracks that were for sale. Thank you for removing them. I have removed YouTube, IMDB and Facebook as references. You may include such things as external links provided they add value to the article.

I have left a cleanup tag on the article. You our others shoudl attend to that remaining issue. You also need to ensure that you prove that the band passes WP:NMUSIC. I have not checked that. I am smoky concerned with technical referencing matters.

There is no need to start a new heading each time you reply. Please simply add to the existing thread. Welcome to Wikipedia. It's a difficult but rewarding hobby Fiddle Faddle 11:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll add the facebook link to the external pages, as it has a lot of information and links for anyone interested doing some own research. Many important musicians like Bobby Darling from Pentagram are corresponding there with Gustafson and others, so it ha lot of information and relavance to everyone interested in music, counterculture and its underground tradition. GegenkulturForschung (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

GegenkulturForschung, Wikipedia can feel a very alien place. The trick to article wiring here is to keep things very concise, and referenced with high quality references. New editors can make the mistake of confusing quantity if referencing with quality. I know, now, that you will not make this error.

You may think I am chasing after your and your edits. In a way that may be correct, but my motive in doing so is to seek to ensure your success. I wish your article to stay, without being deleted. That means the work I am suggesting.

Please use (eg) the Teahouse to ask for other opinions at amy time, I do not ever guarantee to be 100% correct, just to have a decent idea on correctness here Fiddle Faddle 17:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I did post in the tea-room, but as long as someone with some musical background jumps in, I feel quite lost. Reading through WP: Band, I find eg. something like "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." So really important bands like Van Der Graaf Generator od Tangerine Dream which didn't get into charts for being to sophisticated for parts of mass audience wouldn't be relevant, while some childish novelty songs that were in several international charts like the smurf song or "Snappy the crocodile" would be? So far I know some examples of pages not to be used, but it would be quite helpful to have a more concrete example of a source to reference that is realistic for a band that is older then 20 years. That band I write about is active for 48 years now (the founder even longer), they made 14 albums, appeared in some late hollywood movie aand are cited as important pioneers on countless sites. Still, I do not know what else references I can bring to prove that this is a revalent band. So it seems completely useless to me to even write about any other important bands that made maybe only one, but influental album and ceased to exist before the general access to the world wide web made a lot of things redundant. I mean, even the lamest amateur band can produce something on a smartphone app and get more listeners at a day at youtube then the whole output of records by the Rolling Stones.

I have quite a collection of written sources about 1960ies movies, (books, not links)many of them out of print, some dating back to the 1960ies, some probably quite rare. The one with the most informations about rarer acts are those that include obscure magazines that are probably lost. Still, most bands never made it into the magazines. Rock bands were still shunned by many mainstream media in the 1960ies and early seventies, those who even got into the radio were played at local stations only. Recors were insanly expensive for today standars, many people didn't even have a record player, and producing an album was extremly difficult. There were only few magacines, very few bands ever got into there, so many bands and records were already forgotten before there even was something like rock research, so we wont find much information in books eiter, and even the books might be rare. Of the books still available today and even some few magacines that might have survived the decades, even less will be found on the internet. Most sorces that tell about the rich culture of rock music before the mainstream era are either more or less unreliable first hand witness accounts on youtube or private blogs, discogs for the hard facts about albums.

As I have an academic background, I know very well that these aren't extremly reliable sources (except for discogs, that is based on labels and physical media), but the only ones available for most bands made before 1973. If I should write an article here ever again, i will certainly not even try to present rare or avantgarde bands ahead of their time like "The Driving Stupid". (Which is a shame, because this means literally the obliteration of a whole part of musical history.) There remains this article on a band that, even if hardly known to anyone except locals and some experts before the 2010s (but to be fair, a lot of people since the 1990ies don't know Pink Floyd), can hardly be called obscure.

So, I would be glad if anyone could tell me, what sources are left to check.GegenkulturForschung (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

GegenkulturForschung, Paradoxically, I tend not to get involved with music articles. It's an area I find arcane. My skill is in the technical aspects of article writing and referencing. I do not have the skill to assess music articles for adherence to the manifold rules and regulations here. I'm a well equipped generalist.

I doubt Wikipedia eschews particular genres, and I also hope there is no hole in the coverage. There is a Wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Music, which has members with the skill and the full advice you need, or hope for. There is a good discussion to be had there.

It's not that I won't help further. It's that I feel I do not have the skillset you need. I think you may find you need to write shorter commentary to get your points across. Fiddle Faddle 19:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

GegenkulturForschung, you will see that I have started a conversation there. I am sure they have the expertise required Fiddle Faddle 21:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Clearing misunderstanding

Request on 20:37:24, 4 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Tukester9

Tukester9 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:John M. Padgett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you very much for your quick response and review of my article submission. Although, I am disappointed in my article being declined, your points were very well explained. I am extremely appreciative for your guidance and input. The subject of my article has other inventions not for the cruise line that I will do additional research about and provide a more thorough and detailed approach to the significance of his contributions in the technology and travel industry. Thank you again for your support.

Tukester9 (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Tukester9, I do my best to help folk. Submission is an iterative process. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles.

Businessmen are a difficult category. However well one does his or her job they work for the employer. The employer owns their notability unless and until they become notable separately. Good businessmen are notable to those who know them, and usually just a suit to those who don't. Wikipedia does have articles on run of the mill folk, though we try to weed those out.

For Padgett to make the cut he has to have an almost indefinable 'something', and to have been covered for it in independent reliable sources. So WP:42 is your friend.

When it comes to a new request for review please only request it when you are substantially "there", even though the review queue can be lengthy. Then continue to enhance the draft anyway after submission.

You are aiming for a simple, bare bones, tightly written draft with excellence of referencing. Let me offer you an example or two from those I've created:

Elsie Reasoner Ralph - minimal detail, a challenge to myself to see if I could find notability for her
Chris W. Allen - notable because of his Fulbright scholarship, but has other attributes too
Douglas Fordyce - World champions make the cut almost regardless, as does Edward Upcott, his gym partner
Christopher Pole-Carew what a tedious and unpleasant chap this one was
Rose Mary Crawshay fun to determine what she si notable for, but she is

The common thread is good referencing. Note that I created these, but that others have edited them since creation and improved the markedly. All we want as an article creator is for it to stick! User:Timtrent/A good article may help.

Criticise the life out of your references, and discard any that do not pass muster, plus the facts they verify. You may not know it yet, but you need to précis and tighten, while writing meaningful prose Fiddle Faddle 21:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Tukester9, you may also find Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. C. Bhargava and the article it is discussing to be of interest. I cannot yet predict consensus, but I can for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodore Cohen (chemist).

These arcane things are part of Wikipedia, and why we push drafts back to the originator. We want them to survive.

With your own draft I am unlikely to perform a second review. Other eyes provide a better overall view for your draft. Fiddle Faddle 21:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

R. C. Bhargava

A barnstar for you!

Language referring to female subjects

SPI

Good Catch

Thanks for this nab the subject of the article has been hiring editors to create a biographical article on her for a long while now. A few days ago was this editor & before them were like four other editors. Celestina007 (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, Well followed up. I just saw the ordure in main space and decided to push it back. Since yo know what is going on may I suggest you ask for create protection for the main namespace? Fiddle Faddle 23:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, Is there an SPI open? I know you know how to start one if not, using Twinkle. YOU seem to know what is going on here Fiddle Faddle 23:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kolapoimam may be the right place Fiddle Faddle 23:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I actually do know what is going on here, I doubt it’s sock puppetry though, it’s the subject of the article asking her fans & paying random editors who pose as Wiki experts to create a biographical piece on her. Basically what’s happening here is every year there’s a Big brother reality Tv show where 20 contestants participate in, last year she partook in it & became instantaneously famous, but the problem is the Big brother Nigeria is done annually & this years Big Brother is about to commence which would mean she’d soon become irrelevant as the focus would be on the new participants & not on the previous participants anymore. So it’s literally a now or never situation she’s facing, if she fails to get a Wikipedia biographical piece on her now, she may never get. In fact, any respected or established Nigerian editor observed creating an article on her is engaging in UPE. Celestina007 (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, Wow. Excellent catch by you rather than me! I think DGG and MER-C are likely to find that information very useful and interesting, if you drop it their way Fiddle Faddle 23:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I’d report it as you have suggested to either MER-C or DGG, I’m just waiting for an experienced Nigerian editor who I preempt would contact her with a “I can solve all your problems on Wikipedia if you make xyz payments”) to take the bait and create the article hereby falling into one of my numerous traps & then I’d see to it that such editor gets indef blocked. Celestina007 (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, 👍🌷 Fiddle Faddle 00:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy St. Patrick's Day

Thank you

Creating a page - Sandeep Aggarwal

Hi Timtrent,

Can you please help me in identifying the issue which are actually making the information promotional? This is my first contribution so it will be learning for me so that I can keep things noted for future work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramesollin (talk • contribs) 17:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Ramesollin, the short answer is all of it. My attention was drawn by the vast number of things that look like references. WP:BOMBARD is the clue here. We require a few high quality references, not a wall of a disproportionately great numbers of references Fiddle Faddle 17:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

That is really making sense to me. Thanks for this valuable input. I just start reworking on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramesollin (talk • contribs) 18:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Ramesollin, Compare each reference against WP:42. If its fails or is borderline, lose it

For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle 18:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Timtrent, Noted all advises. I'll adopt the same in my review submission for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramesollin (talk • contribs) 19:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Timtrent, Edited and submitted it for a review. Please advise if this is fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramesollin (talk • contribs) 13:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Ramesollin, Time will tell. I try very hard not to review a draft more than once. Other eyes are important. If you are confident that you have addressed the issues then iy will stand a good chance of acceptance Fiddle Faddle 13:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hamis Kiggundu

Thanks

Speedy deletion declined: Creative Loafing (Atlanta)

Regarding your comment on Endeavor Business Media's draft page

Hi there, I am still learning the ropes here and would like to respond to your comment: "If you visit the editor's user page you will see that they a a paid editor, the company's the company's Director of Custom Content, with the huge luxury of a salary to create articles here. Generally I prefer paid editors to learn on their employer's shoaling, not on volunteer time. Fiddle Faddle 14:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)"

I disclosed that I worked for the company I am writing the Wikipedia entry for -- which, as I understand, is advisable. If someone else out there would like to write an entry for Endeavor Business Media, I would welcome that. I do not understand why you recommended my article for speedy deletion -- I fail to understand what I did wrong. Abigail Christine (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Abigail Christine, The rationale remains that the references are regurgitated press releases and PR. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle 07:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you please show me where there is a press release among my cited sources? Every single article is from a reputable external news source. None of those articles are "self-published." Abigail Christine (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Abigail Christine, Seriously? You are being paid a salary to do this. I am a volunteer. Please work it out for yourself. I have had a long career creating and placing press releases. You are your employer's "Director of Custom Content" and you can't spot custom content? Fiddle Faddle 07:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I see Novem Linguae has explained in some detail some of the remaining references and why there are useless to your cause. In the paraphrased words of Gandalf, "This, referenced as it is, shall not pass." Fiddle Faddle 07:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, there are no press releases among my cited sources. If we had paid for placement in any of those publications it would have been identified as sponsored content. Abigail Christine (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Abigail Christine, I spent much of my working life, and a proportion of my life as charity volunteer writing and placing press releases and PR material. I know what it is, I can recognise it at 100 paces. Please do not try to flannel me over things like this.

EMB also owned, relatively recently, the Nashville Post. You will find Wikipedia may contain amateur editors, but that many are or have been highly skilled in their lives.

Your draft is pure vanispmcruftisement. Though this word has not been used of it before, every editor who has advised you has told you this in one way or another. Unless you up your game and find references that pass WP:42 this is a task you will not be paid for by your employer Fiddle Faddle 20:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not trying to "flannel" you over. I have been transparent and disclosed my role here. EBM never owned the Nashville Post. As I wrote in this article, EBM's CEO was the former CEO of SouthComm, which does own the Nashville Post, so I never attempted to hide the relationship between the CEO and SouthComm, a company that is no longer in existence (you can read about SouthComm here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SouthComm_Communications). Are you telling me that anyone who ever had any ownership in a media company has not been written about by one of the subsidiaries and then used as a citation on Wikipedia? Due to the consolidation of media, I highly doubt that.

What I do know is that several of the publications EBM owns have their own Wikipedia pages, as do the companies EBM purchased assets from - SouthComm, Informa, PennWell, etc. It doesn't seem that the standards Wiki reviewers speak so highly of are applied consistently.

Abigail Christine (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Abigail Christine, please write a better referenced draft.

EBM bought SouthComm Fiddle Faddle 20:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Just FYI, I checked Newspapers.com and got precisely one hit for Endeavor Business Media, as one name on a list of about 200 companies with invoice amounts listed in The Waterloo Courier (September 21, 2020), p. B6. It's not clear if these are invoices to be paid or to be collected, but it does not amount to anything with respect to notability. On that count, it is worth noting that reporting on Nashville-based enterprises in Nashville-based media will largely be considered routine. BD2412 T 21:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

BD2412, Thank you. There is something unusual about this. I am simply not yet sure what Fiddle Faddle 22:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Timtrent asked me to follow this up ; Abigail Christine, like him, I have very considerable experience dealing with corporate articles in Wikipedia. My concerns, (just like him, and my fellow administrator BD2412) , are that declarations of coi are accurately made, that attempts at advertising are removed, and that reliable sources be found to establish the suitability for an article under our rules if it is possible. The first step here seems to be to find adequate sources to establish the facts of the enterprise.

AC, I must inform you that Wikipedia attempts to have consistent standards, but has not yet fully accomplished this goal. Since we are a loose assemblage of individuals not operating under any central direction, and decide disputed issues separately for each instance by. a rough consensus, it is inevitable that there will be considerable variation--subjects that really ought not have articles by some interpretations of our rules will sometimes have them, and firms that might sem able to justify them may not in practice be able to. In particular , the standards for referencing and for articles have improved over time: WP:NCORP in its present state is a relatively new development, earlier approaches to removing promotionalism were erratic, and observance of the terms of use very inconsistent. We are attempting to remedy this and bring articles to a higher standard, but there are probably hundreds of thousands of articles that do not meet current standards. Some will be upgradeable, and kept, some will not, and be deleted.

More specifically, it is by our rules perfectly possible that some parts of a firm may be separately notable, and the overall body not---this can especially be true when oneor two subsidiaries are much better known to the public. My own personal preference is to deal with such situations by combining small articles under the main heading, but this is not necessarily the consensus result. Administrators here do not make decisions based on their own preferences, but only in accord with what they believe from experience and knowledge of the rules will be the express or implied consensus of the general community.

I'll take a further look in a day or two. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, DGG - this is helpful feedback. I understand that the open-source nature of Wikipedia makes it difficult to ensure consistency across reviewers.

I see a comment above from Timtrent stating that Endeavor bought SouthComm, which I assume is why they think that Endeavor owned/owns the Nashville Post. I encourage that user to revisit the media links about SouthComm, where they will find out that the only assets Endeavor purchased from SouthComm were the B2B publications/websites/events. Assets including the Nashville Post were not part of that transaction, were never owned by Endeavor Business Media, and are now owned by a company called FW Publishing as SouthComm is no longer a company.

Would it be helpful if I edit the draft so it is shorter and does not describe the transactions in such detail, but rather highlights some of the well-known publications added to the company's assets? Perhaps that would better meet the criteria of "notable" information? I am trying to learn to create a good Wikipedia article and just don't understand why users think I'm trying to pull something over them. This is a transparent and sincere attempt to give Endeavor Business Media, which is now one of the largest B2B publishing companies in the U.S., a factual Wikipedia entry.

Thank you.

Abigail Christine (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Abigail Christine, Thank you for your reply to DGG. What would be helpful is for you to produce references. To remind you what is required, we require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

Not one of the references you have provided passes these tough criteria. This iteration of the draft is not suitable for inclusion.

As long as a good, useful reference, one that passes WP:42 is present, the fact you assert is considered to be verified. That alone does not guarantee acceptance. That simply verifies facts. But acceptance tends to be based upon verifiable facts.

If this draft were to be accepted in this state I predict that an editor, any editor, will nominate it not for speedy deletion, but for a deletion discussion, and that deletion will be the consensus. Once deleted at such a discussion it becomes very hard indeed to re-create unless it is substantially different from the deleted version. I am sure it does not feel like right now, but you are being protected from that misadventure, and protected by all the editors who I am sure you feel are getting in your way

If you believe that Wikipedia will enhance your corporate reputation please think again. Wikipedia adds no value to you. You must add value to Wikipedia. Passing WP:CORP does that.

You need to read and understand the comment from BD2412 above.

I need to remind you, perhaps again, that, without excellence of referencing, this draft will go nowhere.

I also need to remind you of consensus. Wikipedia is consensus based. we discuss, and thereby reach a consensus. Reflect on the number of editors who have pushed this back, nominated for speedy deletion, offered you very much the same advice, even cleaned up your draft. A consensus is formed that your draft as it stands at present is not suitable to be accpeted here. You can only alter that consensus by taking its advice, which seems to me has always been that your references are inadequate to demonstrate and verify the notability of your employer's corporation. Fiddle Faddle 14:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Request on 21:27:26, 23 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by A Flaneur

A Flaneur (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Randall Lee Goodden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A Flaneur (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Tim Trent You had read my article and stated it lacked reliable published sources, but these are all reliable sources. My 3 books were published by the publishers listed, after each offered me a contract to write the books for them, with upfront payment and more when completed, plus royalties. None of them were "self-published". The magazine articles listed list the direct link to the magazine publisher, and the only ones that link back to my website are because there is no direct link to the article in the magazine because you have to pay for a subscription to see it, so my reliable link would have been the whole copy of the magazine, so I had to copy the article itself showing the magazine name and information that it appeared in. So everything listed were reliable published services. I never published anything myself. Never had to.

"Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed".

Randall Goodden A Flaneur (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

A Flaneur, Ah, you are Mr Goodden, and this is your Autobiography. Please read WP:COI and conceivably WP:PAID since you are your product and derive a financial benefit for creating thisdraft, broadly construed. You must make a formal declaration of the relevant conflict of interest.

You also need to visit Wkimedia Commons where you uploaded files and take relevant actions to ensure that Commons understands that you are releasing the copyright images to them, assuming yourself to be the copyright holder. Thsi is especially important with photographs of you. IN that case this applies: "No evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright)."

Now, to the draft. While your references are in some manner present, please read WP:CITE and attach the citations to the facts each is intended to cite. IN addition it feels like an advert for your products and services. You just have some work to do, and should enjoy learning a new writing style and doing it. ITls refreshing to write flat neutral well cited prose, and very difficult to do about one's self. Fiddle Faddle 21:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford: you may have useful help to add for Mr Goodden. Fiddle Faddle 21:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Timtrent, ? CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford, We both declined the draft simultaneously Fiddle Faddle 21:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Timtrent, yes, I saw it a minute ago, sorry for the confusing, I have nothing to add, you explained it very well. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)