User talk:Vexations/Archive 6

• Avanangel (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Guido Helmut Frick, Impressionist Master Painter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Avanangel (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I need to know how to prove this artist is notable, as he is a very famous artist globally in the world of Impressionism. He won the prestigious Fountainbleu award, and has been in many galleries, books, and magazines. He trained under two very famous artists. Was the article turned down because I am not well known? If that is the case, I can get another person to be the author of the article - someone notable. Please be specific as to why he is not considered notable. Thanks. Avanangel (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Avanangel: Firstly, It has nothing to do with your notability, anyone can contribute to Wikipedia. Secondly, please let me know if you have read and understood Help:Referencing_for_beginners. I declined to publish (move from Draft: into Article: namespace) the article because I could not check the references you provided. They are so vague that they're not usable. For example, you cite "Oil Painting with the Masters". I can't tell which book that is. It could be this one: Salaski, Cindy (2014). Oil painting with the masters: essential techniques from today's top artists. ISBN 978-1-4403-2993-7., but I have no way of knowing that. I also can't tell which statement it is supposed to provide a source for. For example, you write that he was born and raised in Konstanz. Is that claim supported by Salaski's book? If so, you should have cited that, using an inline citation as follows:

Frick was born and raised in [[Konstanz]]. <ref name="salaski">{{Cite book| isbn = 978-1-4403-2993-7| last = Salaski| first = Cindy| title = Oil painting with the masters: essential techniques from today's top artists| date = 2014}}</ref>.

That renders as:

Frick was born and raised in Konstanz. ^[1]

Please rewrite the article so that all claims about Frick can be verified. A couple of other things: The Prix de Salon in Fontainebleau (you misspelled Fontainebleau as Fontainbleau BTW) is not notable to my knowledge. Do not uppercase nouns, as you would in German. Support vague claims like "His works have shown in exhibits in Germany, Switzerland, France, Italy, and England" with facts (which museum, solo or group, date, a reference to a review of that exhibition, etc.) Avoid peacock terms like "master painter" and "very famous", they add nothing to the article but sounds impressive. Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view. In other words, if I write an article about an artist, you should not be able to tell if I like that artist's work or not.

All the best, Mduvekot (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• Avanangel (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Guido Helmut Frick, Impressionist Master Painter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Avanangel (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I need to know how to prove this artist is notable, as he is a very famous artist globally in the world of Impressionism. He won the prestigious Fountainbleu award, and has been in many galleries, books, and magazines. He trained under two very famous artists. Was the article turned down because I am not well known? If that is the case, I can get another person to be the author of the article - someone notable. Please be specific as to why he is not considered notable. Thanks. Avanangel (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Avanangel: Firstly, It has nothing to do with your notability, anyone can contribute to Wikipedia. Secondly, please let me know if you have read and understood Help:Referencing_for_beginners. I declined to publish (move from Draft: into Article: namespace) the article because I could not check the references you provided. They are so vague that they're not usable. For example, you cite "Oil Painting with the Masters". I can't tell which book that is. It could be this one: Salaski, Cindy (2014). Oil painting with the masters: essential techniques from today's top artists. ISBN 978-1-4403-2993-7., but I have no way of knowing that. I also can't tell which statement it is supposed to provide a source for. For example, you write that he was born and raised in Konstanz. Is that claim supported by Salaski's book? If so, you should have cited that, using an inline citation as follows:

Frick was born and raised in [[Konstanz]]. <ref name="salaski">{{Cite book| isbn = 978-1-4403-2993-7| last = Salaski| first = Cindy| title = Oil painting with the masters: essential techniques from today's top artists| date = 2014}}</ref>.

That renders as:

Frick was born and raised in Konstanz. ^[1]

Please rewrite the article so that all claims about Frick can be verified. A couple of other things: The Prix de Salon in Fontainebleau (you misspelled Fontainebleau as Fontainbleau BTW) is not notable to my knowledge. Do not uppercase nouns, as you would in German. Support vague claims like "His works have shown in exhibits in Germany, Switzerland, France, Italy, and England" with facts (which museum, solo or group, date, a reference to a review of that exhibition, etc.) Avoid peacock terms like "master painter" and "very famous", they add nothing to the article but sounds impressive. Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view. In other words, if I write an article about an artist, you should not be able to tell if I like that artist's work or not.

All the best, Mduvekot (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I don't know if you like stars or not, but wanted in any case to thank you for your careful and convincing analysis at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Melnick. Excellent, thank you! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I don't know if you like stars or not, but wanted in any case to thank you for your careful and convincing analysis at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Melnick. Excellent, thank you! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there,

Thanks for looking at my profile, I added some links. The is a link to my run for effected office on Wikipedia already. Tell me what I need to do to post my info.

Regards,

David — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Senater (talk • contribs) 19:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi David Senater, since you refer to it as your "profile", I would suggest that an appropriate place for a profile is LinkedIn, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social network. Your autobiography cited no independent, reliable sources. You need to find and cite such sources, but even if you did, we still strongly discourage writing autobiographies. Mduvekot (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, please do let me know if I've inaccurately represented, or just plain misunderstood your views, or both! It can certainly happen and I'd like to fix it when I have, as I have no desire to misstate the opinions of other editors--I'm really only interested in how the opinion lines up with guidelines. Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Innisfree987, thanks for stopping by. I have the impression that you have tried to argue that my position at the AfD is untenable because you think that it necessarily follows from the premises "The CBC and the Globe and Mail are usually reliable sources" and "The problem is not the number of sources" that Deans is notable per WP:Notability_people and that I have somehow violated the rules of inference by not arriving at the same conclusion. I also can't escape the impression that you think that I am second-guessing the sources, and that in doing so, I may be at odds with WP:NPOV. Then you go on to say that you are trying to assume good faith, and refer to "someone" (who, me?) who changes their mind (again, me?) and say that it begins to feel like IDONTLIKEIT. I have the impression that you are trying to imply that it is difficult for you to AGF with regards to my edits because I am inconsistent (I change my mind) and biased (IDONTLIKEIT). I hope you agree that such arguments have no place in an AfD.

Now, I think that your argument goes something like this; If independent, reliable sources exist, and if no exclusionary criteria apply then it is possible to create a balanced article about a subject, thus the article, regardless of the state it is in, can be improved and it follows that the article passes AfD.

I almost agree, but would like to add that coverage must be significant, and that sources ought to be evaluated each time they are used. Not everything the New York Times writes automatically confers notability on the subject.

My argument hinges on two reasons from the deletion policy;

• Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
• Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline

I argue that some of the claims, like the ones that Deans is a public speaker, scientist or an artist, cannot be verified and that the subject fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines.

I wanted to point out that the claim from first sentence in the the lead and replicated in the infobox that Deans is an inventor, artist and public speaker is not supported by the sources. The first source used to support that statement is the Windsor Star, http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/inventive-windsor-teen-named-future-leader-by-macleans-magazine who calls him a scientist but does not elaborate on his research, doesn't mention his public speaking, and has this to say about his art: "he’s been teaching himself the art of portraiture", and shows a picture of Deans posing by some of his work. The second source http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/alex-deans-wins-ontario-science-centre-award-for-iaid-device-1.3090751 makes no mention of him either being an inventor, artist or a public speaker. They do refer to him as an award-winning scientist, but, like the Windsor Star, do not elaborate on just what kind of scientist he is, and what his area of research is.

I don't see any evidence that Deans is notable as what the article claims he is: a scientist, artist and public speaker. He might be notable as a science fair winner, if we agreed with the sources that high school science fair winners are notable. I don't think that's the case.

I hope this clarifies my position for you. All the best, Mduvekot (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for your message.

So to start with the easiest thing to clear up: the "someone" was me, not you (i.e. "I, Innisfree, pointed out to you, Mduvekot, and then..."). I should have just said that--very sorry to have added to difficulties with straight-up poor phrasing.

We agree that "coverage must be significant, and that sources ought to be evaluated each time they are used. Not everything the New York Times writes automatically confers notability on the subject."

I think we disagree a bit about the relevance of the special notability guidelines (SNGs), but I don't have much to add that I haven't already said in the AfD.

As for changing one's mind. This is not in itself a problem to me. It's commonplace--I myself have done it often!--to change one's mind if another editor points out a policy that I was either not aware of at all or hadn't thought to apply to the situation at hand.

What concerns me is moving the goalposts. I understood your statement "The problem is not the number of sources" to mean you believed there were enough sources to meet the principles of GNG (i.e. "substantial coverage," as we agree--essentially the same wording in WP:BASIC), but that you simply didn't think that standard applied ("I'm not convinced that WP:GNG applies") and instead you described the ways the subjects doesn't meet the SNGs. I pointed out my understanding of consensus that if a subject meets GNG/BASIC, then the subject need not meet any SNGs. At that point, you said there wasn't a sufficient number of sources to constitute "substantial coverage". But of course the number of sources has not changed. Had your understanding of policy changed? I could totally understand if an editor hadn't previously been aware of, say, the requirement for "substantial coverage" and then in retrospect revised their opinion to something like, "I misunderstood how many sources were necessary, and so in fact the number of sources is a problem." In absence of such an explanation for why you previously thought the number of sources was not a problem, and now you do, and in light of the vehemence of your first comment, I thought and continue to think it was appropriate to raise the concerns I did, with the caveat that maybe there's more to your argument and that I hope you'd add it if I was missing something. That latter gesture was intended to raise the concern as WP:CIVILly as possible. But I definitely could not agree that rigorously interrogating for consistency and bias in how we apply our guidelines is anything other than entirely appropriate, even essential discussion for AfD. I personally hope that the same rigor will always be applied to my analysis!

As I think about it, it's seeming to me my mistake was in suggesting that issues of consistency or bias necessarily strained the assumption of good faith. While I continue to think they could be errors in the application of guidelines (I still don't quite understand why you previously thought the number of sources wasn't a problem, but now you do), I think those are potential errors a person could make while still being in good faith. So I'll go strike that comment now, from the AfD. I apologize for suggesting you might not be in good faith, I should not have done. I sincerely hope you can accept my apology and I thank you for being willing to discuss with me even after I said that.

Thanks much. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)