User talk:Timtrent

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This is the home account for Fiddle Faddle, which is both my nickname and my alternate account. When you begin a new message section here, I will respond to it here. When I leave message on your Talk page, I will watch your page for your response. This maintains discussion threads and continuity. See Help:Talk page#How to keep a two-way conversation readable. If you want to use {{Talkback}} or {{ping}} to alert me about messages elsewhere, please feel free to do so. Has this user made a silly mistake? Click on the trout to notify them!

SCAM WARNING! If you have been contacted or solicited by anyone asking for payment to get a draft into article space, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article, such offers are not legitimate and you should contact paid-en-wpwikipedia.org immediately.

Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

In the event that what you seek is not here then it is archived (0.9 probability). While you are welcome to potter through the archives the meaning of life is not there.

Good Day Tim

Would it be better to remove references that are not reliable? I am not sure if I should keep them in. I need a few of them as inline citations. Otherwise I can't prove that what is being said is true.

I understand that you are not happy with the type of reference, but just wanted your advice on this.

There are some references whether other companies and journalists speak about Film Afrika. They are not all promotional.

For example: How do I say they won Emmy Awards without linking the citation to the Emmy Award cite?

Are the Emmy Awards considered a reliable reference or not?

Kind Regards

Karin Karinvanderlaag (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Karinvanderlaag Please ask another reviewer. 🇺🇦��Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	You know why, thank you so much. I hope that those two would enrich the encyclopaedia from their end. Best regards! Reading Beans 07:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I hope you’re doing great?

I created a draft Nelly Agbogu which was submitted for approval. A reviewer Vanderwaalforces rejected it claiming ‘it utterly fails GNG’ and tagged a ‘COI’ to it. Respectfully, I went to his talk page and asked for clarification on why and how it fails GNG utterly, is it terms of the referencing or…? As regards the COI tag, I mentioned that I would love to be clarified on how that article attracted a ‘COI’. I also added that I will be willing to take the issue to AN/I if he persists with his accusation. He gave no clarification at least to my questions but went ahead to give a ‘go-ahead’ if I choose to. Given that the AfC stated that it could not be resubmitted, I then moved it to the mainspace and informed him on his talk page. I stated that while I had significantly worked on the page, he is free to nominate it for a deletion so it goes through a consensus instead (since he’s not willing to give clarifications). I have created over 60 articles all of which are done in good faith. While I am aware that I am prone to mistakes and imperfections, it is disheartening when editors throw the ‘COI’ tags at one another without proper finding. I am discouraged and may withdraw from Wikipedia all the same. A ‘COI’ tag is something I do not take lightly especially with my past experiences and deliberate efforts to avoid any form or appearance of it. I thought to reach out here because I wanted to weigh in on the counsel of a more experienced editor. I’m sorry for the long text but I’m unable to link to the talkpage conversations myself.

Best regards. Mevoelo (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mevoelo Thank you for your message. Why do you feel I am able to assist you, please? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your reply. I seldom get involved in conversations or disputes neither do I have any editor with whom I can really relate with. Going through all this alone has prompted me to at least ‘seek counsel’. Do you think I have a pattern of editing that goes against Wikipedia guidelines? Or is there something I’m doing wrong all the same? I also feel like I’m being bullied probably because I do not have badges, rights or technical legacies like some others — despite I’ve been here for quite some time (I may be wrong with this).

I’ve seen your input severally with other editors, and I’ve also noticed your efforts here on Wikipedia. Honestly, I had no one else in mind so I thought to reach out. Mevoelo (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mevoelo I am not able to make a comment on the COI suggestion. I can tell you that all of us may expect to be asked about COI at come point in our time here, and that, unless proven otherwise, our clear statement to the contrary, our denial, must be taken at face value. If yours has not been then ANI is the worst place to visit. Drama boards scrutinise all parties to a report, not just the editor who makes the report.

WP:AFCHD may be a more gentle place to as why this draft was handled (in your opinion) unfairly. I suggest, though, that you set your emotions and feelings aside, realise that Wikipedia is not a gentle place, and move forwards with confidence.

I have left an opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nelly Agbogu whch I am sure you will not agree with at first. Please put any distaste aside, and realise that the article, as it stands, is likely (but not certain) to face deletion. There is much work do do in cutting material from it. All you have to do, all, is to prove that Nelly Agbogu passes WP:BIO. prove that and it will not be deleted. It doesn't take much to prove it, if it is provable. The current references come close, but there are far too many interviews with her, her opinions, passing mentions, and far too little commentary about her.

Thank you for expressing your trust in me. I do not think you will have liked everything I have said and done after your first message. My first duty is to Wikipedia, as I am sure you understand. By doing that duty as well as I am able I can help you as well. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your honesty and for taking your time to explain things better to me. I was previously utterly discouraged but I think speaking out really does work. I’ll work on the aspects you’ve pointed out. Mevoelo (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mevoelo Thank you. I feared you would resent my opinion at AfD. I am glad you have "taken yourself and your feelings" out if the equation, and are now looking only at how Wikipedia can be improved.

I have created a reasonable number of articles. Most are never challenged. Of those which receive a challenge, some were deleted correctly. Others survived. AT the time of nomination I feel a slight feeling of hurt, but I make sure I let that pass. Then I look at the rationale and decide whether I can improve the article to allow it to be kept. Only then do I choose to do the work.

What I try hard not to do is to take any of Wikipedia personally. We are passengers on a runaway train, after all! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What more can I say? Thank you so much. I actually laughed because I am at that point of deciding whether I should improve the article to be kept or not. I’m actually playing a game here to see if it falls on ‘DO’ or ‘DO NOT’. I guess I’ll attempt to improve it to my best capacity. Whatever the outcome, I’ll be satisfied. Most of all, I’m happy I could come out of my shell, and reach out to you.

Thank you loads! Mevoelo (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Timtrent, I am very sorry concerning my statement. Please accept my apology Eecogru (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eecogru please express your apology directly to the editor you spoke about. For my part I accept your apology. I am sure this was a behaviour you will not exhibit again. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eecogru Indeed, I see that you have done so. Thank you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Timtrent.I won't exhibit it again.

And l have tender my apology indeed.

Thank you and God bless you. Eecogru (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eecogru Please now put this behind you and enjoy editing. By the way, not everyone enjoys the offer of a blessing, even if it something you use because of your faith. People here are of many faiths and of no faith at all. Your deity will approve of restraint in words whatever you believe inside. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Timtrent,

This is an article written by an alternate account of InspiringFlow. I'm hoping since you have so much experience reviewing articles, if you could glance at this one and see if any action is called for. Thank you for your expertise. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Liz Some action is called for, since the creator has a COI (the talk page for User:Inspiringflow shows that they wrote an autobiography about themself, Thierry Rayer) and that might mean that the you consider moving the article to draftspace to be accepted by AfC since the creator has a COI (WP:DRAFTREASON) and maybe warn the creator against using multiple accounts with something like {{uw-agf-sock}}? The original account has been warned multiple times already to not use Wikipedia to promote their own work. The article itself has some content written like an advertisement and it might at least be be tagged accordingly. But a third opinion would be good at least, my knowledge with reviewing articles isn't amazing. Fathoms Below (talk) 04:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz and Fathoms Below: both named accounts agf sock warned. Article moved to draft, declined as an advert and for UPE. About to warn each "account" for UPE. This is neither inspiring nor flowing. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, Fathoms Below, and Primefac: and, of course, Tim. Apart from the problems already mentioned, the references don't establish notability. Only the piece in Arab News could even be considered as relevant: the others are 2 interviews with Thierry Rayer (founder and president of Cercle d'Études Scientifiques Pierre Rayer, aka Inspiringflow, aka Inspiringflow1); a page which merely includes Thierry Rayer in a list of participants in an event; a page on the website of the organisation itself; and a page which, if I have correctly construed it, is merely a record of the registration of a trade mark by the organisation, in any case it is not substantial coverage. Both for that reason and because of the somewhat promotional tone of the article, I don't think there can be any justification for putting it into mainspace in its current form. JBW (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make up my mind. I suppose I should not be a naughty child and just play nice and G11 nominate it. The total brat in me wants to play.

I'll leave it to any of you who want to stop me from being naughty, @Liz, Fathoms Below, and Primefac:. It's that naughty time of day for me, you see 😈😇🤡, and inspiration has started to flow. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly came to the right editor to ask for a second opinion. I definitely see COI issues but I don't think it is UPE since they are writing about their own organization. At least that is not how I understand PE which I see as a third party who is being compensated for writing about a client or an editor whose job entails polishing up an article about their boss, professor or company. But I know that through AFC and patrolling, Tim has reviewed tens of thousands of articles at this point and would be able to spot whether the article's issues are ones that can be corrected through editing or whether draftification or deletion is called for. Thank you for spending some time to review it and, JBW, for reviewing the sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Thank you for your confidence in me. Have I really reviewed tens of thousands? Wow! Who knew? I also follow pictures to Commons, and do my best to seek to make sure that only the correctly licenced ones are retained. Yes, I'm that kind of sad nerd! 🥷🏾

I am very happy with good paid editors, ones that trouble no-one, get it right, may need one decline/pushback for better work, and then submit an excellent draft. I value those highly. I think that may even be what WP:PAID was intended for, and to encourage (with transparency).

The ones which annoy me do so by insulting my intelligence, by wheedling, whining, bamboozling, deceiving, dissembling, and creating a timesink. I'll work with them until I find them intractable. Among that bunch are those pushing the corporation that pays them, or makes their reputation. PE is a "reward, broadly construed" and that applies to Bert Foo of Foo Enterprises, his mom and pop shop business as much as it would to a captain of industry like #SpaceKaren.

I think this one is best in Draft space for now. We have a great team of very experienced reviewers who will allow it through once it meets policy. Unless it's submitted in the same state, of course, when I reckon someone will hit the G11 button 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of paid editing, I don't see editing about one's own company as paid editing within the meaning of either the Wikipedia policy on paid editing or the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. If I have understood correctly, that is in agreement with what Liz has said, but different from what Tim has implied. However, I regard it as, for most purposes, a distinction without a difference, because in both cases there's a conflict of interest, and if the one deserves a warning/block/deletion/whatever then so does the other. I find paid editing warnings on talk pages really unhelpful, because all too often they lead to a good faith editor making the mistake of thinking that because they are not paid the warning doesn't apply to them, which leads to various problems, such as putting time and effort into arguing about whether they are paid or not, instead of putting the same time and effort into learning how to deal with the conflict of interest related issues. Why not just give them a friendly message about conflict of interest, since that covers the situation whether it's paid or not? I am reasonably happy with a warning which puts the main emphasis on COI, but also briefly mentions paid editing (as is the case, for example, with the standard prefabricated {{uw-coi}} message) but even that can be problematic, as an astonishing number of new editors can read that message, and come away with the impression that it doesn't apply to them because it's only about paid editing. JBW (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the scope for misunderstanding. I disagree that creating articles about the company that pays "my" bills, were I to own one, would be simple COI 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'm with Timtrent on this. If an editor stands to gain financially from promoting a subject, then to my mind it's paid editing, whether in the course of employment, for a paying client, or by way of ownership of a business (etc.). Admittedly, the rules aren't entirely clear: WP:PAID talks about 'compensation', which suggests money or other rewards exchanging hands, and could perhaps be seen to exclude gains in business value, reputation, and other indirect and/or longer-term benefits to business owners and the like. Whereas {{uw-paid}} words it as "financial stake in promoting a topic" which seems more readily to take in such benefits. To me, the latter reflects better (what I believe to be) the spirit of this type of COI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Since you loaded my magazine with a cannon shell, aimed me and pulled my trigger (🥷🏾)I felt you would wish to read the correspondence at User talk:Inspiringflow1 § Wikipedia is not for self promotion.

I have suggested that they ask for one or other of the accounts to be blocked. AGF suggests to me an honest error, but perpetuated by flip-flopping between accounts.

I have done my best to set my distaste for self aggrandising editors aside and to offer them substantial useful advice to seek to enable them to succeed. I think I should now step away and watch, leaving my trusty talk page stalkers to look hard at this 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still think that (1) arguing about ehether writing about one's own business is paid editing or not is pointless, because it doesn't matter whether it is or not, as it's covered by conflict of interest anyway, and (2) very often "paid editing" warnings do more harm than good. JBW (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW I don't think I am going to argue with you. That we hold different views is absolutely acceptable. Most important, we hold them and disagree collegially. I doubt either would convince the other if we discussed the point for a lifetime. I also doubt the fine nuances either way really matter on the 'own corp' front.

My jury is out on the templates. They need to be used well or not used. I am certain I have made some errors here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assessment. I was looking for an neutral opinion, and you told me what I'd feared but hoped against. It was worth a shot! I've already offered up pretty much every source that is available on line, and will not be revising the article further. Who and how should the draft be removed? Thanks again for taking the time. AwryGuy (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AwryGuy Sleep on it for a couple of days. Then, if you are certain it cannot be proven to be notable, apply {{Db-u1}} on a line of its own, at the head. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably there is nothing to prevent me from re-submitting the thing in the unlikely event that further suitable sourcing emerges. AwryGuy (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm just following up on a declined submission. Would it be possible to get a bit of clarification on why it was declined? I've revised the sources for the submission quite a number of times to account for comments I've received. What would make them more successful? Likewise, a number of the citations are from very reputable, widely circulated, newspapers speaking directly about Moriyama Teshima. Are you looking for print media? JLzero02 (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just seeing your other comment regarding notability. What would qualify? The firm is one of the most famous in Canada and has been around since the 60's, it's about as reputable in the country as it gets. I'm happy to include that information, I just don't know how to communicate that. JLzero02 (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you read the comment. I was just asking whether you had when you added this message. one of the most famous in Canada is an odd thing. You need to be able to verify its fame, but fame per se is not always the same as notability in a Wikipedia sense.

As I said, you have concealed notability in a welter of stuff. We need to cut the forest down to find the serial tree we seek.

Stand back from this. Ask yourself "What in this shows notability?" and be brutal. When you find it, clear away the brushwood. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JLzero02 forgot to ping 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the encouragement! Will give er a shot! JLzero02 (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JLzero02 You can do this. What you have now is far larger than the end result will be 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you wouldn't mind taking a look to see if I'm on the right track (it's not quite yet completed, but I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding your suggestions). I've gotten rid of a lot of the projects, and the ones that I've retained, I've included a bit of additional information on. Thank you so so much for your help by the way. I've been eager to make this article better but wasn't sure how to tackle it. JLzero02 (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JLzero02 You are definitely getting there. I think you are close. I know it's been hard to cut material out. Notability needs to shine out, and can only do so when there is "just" sufficient information to allow it to do so. Almost always less truly is more.

I've only skimmed what you have done. Anther reviewer will review it when you submit it (fresh eyes are always better), but what I can see is that the shorter draft welcomes the reader in.

From now on it's a matter of referencing. One good one is worth a goodly number of poor ones. Be ruthless in checking the quality of references. They must be:

• Significant coverage (3 or more useful paragraphs)
• Independent of the subject
• About the subject of the article, not by the subject!
• In reliable sources (that is hard to judge, for example tabloid newspapers tend not to be reliable, despite being mainstream, media; Also see WP:FORBESCON

You might wish to read this essay. A little too late for this draft, there is a process in it which almost guarantees success provided the topic is truly notable. You can still use it to check your trajectory, of course!

The difficulty with architects is that their product - design - has to speak for them. Thus a review of their buildings, while not always useful, can speak to the architect's notability. It all depends who reviews them!

To many folk see the review and reviewer as an obstacle. 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.

Let me digress and give you an example of brevity and notability - Elsie Reasoner Ralph - undeniably notable as 'The first female war correspondent in US history', yet there is almost nothing to say about her. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these resources! I'll review them all and hopefully will get this article where it needs to be (and will certainly be applying it to articles I hope to write in the future). JLzero02 (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JLzero02 When you think you have completed this draft, let it mature for a couple of days before you resubmit. There is no deadline, but as it simmers gently you may think of the one key thing... 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to extend my sincere apologies for the recent misunderstanding regarding the "writing about yourself" guidelines. I misinterpreted the intent behind these instructions and did not realize that self-promotion was prohibited. It was never my intention to convey a misleading impression or to make such an oversight, especially when the guidelines clearly state that self-promotion is not allowed.

I deeply regret any confusion this may have caused and am committed to adhering strictly to the established guidelines moving forward. Thank you for your understanding.

Sincerely,

Corey Wesley Coreycreativemind (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Coreycreativemind No worries at all 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, sorry to bother you. I’m just new here, so I’m trying to figure out how this stuff works.

I notice that you just rejected Draft:Easterhouse Festival Society, and wanted to touch base to ask why / what to do about it. I didn’t create the draft, but had edited it and found sources for it during the last submission period, and would like to get it fit for acceptance if possible, because it seems like an interesting page.

You said in your rejection that it didn’t have enough sources that were in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent. As far as I can tell though, while the introduction about why the society was needed doesn’t directly address the society, in the section that does we have two TV programs from Scotland TV and the BBC directly talking about the society at the time, a Glasgow times article from this year (2024) talking about the most famous artwork the society produced, and a book published in 2020 which is about one of the major participants of the society, and the play that won a fringe first award at the Edinburgh fringe.

These all seem to fulfil the in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent criteria?

You also note that there is too much information, and too many citations, so I can only assume that the extra stuff somehow dilutes the relevance of the other directly relevant citations/sources? I was under the impression that once the basics were established, extra sources didn’t subtract relevance from those basic sources, but maybe I’m wrong? Like I said, I’m new so I’m still trying to figure this stuff out.

Given that you want less information / fewer sources for acceptance, which parts would you like to see cut? I’m guessing the earlier “reasons the society was created” sections?

Thanks for your help Absurdum4242 (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Absurdum4242 I'm not seeing the references and the text in the same manner that you are. I suppose that is obvious.

The TV shows are interesting. But one presented by the society seems to be what they wish to say, so doesn't verify notability.

There is a difficulty with pre society history, one you will not think obvious, and which is subtle. Imagine a reference saying "There is a need for Foo!" and another a while later, saying "We have Foo!" What those have not established is a link between need and arrival of Foo. We call any cause relationship stated or implied as WP:SYNTH. You need to be careful not to link the gangs and their disappearance with the arrival of the society unless a reference links them directly.

References not mentioning the society are hard to justify as useful. Check these with care, please.

Consider that the artwork may be notable independent of any notability of the society. It os a paradox that a work may be notable and the creator of the work may not be.

Do you see where I am going with this? Please come back with further questions. I'm sorry you had to wait so long for a reply, In have been busy all day. I probably have left unanswered questions simply because I am too tired to think too deeply 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks very much for taking the time to reply.

Don’t worry about replying quickly, I saw in your profile that you’re busy IRL, and was expecting a reply to take days not hours 😆

I guess what is confusing me a little is what I’ve been reading over on the notability page - ie the parts quoted below

- “Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists

The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles.”

- “Article content does not determine notability

Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvement to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.”

- “Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article

The absence of sources or citations in a Wikipedia article (as distinct from the non-existence of independent, published reliable sources in libraries, bookstores, and the internet) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article.”

These policies seem to suggest that so long as the subject of the article (The society in this case), has been covered in external sources which are *significant, *reliable, *independant, *secondary sources - and that such sources exist whether or not currently included in the page as written. That some of the linkages in the page as currently written are weakish (although I disagree about exactly how weak, given there’s a source given which says the dude who created the society did so specifically because he was concerned about the previous level of gang violence) seems not to matter so long as they exist - given the policy that says poor writing and referencing doesn’t decrease the subject’s notability”? Nor do they need to be in the article as written at all, at least not at first, given that the policy “does not require their immediate presence or citation in the article” as long as there is a “possibility or existence of notability-indicated sources that are not currently in the article”?

I’m not at all having a go at you for denying the article, or suggesting that you should have done otherwise… I’m just confused since I’m new here whether the actual culture of long term editors has decided to interpret these policies differently than they are written (or at least how I am reading them as written)?

Sorry for taking you time with this long reply - you seem to be really good at articulating this stuff, so I thought I’d ask, and hopefully it will help me do better in future.

Thanks, Michael. Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Absurdum4242 I think there is often a difference between theory (policy) and practice (what editors do with a mainspace article). The role of Reviewer is to seek to protect creating editors such as yourself from the vagaries of editors who happen upon articles and sometimes offer them for deletion with poor rationales (causing the creating editor stress and grief) and even sometimes succeeding in the deletion.

That was a whole paragraph to say that Wikipedia is weird!

The role of a reviewer is to accept any draft whcih each of us, individually, believes has a greater than 50% probability of surviving an immediate deletion process. To define "immediate" I choose it to mean "with no other edits since it entered mainspace" so obviously I didn't feel yours was quite there. Equally obviously I am relatively human and can make mistakes! I think you think I have here. That's ok by me. I have no need to defend my corner.

That means that, if you feel I ought to have accepted it, and say to me "Please revisit your review, I think you are mistaken" I will be happy to do just that, and accept the draft. You have no need to resubmit it, you only have to ask me.

Now, if I cut to the chase of what you are saying, it is the difference between "Inherent Notability" and "Demonstrated and Verified Notability" - that is what you are saying, isn't it?

Subjects, topics, with inherent notability should be accepted, perhaps even if the draft is exceeding poor, something yours is not, exceeding poor. The question is, what will happen at [[WP:AFD]? That is something I cannot predict. Deletion discussions are meant to be policy based. Usually they are. Often they are not.

What you need to think hard about is "Does my topic have inherent notability?"

If it does not, but needs the notability to be verified, the next question to ask of the draft is "Setting aside my wish for it to be published as it is now, looking at the draft with, ideally, a jaundiced eye, does it have sufficient references which pass the criteria below to survive:

We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are 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.

This is where I see it as just below the threshold. Does your new jaundiced eye see it as above? If you are on the fence about it (jaundiced eyes do that), don;t ask me simply to accept it. Instead, ask me to ask another reviewer whose opinions I trust, to take a look with a view to acceptance.

I'm pretty sure I haven't given you direct answers to your questions, but have I answered sufficiently so you understand my thought processes? And remember, I make mistakes. We all do. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim,

that all makes sense, and definitely gives me something to think about. I think what I’m going to do now is maybe give the actual creator of the draft a chance to improve it, and possibly talk to him in a week or two if he hasn’t, see if we can get on the same page. I just stumbled across the page and thought it was interesting, which is why I tried to help out. I won’t ask you to review it, or check with anyone until after a bit of time has passed and I’ve touched base with the creator or had another go myself at digging up sources. I agree that the pre-society introduction is long, and… perhaps too reliant on quotes? But I don’t want to just cut it all either, because it isn’t MY draft.

Really I was mostly just trying to get the policy vs culture here clear in my mind, because 1/ it seems from observation that it differs, and 2/ I very much suspect that I prioritise usefulness / interest more, and… internalised policies around denying / deleting for lack of direct relevance than a lot of the editors on here. I’d rather have a weak (but factually true) article on here if it’s useful / interesting, and then work to improve it, rather than deny / delete it, which seems to be some editors main interest (I’ve come across several, even just in two weeks, who only delete / deny, and do not edit / create - which I’m not suggesting describes you, or is even wrong, it’s just not my mindset). It… seems to have been wikipedias’s original motivating force too, and I wonder if time / cultural drift has affected it without people necessarily noticing.

Anyway, not suggesting you made a mistake, and don’t have my more asks at this stage. Really happy you’ve taken the time to explain this so clearly to a noobie, and that you have a great weekend.

michael. Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Absurdum4242 The thing about all reviewers is that we have asked to perform the role because we want to accept articles.

At the same time we also want to keep the true trash out.

A new reviewer is less likely to accept a borderline draft than an experienced one. The new reviewer still think is it is a but abut them and their reputation. An experienced one knows that it is all about the article. I aim to accept any borderline draft I come across, for example, because I am confident in my thinking. And I still make mistakes. I am only as good as my most recent review!

The weekend will see may at my local sailing club. I support my local RYA Sailability group in making sure those folk who need extra support to sail get the best fun they can possibly have.

I hope your weekend is excellent tooo 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]