User talk:Geert De Wilde

This is Geert De Wilde's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Welcome

Hello, Geert De Wilde, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started

Finding your way around

Editing articles

Getting help

Frequently asked questions
Cheatsheet
Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
Help pages
Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

Community Portal
Join a WikiProject
Follow Wikipedia etiquette
Practice civility
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anglo-Norman Dictionary (September 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to show notability

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Anglo-Norman Dictionary and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Geert De Wilde! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kylietalk, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you want other sources to prove that the Anglo-Norman Dictionary is an Anglo-Norman Dictionary? What sort of coverage would be needed? I based myself on the entry for Middle English Dictionary, which is hardly more supported by reliable sources? Geert De Wilde (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, unfortunately there are still many articles created long before the current guidelines that do not meet them. Middle English Dictionary was created in 2007. this article need improved sources to show notability. All new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). All you have as references at the moment are primary, but I would expect that the subject is notable, the same as I expect Middle English Dictionary also is notable and will have sources and just need improvement (This is unlike most Other Stuff Exists claims that often just get the existing articles deleted). So please do persevere and add some independent sources and re-submit. Also from your user name you appear to have an undisclosed Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - so please see WP:DISCLOSE for the mandatory disclosed templates. Personally I think such academic subjects are inherently notable, but the argument from others will be if so then other sources will exists, especially if it is the "authoritative dictionary of the Anglo-Norman language". Hope that explains things, all the best KylieTastic (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kylie, thanks for taking time to reply to this. I'm trying to find backup for the statements - and it's surprsingly difficult. Would reviews in journals be good? Oxford English Dictionary, Middle English Dictionary and Dctionnaire de Moyen Francais, end the DEAF links to us. But they do that - they don't say they do. So it's hard to link to anything specific. I'll give this some more thought and see what I can come up with. Can I resubmit, and will it get back to you? I'll also check the conflict of interest matter. I'm the Proeject Leaxer of the AND, evidently, but I hoped that if I made this clear this wouldn't be a problem? Thanks! Geert De Wilde (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sorry I resubmitted, but will do more work on Monday. There was no other way to save the chanegs it seems? Geert De Wilde (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, unlike many of the editors who edit with a COI I don't think their are any concerns here but as it's mandatory just putting a template on your user page will stop any angry admins coming down on you :) I know sometimes you go to find sources about what you presume will be well references and discover they can be hard to find. In this case I'm not surprised lots use the resource without mentioning. However the good news is journals are definitely acceptable, although for the readers sake we prefer online sources in English they do not have to be either. .So journals, books, newspapers, magazines in any language are all good. Also you did not resubmit so no issue. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anglo-Norman Dictionary has been accepted

Anglo-Norman Dictionary, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

(t · c) buidhe 07:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]