Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Cocobb8 was:
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:The Book of Jezebel 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.
Hello, Misplaced Elf!
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! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Cocobb8, Thank you for letting me know. I've posted my question in the help desk, but it looks like no one ever answers anyone's questions there, so I'm wondering if you could answer my question? The Book of Jezebel, which I'm trying to add a page for, is a legitimate published book. It was published by Philosopher's Stone Books on March 1, 2024; it has a Library of Congress number and a copy is housed with the LoC; it has an ISBN number, and it's available to the public. So, I'm not sure why it's not considered a reliable source for its own Wikipedia page--what is more reliable as a source about a book than the book itself? It's not a scholarly work, nor is it claiming to be an "expert" on something--it's a historical fiction novel, and that's all it's claiming to be. The description I included makes it clear that it's a revisionist story, and the reference is the book itself. So, I'm not understanding why it's not considered legitimate enough to have its own page.
Hello @Misplaced Elf! I'm really sorry that you didn't get a reply on the help desk. All of our repliers are volunteers like you and I, and it can take a few hours before you get a reply. I see that you already started to add some more sources to the draft, which is great! Wikipedia has criteria to determine whehter a book is notable, and, as you will see, you require reliable sources to show that. However, these sources cannot be the book itself (i.e. primary sources). Instead, we are looking for published, secondary sources, like book reviews and news reports. Imagine if every single book that had an ISBN was automatically eligible for a Wikipedia article! It would be chaos.If you need any help finding sources, check out this help article!Let me know if you have other questions.Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 09:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cocobb8! You're right, I see what you mean--thank you for explaining that. Yes, it's in the process of being reviewed professionally by Kirkus. The extended Kirkus review will be published by the end of this month. The book hasn't yet been submitted to other professional reviewers or news outlets, as the process is costly and can take a lot of time. Will the one Kirkus review and Library of Congress file be enough for the page to be permitted, with the understanding that more reviews/articles will be added as sources, when they become available? Thank you so much for all your patience & assistance! Cheers, Misplaced Elf (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Misplaced Elf, you would need at bare minimum two independent, secondary sources, as said in the notability of books article. However, if you only have one, the draft may still be eligible under another book notability criteria. So, the best would be to wait until a couple of reviews/new coverage come out . Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheroadislongThanks! I didn't misunderstand, though. To be clear, I'm not trying to use the interviews as reliable sources to prove notoriety. I haven't resubmitted the article request, nor do I intend to anytime soon. I'm just making edits to the draft, and including them as sources relevant to what is being referenced. Are they not allowed to be included at all, even if they're mentioned in the article?
Also, just to be clear, YouTube isn't the source--it's just the site that hosts the video interview. The source is "Briggs on Books," a talk show owned and operated by Central Valley Talk. The host, Mike Briggs, invited me to be interviewed when he discovered the book during the soft release, so it is technically an independent source because I don't know Mike Briggs and he doesn't know me, outside the 15 minutes we spent making the interview. I do understand it's not considered a reliable source, however, because it's an interview and not a review or journal article.
Again, I have no intention of resubmitting the publication request until there are enough independent reliable sources, such as the pending Kirkus review, to make it relevant enough to have its own article. I do now understand the difference between reliable sources and just...sources. I guess I'm just not understanding how strict the rules have become on sources altogether. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I've seen interviews and YouTube videos referenced in Wikipedia articles in the past, where relevant, but maybe the rules have changed. I'm confused about whether they're permitted at all, or just not as reliable sources to get the article published.
Thank you for your patience and taking the time to explain these nuances to me.(I have a mild form of autism, so these subtleties can sometimes evade me.)
. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
