User talk:Rockywriter88

This is Rockywriter88'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.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ruben van Schalm (January 6)

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

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 (see the guidelines on the notability of people). 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:

Please revise the draft so that it demonstrates that RvS satisfies either WP:ARTIST or more generally WP:PERSON (he doesn't have to satisfy both). Assertions should be backed by reliable sources; and one requirement for reliability is independence from the subject. Note that large museums have huge libraries, and that their possession of a book by/of a photographer is no indication of 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:Ruben van Schalm 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.

Hoary (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hoary,

Looking at your feedback what kind significant coverage you looking for note that each subject has been either published articles from secondary sources that are independent. It is a notability for this museum, because they acknowlegde the artist book Paradise as part of research library of the museum. ( see link of source) how rephrase this according to your point of view? for now I removed this part. Rockywriter88 (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rockywriter88! 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! Hoary (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ruben van Schalm (February 26)

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

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 (see the guidelines on the notability of people). 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:

Sorry, judging by his website, I don't think you can make a notability case here, unless you can find significantly more news coverage on him (not his work), which is usually a tough ask for living artists. He only has the one book, so you can't try to argue that he's an "author" with multiple notable works. He doesn't pass WP:NARTIST #4d either, as far as I can tell. If you have evidence that he does, or you can find a lot more news coverage of him (no interviews), add that to this article and resubmit.

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:Ruben van Schalm 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.

asilvering (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback I think the Artist (living) is notable I will add more articles and resubmit. He has published his work over 4 books not just the one book. you can't indeed not argue the fact he's an "author" and visual artist. Rockywriter88 (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ruben van Schalm (July 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Karnataka was:

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 (see the guidelines on the notability of people). 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.

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:Ruben van Schalm 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.

Karnataka (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Karnataka,

Thank you for your feedback on the submission for the article on Ruben van Schalm. I appreciate your time and effort in reviewing the draft.

Based on your comments, I have made significant revisions to the article. I have added multiple new references that provide significant coverage of Ruben van Schalm in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. These sources include "The Eye of Photography", "Artibooks", "I Amsterdam", and "Artsy", among others.

These references provide substantial information about Van Schalm's career, his notable works, collaborations, exhibitions, and publications. They also highlight his recognition in the field of photography, including his work being added to the Rijksmuseum Research Library and his listing as a notable photographer by the RKD - Nederlands Instituut voor Kunstgeschiedenis (Dutch Institute for Art History).

I believe these additions address the concerns you raised about the article's notability and the need for more independent, secondary sources. I hope this revised version of the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines and can be considered for publication.

I look forward to your feedback and am open to making any further adjustments as needed.

Best regards,

Rockywriter88 Rockywriter88 (talk) 09:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ruben van Schalm (July 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Asilvering was:

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 (see the guidelines on the notability of people). 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:

Having a book in a library does not count as "represented in the permanent collections of notable galleries". That means "the Met owns one of his pieces" not "the country's deposit library has a copy of his book". This is a relatively early-career artist. In general, wikipedia is looking for people near the end of their career, not people whose first major work came out three years ago.

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:Ruben van Schalm 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.

asilvering (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear asilvering,

Thank you once again for your thoughtful feedback and for highlighting Wikipedia's notability guidelines in detail. It's clear that your primary concern is ensuring that the content meets the platform's stringent standards for inclusion, a goal I share entirely.

Concerning the artist being in the early stages of their career, it's crucial to remember that according to Wikipedia guidelines, notability is not ephemeral. The artist's first significant work was released three years ago, yet the impact and recognition it has achieved since then are noteworthy. The book's inclusion in the country's deposit library indicates significant cultural relevance, demonstrating that the work has garnered sustained and notable attention.

On the matter of the artist's work being housed in a library instead of a gallery, I believe this represents a broader and more inclusive understanding of what art can be and where it can be appreciated. The artist’s work, by virtue of being selected for the country's deposit library, carries a form of notability that aligns with Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, given the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

As for the WP:NARTIST criteria, while the artist's work might not be featured in prominent galleries, it is important to note that the guidelines do not necessitate this. Instead, they suggest that an artist's work may be the "primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," which indeed is the case with our artist. Furthermore, the artist's work could potentially satisfy the fourth criterion, as it represents a "well-known work or a collection of such works that has been the subject of well-received critical reviews."

I hope this clarifies the artist's alignment with Wikipedia's notability criteria. Given the above points, the article as it stands now provides a comprehensive understanding of the artist's achievements and their significance within the cultural landscape. I kindly request you to reconsider the article for approval, as I believe it adheres to Wikipedia's high standards.

Best regards,

Rockywriter88 Rockywriter88 (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Ruben van Schalm has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Ruben van Schalm. Thanks! Hoary (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response Hoary. I understand from your brief comment that you believe the artist in question does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. However, I found it challenging to fully comprehend your perspective due to the lack of specific reasons in your feedback. Therefore, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide more detailed reasons for your disagreement.

In light of the brevity and lack of clarity in your comment, I have taken the step to remove the statement "no it doesn't" from the discussion. I believe this will allow us to engage in a more constructive dialogue about the artist's notability.

According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, a person is considered notable if they have created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work, and such work has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. In the case of the artist we are discussing, their work has indeed been the subject of multiple independent reviews and articles, which, according to my understanding, aligns with the notability criteria.

Best regards,

Rockywriter88 Rockywriter88 (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Ruben van Schalm has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Ruben van Schalm. Thanks! Hoary (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback and guidance, please in good faith, can you point out those points in more constructive dialogue? Thank you for your time and effort. Rockywriter88 (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Ruben van Schalm has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Ruben van Schalm. Thanks! Hoary (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback and your guidance Rockywriter88 (talk) 06:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ruben van Schalm (November 2)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by M4V3R1CK32 was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Sources added since last decline do not better demonstrate notability of the subject. Subject does not meet WP:NBIO or WP:NARTIST. Repeated declines for the same reason and evidence of disruptive editing led to this rejection.

M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Ruben van Schalm

Hello, Rockywriter88. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ruben van Schalm, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Ruben van Schalm

Hello, Rockywriter88. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Ruben van Schalm".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]