User talk:Soupmaker

Welcome!

Hi Soupmaker! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Emanuel Admassu, from its old location at User:Soupmaker/sandbox/Emanuel Admassu. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Refik Anadol

I came across this article while it was in draft, and arranged to have it moved to mainspace. Very nice work. The drafts you have in the AFC queue are quite high quality. You should try moving one to article space yourself. --- Possibly (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am new to wiki so not sure how to move to article space yet and I honestly was not sure if the articles are okay or not Soupmaker (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are pretty good. Germane Barnes needed a few more refs, so I have added them and moved it to article space. 19:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For the excellent new articles you have been creating! --- Possibly (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Germane Barnes moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Germane Barnes, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. None of the references is useful in verifying notability. They consist of references and exhibition notice panels in the main. They need to be replaced by references that work, please. Quantity is not the answer, Quality always wins the day Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 09:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Germane Barnes (April 17)

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

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.

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 for academics). 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:

Your referencing is a major obstacle and is why I have returned this to draft. It would have been deleted almost at once otherwise (0.95 probability).

It is obvious that Barnes is interesting. What he must do is satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. Part of this is inherent notability, of which am unsure, and part is the referencing to prove it

For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. 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 cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

Interviews with Barnes don't cut it, nor do exhibition profile panels because they are usually self created. Both are primary sources.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Germane Barnes and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Germane Barnes, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 09:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Soupmaker! Having an article 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! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 09:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Germane Barnes

The 2021 Rome Prize means you have an eye for notable subjects! I changed the text you added a tiny but to suit Wikipedia's style-- the lede summarizes the article and does not need to cite any sources. In any case, you obviously picked a notable subject. --- Possibly (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Emanuel Admassu

The article Emanuel Admassu has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Emanuel Admassu for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Emanuel Admassu is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emanuel Admassu until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sad state of affairs. It’s the year 2021 and we are asked to have a discussion about if a notable and accomplished black man who is an award winning Architecture Professor at Columbia University with massive impact within the discipline is worthy enough to have an article on Wikipedia even though there at plenty of reliable references, sources and links listed in the article and the subject meets several notability criteria. This is especially tragic since the person who has nominated this article to be deleted (twice) has also nominated two other articles of accomplished and notable black architects and Professors at Harvard and Princeton respectively. But sure, let’s go ahead and have a ‘discussion’ on why we need to exclude and block black creatives and intellectuals from this platform. Where do you want to start? Maybe we begin with listing some statistics on systematic racism on this platform? Soupmaker (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emanuel Admassu. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Staying cool over here always. I think we are deterring users if we do not speak up and continue to foster an environment that allows for systematic racism. We are also deterring users if we are not creating a inclusive environment where we allow editors to block black creatives and academics to be represented on this platform because they make up their own rules. You know very well that this platform is not inclusive and mainly run by white, male editors, so by default (and there are many statistics out there) we will have issues with systematic racism. This happens to be one of them. You referencing not to personally attack someone is noble but that is not what is happening here. The reality is that this editor has a clear racial bias and we need to call out racism when we see it. I think we can all agree on this. So, rather then trying to give me a lecture on how to stay cool you should probably focus your energy on the actions of this other editor and how its a personal attack on the article subjects' integrity. As a start, you can ask this particular editor how he was able to review 2x properly sourced articles of notable black subjects and submit them both for deletion within 1 minute of each other? Can all references and sources be checked that fast? Can you make a proper review in this 60 second timeframe? Not even the most experienced editor could or should do this kind of assessment on any article unless it a true hoax.Soupmaker (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Soupmaker[reply]

Final warning You are being told in no uncertain terms that it is not okay to call an editor racist because they disagree with you in a content dispute. Another comment like "The reality is that this editor has a clear racial bias and we need to call out racism when we see it" will result in a block. Just because someone disagrees about the notability of a subject does not make it okay to accuse them of this sort of reprehensible bias. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Soupmaker: I'm sure Wikipedia has a problem with systemic racism. But you can't cast aspersions at individual editors without providing concrete proof. Questioning the speed of a review is not enough. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soupmaker, there are many flaws in your thinking here. As others have also brought up, it's entirely plausible someone would nominate 2 articles of African American or black subjects for deletion without any racism being involved, especially if someone is heavily involved in nominating articles. In normal cases it could easily be a coincidence, but in this case, the articles you are referring to seem to have both been created by you, so it doesn't even have to be that. When coming across an article which appears to be non-notable, it's often reasonable to check out the edit history especially of the creator and see if there are more problem articles especially if the creator is new or there are other concerns (e.g. the article seems promotional to you).

Another problem is the evidence doesn't even support the other claims you've made. AFAICT, the editor concerned has not nominated the two articles for deletion that you claimed. They made a single nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emanuel Admassu.

The article Sean Canty is not now now has it ever been at AFD. The only thing the editor did to Sean Canty is tag the page with notability concerns template [1]. This is a very important distinction for several reasons. One is that tagging the page in that way does not directly lead to anything it only serves to lead readers and editors know the article appears to have problems. Significantly, while I don't know if we have clear consensus on what exactly an editor should do & see before tagging a page, indeed some people oppose cleanup tags point blank, I think most editors would agree the requirements to tag a page with a notability concerns tag are a lot lower than sending it to AFD. It may very well be entirely reasonable to just have a quick look at what the page says about the subject and at the sources without opening any of them. In some ways such tags serve to tell editors that 'hey if this person is notable it's not obvious from a cursory review so please review it'.

Now the editor did start Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emanuel Admassu, but there's another flaw in your argument even putting aside the fact we're down to one AFD. You've suggeted they reviewed it in a minute but there's no reason to think that. When the AFD was started at 01:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC) that was over 9.5 hours since the editor's last edit at 15:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC). So the editor had over 9.5 hours to review the sources etc. I don't think they did, but proof of the flaw in your claim.

If we go further back, they did WP:PROD the article as well, but PRODing is again different from AFD. Since it can lead to deletion, I'm sure some feel it needs more than a simple cleanup tag. ut since the deletion can be stopped or reversed without any discussion or evidence, you'll likely find many who feel it doesn't need the full AFD treatment e.g. WP:BEFORE, especially searching for sources.

But even if we put that aside, the time between that PROD and their last edit [2] was nearly an 56 minutes. Frankly this is way more than enough to check an article even if you were nominating it for AFD which means of course even if there wasn't those 9.5 hours, your claim would still be flawed since it's possible they did perform a detailed check before the PROD with the intention of taking it to AFD if it failed.

Tagging Sean Canty happened soon after but even if even put aside my point above how it's simply a tag and not an AFD as you claimed (and the other was a PROD), if the editor really did nominate these two articles in quick succession you still have no evidence they performed insufficient review. 56 minutes is more than enough time to review two articles. You have no way of knowing what the editor was doing in those 56 minutes. It's entirely possible an editor may look into an article and find it lacking, then look into the creator and find another article they created likewise lacking and nominate them both at the same time.

Finally if an editor does perform insufficient reviews before AFDing an article that's likely a problem but that doesn't mean racism is involved. Indeed bringing up such claims lacking evidence is harmful if the editor really was starting AFDs without reviewing the sources etc because it's easy for the actual problem to be lost because of a non existent problem. But then again, to make such a claim about poor AFDs, you'd actually likely need significantly more than two examples. And if all an editor's problem AFDs seem to be on African American subjects this would perhaps be enough to raise concerns. And if there was a large mix it should be obvious that cherry picking such examples to make a case isn't proving anything.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Hi Soupmaker. I was a bit distressed to see the above warnings. I would strongly suggest you follow them. Name-calling isn't allowed on Wikipedia, and if sustained it inevitably leads to a block. I have enjoyed working with you on a few other articles, so I hope you will take the advice that has been doled out above and move on. Wikipedia is not a space where such attacks can be sustained; if they were allowed, it would be commonplace to impugn some negative motivation of someone. They are therefore not allowed. Regarding the editor you are having trouble with, I have worked with them for several years and they are an individual of the highest calibre. (No personal attacks, but compliments are allowed!).--- Possibly (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I was actually coming by to tell you that about the new Nicole Hollant-Denis article.--- Possibly (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]