Jump to content

User talk:Tseung Kwan O/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Review of AfC Submission

Hi there, regarding my page that was that accepted, when you said comments from previous user are still there, are you referring to the way in which the article reads - ie promotional, or in regard to the notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvans17 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I meant that it contained promotional material, a problem which has yet to be corrected in your draft. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 20:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Atomik Monsters

You removed the prod from this article, which was due to expire in less than 12 hours, and replaced it with a csd category that was wrong. WP:A3 says the article must "have no content whatsoever". The article has content, namely the sentence "Atomik Monsters it's a videogame based in the concepts of the Chemistry." I have done an IAR revert of your edits to reinstate the prod. You really need to reread the csd categories if you plan on using them often. Ive been around a while, so if my prod reason is "looks like it could qualify for csd but doesn't", there's a good chance I have thought about it for a while before making the decision to prod. But really, I don't understand why you had to do that when the prod would expire in 9 hours anyway. There's no need to rush these things. Technically, once a prod has been removed it should go to AFD. But because you replaced it with a different deletion template I think we can ignore it this time. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice the time limit (I have a tendency to speed things up when possible). It's OK to re-install the PROD given that I made the error in the first place. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 21:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
As I said above, there's no need to "speed things up", because it only leads to mistakes. I notice you've become very active in both deletions and AFC since joining. Why don't you slow down and write some more material of your own first, while you get used to the place? The article on media in Rwanda is good, so more of that would be a big help. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I think I've learned a lot from reviewing AfC articles. I've pretty much learned all the Wikipedia guidelines, I've learnt the MoS, and I've learnt how to write a good article. Now that AfC is no longer highly backlogged, I'll semi-retire from reviewing tons of articles each day and focus on writing something. BTW, are you from Kobe? Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 03:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Kinder Institute for Urban Research

Can you please clarify what, exactly, you would need to see added or removed from this post in order to accept? I have received a great deal of conflicting demands from Wiki editors. Thanks! Ryanholeywell (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

As I have stated in the comments, the problems pointed out by Wiae still apply. Indeed, you must add more references to support and validate your arguments, but at the same time you must make sure that they are reliable, non-trivial, and independent. The newly-added references do not reflect these 3 qualities, and therefore cannot be accepted. You must remove these sources and replace them with more reliable ones. Cheers, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 21:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Review of Samuel Mutendi

I just added a number of citations to the Mutendi submission that you earlier rejected. In all honesty, if the founder of a church with a million-odd members does not meet the criteria of notability, I don't know who does. Bcm1 (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for working on it. However, a WP:LEDE has yet to be written for the submission, which shouldn't take much time. Cheers, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 00:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Burnaby Lake Rowing Club

Tseung Kwan O: By the way, where does WP include all sports as athletics?

Round4figure: It is incorrect that an encyclopedic organization refers to sports as athletics. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.

Tseung Kwan O: All of the Olympics at Sports-Reference.com references are trivial, as they are about the club's members, not about the club itself.

Round4figure: I said that the club "has a history of 16 Olympians that won 15 (6G, 4S, 5B) olympic medals in rowing all referenced by Sports-Reference.com". It is a verifable fact that all listed athletes are affiliated with the club. It is trival to verify this by checking Sports-Reference.com. All these references are used solely to confirm that the club "helped produce many world-class rowers".

Tseung Kwan O: For sources to be non-trivial, they must show significant coverage about the club, i.e. it should (but is not required to) include an in-depth history of it, quick facts and other important pieces of information, significant events that made it notable etc.

Round4figure:

Wikipedia:Notability. The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not 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.

Wikipedia:Notability. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability.

Could you please quantify that in a specific context? I said that "When assessing the notability of a subject, a Wikipedia editor must consider it in its context". There are 118 pages (articles) about specific rowing clubs in England. This is a partial count because it only includes the clubs on the river Thames and Cambridge clubs. Or if you want to be specific, what makes Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Hong_Kong_Yacht_Club) notable? By the way, the article references its own club webpage.

Thank you,

Round4figure (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I see you have a lot of questions regarding how Wikipedia defines notability. First of all, your Sports-Reference.com references do indeed show that certain athletes were associated with the club. However, these references do not lend notability to the subject involved, as they are trivial and have basically nothing to do with the club (besides the athletes who are associated with it). On the topic of notability, you try to quote out of context and select parts of WP:N to support your arguments, without paying attention to what the whole section is about. If you wish to have your own interpretation of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, that's entirely up to you. I believe that I've given you sufficient explanation on how to meet the guidelines in our archived conversation, and there is simply no point for me to reiterate the points I have already made.
You also seem to have the misconception that just because other unnotable clubs have pages on Wikipedia, that you can also make one. I can tell you that there are mechanisms called PROD and AfD where unnotable topics are nominated for deletion (I am actively nominating articles for deletion myself). You've also tried comparing the Cambridge clubs and the Hong Kong Yacht Club with BLRC. I don't know much about either, but after conducting a quick search online, I could see a surfeit of websites about the two clubs. However, BLRC seems to lack any independent coverage from unaffiliated sources.
I understand that you may be related to the club in some way, and therefore you really want to make a page on the topic. However, I cannot accept your submission under any circumstances if you cannot present sufficient references to show that this club is notable. And to answer your first question, athletics actually does mean all sports. It can mean only track and field events, but it can also mean all sports, and actually I would be surprised if Wikipedia only included one definition of the word. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 07:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Gregorio

Dear Tseung Kwan O, thanks for the review of my draft. I think the criticism is a bit unfair due to the subject. Please see the discussion of my draft, where I commented this after the first decline. In a nutshell:

  • The described software is the leading one in its niche. I admit that this notability is a bit difficult to verify. Monasteries using it do not talk about it online. Forums are no reliable source. I did my best to show, that many projects and important associations like the Church Music Association of America do use it. What else should I do to prove notability?
  • FOS-Software articles are naturally based on websites belonging to there project. Where else should be the information about history, releases, usage?
  • To emphasise the last point: Please compare the Lilypond article, a good comparison because it's also FOSS, also text-based music engraving and has not more external references.

If you have suggestions which subtopics of my article should be based on more external refs please write me. Otherwise ... I think I did the best to show notability and use as much external refs as possible. In applying the Wikipedia Standards one should consider the appropriateness to the subject. Thanks in advance. --Johannes Arnold (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that even if this software is the leading one in its niche, without suitable references to black your claims, your submission still cannot be accepted. References and sources are the basic requirements of a Wikipedia article, and I'm afraid this applies to all articles, regardless of whether it's about computer software, or sports, or music. If an exception can be made for this particular software, then a lot of other topics could also bypass Wikipedia notability and referencing guidelines. Again, I would like to say that just because another article does not fit Wikipedia's requirements doesn't mean that your article can be accepted without properly meeting all relevant WP guidelines. I've already tagged the article, and after sufficient time someone will eventually PROD it. The point of submitting articles through AfC is to make sure that people we can keep up the quality of WP articles. I hope you understand that if we start making exceptions, we're potentially getting on a slippery slope. If you can find external sources with significant coverage of Gregorio, I will definitely accept your article. However, if you cannot find sufficient references, I'm afraid I must decline it even if it's the leading software in its category. Cheers, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 07:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the hints. But my points are:
  • If the notability is in question: I think, it is shown by independent sources. The described software is used by the Dominicans in America, the Church Music Association of America, the monastery of Norcia, at least three other projects and two related projects improving usability - shown by external sources. (For other users I have just sources of lesser quality, granted.) I think notability is shown if it is proven that the biggest American institution in this field is using it...
  • The high number of internal references is just a result of the description of features. They are not used to show notability according to WP:THIRDPARTY#Non-independent_sources Counting is not enough, please look where which reference is used. (And that has absolutely nothing to do with an exception! Internal references are the appropriate source for the usage.)
One more question: Why tagged? Please wait with a PROD, I'll give my best to search for even more external sources. Like after the first decline...
And btw I dont think that Lilypond is a bad article. --Johannes Arnold (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. The reason why I've only tagged the page is because PROD-ing it wouldn't be such a good idea. If we don't try improving the articles in WP and instead PROD them, then the PROD page will explode and become unmanageable.
You've explained that this software is used by many websites, and therefore it can be considered notable. However, without significant coverage of this topic in sources, I'm afraid I still can't approve it. Wikipedia guidelines are rigid, and without references establishing notability of a subject, its considered unnotable. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 19:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

08:07:40, 12 July 2016 review of submission by Beatboy16


Hello Tsung Kwan O, thank you for your advice! I have now left 10 or less items in each category. Should I resubmit it or you think that are more things that I have to do in order to be sure that it will not be rejected again?

Your article needs some expansion. You need to include more information about Livadas (background, early life, career, work, effects of his work, personal life etc.) Cheers, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 08:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

SIT Group article declined on the 8th of July 2016

Good morning dear Tseung Kwan O,

I don't understand why you declined my article about SIT Group. You write that I need more third-party sources and the submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. But I use a lot of third party sources and where I don't have the exact information I put the webpage of the company as a source.

I saw articles about companies in Wikipedia and they ONLY have the webpage as a source. So with this I don't understand...

I don't have any other sources - so may you can help me or give me an advice that my article will be published with success?

Many thanks to you, wish you a nice day!!

Best regards, NatalieBoebel — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatalieBoebel (talk • contribs) 08:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your questions. As I have pointed out earlier, all of the information in your article must be verifiable. To achieve that, you must have sufficient references for the statements and claims you make in your article. It's better to remove any information that is not supported by reliable sources, than to include them without proper referencing. In addition, I noticed that a lot of your references are simply repeated throughout the article, which means the actual number of references in your article is actually not enough to demonstrate notability of the subject involved. If you fix the references, I think your submission might have a fair chance of being accepted. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 08:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding True meaning of Notability

Dear Team,

Need help to understand true meaning of notability again. W.r.t my article Draft:Purplehed_Records, results of my 3rd submission quotes a new issue in my article that "This record label is not notable at all. It has only released 2 singles to date, and these singles have not received any awards" by Tseung Kwan O. Well according to my understanding and learning I was referring to this rule and thats why I choose this topic, but now after few months on my 3rd AFC review I got informed that it is not notable at all and I feel like I wasted lot of time on non notable subject . I request someone to kindly help me understand why my subject is not notable even when its clearly meeting first point. Criteria for musicians and ensembles "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" While after I fixed issues given by second reviewer he assured that he sees no reason not to resubmit without expressing any concern about notability. Refer this conversation Feedback from Reviewer who declined during my 2nd submission

I am currently working on few more subjects who haven't got any award but are subject of multiple independent reliable sources. And I am really confused due to multiple different issue each time that what exactly is notability :(. I request someone to kindly guide me. Thanks and Regards Catrat999 (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Catrat999. All the sources in your draft seem to be primarily about a music video instead of about Purplehed Records as a topic. The company itself is mentioned only in passing in those sources, and we need significant coverage of the company as a notable business entity in order to have an article about the company. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Catrat999, actually the previous reviewer Primefac has already stated that the submission fails WP:TOOSOON. So even with a surfeit of references, the subject of the submission still lacks notability in general. Regards, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 19:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Tseung Kwan O I have fixed issues raised by Primefac and after discussing with him only I have resubmitted it, According to him subject is notable but its too soon because during my 2nd submission reliable resources were less , Have a look on his comment "One song/video does not a notable record company make. It's possible it's TOOSOON, but if not a few more reliable sources that talk about Purplehed in a context other than Burn Like the Sun would be beneficial. " you can refer that version in history to understand that issue which is solved now. He never mentioned me that an Indie record label will be notable only if it gets awards neither any such rule on wiki guidelines. Refer our conversation here - Feedback from Reviewer who declined during my 2nd submission. However your comment is "This record label is not notable at all. It has only released 2 singles to date, and these singles have not received any awards." Kindly guide me with so many reliable references what is notable here if not record label, then Song, Music Video, Artist ?


@Cullen328 : There are many links where subject has significant coverage of the company :) I request you to kindly research on my article thoroughly before concluding anything. Subject is mentioned in websites like India.com alexa rank 70 in india and 798 in world. , The Hindu Global Alexa rank - 840 and 72 Rank in India , YourStory global rank-3,183 -Rank in India = 198 and many other reputed newspapers , magazines and prints  :) However if you still think after full research that my subject is not notable at all then my real question is what is actually notable here ? Music Video? , Song ? , Artist ? or accordingly the company under whose umbrella everything is done! And if you still conclude that there none of them is notable inspite of several independent reliable references then I find wikipedia AFC submission very inconsistent, because all this time could have been saved right in 1st submission :) Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Catrat999, you seem to misunderstand what "significant coverage" means. When Wikipedia editors use that term, we mean the type of in-depth, detailed coverage that discusses the topic in a way that allows editors to summarize the information into a useful encyclopedia article. When you use the word "mentioned", that reminds me of a phrase often used by Wikipedia editors, namely "passing mention". This sort of thing often occurs as "music single A was released by record label B". Such "mentions" include no information about the company's annual revenues, organizational structure, history, awards, hit records, gold records, platinum records, reputation, senior management, list of notable acts, headquarters city, musical genres and on and on and on. We need significant coverage to establish notability, not passing mentions. I do not see that evidence of notability in your draft. I see a small time operation with, at best, one slightly viral video. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

catrat999, I've got an additional piece of advice for you. Do check out WP:MUSIC before deciding on whether the subject of the article is notable enough for inclusion here on WP (it also answers your question on why it's better for Purplehed Records to win or be nominated for an award). If you've included a lot of references in the article, but it still fails WP:MUSIC, someone will definitely prod it. Cheers, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 11:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Tseung Kwan O , I think you totally missed my message and specially this line in first paragraph Criteria for musicians and ensembles "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" While after I fixed issues given by second reviewer he assured that he sees no reason not to resubmit without expressing any concern about notability. Its the same page after reading which I started my article and I have read 100s of others guidelines too. It clearly says subject should meet atleast one of the following. Hope you understand that I am coming from an educated background where atleast I have the capability of reading some worthy material, its only thought process of different reviewers that confuses however thank you for giving additional piece of advice which clearly shows how much attention you have given for replying my thread :)

@Cullen328 That Logic make sense to me what you explained as you mentioned creators names is just a passing mention so its not notable, so at this stage label is not notable (Y). However content that creator has created is covered by many reliable sources . Is there any importance or weightage for those references at all ? Is there anything I can contribute for wikipedia here ? Thanks and Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a tip, Catrat999: if you forget to sign your posts, then editors you have pinged won't receive notifications, even if you subsequently add a signature, as you did here. Your signature and the ping need to be added in the same edit. See Wikipedia:Notifications#Triggering events on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

catrat999, thank you for your reply. Although you have added a surfeit of references in your article, none of them are actually about Purplehed Records per se, so in fact it has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial sources, and your submission still fails WP:MUSIC. Like what Cullen328 has said (I'm pinging Cullen328 so that he can participate in this discussion), significant coverage means that a source doesn't simply identify a new song/single released by a band, it means that other pieces of information about the band should be included as well. Furthermore, you still have not addressed the problem of WP:TOOSOON in the article. For a band that has only released two singles (that have not received widespread coverage), it's simply too soon for an article to be made on the topic. I hope this answers your questions on why your submission was declined. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 23:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tseung Kwan O : Thank you for further clarification :) Now your clarification make sense to me however I am still not convinced with your comment on decline "This record label is not notable at all. It has only released 2 singles to date, and these singles have not received any awards." That is very inconsistent w.r t wiki guidelines . WP:TOOSOON and your comment are way complimenting each other and misguiding for new users. Anyways thank you for finding time to review my draft. Cheers :) @Cullen328 : Thank you again, as you mentioned references talks less about label which I agree. But references also not just simply identify a new song/single released by a band they talk much more about founders and other piece of information which none of you are acknowledging . You still didn't answer me that is there any thing here that I can contribute. So I will consider your answers as None . Thanks and Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello again Catrat999. If your only goal here is to promote Purplehed Records, then I urge you to reconsider. We have five million articles, and a million or more are in immediate need of improvement. Perhaps you have interest in or knowledge of many of those topics. Please consider improving the encyclopedia, and working on a wide variety of articles will give you a better sense of perspective about what we expect of new articles here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328 My goal here is to contribute knowledge with correct process. To contribute information for all those subjects whom I am aware off, which are creating a better world especially arts and entrepreneurship and also which are definitely not famous but worthy of an article as per the wiki guidelines, I am aware of all the data and millions of articles which you are talking about and have done some work on that thread too. Unfortunately Purplehed Record is my first article here and suffering the most. But I do understand why you all seniors are usually judgmental for new users and always think that its promotional activity :) Its not your fault thats how this system is. For your information which I am sure your are already aware of there are millions of articles worse than Purplehed Records without Notability made without even AFC submission, Which is offcourse not my point to justify anything here as you will reply that its debatable topic and that other stuff exist . Lolz. Many Wikipedia seniors just reply mechanically like some machine is replying to some question or system has generated automatic reply. Fortunately Very few exceptions have taught me sincerely to further improve with out suspecting and being racist , and I am glad You are one of them who improved me :) take care and best regards Catrat999 (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Catrat999, while I can appreciate why you would like the reviewers to make an exception for your draft, the strict rules that are applied exist for a reason: they are intended to ensure that, when a draft article is moved to mainspace, it is not subject to deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello again, Catrat999. Experienced editors work hard 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year to either improve or delete poor quality articles. I have devoted much of my extra time for seven years to that grand project. We do not want problematic or borderline articles added to that list. We want new articles about topics which are clearly notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Catrat999, if you would like to sample some articles accepted at AfC, you can check out AfC and go to Showcase. After reading the articles on the list, you'll get a taste of what it's like to write an article that is accepted by editors. It's possible to say that Wikipedia notability guidelines are very rigid, but such policies are not without their benefits, as Cullen328 and Cordless Larry have noted. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 09:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328 : Thank you again :) I really respect your work and contributions towards wikipedia and I hope to follow your path soon .

@ Cordless Larry : Thank you sir , Ya make sense (Y) patience and hard work is the key here :) Also thank you for guidance my mistake related to Triggering events was really informative (y).

Dear Tseung Kwan O, I have done all that research many times :) When AFC says 980 waiting and highly backlogged believe me for atleast 2 weeks many editors like me must have explored showcase page to understand what kind of articles are accepted, declined etc. I have even learnt from others mistake by reading discussion on respective talk pages. And I discovered various natures of acceptance. But never mind I understood your point of declining my draft and I accept all the instructions given by you, @Cullen328 and @ Cordless Larry. Thanks once again everyone for reviewing my draft. You guys can close this thread now. Cheers Catrat999 (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Why did you reject Draft:June_Oscar

Hey,

I just noticed that your reasoning for declining The June Oscar draft seems to be lack of references. But as far as I can see, there are plenty of reliable references from newspapers across Australia. What is the actual reason for declining the draft?

Pinging @Manny Economou:, the original author of the Draft.

Cheers, Soni (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand that June Oscar may be a notable person, but entire sections of the article are unreferenced. Any part of the article that does not have references for verification should be removed. To be honest, I think your article is actually really good (B-class), but it's just missing some references (which I'm pretty sure won't be hard to find). Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 09:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tseung Kwan O,

Thanks for the feedback.

Do I need to reference each paragraph in a section (like 'Community reconstruction'), even if it's from the same source?

Manny Economou (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Generally, the more references the better (however, do not WP:CITEKILL or WP:REFSPAM). For every piece of information that you believe requires referencing and verification, it's generally beneficial to add sources for that statement/claim. It's OK to reference from the same source more than once, however refrain from repeating references over and over again. Cheers, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 09:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I have added more references as per your suggestions. Do you need to check the article again before I re-submit?

Manny Economou (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for adding more references. Although certain sections of the article still lack referencing, I'll approve it. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 17:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Jay IDK

Hello, in regards to a page for Jay IDK. It stated that he Fails WP:MUSIC but he has appeared in many reliable published works. As well as touring nationally. Could you provide more insight as to why he doesn't qualify? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.37.203.149 (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Generally, you should consider both the amount of references published on the subject of the article, and its ability to meet established Wikipedia guidelines. In this case, it still fails WP:MUSIC, as any unnotable band/singer could also be touring nationally with very limited coverage. This does not mean that the band is notable, it simply means that the band has supporters from various areas of the country. Also, a lot of your references do not meet all of the following requirements: non-trivial, independent, reliable. To demonstrate notability of the topic through references, you will need find new references that are actually about the band itself. Cheers, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 16:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Request on 13:52:29, 12 July 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Phoenix flying


Why you should help me with my entry?

Because I genuinely believe that my contribution would be of use to many people and this belief is not based on any superstitions but it's a belief based on facts. The facts are that ExTravelMoney, the fintech startup is an up and coming company in the Financial Technology industry that has had widespread coverage and publicity from various sources in the media as evidenced by the links provided as a source for statements, in the draft for "ExTravelMoney.

They also have been recipients of two awards including the Hot100 awards by Centre of Recognition and Excellence. Now if you were to take a look at those links in the draft, the articles about ExTravelMoney have been published by several leading media outlets in India, which make the case for why the use of technology in the financial sector is going to be a game changer for the financial services industry.

This should not be construed as pointless rambling but I'm just setting the background for the article here.

You have mentioned that "This submission needs significant expansion. There's only one sentence under History and two under Partners. There's insufficient information in this submission for it to be made into an article."

I've included a bit more on the history of the company now and it's not really much I admit. However, for an entry to be admissible, Isn't it necessary that it has to be notable and information provided for it, be sufficient? As for notability, I hope I have demonstrated it with the use of the links provided. Now comes the problem of information sufficiency. How much information is really sufficient? I've tried to keep the draft precise and only containing facts that are sourceable. More information could be added but the information provided now is in fact pretty much sufficient, for it precisely describes what this company is about without any fluff material.

I hope you would reconsider your views on this matter in light of the new perspective about it that I bring to you. If there are any difference of opinions on your side I'd be glad to hear of them as I hope they make me see what more can be done to improve upon this entry.

Very much appreciate your help. Thank You


Phoenix flying (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, your submission fails WP:TOOSOON, as it has not received sustained coverage from reliable sources. that's the reason why there is a general lack of information and references to support your arguments. Officially, there is no limit to how much you should write in an article, but consider how likely it would be PRODed when an editor patrols the article. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 16:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Your review of draft Selina Sharma

Dear Tseung Kwan O,

In your review you say "Most of the references in this article are irrelevant (such as information about carnatic music). Sources need to have significant coverage of the subject involved." Out of the 22 sources cited, 12 sources are newspaper articles that deal extensively and exclusively with the subject herself. The reference containing information about Carnatic music is just to support a side statement. I do not understand in what manner the other sources should be "irrelevant" if they deal with nothing else than the subject of the article. Some references are not in English, but even if you chose to ignore these there, are still three major articles in English that have "significant coverage of the subject involved". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjhikala (talk • contribs) 15:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

First of all, there are way too many references in the article that are re-used over and over again. Some of your references are used 5 times over a very short passage, which is WP:REFSPAM. Also, you don't need 6 references to support an argument/claim, which is WP:CITEKILL. You've stated that a lot of your references are relevant and non-trivial. However, this is not the case, as many of your references (including those in Hindi) are about what she has done, and not exclusively about her. Therefore, the references in your article are unsuitable for the subject involved. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 16:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not quite agree with your statement "many of your references (including those in Hindi) are about what she has done, and not exclusively about her. Therefore, the references in your article are unsuitable for the subject involved". A scholar is obviously notable for what he or she has done, hence references would refer to this more than to the scholar as a person - even though my references have plenty of personal matter. What do you mean by "not exclusively about her" - there are still six references dealing exclusively with the subject, but in a serious manner referring to her work as well. Everything else would be gossip - is it this what is needed for a Wikipedia article?Sanjhikala (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I'm afraid we have a misunderstanding here. A non-trivial reference means that the topic has been subject to significant coverage in multiple sources, and that does not mean that sources must include gossip, or related information about the person. Sources should have extensive information about her, i.e. her background, early life, career, work, effects of her work, publications, etc. I'm afraid none of your references met this criteria, and your submission was rejected. However, I do not remove the possibility that you can find suitable number of references to support your arguments, after which you are welcome to resubmit your article for review. Cheers, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 17:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

16:04:04, 12 July 2016 review of submission by Rbayha


Thanks for the review. I understand your comment about citing other Wikipedia articles. However, I am unsure what you mean by "trivial mentions", Also, wouldn't the Washington Post and NPR be considered reliable third party references? Can you provide some more details? Rbayha (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. Yes, Washington Post and NPR are reliable third-party references, but in fact, ALL of your references must be from independent sources. Non-trivial coverage refers to information directly about the subject involved. Cheers, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 16:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

20:08:18, 12 July 2016 review of submission by Pianored1


Thank you for your well-considered suggestions. Being new at this, I need to understand your objections. First, sorry for the messiness and the formatting. Everything looked better in a Word document. I will continue to learn how to do this the Wiki Way. The next draft will have much more consistency and formatting. 

I can certainly add more reliable sources such as published news articles (will make sure to have URLs for _all_ this time so assertions can be checked--I guess I slacked on that), books by reliable publishers.

Please, can you give me idea of which you feel are affiliated sources, since it appears you think there are many cited. The published memoirs of people who knew the subject and who now are historical figures themselves? Are sources who were members of the subject's profession--i.e. career news reporters and editors--doubted by you as unreliable/affiliated? Thank you for helping me make this acceptable. I can supply URLs for all the government documents, having used Ancestry.com's search engines and databases. But you don't consider those engines and databases to be affiliated, do you. I'm always glad to have suggestions from editors, copyeditors, proofreaders, etc., and have worked with many for nearly 50 years, and am grateful for all. Thanks again.

Thank you for your question. There seems to be multiple issues with your article. First of all, it does not carry the formal tone of an encyclopedia article. Quoting from Rutherford's interviews are redundant and should be removed. As for the inclusion of reliable sources, I think anything that is independent of the subject can be considered as suitable references. However, do not cite from Rutherford's own publications, as these do not help to verify claims made in the article. Cheers, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 20:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, it's somewhat clearer now to me. Point one, I will strive for an even more formal tone and lose the adjectives and adverbs. Point two, I will remove the few citations of RR's written articles (part of my sloppy formatting is that his name appears first in many citations, my mistake, as a subject heading, not author; there are only a few cites of articles published by RR. I do respond, though, that in standard scholarship it's considered good practice to include citation of the original article so future scholars can judge and weigh themselves. My inclination would be to add perhaps two citations by other authors to an instance where RR's publication is cited. What do you think of that? Point three, "quoting from RR's interviews are redundant and should be removed." Do you mean the anecdotes? There is an anecdote by reliable published author Kai Wagenheim, Babe Ruth's biographer, about a ceremonial dinner, a Fair Use paragraph-long quote in Wagenheim's voice. There are two Lou Gehrig anecdotes from external quality sources. There is a Mexican League anecdote, all externally sourced. There is the Jackie Robinson anecdote, also from the highest quality external sources, notably the Roger Kahn book which contains the dialogue.Finally there are the sportswriter colleagues paragraphs in which they judge the place of sportswriters in the cultural landscape and include RR in the pantheon. The Mickey Mantle anecdote is sourced from the first person experience and well-published words of Roger Kahn, an impeccable source. I do appreciate your taking the time to help me along with this and value your responses. All best to you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pianored1 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Although Wikipedia doesn't have a policy against anecdotes, I would advise against them as they are usually not encyclopedic and highly opinionated (as I have mentioned earlier). You can consider putting the information about his friendships under Personal life, and making it more neutral.
There are indeed good references in your article, but to verify the claims you've made in the draft, it's better to include as many as possible. References should be spread out over the whole text, don't cluster them.
Last but not least, you should remove quotes other people have made about Rutherford, as this type of information often violates WP:UNDUE. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 00:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding my draft of Gatja Helgart Rothe

Dear Tseung Kwan, I just received notification that you didn't approve my draft for the article on Gatja Helgart Rothe. The reason why, reads, "More references are need to establish notability of the subject involved and verify the claims made in the article." This is a tricky issue. Precisely, most of my research is original. Clearly she is starting to receive more attention, even though she was always considered a "master of the mezzotint" and a very successful commercial artist. The references out there for her work are mainly galleries that distribute her work, and short bullet point biographies. Most of the details I have in my article come from interviews with her son who is still alive, and from reading her Catalogue Raissonné, and another article that DOES exist in Wikipedia about her in German: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatja_Helgart_Rothe

I'm wondering if you can give me more specific feedback as to what exactly do you think is missing from the article; she is clearly a notable person, but there is just not enough sources to backup every single detail of her life that I researched beyond my interviews with her son. --Juan Pablo Pacheco 20:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanppacheco (talk • contribs)

Preferably, you should add as many good-quality references to your draft as possible. However, I am willing to accept your article as it already has more than 10 references, which provide significant coverage. Cheers, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 21:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Mixbook

Hi Tseung Kwan O, Thanks for the review! Could you clarify on what types of references are considered trivial and unrelated? For example, some of the references used are interviews of the founder and CEO - would that be considered as notable and significant sources? How much more coverage is needed in order to be deemed significant? 64.125.175.170 (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It really depends on how you use these references, as there is no general rule stating that interviews should be used as references. If you intend to use the interview to demonstrate notability of the company, then you should not use it as a reference, as the interview only shows the notability of the founder. If you use it to verify facts about the company, then I believe that it is acceptable (given that the interview is conducted by a reliable source such as Bloomberg or PBS).
Significant coverage means that sources talk extensively about a subject. If a source only lists the telephone number of a company, then it's trivial. If a source only talks about a restaurant chain's decision to open a outlet, then it's trivial. These sources do not talk about the company's history, or something else that is important about it, and do not give in-depth coverage of the topic. Irrelevant source would include ones like Mega Monday Sale, which have little to do with the whole article. I hope that clears things up for you. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 21:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Peter Guida Entry (July 9 review)

Hello, I wanted to check and see if shortening my submission for Dr. Peter Guida, and therefore lessening the repeated references might help with the submission? Any other tips on helping to get approved would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks. 104.247.59.86 (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

No. Shortening your submission would be even worse, as there would be almost no content in your submission. If you really cannot find any other sources, then I'm afraid you have to move on, as significant coverage in multiple sources is the prerequisite of any WP article. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 21:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

22:23:04, 12 July 2016 review of submission by VR Kaiserslautern


Dear Tseung Kwan O,

thank you very much for reviewing the VR Coaster article and for your feedback! I fully understand that only verifiable references and citations are suitable for a Wikipedia article, but now I am a bit unsure what aspects exactly are required for an online reference to qualify for verifiability. I also checked the reliable sources guidelines; The problem is, of course, that with this fairly new kind of technology, most sources are website-based. I would have preferred classic printed sources, but most reports about VR Coasters are on online websites, albeit from all over the world. While I understand that some references could be spared indeed, at least some of the sources I would have deemed to be somewhat reliable, or "renowned" if you will, like the Washington Post, CNN, IGN, Engadget or LaTimes and so on (while many of these even had a printed equivalent). However, if the level of notability is related to the amount of articles in the press, I could add a longer list of many more reports and articles, like the following, but I'd still be unsure if they qualify:


http://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/reviews/virtual-reality-roller-coasters-are-here-and-everywhere

http://www.travelandleisure.com/attractions/amusement-parks/six-flags-launches-virtual-reality-roller-coasters

http://www.livescience.com/54256-six-flags-virtual-reality-roller-coasters.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/experience/america/2016/03/03/six-flags-virtual-reality-roller-coasters-2016/81224838/

http://qz.com/704096/the-future-of-fear-vr-rollercoasters-are-coming/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/03/26/vr-roller-coaster-ride-unlike-any-other/82272280/

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/04/six-flags-samsung-team-up-to-give-you-vr-roller-coasters.html

http://fox2now.com/2016/05/24/six-flags-reinvents-older-roller-coaster-with-new-vr-technology/

http://www.vibe.com/2016/06/samsung-six-flags-superman-virtual-reality-coaster/

http://www.cnet.com/videos/watch-what-happens-when-you-ride-a-vr-roller-coaster/


So, would it make sense to extend the reference list like this to document the relevance? Also, should some specific references be left out? I can imagine that a coaster fan page like Theme Park Review doesn't appear legitimate here (and I'd be happy to remove that link), but I found it relevant that even so called coaster enthusiasts stated that this tech created a significant new kind of ride attraction. But, again, as I am a VR enthusiast, this perception might be biased on my end too.

Please let me know how I could improve this in order to show the notability, or, respectively, cure the lack of verifiability. As there are popping up new articles on this topic nearly every day, at least it wouldn't be difficult to record a huge amount of coverage, but I'm not sure if this is the right way.

Thank you very much!

Thomas

Actually, you can disregard the notability statement (it's there by default). I'm more concerned about the verifiability of the claims made in the article, which I believe can be improved. For example, the lede section of the article and the information under Technical solutions are unreferenced. Your submission is actually quite close to being accepted, so if you're done with adding more references to verify your statements, just let me know and I'll review it for you. Cheers, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 22:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


Regarding rejection of Draft: Fitso


Dear Tseung Kwan O,

I have been trying to get this draft accepted for months. Apparently it always get rejected and reason being stated is lack of references or that it reads like an Advertisement. However, I tried to be as neutral as possible and made sure that the article is informative and not advertising in any way. Also, I have cited multiple sources all of which are genuine & dependable. In past, I have also tried to consult with another member of WikiPedia community like you who rejected it, implemented all the changes he recommended and yet upon next submission it got rejected again.

Can you please help me with getting it accepted as this is about a year old App which is getting really popular and it will be disappointing not having an article about it on WikiPedia.

Thanks, 203.122.17.99 (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I've noticed multiple referencing problems in your draft. First of all, you use Facebook as a reference, which is not acceptable as the website isn't reliable. You've also used sites with only trivial mentions of the subject involved as references, which does not lend notability to the subject involved. Therefore, not many of your references actually have in-depth coverage of the topic, which doesn't fit WP's guideline on notability.
Also, your article only contains information about the app's services, which is something you might find on a webpage or a brochure. The information you find on the page is exactly the same information you would find in an advertisement.
Last but not least, your submission fails WP:TOOSOON. The app as only released less than year ago, and has not received sustained coverage. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 16:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

11:38:34, 13 July 2016 review of submission by Oskargaspar


Hi Tseung Kwan O,

I'm writing you to have some more specific feedback on how my article on Oskar & Gaspar can be improved.

About the references, I have really hit a wall here because the artists I'm writing about are Portuguese, which means that 99% of the material that has been written about them is in Portuguese. I don't know if you are able to read and understand the referenced sources, but if that is the case, I think you would have noticed that there is a large enough spectrum of information from diverse enough sources to prove the notability of the artists. Regardless of the language of the referenced articles, I think I have found enough reliable sources to prove the relevance of my Wikipedia entry. For instance, I don't know if you are familiar with the world of digital art, but The Creators Project is literally one of the most reliable sources that one can use to learn more about artists worldwide, and Oskar & Gaspar happen to be featured on 3 different articles on The Creators Project. Please help me out because the feedback so far has been very superficial, and I don't understand exactly what the reviewers are finding incomplete or inappropriate about my sources.

Thank you very much! Oskargaspar (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

15:35:38, 13 July 2016 review of submission by VR Kaiserslautern


Hello Tseung Kwan O,

thank you for your encouraging reply! I have now added several helpful references to document all important points in the article. I hope it is OK now! It would be great if you could review it again. And please let me know if something is still missing.

Thank you and best regards,

Thomas

I think your draft is ready for WP, but first you'll have to submit it. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 16:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


Great, thank you very much! Sorry, totally forgot this. Just resubmitted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by VR Kaiserslautern (talk • contribs) 18:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


Comment

Just in case my ping missed, please see these comments. You are doing a good job reviewing articles, but it's worth looking for problems other than notability or poor referencing. Subsequent to your edit, it was nominated for speedy deletion as obvious spam and then deleted by me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Generally, I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, so as to avoid making wrongful accusations about their intentions, and to avoid discouraging them from writing articles (adv is much worse than something like bio or v). Of course, when something is outright promotion, I'll decline it using adv, but usually I try to find other problems first and tell them to correct it. After they add more suitable references to the article, I review the article again and clean up all of the unrelated information/statements that might be considered as promotion manually. I hope this answers why I didn't use adv as the decline reason. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 16:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Cosmic Adventure

Hi there,

I think the article has more references than the previous Scott Tixier's album : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Bazaar Also looking at the context and the cast, it's pretty clear that the article is eligible. I have already added more references from Sunnyside Records official and Press Releases, the album is already available in stores for pre-order and on Scott Tixier's website. In my opinion this article should be published : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cosmic_Adventure

Thanks,

Eric Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7117:DA00:988:4830:9811:E344 (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you revising the draft. However, references must be from reliable third-party sources, and therefore press releases should not be used. Also, as the album has not been released yet, it fails WP:TOOSOON. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 17:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Park City Mining District

Hello,

I was wondering why my article was declined for not having sources that were not notable enough. That is the first time that has been the reason that it was declined, and if you refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_497#Draft:_Park_City_Mining_District_.28split_question.29 then you can see that other editors agree the page can stand on its own, and should be accepted. I was also wondering which sources you had a problem with? What was it that made them not reputable enough? I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

DanielVGarcia (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. You can actually disregard the notability statement, because it's there by default. The problem I was trying to point out was that you don't have enough references to support your arguments. Entire sections of text are unreferenced, and such text must be removed unless you can find a reliable source that supports it. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 20:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

19:34:54, 13 July 2016 review of Explorate


Hi, in the reason you have given for declining the draft, you said to use an infobox instead of a table. However, I do not think it would be relevant since the contents in the infobox would not lead to any further/relating maaterial in the body. Also, what exactly did you mean by 'Headings need to be more clear (References)'?

Thank you for your question. The problem I was trying to point out was that your article did not follow Wikipedia's manual of style. An infobox is necessary, as putting the information in a table violates WP MOS. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 20:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Request on 19:48:35, 13 July 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by ZoeyJettmom2


This rejection of an article is not accurate. You said "a lot of the references were not third party"...no, only 2 were connected to that individual--posted her personal site and her charity site. The other references were all articles. She's been working in professional Hollywood--has produced work on ABC network, been listed in the largest outlets--LA TIMES, HOLLYWOOD REPORTER, HUFFINGTON POST..etc...she is certainly notable as she made a charity that engages the world's most famous and entertainment industry professionals. Sure, she has not yet found a cure for cancer. But she seems to be trying to save the African elephant from China's clutches...are you biased because you live in HONG KONG where they sell the MOST ILLEGAL ivory in the world? ZoeyJettmom2 (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

ZoeyJettmom2, first of all, don't randomly accuse other people of COI. I have no attachment towards any article about Hong Kong in Wikipedia. I've even PROD-ed a few articles about HK and declined almost every article about HK I've ever come across in AfC. So don't make random accusations about other people without proof. Also your accusation is not really accurate, as HK is primarily involved in the African Elephant ivory trade, not the Asian one, so get your facts right before you go to someone's talk page and spam them. Go and learn how to respect other people before you come to WP assuming bad faith about everything.
It also appears that you need to start reading some Wikipedia guidelines before you start censuring reviewers for being inaccurate in judgment. Just because Stuart's charity has included some world-class celebrities doesn't mean that she's notable. And just because she's working to save elephants doesn't mean she's notable either. Notability must be shown through multiple references which offer significant coverage of the subject involved.
As for your references, almost none of them fit all of the requirements of WP referencing. You've basically included tons of trivial mentions of Stuart in all of your references. Don't believe me? Your first reference is about Stuart talking about another person who's actually the subject of that article. Your second one is about a movie review of a non-notable film that Stuart produced together with two other people. You tried to use your third reference to verify that Stuart participated in ABC Primetime Special, but I can't even see the words ABC, Primetime, or Special anywhere on the website. Your fourth reference is from MTDB, which is a copy of IMDB, which is completely unreliable. Your fifth reference is just a trivial mention of Stuart's name in the list of people who made the movie. Your sixth reference is just like your fifth reference, with a trivial mention of Stuart's name in the list of personnel. You want me to continue? Because I think any one in their right mind would see where this is going. Before you accuse me of bad judgment, maybe you should try reading your own article first and understand what's wrong with it. At least that's actually going to help you write a better article. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 21:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Request on 21:00:10, 13 July 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Fgingras


Greetings!

Thank you for reviewing Wikipedia pages, it is much appreciated.

Today, you have rejected my draft for I_Can_Destroy. I understand why references and notability are important, hence the rejection. However, since this is the first time I'm really trying to add a new Wikipedia page, I have used Vibrato_(album) as a model. That page seems to have been accepted with fewer references. I was wondering if the reason for that was a change in standards since then, or something else I might not be aware of.

Thank you for your help!

Fgingras (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. Actually, we understand that a lot of articles have problems we need to fix here in WP, and the point of AfC is to prevent the same problems from occurring in the future. I've already tagged Vibrato (album) for cleanup, and if it really cannot meet WP guidelines, soon enough it will be PROD-ed. Currently, there's no way to bypass the addition of references, because it's pretty much the most important thing in the article. I suggest you to find more reliable, non-trivial and third-party references to establish notability of I Can Destroy. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 21:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Walter Noetico draft

Dear Tseung Kwan,

I am a collaborator of Richard F Morris, who had been working for the past month on the article about the Artist, Walter Noetico. I thank you for your time in reviewing the page of Maestro Noetico. Sadly, I think that on your part there has been a hasty judgment and decision in considering this Artist. When we started to prepare a page for this artist, we did not have the citations. However, we have searched the hard copy documents (books, newspapers etc, dating back to 1980s and 1990s) and have profusely enriched this article with up to 39 inline citations, of quality material derived from official documents). This includes articles by 4 serious International Art Critics, who have spoken of him in those years. However, on the Wikipedia, you can find lots of artists who had been approved for insertion in Wikipedia, and who do not have not even 1 presentation of an Art Critic.

for example, by way of curiosity, there is an approved article for Italian Artist, Bruno Chersicla. If you take a look at it, you will not find 1 inline citation to affirm his exhibitions or awards. Only words of his wife, in an article. Nothing else! And this Artist, is a step lower than Walter Noetico, because it was Noetico who founded an Art Movement, and accepted Bruno Chersicla in his group of 5. In addition, being a close friend of Bruno Chersicla, Noetico can confirm that Bruno Chersicla has never even been to America, and thus could not have done an art exhibition there, and there is no name even of a museum or gallery in that article.

It is also fair that I let you know that Maestro Noetico does not desire to sell his work, even to the most important museums in the world, but this does not necessarily make him a less important artist. Quite on the contrary, it makes him more deserving.

The reason is that Noetico wishes to donate all of the works in his possession (circa 250 artworks) to the American Nation, and for this reason he is already in contact with philanthropist David Rockefeller Jr.

Maestro Noetico despises the mercantile speculation that is done to art and artists, and it’s incomprehensible why a serious encyclopedia, like Wikipedia, requires that the artists “sell” and great museums “buy”, in order to insert the artists into Wikipedia.

It really seems a contradiction, considering that Wikipedia is against those who want to be added to it, in order to make promotional speculation.

I think (and you, who appreciates the wisdom, I hope you will share my thoughts) that Wikipedia should have some different rules, to assess the artists, standards that have always been considered primary in art history.

Until not long ago, an artist was considered to be of value only if he had the support of either a philosopher, a humanist scholar, an art historian or an art critic of high reputation/value. Only these writers could historically decide on an artist's aesthetic validity.

Now, it must be considered that Walter Noetico has had the support of even four major writers and art critics known internationally as: Alexandre Cirici, being the critic who has made great Picasso and Mirò, and perhaps he did not manage to make great also Noetico, simply because he died prematurely. And only having in hand his presentation is already a title of merit and credit (which Maestro Noetico has).

Then: Gillo Dorfles - another great critic respected all over the world (and still alive, at 106), then the writer and art critic Raffaele De Grada, who was for many years the curator of the Venice Biennale, which - as you know - is the biggest art event of the world. Then, also the philosopher Silvio Ceccato.

It should also be considered that no more than 30 years ago, it was sufficient to have only one of those mentioned art critics, in order to make an artist of value and consequently encyclopaedic.

I truly hope you will agree in thinking that the value of an artist is not measured by assessing his market quotations, but it is measured by assessing his aesthetic value and cultural message – it is those values that enriche the Human Race. The things that one buys and sells, only form part of a market, and a mercenary speculation. But the true, real Art belongs only to the Spiritual sphere.

For these motives, I humbly ask you, Tseung Kwan, to kindly reconsider your decision about the artist Noetico, in order to honor the diffusion of Art and Culture in the world, which is clearly lacking today. Thank you profoundly for your time, Tweung Kwan. Jeremy Alterman--Jermy Alterman (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Some of your references are simply trivial mentions of Noetico, and a lot of them are simply about his paintings. These two types of references do not lend notability to the subject involved. Of course, after you've told me about his background, I'm pretty sure he passes WP:NARTIST guidelines. However, you need to write down what you've just told me in the draft (in a neutral tone of course). Your article is quite close to being accepted, so after you're done you can tell me and I'll see if it's ready. Cheers, Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 22:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Source reliability for Jimmie Floyd Jones article

By "affiliated source" do you mean that two of the sources, Jim Jones the San Blas years and Jimmie Jones: Red Rock Painter, were published by Southern Utah University? Both that book and film were based mostly on primary sources, as was most of the material in the Art and Life of Jimmie Jones the main source of information for this submission. Lucyndalin (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Lucyndalin

Yes. I'm afraid your article cannot be accepted if third-party sources cannot be found to verify the claims you make in the draft. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 22:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

So you're saying that a newspaper article, for example, would be a more reliable source than a peer reviewed book like Jim Jones the San Blas years? And a peer reviewed film production, Jimmie Jones: Red Rock Painter? Lucyndalin (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Lucyndalin

Yes. Whether it is peer-reviewed or not does not change the fact that it is affiliated with the subject involved. Peer-reviewing may make it more reliable, but it still isn't independent. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 23:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tseung_Kwan_O/Archive_2&oldid=729702629"