Help desk
< October 29	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 31 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

October 30

05:35:32, 30 October 2021 review of draft by Lm1412

Lm1412 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Majid Ersan Al-Kilani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have got a reply to remove the section of Ideas and thoughts from the article. Although in the article I am not referring to my personal ideas and thoughts I am referring to the ideas and thoughts of Majid Al-Kilani. If the heading for this section should be modified can some suggestions be given for other headings?

Lm1412 (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lm1412 I cannot find this reply you mention, nor this advice. Please explain further kin this thread. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:16:13, 30 October 2021 review of submission by Monikerx

KylieTastic (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!

My submission was rejected very quickly by someone called KylieTastic, with the reason 'not adequately supported by reliable sources' (I couldn't find a code for this, so I typed 'van' for vandalism which seems to be her specialty - and that's great, but my page isn't vandalism or offensive or anything like that). I am just wondering how I am expected to provide 'reliable sources' for the factual information I have provided, regarding Vanishing Angels. For instance, do I have to provide a birth certificate which shows David Goodman was born in the UK? I don't have it, but I can provide other documentation which proves it. I included a link to Vanishing Angels' Bandcamp page, which you will find verifies all facts regarding the discography including the dates. I don't know what other verification I could possibly provide for that. I can verify David Goodman wrote for The Star and the Sunday Times, as I have copies of the reviews which were written. I also have copies of the articles which were published on News Time. I don't know how else to verify this fact, considering the website closed down over a decade ago. If that's a problem, I can just remove all references to it (and all the other references to the journalism). David Goodman just wants a short and simple Wikipedia page, to record the facts relating to the music made by Vanishing Angels. As I said, all of those facts are verified on the Vanishing Angels Bandcamp page. I don't see why this should be a problem.

Please let me know what else is required, in order to have the page accepted.

P.S. I have tried my best to enter the required text above, but since I am not a computer programmer with coding experience it may not all be in the proper format. I do apologise for my lack of coding skills. Clearly, not 'everyone' can create and/or edit pages on Wikipedia (as Wikipedia claims). It is highly un-user-friendly (and I'm finding this 'community' - or 'clique' - of nerds is pretty unfriendly and difficult in general). I have seen plenty of pages with 'citation needed' or 'verification required'. Why are those pages allowed to remain on Wikipedia and yet mine is rejected outright, for those same reasons? That's very unfair, isn't it? Why not just accept my submission and add 'verfication required' if you must (even though everything on the page is 100% factual)? Put everything in red! I don't care. At least just accept my submission, which you'll see is just basically a very short (and true) biography and discography. I don't see why this should be a big deal. Who does a person have to murder to get a Wikipedia page? Ridiculous.

Monikerx (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monikerx It makes those you are asking for help from disinclined to help you when you call us nerds and a clique. I understand your frustration, but please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has editors from all walks of life, of all ages, genders, and races, from all over the world.

Like many new users, you have dived right in to creating articles without learning about the process. I encourage you to use the new user tutorial and to review my earlier post to you. Wikipedia does not have pages,, it has articles. This is a subtle but important distinction and may help your viewpoint to see it that way. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a musician, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable musician. Please review the criteria and tell how this person meets at least one aspect of it. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, there is no way to reply to a reply from Wikipedia (in this case, the reply came from 331dot - who has actually been the most helpful person so far). So I am creating a new question - and it is new, because I have been looking at Wikipedia's notes on 'notability' and also the definitions and synonyms of the word 'notability'. My conclusion is that the wise people at Wikipedia get to decide who is 'notable' and who isn't. The definition of 'notable' is 'worthy of notice' or 'noteworthy'. One of the synonyms is 'unusual' - and Vanishing Angels is certainly unusual, so should therefore be considered 'worthy' of a Wikipedia 'article' if the music is unusual. Why does Wikipedia get to decide who is worthy of note? Does a solo musician necessarily need to go on tour (and I'm sure I don't need to I remind you that the planet is still in the grip of a pandemic)? Does he or she have to book loads of interviews with national radio and television stations, in order to be deemed worthy of a Wikipedia 'article'? David Goodman (Vanishing Angels) is an independent musician. That doesn't mean he isn't any good. He has performed live. He has had his songs played on national radio. And he has had articles written about him in various publications. Do we now have to try to find all those articles? They have probably all been deleted or whatever. I could get copies of the articles. I could send pictures and videos of Vanishing Angels performing live. Where would I send those documents and recordings? I am guessing, if it doesn't exist on a website somewhere currently, then it never happened (just like News Time was never a website with 100,000 readers every month - because it no longer exists). What are your suggestions, considering these circumstances? And bear in mind: We are talking about a very short biography of a musician, with a discography (which can be verified by simply going onto the Vanishing Angels Bandcamp page). That is a current website, which shows real releases of real albums and individual songs. Does a musician have to reach a certain level of stardom, before having a short Wikipedia 'article'? If so, where does Wikipedia draw the line?

Monikerx (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monikerx I will review your post in a moment- if you have follow up comments, ease edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. You may find this easier to do in the full desktop version of Wikipedia, even in a browser on a phone or tablet. The mobile and app versions do not have full functionality and it's hard to use talk pages like this with those versions. If you are in a browser, scroll to the bottom and click Desktop. 331dot (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikpedia is not deciding what is notable for the world, but what is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you are interested enough, you may participate in the processes that determine what the notability criteria are. Having music in rotation on national radio stations is one aspect of the criteria. However, you must have some independent reliable sources with significant coverage to summarize (most reviewers look for at least three). This does not mean simple stories confirming the existence of this person or the mere fact that they performed, but indepth coverage that describes why this person is important. I again encourage you to use the tutorial. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monikerx I see above that you stated "David Goodman just wants a short and simple Wikipedia page". If you are working with Mr. Goodman or otherwise associated with him, please review conflict of interest. If he compensates you in any way, please review the paid editing policy. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Monikerx: We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a in-depth third-party source that corroborates it or (if no source can be found for that claim) removed. This is a hard requirement when writing about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT negotiable. Without any sort of in-depth, third party references being cited, there is no way we can consider having an article on Goodman (and by extension his solo project). As 331dot has explained, we do not exist to define what is notable in the world. We're a lagging indicator whose reliability is defined by the absolute worst source we cite, like every other encyclopaedia out there. Notability (as we define it) is determined by coverage by newspapers and topic experts (i.e. music magazines and reviews), not by our opinions on what is "worthy" or not. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Monikerx I have left a comment on the draft which is intended to help you Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is all quite ridiculous. Firstly, 331dot: No I'm not being compensated in any way. And I still can't reply directly to your reply, which is part of the reason why I have initiated another question. The second reason is directed at Jeske Couriano, who has now compared the short biography of an independent musician (who is apparently a 'non-entity' which is an antonym of the word 'notable') to a prominent political figure who was wrongly accused of being a suspect in the assassination of JFK. Yes, I can see how my 'article' is exactly like that one (and quite obviously a hoax, because I clearly hate David Goodman and want to besmirch him by saying bad things about him which are completely untrue). It's a fair cop. I won't even dare trying to submit it again. Finally, with reference to the photograph which was taken by one of David Goodman's friends: Apparently, this is a copyright violation (according to Timtrent). He hasn't said why, but it must be true because he is a Wikipedia editor who is infallible - like all of the other Wikipedia editors. Enjoy your little power trip, guys. I can't be bothered to pursue this good deed (or bad deed, according to you) any further. I have better things to do (unlike you lot). One last thing: Why does KylieTastic (who rejected my 'article' yesterday) get to have a Wikipedia 'article' (page)? How is she in any way 'notable' - just because she has been editing stuff on Wikipedia for a few years? She makes out like she is an international hero. She's just a silly Kylie Minogue fan. Anyway, I'm done. The whole 'process' is a farce. Are you telling me every single statement on every single 'article' on Wikipedia has three references to verify its accuracy? Yeah, right. Totally unfair and biased, but whatever... David Goodman will just have to be a 'non-entity' forever. Who cares, right? He doesn't exist, according to Wikipedia. And that, according to your myriad of warped rules, is the TRUTH according to Wikipedia. What a joke!

197.98.201.78 (talk) 10:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monikerx I've explained how you can reply above. If you use the full desktop version of Wikipedia, there should be an "edit" link on the section header, as well as at the top of this page. I'm sorry that you feel as you do, have chosen to bow to frustration and be uncivil, and won't let us help you. Note that User pages are not articles. 331dot (talk)°

Not every statement requires three sources, an article subject as a whole does, at a minimum. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Monikerx The file you uploaded to Commons for this draft has been deleted as a copyright violation. Please attend to matters of copyright when uploading files. There is more than sufficient information to seek to ensure that you do not upload copyright materials there. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Monikerx: You need three in-depth, strong, independent sources overall to meet WP:Notability and at least one in-depth, strong, independent source per contestable biographical claim the article makes to meet WP:Biographies of living persons. The two are separate requirements, but any source that would help for a biographical claim will, as a rule, also count towards meeting notability. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 01:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]