User talk:K.e.coffman

Really...

I always admired how you cut through bull-stuff in some contexts (re: your inspiring c/e of various Nazi-whitewashing, etc.). Which is why I am surprised we seem to disagree on the 'Jewish Paradise' issue. The 1606 poem was undeniably xenophoic (including being antisemitic). But the poem is fringe, it is forgotten, and all that remains is the proverb (and its shorter 'Jewish Paradise') section. I've cited plenty of sources, and the use of either is generally neutral, as in, non-malicious and referring to the Golden Age of Jews in Poland. Of course, we can find some instances of those terms being abused by antisemites, but 1) I cannot find any academic source discussing the use of those constructs by antisemites, so all we have are some primary refs to hate speech and 2) those constructs are reasonably often used by academics, who clearly use them in a neutral way (if not, in fact, a way that's positive towards the Jews, as in, referring to their Golden Age). There's the bit about the saying being an exaggeration/hyperbole, which the article notes as well, but I'd really appreciated it if you tell me what I am missing here? I explained this issue on talk in more detail, but IMHO the vast majority of reliable (academic) sources uses the proverb/two word construct neutrally. How such a construct can be considered antisemitic? (Again, I am sure it is abused in some hate speech, but so can be everything else, and hate speech is not a reliable source, not until it is analyzed by academics). A single minor scholar is grinding an ax because she has issues with a POLIN Museum and criticized the title of their exhibition; no other scholar seems to support her claim about those constructs (through some, rightly, agree re the original 1606 poem, as do I, and as the article clearly states). Seriously, one of the world's largest museums of Jewish history wouldn't use an anti-semitic phrase, without any explanation, on its pages/exhibitions: [1]. And it's not like POLIN is not aware of Janicka's criticism (or criticisms, she effectivelly called it an antisemitic museum, she really has an issue with that institution...); they have generated a few more academic papers, replies from POLIN director/staff, which essentially boils down to 'criticism of this phrase is incorrect and out of context', which is why the museum has retained this phrase, and nobody else has repeated this criticism (Polin won a prestigious Europen-wide museum award, the European Museum of the Year Award, since: [2]). Ditto for media, no media, Polish or international, have deemed this criticism to be justified. Just recently a Jewish-American newspaper ([3]) run a nice report on the museum, and guess what? They even explicitly refer to the Jewish Paradise construct in a positive way: "The 'Paradisus Iudaeorum' gallery, part of the core exhibition at Warsaw's POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews, examines a 'golden age' for Jews in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 16th and 17th centuries." in the image caption, and they don't even bother to mention any criticism of that phrase. So, are you going to say that the AJP is using anti-semitic language now? PS. BBC used it a way back: [4], so did the Jewish Telegraphic Agency ([5]). Hardly anti-semitic venues (if it was really an anti-semitic slur, you'd think someone would point it out to them and they'd revise their articles...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

"Paradise for the Jews" @ DYK

@Piotrus: You have asked for my opinion; I responded on my Talk page as well as at DYK. It's apparently not what you expected to hear, so let me be more direct in how I convey this. Accusations of "ranting" [6] in response to good-faith concerns are not appropriate. Likewise, continued advocacy [7] with the aim of getting an antisemitic-sounding saying onto the mainpage comes across as off. Other editors said as much, i.e. here: [8].

Re: your comment that "the academic debate about this topic, as well as whether this phrase is anti-semitic, or much more nuanced, is ongoing, and any attempt to simply it is not helpful" [9]. I agree with this point, but it also underlies the issue with the hook. The available word count does not offer sufficient space for nuance, which the topic requires. It also seems that the positive connotations apply to the two-word phrase. Attempts to "simplify" the article into a hook & use the entire saying evince responses such as: "Who the hell is responsible for this potential P.R. clusterfuck?". It would not be a good look for Wikipedia if more people come away with this impression.

Perhaps you are simply too invested in the article to be able to hear the feedback you are getting. That said, I grant that there's a chance that I'm wrong in how I perceived the hook. A discussion at NPOVN may be benefitial to get wider perspectives. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Would you mind point out which reliable source refer to the proverb as anti-semitic (anti-Jewish)? Not, I repeat, an anti-semitic source which uses the phrase, since this is a spurious relations (again, one might as well argue that the use of the word "Jew" in an antisemitic canard like "all Jews are [something bad]" means the very word "Jew" is antisemtic and controversial). Right now we have sources and a consensus that the original 1606 text was xenophobic and antisemitic, and a single source making a generalized claim that the two-word construct "Jewish Paradise" is anti-semitic (and I argue that it is a fringe claim, plus that the author refers to the original poem and just uses the two-word construct as a reference to it). I will also note that exaggeration =/= (always) antisemitism (unless you have a source that says otherwise); we already note the proverb is an exaggeration (but it doesn't make it antisemitic, at least, not without a source saying so). Again, I ask, which reliable source discusses the antisemitism of the proverb? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I invite you to read my comments above: #"Paradise for the Jews" @ DYK. You have not addressed any of my points or acknowledged the feedback you got so far, yet you want more information. Are you saying that all these other editors are wrong? --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

(EC):::@Piotrus: I would just like to amplify and clarify my original concerns with this DYK nomination. Before I begin, I must say that I have often agreed with your editing and have never had issues with you. For clarification, I edited until September with the user name 'Irondome' so, this is me. Her are some points;

• DYK is the place for new, 'immature' articles, which in my opinion should be non-controversial. The intense and detailed discussion regarding specialised and nuanced historical points which it has already generated at the DYK board would indicate that the article was not ripe for DYK, which I believe, is the place for non-contentious work. The placement of this subject matter in a DYK was premature, and not perhaps suited for the typical DYK audience. The article needed to be refined and improved by community discussion.
• The timing of the DYK was unfortunate, as it would have fallen just 24 hours before the 80th anniversary of Kristallnacht. I believe this would have been insensitive to the feelings of many readers, and more dangerously, would have created potential attention and focus on the project's failings, even if perceived. In my opinion, the timing was insensitive. WP has many enemies, on all spectra. We cannot afford adverse media attention, which was a probability, however remote.
• This year saw an unpleasant disagreement between Poland, Israel and other nations regarding the Polish Government's legislation on Polish historiography, which obviously focused on the ongoing Polish death camp controversy debates. Personally I think the Polish Government were and are correct to challenge such an inaccuracy, but mutual misapprehensions and subsequent Polish Government legislation created a poor atmosphere, which will take a time for the dust to settle on. This merely gave the perception of an ongoing Jewish-Polish animosity. I am obviously AGF here, but it is the perception and timings which I objected to, and which I felt would inflame in the extreme quarters of all POV's on either 'side'.

These were my main concerns, and I wished to clarify them here. Your colleague, Simon Adler (talk) 05:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear KEC, I am afraid we are talking past one another, as it is my distinct impression you have not addressed my points or acknowledged feedback. I am not sure which points of you I am ignoring. To be clear, I believe any article can have a neutral hook created for it, no matter how controversial the subject. I still believe that all hooks proposed are pretty neutral, but more could be considered, except nobody is really proposing them. Ex. we could consider a hook along the lines that ...'part of the proverb XYZ used in the Polin Museum exhibition has given raise to a heated debate'. I honestly don't see what's wrong with such hooks. A potential of any PR disaster is a totally ridiculous idea. Aside from NOTCENSORED, whose spirit means we don't give in to pressure not to write about potentially controversial subjects, this is hardly a controversial subject. A few academics exchanged some academic polemic, granted, reasonably heated for academia - but the general media never cared about it. Nobody has so far found a single international, not to mention, Polish news media piece that even discussed this. What kind of controversy could arise from using a neutrally worded hook is beyond me. Even if the hook was non-neutral and biased, such as saying that 'XYZ proverb illustrated that Jews were highly privileged in the PLC', I doubt anyone would notice this outside Wikipedia, but that's a straw man argument, since I and others have tried hard to ensure that both the article and the hook are neutral as much as possible, and not easily misinterpreted. Do let me know if there are any other points you made I somehow missed (if I didn't reply to that in more detail earlier it is TBH because I still consider it mostly ridiculous from the common sense perspective and a violation of the NOTCENSORED Wikipedia policy; once we seriously start removing main page content because 'it may offend someone', what's next? No articles on racial issues, on gender issues on the main page? Maybe we should delete them just to be safe? Anyone suggesting this article is beyond hope when it comes to DYK is threading a very dangerous path and need major WP:TROUTing, with all die respect - it's one thing to suggest rewording a hook for more neutrality, something that I have no problem with, it's another to say a topic is totally unsuited - I repeat, nothing can ever be totally unsuited, the only reason a hook can be failed for neutrality is if nobody cares to fix it and propose a better alternative). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Piotrus: You need to convince other editors, not just me. That's why I suggested a centralised location, such as NPOVN. Splintering discussions across multiple pages is unlikely to result in consensus. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but as I value your opinion a lot, I'd be quite happy if I could manage to convince you :) Anyway, feel free to check the recent version of the article and comment on whether it is neutral. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Piotrus: I've expressed my opinion that the article should be moved to Paradisus Judaeorum, for starters: [10]. The entire saying can be discussed in the "Background" section, as, well, background for the two-word phrase; the former generated coverage only in passing. There's really no point in having a DYK on a nn phrase, plus all the other baggage, as discussed earlier. Sorry, I'm not convinced, but I appreciate the effort :). --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Considering that the only two academic sources that discuss this topic in depth focus on the proverb and not just the Jewish Paradise construct, I think the current longer title is correct. The shorter phrase is used a bit more, but in passing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:The Hitman Blues Band

Thanks for the review. I'm confused - the rejection said:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

There WAS a range of independent, reliable, published sources. For example, they were on the front cover of Blues In Britain and had an accompanying article, had numerous reviews over the years in magazines and newspapers from all over the world, and toured all over the UK and Europe. I provided references. There are plenty of other reviews, but unfortunately many are not web accessible without a subscription. I don't understand how you can say what you did about it being "materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed" - I didn't write those articles!

Rather than being "an advertisement", which would have used superlatives to describe the band, I just stuck to their history and accomplishments. No, they aren't U2 or Led Zeppelin. But they are a recognized Modern Blues band that has gotten steady, significant airplay on blues stations all over the world and have a reasonably large following. If they don't meet the required level of success, despite the luminaries who have recorded the albums, that's one thing. But to say I didn't provide a neutral point of view, or didn't provide independent, reliable, published sources - I must be missing something in what's required.

I would appreciate help in getting this to pass muster. Thanks again for your time and voluntary work. Savearainbow (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Savearainbow: please see User_talk:Savearainbow#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

So as a fan who knows the band, I can't submit the article? Thanks for the quick response. Savearainbow (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Savearainbow: It's still unclear whether you have a connection to the band or not (WP:COI), since you did not directly answer my question. In any case, you are welcome to ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Please link this discussion if you do. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm not directly connected to the band other than being a fan. Nowhere in your comments or responses did I see an actual question. Honestly, I feel like we're having two different conversations. You gave critiques that did not apply to my article. You're saying I didn't answer a non-existing question. I already submitted this article (a different editor reviewed it and gave very helpful suggestions) and this concept of COI never came up. I understand you're a volunteer editor and are doing the best you can, but this is quite frustrating.

Savearainbow (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

A week and no response. Ok, you'll be happy to know I'm giving up. I'm passing this over to another fan I know in the UK to submit. Perhaps he'll get a better response. I already told the band that I've run up against an editor who seems to be dead set against the article.

Savearainbow (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Savearainbow: "I already told the band that I've run up against..." suggests that you are in personal contact with the band, so not "just" a fan (?). In any case, I've responded earlier and suggested that you ask for a second opinion at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. I do not plan to comment on this draft further. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Felix Römer

On 17 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Felix Römer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Felix Römer. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Felix Römer), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Taras Kostanchuk

Good day! Earlier today, you rejected an article about Taras Kostanchuk (commander of the assault group of the Donbas Battalion). The reason you indicated my friendly or family ties or advertising is not a significant person, but this is not so. He led the assault group of the famous battalion and went through many battles (in the material I applied it was fixed, even video materials). One of the few who survived the Battle of Ilovaisk. I enclose a photo of the planning of the capture of Ilovaysk, where Taras Kostanchuk discusses it with the famous founder of the battalion, Semen Semenchenko. Now Taras Kostanchuk is engaged in many projects in Ukraine and there are a lot of queries about search systems about him (you can check). In Ukrainian Wikipedia, I have already successfully created and approved an article about Taras Kostanchuk (you can easily check this). This man deserves a place in the encyclopedia and I would like to be the creator of his page until someone else did. This article does not carry any advertising character. Taras Kostanchuk does not need it. His biography is already searched in search queries, so I’m creating this page. I beg you to reconsider your decision. Thank you. Best regards, Pa30T (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Pa30T: The article reads like a hagiography, while the notability is questionable. It's still unclear if you have a connection to the subject, or to the Donbass Battalion, since you did not comment on that directly. Please see: User_talk:Pa30T#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interests on the page is impossible. I am not personally acquainted with Taras Kostanchuk (commander of the assault group of the Donbas Battalion), was never part of the Donbas Battalion. Taras Kostanchuk is a war hero and now even make a film about him (as he survived in the Battle of Ilovaisk). Now he is active in supporting the military and a lot of many other public projects. I could attach a large number of links mentioning him, but it will be easier for you to register his name on the search engine. You will see that people are looking for his biography. This is the reason to have a full-fledged biography in one place, so I create this page. I hope you check this information and change your opinion. Best regards, Pa30T (talk) 09:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Pa30T: Sorry, I do not plan to change my opinion about this draft. You are welcome to ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Please link this discussion if you do. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I will definitely ask for a change of decision. Perhaps you do not know about the war in Ukraine and about key persons, so it’s difficult for you to understand the significance of this person. I will look for administrators who know about the war in Ukraine. Thanks for the help. Best regards, Pa30T (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Elaine Alexander Draft

Hello k.e.coffman,

You recently declined an article I wrote about Elaine Alexander. You declined it under the assumption that it was an autobiography and that it cited sources written by Elaine.

True, Elaine wrote one of the sources. It is a book that she wrote. It is not about her or her career. It is about the criminal justice system.

Furthermore, Ms. Alexander did not write this Wikipedia article. My name is Noah Gaarder-Feingold, and I wrote the article. Feel free to find me on Facebook or Instagram (@bigznoahkai). I wrote the article because Ms. Alexander is a successful, intelligent, important woman. I am a law student and learned of her just recently. Her husband is a professor of mine. Discussions I had with him were the basis for the majority of this article. I tried to find outside sources that helped, but she is not very active online. But do see the cites to the Appellate Defenders. Those demonstrate her importance.

I ask you to please reconsider this article. It is honest, important, and certainly worthy of Wikipedia. Sincerely, Noah Gaarder-Feingold Ngaarderfeingold (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ngaarderfeingold: It does sound like you have a conflict of interest; please see WP:COI. Wikipedia articles are generally not based on interviews with the subjects' spouses. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

For your list of known right-wing publishers

Here is one for your list of known right-wing publishers that I came across while expanding the National Zeitung article: The Deutscher Buchdienst, founded by Gerhard Frey (politician), now run by the Adoria Verlag. Their Ritterkreuztraeger card game pretty much says it all, or what about the Germany in the borders of 1937 jigsaw? However, Frey's Ehrenbund Rudel might be defunct now, to late to join. Turismond (talk) 09:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wow. I've been studying the Judaica section with... with... interest, I suppose. We have an article on the "MacDonald" who has written many of the books listed: Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist). Bishonen | talk 17:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC).

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, K.e.coffman. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hi, do you think this draft: Draft:Alice Kimball Smith should be moved to mainspace? I'm sort on the fence with it. I didn't start the draft but I've expanded it and I don't want to move it will be deleted. Thanks. JC7V (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@JC7V7DC5768: Yes, I would accept this draft. The article looks acceptable, while the subject is notable under WP:NAUTHOR. For authors, I usually check Worldcat.org/identities. Smith has very high library holdings as can be seen here: [11]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

For your wall of distortionist shame

Hey K.e.coffman, take a peek at - diff1, diff2, and diff on commons. A higher resolution of the same photo + comments by a museum can be seen - here. If you know a bit of Yiddish/German - it is verifiable by self reading - the first line is "דער טאג וואלן" or "Der Tag Wahlen" - election day. The museum's loose translation (won't dicker with them too much - but seems to me a bit loose) is "The Election of / Delegates / For the people's council / of Western Belarus", and they say this was taken in 1941 right after the German conquest. This was presented on Wikipedia "Banner in Yiddish welcoming the Soviet forces in 1939. In the background the Catholic Church of St. Roch in Białystok (Soviet photo)" - which seems like Żydokomuna/Jewish Bolshevism. The file was added to Commons (and I presume to Wikipedia on around the same date) in December 2015 - and remained on Wikipedia for nearly 3 years. Icewhiz (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Through it seems to be more of an honest mistake. The description is based on [12] which talks about an exhibition of photographs from 1939-1941 related to Soviet propaganda. Until we found a better description, the old one didn't seem wrong. Wall of shame seems more appropriate for purposeful misinformation rather than accidental. In either way, thank you Icehwiz for finding a better description and correcting the old misleading one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The TVP3(Bialystok regional) run by Telewizja Polska would seem to be an unlikely source for WWII information - the state broadcaster has hosted openly anti-semitic guests [13] as well as transmitting anti-semitic messages on-air- per themselves due to a "technical glitch".[14] However - the TVP source cited above does not support this was a "Jewish welcome message" or that it was taken in 1939. I will note that before searching for the specific photograph, the description itself was obviously wrong from the composition of the image itself (even if you are unable to make out Yiddish (and it is a tad blurry version of the photo) - the sign is quite obviously not a "welcome message" in its drab black and white glory and in Yiddish no less. A rudimentary understanding of Yiddish/German is sufficient to show that the text on the sign is not a "welcome message"). Icewhiz (talk) 10:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Piotrus: @Icewhiz: I've seen this image before, in the Białystok Ghetto article, and I recall that the caption did not make sense to me. If the Jews really wanted to welcome the Red Army, they would have written the banner in Russian. The "Jew-Bolshevik-Partisan" construct is something I've come across elsewhere; see samples at User:K.e.coffman#"Ah, partisanen!".

I've seen some creative captions, too; for example: [15], in Sonderaktion 1005. This belongs in User:K.e.coffman#Debasement of victims; as in: Look at these well-dressed Sonderkommandos, relaxed and casually standing about, posing for photographs, while the camp is in operation. Almost turning victims into perpetrators. Shameful. Please feel free to let me know about additional diff; my wall can always use more. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Aeris Naviter

• Anobium625 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Aeris Naviter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for taking the time to review Draft:Aeris Naviter. It was not a puff piece for the company. I know none of the principals and the company is defunct. Why puff it? But I do agree that its notability was marginal, so I am concurring in its deletion. Anobium625 (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Anobium625 (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Anobium625: in general, if the article on the product already exists, the information on the (marginally notable) company can be merged into the article on its product. The same principle applies to authors. If they have written one notable book, you can create an article either on the book or on the author, but not both. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Advice needed on Draft:Bram van Sambeek

Thank you for your review, but in all honesty I am a bit frustrated that you give different feedback than your colleague reviewer: "This topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia." You also state that it is still extremely promotional. I find that feedback extremely vague. Your colleague mentioned the "award winning", which is a fact of life, as we are talking about one of the world´s best bassoon players. But I removed that.

Please explain to me why this is extremely promotional? Give me three examples where the text is still extremely promotional? From that I can learn (I am a fast learner) and adapt the submission. Thank you in advance for your advice. --Sobatipep (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sobatipep: Please see Wikipedia:Spam. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Thank you, but that is quite general feedback, which I find hard to work with. Your perception of sales language or written as an advertisement is quite different from mine it seems, so it is hard to improve if the feedback is not specific enough. But I will give it a try, although I think, more specific feedback would save everyone time. --Sobatipep (talk) 09:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: I think I did a good attempt to make it more neutral by taking out all adjectives and opinions. I took out the reference to a future album release and I also took out quotes and changed the use of first name to either the complete name or just the last name. I reordered some of the text and made special projects and experiments a part of Career as to not make it stand out that much. I think it is quite neutral now. I am not quite sure how to submit the article for review now, though. I asked for Advice through the button that you added in your review. Could you inform me how to submit or how the process works differently from the previous time? The way Wikipedia works is not intuitive for me, so I need some guidance. Thank you. --Sobatipep (talk) 10:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sobatipep: I see that you've asked for a second opinion at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. I do not plan to comment on this draft further. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Thank you! --Sobatipep (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis

Thank you for reviewing Draft:Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis. This was rejected due to "this topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia", however I do not believe that is the correct consensus. This event was covered in various local, national, and international reliable secondary sources, so should meet WP:GNG. It also resulted in continued coverage and has had long term effects beyond the event itself, so WP:NOTNEWS shouldn't apply.

This page follows WP:SINGLEEVENT which says that "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person." The most recent version of this draft isn't targeting the individual person (who wouldn't otherwise be notable) but rather the event, which is clearly significant. Please compare this page to the various other pages in Category:Bullying_and_suicide which are also titled "Suicide of X" instead of just "X", and use {infobox event} instead of {infobox person}. Also compare to another filmed suicide page, Suicide of Kevin Whitrick, which has been deemed notable enough to easily survive deletion proposal. Katelyn Davis' case should be considered at least as notable as all these other pages, in that it had much more national and international coverage, her death was actually recorded on video and was seen by literally millions of people (often unwittingly) during its weeks on Facebook, and in the case's later ramifications on modifying policy on Facebook and other social media platforms. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cruiser1: you are welcome to ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Please link this discussion if you do. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Supernova-Group

Hi, K.e.coffman! Thank you for reviewing my article. What do I have to do, to get the topic [16] sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Is it the topic itself or is it the company, which is not famous enough? Greetings, --Naitsabes117 (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Naitsabes117: It's not about what you need to do; it's about whether sufficient sources to establish notability exist. Please also see: User_talk:Naitsabes117#Managing a conflict of interest. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier

The sculptor artist and writer is found in the Basque Encyclopedia of Sculptors, as well as in wikipedia in Spanish and in wikipedia in Basque, his Basque mythology books are found as references in innumerable bibliographies of articles and wikipedia pages in English and Spanish: Basque Mythology, Basajaun, Mari, Tartalo, Aatxe, etc. Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier, sculptor and writer of the Basque mythological is a reference source in Basque mythology as: Andrés Ortiz-Osés or José Migel Barandiaran and the author has sufficient references for the creation of his page in the Basque encyclopedy and in numerous international art magazines, you should create the author page in the wikipedia in English and a redirection to the wikipedia of the author in Spanish. Best regards and I hope you consider the creation of the author page and / or its redirection to your wikipedia in Spanish.85.84.33.126 (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)