User talk:Drmies

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149

Quick question

Hello! I have read through all the materials, and I hope that I am submitting this question to you appropriately. I have a question with which I hope you can help.

I submitted my first Wikipedia page submission in November, and found out yesterday that it was rejected. I have a quick question for you about resubmitting it.

Question: did I not cite the references correctly technically so that they could be accessed?

This is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Marvin_Megee

The page is about a unique Mayor in Missouri. I included 14 references to support the facts, which included:

5 references from US newspapers (reference #s 4, 6, 7, 8, 9)

5 references from US television investigations/reports from two states (reference #s 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)

2 references from a county election office (reference #s 1, 2)

1 reference from a state organization (reference #3)

1 reference from a state law

All of the references are objective, third-party references (from newspapers, tv reports, county and state offices).

I looked at several examples of other Mayors to make sure I was citing references correctly (like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Joines), but I worry that I did not format the references where you could see them.

Thank you for any help you can give me so that I can resubmit the page!

Stewarmd11 (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)MichelleStewarmd11 (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See, I don't see any evidence that this mayor is somehow "unique", as you say he is. All the coverage is run-off-the-mill, and I don't see anything that rises to notability by our standards. Please see WP:NPOL. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, without Google news archives I've done about as much for this one as I can, although with her local knowledge and offline access, Stewarmd11 may be able to find more. I stuck one "citation needed" in where I felt the referencing was particularly lacking. He has attracted TV coverage from as far away as East Texas for personally plowing the streets, and statewide coverage for the investigation of his pardons, which are apparently the first state invocation of that mayoral right. (Plus his daughter got national coverage the year before he was first elected, but that doesn't count towards her dad's notability.) I'm honestly not sure which side of the notability standard he's on - but I've added a smidgen more data and a couple more refs, linked the different TV stations and generally expanded the news refs for easier scanning, and mucked about with the wording and organization, so that might help you make a determination. (Note my abdication of all responsibility. But then you know I am a notorious inclusionist.) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stewarmd11 (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC) THANK YOU Stewarmd11 (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Thank you so much for your feedback! I really appreciate it. I will make the changes and resubmit. I appreciate that you took the time to review it and help me think through ways to improve the page. Thank you.[reply]

Diamant

Did you come across "Diamant", the Dutch user and (I think) administrator? We just got word that he died 16 November 2013. He was only 13 years of age.

Sad.

The Banner talk 21:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't--I just left a note. Well, I had seen the name a few times, but I'm really not active enough on the Dutch wiki. Thanks for letting me know. 13! Drmies (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chess.com AFD

Hello, Doctor. Many of the "keep" comments on the Chess.com AFD do not comport with policy. Textbook examples they are of "what not to argue" at AFD. Will the closing admin take that into account?:

1. MaxBrowne: a. Size or popularity does not demonstrate notability WP:RANK WP:POPULARITY, b. Norwegian source is a trivial mention, not substantial coverage c. This is not Canvassing, WP:CANVASS. The admin was not notified in order to sway debate one way. Also, the nominator in question never demonstrated any anti- chess.com sentiment or any deletionist tendencies. In fact, the nominator is a self-identified inclusionist. There is no evidence that anyone was selected because of some pre-disposition to delete. Furthermore, bringing up “Canvassing” focuses on the contributor, not the content, and is only raised as a distraction from the real issue, namely, whether the subject has been substantially covered in multiple reliable sources.

2. Rhodendrites: These sources do not demonstrate notability. As another editor already said, Notability does not mean trivial or fleeting coverage in multiple sources. There is a name for that. WP:MILL. Also, the USCF article does not confer notability, as it is more like a blurb about one action. If that conferred notability it only stands to reason that the other site mentioned in the blurb is also notable.

3. Q6637p: a. Makes the argument to avoid “It’s notable.” b. To bolster this notability, Q6637a reverentially cites a New York Times article which is the epitome of trival coverage. This user clearly does not grasp notability requirements in Wikipedia.

4. Sjkkalle: Same as #2, “totality of sources . . . is non-trivial.” does not comform to policy. As another user succinctly put, “WP:GNG states "has received significant coverage in reliable sources " (plural) - it does not say "has received trivial coverage in a lot of sources.”

5. 2Awwsome: Relies on the cavassing issue, and “It’s notable” without explaining why.

6. Sun Creator: Admits that the sources do not demonstrate notability but argues “Ignore all rules,” saying what would the press think that Wikipedia does not have a Chess.com article? Since this “vote” concedes the subject is not notable and only concludes “keep” on spurious non-policy grounds, this “vote” might as well be for deletion.

7. Epicgenius: “It’s notable.” See arguments to avoid. Concedes it’s “just barely” anway.

8. Cobblet: Easily summed up as “Other stuff exists,” why single out Chess.com. Invalid reasoning puts forth no policy based justification for keeping this article. Also, the members saying that “Wiki_brah” has been singlehandedly responsible for this article having been deleted many times are engaging in sensationalism without evidence. Sheldon Wong67 (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should have a little faith in the closing admin. And if the result is keep, then you (and I) suck it up like the big boys we are and move on. That is all. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Onehub Submission

Hi Drmies, I am confused as to why our article submission was declined by you. Our sources are all "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." aren't they?

Thanks for your help.

Liz LizOnehub (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not as far as I can tell. This, for instance, is nothing but a directory entry which appears to be written by the company, and this is nothing but a note on company funding on a website that seems to be little more than a portal for PR releases. The best of the references is this, but I don't know whether Citeworld is accepted here as a reliable source, and at any rate that's the only one that could possibly be called a relevant reference with some in-depth discussion. You're not helping the cause by claiming that pages such as this one should be accepted as third-party sources--it is blatantly not that. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

rfc !vote

Saw your no not vote. While certainly you are entitled to your opinion, I am somewhat surprised by it. Did you look through the list of sources I posted as part of the RFC? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted a rationale, which takes a different tack. I have no doubt that there are sources there, but my concern is different. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And your note is noted, but citing something like this is dangerous: maybe a reliable source doesn't have to be neutral, but why would we cite non-neutral sources in a volatile context? FWIW, I can't read that particular page, but I have some serious objections to citing a book that in its opening chapter presents a scenario for Hitler's escape from the bunker. Make that "insurmountable objections". :) Drmies (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]