User talk:BuySomeApples/2023/June

Review

Hello @BuySomeApples, please I need your review on Draft:Johnel. Thank you.Adambenji (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Reliable Sources?

Not sure what is going on here. My article keeps on getting declined for the following reasons:

1. This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject.The person in my article has been published in over 120 books and magazines, including those that are "independent of the subject".

2. This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified.

All my sources are "reliable" and all information can be verified.

3. The article needs sources not written about the subject, not by him.

There are sources not written by him, and also I don't understand why you are asking me to link to a source for his birth date. Who else would know this information besides him or his family, or his manager (me)? There is another Wiki article published about a person he knows that didn't source her birth date, or anything else, yet her article was approved? What's going on? Darklordofpinup (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Darklordofpinup: thanks for taking out some of the refs to work written by the subject. There's still some problems, like using sources that don't mention Huerta at all (I have gone ahead and removed those). The main thing that the article needs is to demonstrate notability, especially by meeting the guidelines at WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. The page is also going to need to be substantially rewritten to be more neutral. I know that's probably hard since you know and represent him personally, but Wikipedia only repeats information stated by reliable sources. No more, no less. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I read the "Creative Professionals" information on the Notability page and would like to know why people who aren't notable have had their articles approved. I'm referring specifically to a person who Huerta taught how to draw pin-up. The non-notable student's article was approved but the teacher's wasn't? I will go ahead and rewrite Huerta's article now and hopefully will have it approved this time. Darklordofpinup (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that page out @Darklordofpinup: I've gone ahead and nominated Nicole Brune for deletion. Just because other stuff exists, that doesn't mean that the Armando Huerta page has to be accepted. If you can't find significant coverage in reliable sources, it's definitely going to get rejected. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I just found Armando Huerta on Notable events of 2020 in comics so that might also help with the submission. The guy is not a nobody. Darklordofpinup (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting Nicole Brune's page. She has now resorted to slandering me because her lies are being exposed online. Her fraudulent pin-up artist career was launched after Armando Huerta created a drawing for her which she then promoted as her own work. Nobody is "verbally assaulting" Nicole and I was never blocked on Instagram due to harassment. These are more lies that are being spread by Nicole and her partner, John Roach. These people have severe hate issues which they are unfairly (and illegally) projecting onto me. Darklordofpinup (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Darklordofpinup: The Nicole Brune page was deleted because, like the Armando Huerta page appears, it was not notable. It did not have anything to do with whatever drama you and people you know might be involved with. That's best left off of Wikipedia, this isn't the place to air it. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Every pin-up and comic artist in the world knows that Armando was the best at what he did and untouchable, including the other two top pin-up artists who are mentioned on the Armando Huerta page and who have Wikipedia articles (Olivia and Sorayama). I'm not sure why you keep on saying it's not "notable". You don't think all the publications Huerta has been in and people he's worked with are notable? They're pretty big names. When do you think the article will be published? Don't worry about Nicole. There is no drama so there's nothing to air. She's just a talentless nobody who lies about others she is jealous of. Darklordofpinup (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Darklordofpinup: That's great dude. Once you find some reliable sources that discuss your guy in depth, someone unaffiliated with him can edit the page for neutrality and then it might be approved. Until then I don't really have anything more to add. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Have you seen the over 120 reliable and notable publications that Armando Huerta has been in that discuss him in depth? I'm not sure why you keep on ignoring those. The page is very neutral and states straight facts. What part do you think isn't "neutral"? Darklordofpinup (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Darklordofpinup: If you've got 120 reliable sources that discuss him at length, adding some to the page should not be an issue. So far you haven't produced a single one that would meet WP:GNG. There's no need to keep arguing on my talk page, the sources will speak for themselves. If you can't see what's wrong with the page then you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia and its standards of neutrality. Please stop arguing about the page rejection and listen to the criticism. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The over 120 reliable sources are listed on the page. I don't own the publications so cannot quote from them.

Notability (Wikipedia)

"A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

All 120+ publications listed ARE independent of the subject. Why are you not understanding this? No other person's page on Wikipedia quotes from all the publications they've been featured in so why am I required to do so?

Nobody is arguing. You keep on posting statements that aren't true and dodging the fact that Armando Huerta is a very notable person in the pin-up and comics industry. His death is even mentioned on the notable events of 2020 in comics page so common sense dictates that he should also have his own page on Wikipedia.

I asked you to tell me what part of the article you think is not neutral and you didn't answer me. How am I supposed to edit the article if you won't tell me what parts you think I need to edit? Are you asking me to edit the facts? Darklordofpinup (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Darklordofpinup: What are you talking about? There are 27 references on the page and not one of them meets requirements. The page itself is riddled with biased, promotional, and unsourced information. It's harder to pick out content that's worth keeping and no one is obligated to teach you how to edit Wikipedia. The fact that his name was added to a list somewhere else on Wikipedia has no bearing on whether he meets notability guidelines. Again, stop. There's nothing you can say that's going to change my mind unless the draft improves. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

So, are you saying that The Comics Journal isn't a notable or independent source? Hustler? Skin & Ink magazine? Heavy Metal magazine? .... or any of the other publications that have nothing to do with Armando on a personal level? Promotional? Unsourced? Are you serious? You're targeting me for some extremely strange reason. I'm asking you to give me examples but you can't. Why?

What's there to improve? The entire article is riddled with facts and they're all sourced.

I just spoke to two musician friends of mine and asked them if they wrote their own Wiki pages and they said they did, and I'm 100% sure there are thousands of other people on here who have also written their own pages. One of them sources his own social media site so clearly I am being targeted and want to know why.

By the way, I'm not a "dude". I'm a woman. Darklordofpinup (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Darklordofpinup:I apologize for misgendering you, I often use dude in a neutral way. If you have all of these articles about him in magazines, go ahead and add them to the page as references. Don't tell me about them, because I couldn't find all these in-depth articles you're talking about. Just add them to the page. Also, which musicians are you talking about? I doubt that there are many pages citing social media that were approved in AfC. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Wow, this is unbelievable. I already listed all the magazines with articles about him on the page and just gave you the names of some of them. Did you read the list?

Oh yes, there are pages that cite social media. I don't want to get my friends' pages removed so I'm not going to tell you who they are. But, I just searched for other musicians and found some who have used their social media sites as sources. Tommy Cash sources his YouTube channel. He's pretty big. That's one of them. Even Beastie Boys reference their own YouTube channel. Darklordofpinup (talk) 06:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Darklordofpinup: OK I see what's going on here. You don't actually understand how sourcing works, and that's OK. I see that there's a really long list of magazines that his drawings have supposedly appeared in, but that's different from the "References" section and it's not what Wikipedia means by "independent sources". I really recommend that you read WP:REF and WP:Notability. If you want to add references, follow the instructions there. Please do not keep arguing on my talk page, I understand that you don't understand why your draft was rejected, but you also don't seem to want to understand. I have nothing more to say to you at this time. BuySomeApples (talk) 08:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I've read the citations page and understand perfectly.

"Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made." - Wikipedia

I did that.

"Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. e.g. Mainstream (non-fringe) magazines, including specialty ones" - Wikipedia

Done.

I've asked you to specifically point out examples that you think don't follow any of these guidelines and you never do. Why?

Pin-up artist Gil Elvgren sources his own site and sources books with no page numbers. He's a very well-known artist, like Armando Huerta and Armando actually has quoted him as being an influence.

Brothers Hildebrandt, huge as well. One of the sources they used is the Lambiek Comiclopedia like I did. They source their own Facebook page, something that I did not do. They also link to their Amazon page to sell books.

Drew Posada, a friend of Huerta's who is also dead now. References his own book and a pin-up website. Total of 3 references.

Luis Royo, also a huge artist that references websites. All of the pin-up artists on this page know each other and none of them have as many references as Armando Huerta.

Scott Campbell, huge comic artist, one of my favorites and who works for Marvel. He references his own DeviantArt social media page.

Why do all these artists have pages and Armando Huerta doesn't? (and he was the best pin-up/comic artist in the world) Darklordofpinup (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for your hard work in AfC over the last few weeks, usually a thankless task...! Your work is not going unnoticed. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mattdaviesfsic: Thanks! BuySomeApples (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hi @BuySomeApples, why does my draft not qualify due to not enough reliable sources? Why are my sources not considered reliable? Draft:Serena Terry? Saussure4661 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Saussure4661: The sources you used so far are mostly reliable, but there's some unreliable ones like WP:DAILYEXPRESS and then there's uncited info about living people which is not allowed. This information will either need to be cited or removed because potentially controversial topics like mental health and personal experiences should always be cited. The page is off to a good start, it just needs a little more work. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks for the specificities and the booster. As for the unsourced information, all information comes from sources, albeit they are separated by paragraphs. I guess a good start is to lump them together. I have no problem removing Daily Express. Will do so. Thanks for reviewing the draft :) Saussure4661 (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

No problem @Saussure4661: once you finish that feel free to submit for review again, it'll probably be ready. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Labour (song)

On 17 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Labour (song), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the song "Labour" started a TikTok trend of women sharing their experiences with sexism? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Labour (song). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Labour (song)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Request on 01:24:02, 23 June 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Genly Ai

• Genly Ai (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Dren McDonald (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for reviewing this article and giving me feedback on how to improve its quality! I have gone through and made the changes you suggested – adding citations and removing uncited material, and editing portions of the text to have a more neutral tone. I just resubmitted the article for another review. Since you're acquainted with the article now, would it be possible for you to review it to confirm the changes were adequate? Thanks for your help!

Genly Ai (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Genly Ai: I try not to review the same page twice most times so that another reviewer can look at it with fresh eyes and you can get a second opinion. It does look like you've done great work improving it so far though. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Assassination of Omar Menéndez

On 24 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Assassination of Omar Menéndez, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in February 2023, Ecuadorian entrepreneur Omar Menéndez was elected the mayor of his canton the day after his assassination? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Assassination of Omar Menéndez. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Assassination of Omar Menéndez), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Marvin Guy

Hi @BuySomeApples, I have addressed your concerns regarding tone and inline citations. Also, I reviewed the WP:CRIME. Are you saying that since the subject has not been convicted a living biography is not appropriate? Perhaps this article would be better published as "Case of Marvin Guy", since it is the police action and subsequent judicial process that is the primary focus, not the person. If you agree, please reject this and I'll rewrite and submit as "Case of Marvin Guy". Mbcoats (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mbcoats: I'm not certain what naming convention to follow, but I think the title is fine for now (it's a draft anyway). Generally, it's best if each statement has an inline citation next to it for verification and on a page like this it's required. IMO the Mother Jones quote can go back on the page because it was cited. That said, the page does need a little more tuning up. I'll take a look at it when I have more time and do some editing on it. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Changing the title would make it not a biography and thus not subject to the living persons guideline. When you say 'inline citation' do you mean something different than a reference tag? Either way can you be more specific and indicate which content you're referring to? Mbcoats (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Mbcoats, WP:BLP applies to all pages with information concerning living persons on Wikipedia, not just those specifically marked as biographies. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Good to know. Mbcoats (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @BuySomeApples, I've restored the Mother Jones quote. I'm grappling with your suggestion that it is best if 'each statement has an inline citation'. I've peppered the content with reference citations. At some point I believe one must balance the noise factor of repeating a reference repeatedly. Where sentences are not immediately followed by a citation, it is because several sentences are typically share one common citation. The next reference is for several sentences. If you could clarify specific content that you see as an issue, I'd much appreciate it. Mbcoats (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Mbcoats: thank you for putting the quote back. Including an inline citation at the end of each paragraph (even if it's a one sentence paragraph) is not going to make reading the page difficult imo. The problem is that it's not apparent to readers which source they should look at to verify the info unless it's cited inline. A page like this needs to be WP:Verified, even if it is not packaged as a biography. If you're really concerned about overcitation, you can bundle some sentences related to the same source into one paragraph. Most lines have inline citations now, so this might be the easiest solution. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I am mystified by your WP:Verified concern. The references consist of three newspapers, two television stations and Mother Jones magazine. Which is not a reputable source? Did you try to track down the source of each statement to a particular reference and were unable to? Is this why you object to publishing this page? If so, I'd appreciate it if you would be specific about which statements you cannot trace back to a verifiable source. Perhaps I made an error when moving content around to improve my draft. Everything in the article came from reputable sources. I've written numerous articles and I am scrupulous to avoid including any facts that I cannot find published by a reliable source. Mbcoats (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mbcoats: Using reliable sources is one important part of references, the other is using inline citations. The reason why inline citations are used is because readers can't be expected to go through each article linked when verifying a specific claim. By placing the ref at the end of a paragraph or sentence, you're saying "here is the original source for this specific part". Like I said, you've mostly fixed the problems with inline citations, it should be trivial to fix the rest. It will also make it easier for the next reviewer who assesses the page, meaning that the page will probably be published sooner! BuySomeApples (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)