Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:
Please discuss your proposed changes on the talk page ofCalmodulin or beWP:BOLD and make those changes. We review complete articles here. And editor may edit any page here
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmitwhen they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Calmodulin and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go toDraft:Calmodulin, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned andmay be deleted.
Hello,WeirdNAnnoyed!Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at theArticles for creation help desk. If you have anyother questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at theTeahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!FiddleFaddle07:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, WeirdNAnnoyed. It has been over six months since you last edited theArticles for Creation submission orDraft page you started, "Calmodulin".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopediamainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simplyedit the submission and remove the{{db-afc}},{{db-draft}}, or{{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions atthis link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Spheroidene, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can nowcreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option tocreate articles yourself without posting a request toArticles for creation.
Re your comment on the talk page for the article about turnin' the damn frogs gay, there is an easy way to AfD the article. First remove the scientific cites, since they violateWP:SYNTH; remove non-RS cites; remove anything else which violates WP content policy. The remainder of the article will be basically a stub that says two guys said something crazy, with a couple media sites for citations: that is a slam-dunk for AfD.AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk)16:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You really messsed this page up. To start a new discussion on an AFD, you create a new AFD, you don't remove a previous discussion from the original AFD discussion page. Now, a new AFD page has to be created and all of this new content moved over to it.
Please do not ever do this again as it creates work for other editors/admins. Use Twinkle to tag pages for deletion or deletion discussions and Twinkle will take care of the process so we don't run into problems like this one. Oy, vey.LizRead!Talk!21:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with the people who refrain from overusing these initialisms an acronyms, especially the ones that turn into words in sentences.They hide what the underlying things really are, and obfoscate more than elucidate, to the extent that they've been parodied with things like "OMG TLA WTF BBQ!" since at least 2006."BEFORE" is, really, doing reasonable searches for sources beforehandand more.Of course when viewed that way it encompasses everything from thevery reasonable reading the sources already cited in an article by the editors who wrote it, to doingfar more than counting hits on one of Google's searches.
At this point, we're still in theGNIS mess, and we still have huge amounts of cleanup of what arebad data dumps to do.If you're looking for ways to approach this, there are several, but the most basic advice is thatAFD is not a hammer.It's not meant to be an ultimatum to get other people to do the research.
To that end, quite a lot of us have undertaken quite a lot ofcleanup projects, AFD not being cleanup.Hog Farm and I, for example, went over California with a history book of springs, and the resorts that blossomed and after a few decades withered around them, in hand; at the very least making Wikipedia correctly represent something as a "spring" or "resort" for thenext editors to come along, so that they don't have to do all over again the work to find what the (at this point) zero-information "unincorporated community" in GNIS article text is obscuring.I took theWikipedia:Reliability of GNIS data/Robert M. Rennick Manuscript Collection sources in hand and didsome of that state, merging the creeks and tributaries into a sane coverage (some of them have lots about them to say, from all of the running-prose-documented tributaries to how the schools and post-offices moved around over the years) that actually reflects the history that Rennick researched rather than how the GNIS (and the cancellation of its further phases) has basically frozen dots on maps.
As to the research, there are several things to do when one first hits a bad GNIS data dump article:
Discount the GNIS foreverything —not even the coördinates are reliable — and start from first principles. Not even the first sentence —especially not that — of an article should be linked to a GNIS citation. It ismost especially a bad anderroneous source for basic definitions of what something is, which is what first sentences deal in.
As mentioned inWikipedia:Reliability of GNIS data#Further reading, the Arcadia books are not the be-all-and-end-all, but they are usually historians specializing in the area, usually from local historical societies and working in conjunction with museums and libraries for their source materials. Theyshow where the history is. If they do have something, it's a strong clue that there's more to be found. If they don't, then something isat best going to be bloody difficult to find sources for (although it has happened, rarely).
Find comprehensive good sources, such as Waring'sSprings of California or Wood'sGazetteer of Surface Waters of California, for identifying what's actually what. There really are lots of good sources out in the world that have systematized the geography and geology, and indeed post offices and whatnot, of entire states. Avoid dodgy WWW sites with unidentifiable hobbyist authors, but don't discount actual published proper surveys with named and identifiable authors.
Why springs and waters and stuff? Because the actual towns and cities were put into Wikipedia byRam-Manyears before the bogus GNIS record dumpers came along, and it's the hundreds of thousands of things that were imported as (usually) "unincorporated community", a term that has been so abused that it effectivelymeans nothing in terms of a Wikipedia article, that are the problem. They turn out to beanything, from springs, through reservoirs ("tanks" ), and landings on rivers, and survey corners that mark thecorners of the boundariesaround the encyclopaedic subjects, to places where steam trains on long routes through unpopulated areas stopped for water and refuelling (sometimes, we've found, named after railway employees).
Look for local histories, such as Smith'sHistorical Overview of the Western Tehama County Foothills or the Rensch+Rensch+HooverHistoric Spots in California that was heavily revised by William S. Abeloe in the 1960s and republished by Stanford University Press. (There's even a further SUP edition, revised again by Douglas E. Kyle, from 2002.) Back in the 19th century these are positively obsequious in places, so the Internet Archive has to be used with care, but they're useful if one sticks to the factual bits. Revised editions like that are improvements. Proper historians show their colours in contrast to all of the "highly respected gentleman of the town from a good family who joined our joyous community in 1832" fact-free fawning.
Look — after looking for the histories, geologies, and whatnot — for eneyclopaedias! For example: The GNIS data dumpers gave us GNIS records in their thousands for Antarctica around 2010, andby 2012someone had already pointed out (in a little-frequented Wikiproject, in a comment that's in Wikipedia's analogue of a filing cabinet in a basement now) that the GNIS data scraped from the WWW site by the data dumpers contained errors. The stupidity of the dumping GNIS approach is reflected in thatbefore Wikipedia even existed there had been Alberts'sNames andthree encyclopaedias of the place (seeWikipedia:WikiProject Antarctica#Resources) already published, and much better guides than a computerized database dump to what'sencyclopaedic. After allwe set out to write something at least as good as the other encyclopaedias, not make a text re-hash of something that couldn't even get names properly spelled because it usedEBCDIC.
Of course, these examples are just from the states that have got the most attention; what applies to California in terms of looking for comprehensive histories and geographies and geologies and whatnot, applies to other places as well.
@Uncle G:: Thanks for those sources. I suppose I did jump the gun with the Loybas Hill nomination, at least. I appreciate the work you've done. I have been trying to clean up several GNIS stubs and there were some that I was able to expand (slightly) with online info. I have a small collection of offline rare books on Northern California topics and have been using those; so far no one has challenged any of them. McGie's History of Butte County is one of them. I didn't have anything on Tehama County, however, which is why these recent AfD's have not gone how I thought they would. But I really do appreciate you and others adding info, even if I don't agree about significance they're actually informative now, not info-free "x is an unincorporated community in y county that had a post office from 1890 to 1891" wastes of space.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)14:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'll not hear the end of it if you let on that it was published by the Butte County Office of Education and has the word "teachers" on the cover. ☺Uncle G (talk)20:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mary V. Clymer, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed asStart-Class, which is recorded on itstalk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as theydevelop over time. You may like to take a look at thegrading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can nowcreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option tocreate articles yourself without posting a request toArticles for creation.
Humboldt Wagon Road, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can nowcreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option tocreate articles yourself without posting a request toArticles for creation.
Hello! Voting in the2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently editedKanawyers, California, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageCedar Grove, California. Such links areusually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)
I was looking for stuff todo (on vacation, and got sick. So anything is fun), and started adding seconds to deletion requests from the list. I noticed you were doing a lot of them for nowhere cities in California. I did remove one because it was actually notable, but hey even a broke clock is write once or twice a day. I also added one you hadn't got to yet. But, after a few of these I began to sense something bigger was going on.
I can spend a little time helping here and there. A read of your talk page and some of the background pages seems to show there are many thousands of these todo. I'm curious why your not speedy deleting them, and I'm wondering do the admins really expect these to be reviewed one by one in such great detail as described byUncle G? I want to help with it since is so huge, but I sense if I plow in without some background that I might irritate more help.
@James.folsom: Sure, I have an interest in California geography and have improved several sparse articles over the past year or so (I've only been editing on WP for 3 years). I have found a surprising number of stub articles on places I have never heard of, despite living just a few miles away for many years of my life, and after some digging I learned these articles are based solely on "populated place" entries in GNIS (seeWP:GNIS for why this is absolutely not a source we should use as a basis for articles). Many but not all of these "articles" were created by a single user, Carlossuarez46, during a few-week span in 2009, and if you look at the date-time stamps of the articles' creation, you'll see that the chronological order of creation matches the alphabetical order of the places, first by county, then by place name. So this Carlossuarez46 literally sat down with GNIS and went down the list from top to bottom, creating an information-less stub for every place in California with an entry (until reaching the counties starting with S, at which point he got bored, apparently, as the T through Z counties are not so overburdened with stubs on nonexistent places).
For some of these places, I've been able to find published information and expand the article by adding sources and a few sentences of actual facts (seeNewville, California for an example). But for most there is nothing to be said except that there is a spot at xyz coordinates that someone thought to tag with a name. I personally think Wikipedia should summarize the world's knowledge, not back up the world's data, so I think these articles are pointless. Worse, because many sites scrape Wikipedia for data about locations, these articles actively pollute our information sphere with unverifiable, irrelevant, and often flat-out false statements. If you Google "things to do inFruto, California", you'll find garbage like[1], listing a bunch of activities that aren't within an hour's drive of Fruto (which I have been to, and it is a depressing cluster of a few trailers surrounded by miles and miles of pasture).
So I have decided to clean up misleading junk articles like these. I haven't nominated any for speedy deletion because I don't think any meet the criteria (they're not patent nonsense, vandalism, without content, etc.). And as you'll see if you look at my AfD's, even low-effort junk has its defenders. But I just finished creating a major new article and don't have any other articles planned, so for now cleaning up this clutter is my project around here. If you'd like to help out I would be happy to have you. And if you disagree and think these articles are worth saving, that's valuable, too; adding some information to these stubs would at least make them into actual articles.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)00:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, something else helpful. I noticed you have been tagging his talk page each time. My reading of the policy on "prod" is that this is only "reccommend" while also being polite. I think in this case no one would fault you if you stopped doing this, in order to do these faster. Especially if the author is not responding to any of them.James.folsom (talk)01:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just look up any town in California (or most other states) and at the bottom there should be a template field called "Municipalities and Communities of XXX County" or something like that (in yellow; you may have to expand). Under "unincorporated communities" is where you'll find most of the garbage stubs. (I also think many listings under "CDP's" are not notable, but CDP's are at least legally recognized so they technically passWP:GEOLAND, which IMHO sets the bar far too low, but I digress). When I do these, I first make a good-faith Google search and Google Books search to see if I can find any substantial information about the place. If the site has an Arcadia Publishing book about it, that's a good sign it's actually notable and worth keeping. I also search newspapers.com archives for any articles about the place, limiting my search to the county where it's located or sometimes neighboring counties. If all I can find is ads or legal notices, that's bad; if I can find actual articles that's a sign it's notable. Probably a third of these articles actually are worth keeping by my criteria, and I expand those. But the other two-thirds are just a waste of space. Oh, and when I do a PROD or AfD I use the Twinkle app, which issuper-helpful as it automates all the little tasks you're supposed to do when listing an article for deletion, such as tagging the creator. Saves a ton of time, I strongly recommend using it.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)01:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are prepared to do thehard work, I'm randomly accruing a list of places forJengod andCielquiparle that shouldnot be deleted, but where the rubbish GNIS mess should be swept entirely aside and replaced with a proper article that has what history books say about actual towns and stuff. Dealing with this GNIS mess is hard. It's not just about deletion. Many of the "unincorporated communities" in Eastern Kentucky, for example, are in reality post offices on the creek system, and what we need is articles likeTroublesome Creek (North Fork Kentucky River). Writing things like that and tidying up all of the redirects and the bloody county navboxes isa lot harder than drive-by deletion nominations, but the entire state of Kentucky is thoroughly documented byWP:RENNICK alongside geographical reports of the creek system when coal mining was a boom industry, and that isactually what needs to happen there, not deletions at all.
Even for California, there are a whole load of things that arehot springs, with histories of resorts and stuff from when that was a booming industry, whichHog Farm re-stubbed three or so years ago, that need writing, not least from an excellent hydrographical report documented all of the hot springs in California that we found, which indicates which ones we should go looking for in the history books as resorts. And there are things that turn out to be hiding entire histories of past ranches and suchlike underneath dots on maps, that also need writing. There are in-depth histories of the individual counties of California that need combing through, to find out the GNIS "unincorporated communities" that are really, for example, Gold Rush boom towns; or well-documented stops on settler trails; or what old Mexican land grants had turned into.
Project:WikiProject California/GNIS cleanup task force is not for the drive-by taggers. The history, geology, physical geography, and human geography of the states in the U.S. has actually been fairly well documented in places like Kentucky and California, not least because people mined them, and it involveshard work writing stuff to fix the utter GNIS mess of thousands of "unincorporated community" lies that people have left us with.
If you want an easy task, get out a copy ofLippincott's gazetteer (several of which, for different decades, are freely downloadable on the WWW) and fix each "unincorporated community" that's actually a "post-town" or "post-village" (whichLippincott's distinguishes from mere postoffices) and correct "unincorporated community" to "town" or "village" to help thenext editor at least have a fighting chance at knowing what the Hell some of these "unincorporated communities" are, to research them further, likeHog Farm did for the hot springs. Half the work in researching one of these things at AFD isstill getting over the hurdle ofwhat even to look for. Is it a railway stop? A town? A village? A landing? A cave?
We already did a mass-deletion of the Carlossuarez46 substubs, for which talk toAlexis Jazz et al.. Much of the low-hanging fruit was picked some years ago. This is a harder phase, now.
Yeah I don't know how to fix everything on Wikipedia but the GNIS-bad agenda is pushing me to make sure I de-stub everything I can in *my* county and then work my way outward. We will do what we can.jengod (talk)02:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a lot of the fun is the heavy research to identify these places. When we went through California, I found that two GNIS stubs actually represented redlinked California State Parks; the articles are nowSmithe Redwoods State Natural Reserve andReynolds Wayside Campground; you never know what is buried beneath a seeming permastub. It just takes some research -the Wikipedia Library is quite helpful, as are old public-domain county histories you can find online. Yes, there's junk - I've seen everything from a small pond to an overlook in a national park labelled as "unincorporated communities" - but the most of the worst has been culled by now. Another thing to keep in mind is that the spelling GNIS uses is sometimes a variant spelling of the most common one -Hiner, Kentucky is actually spelled "Heiner" in most of the sources - and GNIS will as a rule omit apostrophes from place names. I think the trickiest ones are those where so little is provided in the stub in the way of content/referencing that the true nature of the site cannot be determined and the name is so common that searching is impossible. The contextless stub atBob, West Virginia some time ago made me just throw my hands in the air and PROD it.Hog FarmTalk02:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amen to all this @Hog Farm. Challenge for everyone and/or deletion target: I can't find a thing aboutBoiling Point, California except it's maybe hot in the Mojave this the name. If anyone else has thoughts (including that it should go in the bin) they would be welcome.jengod (talk)02:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jengod - I think Boiling Point is an old gas station. Found an old USGS topo map which has this point labeled as "Boiling Point Garage", which wasper thisThe gas station at the top of the old Mint Canyon gradeIt was run by a Mr. and Mrs. Tex Miller. I haven't found enough to establish notability for this gas station although others might be able to find more now that we know what it is.Hog FarmTalk03:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Uncle G@Hog Farm, @Jengod. This is a really great crusade you guys got going here. I might come around to you guys for some assignments from time to time. Uncle G is clearly an honest to god historian, either figuratively or literally. What I heard here today was that you guys view the remaining articles as something to be thorough investigated to exhaustion before admitting defeat. So I'll help you when I can. But I have a real research scientist job that keeps me busy, too.
I want to say this though: I came to this viewing these "carlos" articles as illegitimate because they don't meet even the most basic criteria for Wikipedia. Even many of the improved ones are not really establishing notability. So I immediately became a "deletionist" as you'd call it. I think this viewpoint is fine as well. Of course I'm not saying this because I think your wrong, but to give an entirely opposite counterpoint that you can look to when you need a clean escape from the deeper rabbit holes. God speed guys.
Oh and somebody check out Ricardo Califonia, its a camp ground in a state park, I actually removed the prod on it, but put back on second thought. On third thought, maybe you guys should look at it.
@WeirdNAnnoyed When you get sick of this clutter on your talk page, let us know. Also I think the link below will be the most useful tool for finding "carlos" articles. It is a direct link to his 2009 edits. Just scroll down to where he started California.
@Uncle G:@Hog Farm: Thanks for your advice and suggestions. I'm going to try to take it slower with my next round of nominations, as some of the places I nominated recently did turn out to have fairly accessible information about them. I'm still a relative noob...if the worst has already been deleted then I would hate to see what the situation was like 5, 10 years ago.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)15:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
<3 You're doing a great job. It's a bit of a dilemma bc even though we can and should save some of the dregs, wiki-energy could possibly be better spent improving mediocre articles about places of unquestioned notability, but that's not as much fun as winning the research game with something really obscure and knotty. It's ok we're all just doing our best (in good faith!) to contribute to this crazy experiment. Cheers and have a great weekend.jengod (talk)23:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very good to see somebody filling out those old town articles. Something that's needed done for a while... I have one request though. With diffs likethis I humbly request you make a clipping first -- even after the bot fixes the TWL proxy link, the URL goes to a page and not to a clipping, i.e. nobody can read it unless they're logged into newspapers.com, versus a clipping which can be seen by anyone. I wrote abrowser extension that helps with this by automatically formatting cites for n.c, if it is any use to you.jp×g🗯️04:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: Thanks for this tip. I tried it but for some reason I can't get Greasemonkey to work in my browser; if I try to open it, it just hangs. I'm using Firefox, Win 11, if that makes a difference. I'd really like to do this because I haven't figured out how to make clippings the normal way (see thread below), but I just can't get the extension to work. Any advice?WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)01:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. I'm working on theList of California tornadoes, and there was one in October 1972 in Pacific, California. NOAA mentioned the location in their October 1972 edition of Storm Data, which is viewablehere. Just wanted to give you the heads up, regarding your proposed deletion. ♫Hurricanehink (talk)22:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Links to newspapers.com articles that require a WP account
Howdy. I've been very happy to see all your good work recently cleaning up non-notable WP articles. I see that you are also updating articles with links to newspapers.com.
Actually, they can! Or at least I can, and I believe that other people can clip articles. My account might be a special case because I had a WP-sponsored newspapers.com account before the proxy system was installed. SeeWikipedia:Newspapers.com#Using_the_"Clipping"_function. You might need to toss some cookies or try from a different browser. Message me if you have problems. Apologies to WeirdNAnnoyed for so much chatter on your talk page!Cxbrx (talk)21:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that this is all minutia, but as you are a prolific editor, I thought you might want to know about the issue.I'll see about Again, many thanks for all your cleanup efforts.Cxbrx (talk)19:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made this mistake too until I came across a discussion and discoveredWP:Newspapers.com but have not even considered archive.org and did not know about the bot. The other thing I found it is if you use the correct URL, Visual Editor will automatically format them which saves a ton of time, though it will not fill out the author so has to still be added manually. Also, when making the clipping I save it under the title of the article, which I think the example above shows as well. Live and learn! :)S0091 (talk)19:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I'm post VE so I use it almost exclusively. VE will automatically format most URLs, including GBooks, JSTOR (ex.https://www.jstor.org/stable/24713962), DOI links/ids, ISBNs, PMIDs, etc. As for existing links, one of the issues is folks like me and WeirdNAnnoyed with WP:Library access who simply did not know better and Newspaper images show up on Google searches so someone without access will understandably cite them.S0091 (talk)21:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey—it's me, the guy behindthe bot! Popping in to say that BsoykaBot and the work it does are actually very new additions from the past few days; just hoping to make a few people's lives a bit easier. I'm also considering having the bot send messages (like the one above!) to people who add non-clipped links, but life is busy and I need a bit more time to put together a nice proposal and ask the community what everyone thinks.Bsoyka (t •c •g)21:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You added {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranch House Estates, California}} to the AFD daily log for January 5th but this is a closed AFD discussion from 2020. Perhaps you meant to add a different AFD discussion page. Thank you.LizRead!Talk!08:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On26 January 2024,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleHumboldt Wagon Road, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was... that stagecoaches on theHumboldt Wagon Road could make a 400-mile trip in under four days? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Humboldt Wagon Road. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page(here's how,Humboldt Wagon Road), and the hook may be added tothe 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 theDid you know talk page.
I've been going over some of the places you skipped over and doing much deeper studies on them as you may have noticed. I don't know if you have an opinion onGoose Prairie, Washington? It was never a community,just what I'd call a Bald, but the lingo differs in other parts of the country. It's obviously notable, but I think it should be moved or merged and the language about it being a community removed. I was wondering what you think about that.James.folsom (talk)22:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Goose Prairie is a pass for notability (just barely) but I didn't exhaustively search for sources on it. It seems to be a recognized place among locals...has a sign on the road, a few houses, a Boy Scout camp, and a store (or did until recently). All of that is OR, but based on that I figure there must be sourcing out there that I just haven't found. That said, I would not oppose a deletion if nothing could be found. Fruitvale I very nearly nominated for deletion, since all the information I could find was passing mentions in local press. But it at least (again) seems to be an area that locals would recognize as a defined place. I don't feel strongly about it having an article--especially as uninformative an article as it does have--but I've done enough AfD's that I know any place with any mention, anywhere, is going to attract a significant number of keep !votes. Fruitvale isn't a pointless enough article that I feel like fighting for its deletion.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)23:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to help on it. This google search found ~50 possible candiates for such a list. "U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: ?, Washington "Post Offices". Jim Forte Postal History. Archived from the original on ? Meany, Edmond S. (1923). Origin of Washington geographic names. Seattle: University of Washington Press? site:wikipedia.org"James.folsom (talk)23:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that info. I would fully support any effort in cleaning up the list in Washington, since I lived in the state for many years and am fairly familiar with its geography and culture. In fact, I may borrow your Google search and get started on nominating some of those places myself.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)00:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The exact form of the list is less important than that thereis a list, so that people can track what has been reviewed/ticked off/fixed/found wanting by other editors.Uncle G (talk)03:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Uncle G@Mangoe Going through Thurston County I found a case of an editor hastily misclassifying a place for an article (Helsing Junction). So I starting try to do a targeted find for such things, and found ~30 Thurston county geography features that each have and articleWikipedia:WikiProject Washington/GNIS cleanup/Thurston county. Probably not all of these should. Any thoughts about whether its worthwhile to try to deal with them?James.folsom (talk)19:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding all those. I didn't have a look at all of them, but I would say thatBilly Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge,Mima Mounds Natural Area Preserve,Tumwater Falls, andScatter Creek Unit are all notable and should stay (although the last two need better sourcing; I will get on that). Otherwise, the ones I looked at are all minor natural features that happen to be listed in the Thurston County Place Names guide, which means nothing for notability. Probably they should be PRODded, but it would be nice if someone more familiar with Thurston County than me would go through them first (I have lived in Benton, Yakima, King, and Snohomish counties, but seldom ventured down I5 farther than Sea-Tac).WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)23:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shortiefourten would be good at that, but is not going to cooperate on such a thing. I'll pick at it and see which are likely low hanging fruit.James.folsom (talk)23:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whats you opinion on CDPs? I ask because I notice a particularly tricky one in Yakima county. ThatWiley City, Washington and West Valley are inAhtanum, Washington CDP. Ahtanum also appears to be the name of an unincorporated community, but has no mention anywhere. Something ought be done to make this clear on Wikipedia. I see several options, 1)leave the Wiley City article and add info about West Valley and Ahtanum to the CDP article. Add the CDP peice to Wiley city 2)Put them all toghether in the CDP article. 3)convert the Ahtanum article to be about Ahtanum, (probably meets resistance). What do ya think?James.folsom (talk)20:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion of CDP's is that they're a headache. Many of them not recognized as "places" as such by locals, but since they're "legally-recognized places" (and many of the articles are nothing but context-less political and demographic statistics, butsourced) I can't hope for an AfD to come to a delete. For these particular locations, I would just leave everything as it is. Ahtanum may be the CDP, but it has little local recognition; Wiley City does (although as Yakima expands the recognition becomes less and less). Maybe a "see also" link would be appropriate for these articles, linking each to the other.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)23:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I will try version 1 and see what happens. Additionally, those CDPs can be changed or removed by county authorities at any time. I don't think CDPs are legally recognized according to my understanding of the term. But Wikipedia is too spineless to define it.James.folsom (talk)00:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know you didn't do enough research before prodding the Hoskins article. I've added the info to the fort article. I haven't decided if a content fork is necessary but it would passWP:GEOLAND now. I hope you read what I wrote in theHavana, Oregon AfD. Let me know if you need some research tips. And be really sure you are checking "what links here" before prodding things. I have recreatedBlack Butte, California. I am still working on it, but feel free to take it to AfD if you are still concerned. Have a great day!Valfontis (talk)05:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. As you can seeGlenwood, Lane County, Oregon is absolutely notable, which more than a cursory glance at sources would have revealed. Just because something isn't sourced, doesn't mean it's not notable. Many of the community articles do suck and haven't been worked on for years, but that is different from lacking notabilty. Have you considered trying your hand at content building?Valfontis (talk)05:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did jump the gun in nominating Glenwood, which is why I didn't send it to AfD after the PROD was taken off. Thanks for improving that article as much as you have. If people would do that kind of work when creating articles (instead of just creating stubs based on the lowest-quality sources and leaving it to other users to fill in real content) I wouldn't have such a pet peeve about these geographic stubs.
I do build content instead of just nominating stuff for deletion. In my edit history probably half of the geographic articles I find, I'm able to add sources and information beyond GNIS. What are your regions of expertise? I'm kind of moving on to other things at the moment, but maybe I can consult with you before any further PRODs if they're in a state/region you're knowledgeable about, and we can compare whatever sources we can find.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)14:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm laughing out loud over here in Oregon. Just so you know. Check my pages and contribs. I would love if you could check in withWikiProject Oregon if you have any notability questions. I'm not always around but it's a talented and dedicated bunch that's been active since 2006 and we don't gatekeep *too* much. Another way to up your game on Wikipedia would be to look around and get to know your fellow editors. Why is Valfontis a bit miffed when Oregon articles get prodded? Oh. She's been editing for 18 years, and knows what she is doing most of the time. Look at people's user pages and talk pages, see what they've been editing. Any past controversies about their work? Do they get their stuff deleted half the time because they are half a troll with a peculiar special interest, or have they done quality work over a decade? Also there's nothing necessarily wrong with stubs. Stubs exist so they can be expanded. Some of us are drive-by stub makers (I won't name names but there's one topic area where someone created 100s of absolute garbage stubs on 100% notable topics--it was a mess) and some of us plan to get around to expanding things but there's only so much time in the day. I thinkassuming good faith about why someone would make a stub is a good start. I mean,Whiskey Dick, Oregon? Haha funny, that's almost a troll though. Something likethis however? They are trying to help out and build an encyclopedia.Valfontis (talk)18:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome, welcome, welcome WeirdNAnnoyed! I'm glad that you are joining theNovember 2024 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.
Hello! Voting in the2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
This award is given in recognition to WeirdNAnnoyed for collecting more than 101.0 points during theWikiProject Unreferenced articles'sNOV24 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing over 8,000 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! –DreamRimmer Alt (talk)17:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm following the instructions of AfC narrowly...accept an article if it is likely to pass an AfD assessment.The Scotsman andThe National are both significant independent coverage, and are not interviews, so the article qualifies. Promotional language can be cleaned up, and primary sources are fine as long as the article isn't mostly based on such sources.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)11:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions toBile acid synthesis disorders. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time becauseit consists of machine-generated text.I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
@Significa liberdade: Thanks for letting me know, will see if I can modify the text. How did you figure out it was machine-generated/which AI detector did you use? I checked several passages of text for copyvio but didn't think to run it through any AI detector since it read cleanly to me.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)12:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! Looking at it, this particular article didn't have the typical "tells". However, I found that the author had created other AI-generated med articles, so I went through and checked their other articles. To check, I useWiki GPTzero.
I've reviewed the sources that were posted to the talk page of this article and honestly they all appear to just describe this as a mill that burned down. The appropriate notability standard for a mill isWP:NCORP, the appropriate notability standard for an event (like, e.g., a fire) isWP:NEVENT, and I don't see how this passes either. If you want to AFD this I'd support it.FOARP (talk)11:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, a few weeks ago you declined the above submission. First of all, thank you for taking the time to look at it. However, I think the rejection may have happened by mistake: You wrote that more sources are needed to "establish notability", but on thetalk page it states that "This draft does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale", because "[i]t is of interest to the [...] WikiProjects" Biography, History of Science, and Physics.GeoQuant (talk)21:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The content assessment scale is a separate issue from notability. Any subject has to be notable (covered in multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources) for an article to make it through AfC. If that bar is cleared we can optionally assign a content assessment, which as you mentioned is not always required for certain subjects. But without the sources there can't be an article at all. I suspect there are some good sources about the subject out there, so please resubmit if you find some and I'll bet we will accept it on the next try.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)22:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you for clarifying that. I know some books where her work is discussed, I'll include some of those references. However, there only appears to be only one easily accessible source where the actual person is treated in detail (the epitaph).GeoQuant (talk)09:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @WeirdNAnnoyed! Thank you so much for your feedback and review on my draft article. I genuinely appreciate you trying to help out.
Regarding your feedback, I was unfortunately not able to find any sources to support my draft (Draft:TLEEM), so I think I will postpone writing about that subject until they have been the center of attention in a few articles (wherein, that would establish notability).
However, I wanted to ask the following: Would the sources in that draft be sufficient enough for a article on the subject's founder? Your feedback made me question this - because in the sources I referenced in the TLEEM article, the subject's founder was the center of attention, so I was wondering if that would establish notability for the subject's founder. From your feedback, I understand that with the current sources, the subject isn't notable because they haven't been the center of attention. However, I was wondering if the subject's founder would be. I have, coincidentally, been working on a draft about thesubject's founder (intentionally kept it short because the subject's founder is WP:CHILD), so I would love to hear your thoughts!Liahuu (talk)20:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my experience, yes, that would be enough for an article about the founder. But it would then be aWP:BLP which has strict guidelines for sourcing and the types of claims that can be made (and especially so since the subject is a minor, as you pointed out). If you haven't already, please read the BLP article and familiarize yourself with all the relevant policies, to see if there's anything in the existing article that needs to be changed besides the title. Based on what I saw I don't remember anything that jumped out at me as problematic, but I haven't seen your other draft.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)23:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @WeirdNAnnoyed! Thanks for all your help so far! I did check out WP:BLP. As for now, I feel like the draft article about the subject's founder is okay. I believe it could be extended, but it is sufficient for now. I'm just extremely cautious as the subject's founder is a minor.
I understand if not possible, but if you have the time, would you be able to take a peek or review the article? Here's a link:Draft:Arjun Sharda
Looks good to me. Although I think to improve its chances of acceptance it would be nice to add one more reference that is non-local (outside the Austin area) and generally recognized as reliable. I know nothing about the repuation of Ref. 1 as a source, but I suppose some reviewers might see that as promotional and/or an interview. I would rather not review it to avoid the appearance of COI (since we discussed it here) but with one more non-trivial, non-local source I don't see why it wouldn't pass AfC.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)00:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Would it be better to just move the article to the mainspace? I'm just afraid that it would give off the appearance of "dodging the AfC process" since i've already submitted the article to AfC. I did find another reference - it was published yesterday, and although local coverage, I asked fellow editors and the consensus was that it was a strong source (secondary, independent, reliable) and not as much interview-ish as the other sources referenced in the article. Knowing that the news article about the subject was published yesterday, if the subject gets picked up a bit more by reliable news outlets in the next few weeks, I feel like it would be significantly harder to dispute notability in an AfD.Liahuu (talk)01:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for late reply, have been away a few days. I would go ahead and try your hand at AfC again, with the new sources. I always use AfC anyway because the feedback I get can be useful if the article gets nominated for deletion, as you said. And you can always edit while it's in the AfC queue if more sources become available.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)11:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and thanks for your comments. I'm not sure what I did to mess up the links but I'll work on this following your suggestion. Some, like the Wall Street Journal, are paywalled. Should I not link to those? Thanks again. - DeanaEthnoEthereal (talk)19:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting kind of scary how Wikipedia is seeing more and more AI-generated garbage articles.I've seen 5 AI-generated article related AFDS in the past month alone. Prior to that, I had not seen one before.ロドリゲス恭子 (talk)03:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me started. I knew this was going to happen, and if we don't stay on top of it, WP's credibility is going to corrode away to nothing. Which is why I spend so much time at AfD rather than creating new articles.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)10:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just a courtesy message to notify you in case you haven't seen theWikipedia:The World Destubathon contest update in the last few days that we've decided to run the full month until the 16th of July. For those who have been too busy to contribute, we would love some help in reaching 4000 articles by Wednesday night! At present we're about 480 articles short!♦Dr. Blofeld16:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback on my drafted article-candidate re Marjorie Kreilick. I went back and repaired my mis-cited sources. I did not use AI to generate my citations, but had a bit of snafu with the automated references on Wiki. Many citations for Sizemore "No Dames" got swapped with Sizemore and Vogel's "Milwaukee's Modernist Monumental Mosaics." I also repaired the unfounded Saarinen statement -- no source indicates a "close" professional relationship. I misconstrued this source:https://marjoriekreilick.org/marjorie-e-kreilick-1925-2023
Ok, thanks for doing that and sorry if I came across as harsh. I have reviewed so many lazy AI-generated articles lately that it's really getting to me. I will let someone else handle the review of the resubmitted article, but the subject is clearly notable so as long as the references are cleaned up and representative I think it will get through.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)21:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... to take a look at some of these languishing Indiana AfDs, I'd appreciate it.
Also two things: first, we're having a rash of "redirect to the township" responses which I would really like to deprecate, and speaking of deprecation, I'm thinking we need to do an across-the-board getting rid of "unincorporated community". Thoughts?Mangoe (talk)00:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks like all the articles on unincorporated communities in Michigan (where I now live) were converted to redirects to the township some time ago. Seems like Indiana is next. I agree this isn't the best idea because in many cases there's nothing to say about these places and there's nothing to add in the township article. And I don't even think township articles are necessarily a good idea because many of them are sparsely populated and sparsely documented. I would prefer a redirect to having a permanent stub, though.
Thinking more widely, I don't know about "unincorporated community." It's a meaningful term that has been completely poisoned by all these pointess stubs that exist because someone at the GNIS decided to lump together all human infrastructural features as "populated places", and because of the coincidental line inWP:NPLACE that says "populated...places are presumed notable". If it weren't for that coincidence, we would not have all these articles to deal with. As I said at one of (I think) your AfD's, if that line were simply deleted from the notability guidelines, and populated places had to follow GNG, our lives would be much easier. I don't think mass deprecation of "unincorporated places" is a realistic solution because many of them are notable and have documentation. I do think the articles that get kept need to be more honest, like saying the place is a "former community" or "former post office" or "industrial complex", something like that. That's an editing matter.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)12:36, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it's essentially a euphemism, which I suspect came about because people didn't want to commit to saying these places were villages or towns. I mean, "community" is what real estate promoters call their spreads of tract houses or townhouses where nobody knows anyone who isn't an immediate neighbor. I don't want to delete them all, but I would like to get rid of the phrase and replace it with something that's a little less bullshit.
BTW, if you want to see another kind of GNIS trainwreck, take a look at what I had to do toNewton Stewart, Indiana. The town was drowned by the creation of a reservoir, but it's on the topos before that; but instead of going back a decade or so, they pulled out some old atlas and came up with a location that is utterly wrong.Mangoe (talk)13:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Virtual Population Submission declined on 17 August 2025 by WeirdNAnnoyed
Thanks very much for your quick review of the draft article about the Virtual Population. I had not expected that it would be reviewed so soon and thought that I would have time to edit and add more references. I would like to add images, but for that I need to acquire the images and the permission to use them.
I however take issue with:Comment: No solid evidence this particular computational model is notable. The sources are all discussing various research projects or applications of Virtual Population, not Virtual Population itself. Secondary coverage of the subject itself is needed.
References 2 and 4 are peer-reviewed scientific papers published in Physics in Biology and Medicine that describe the development of the first 4 Virtual Family models and several of the remaining models that make up the Virtual Population whole-body computational phantoms. Reference 7 is another peer-reviewed article published in PLoS ONE that describes the development of the MIDA head model. References 3 and 8 are US FDA web pages about the Virtual Family and MIDA. Reference 6 is to a book chapter published about the development of the morphing functionality.
Ok, sounds good. And if what you say is true then the article should be accepted at a re-submission, assuming some more sources are added. I will admit I probably shouldn't have been the one to review the article at AfC, because computational stuff is a little outside my area of expertise (I'm a bench biochemist, with strong interests in botany and geography...I can parse computational papers, but I'm no expert). Apologies if I missed something glaring.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)12:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently editedErythrocyte-based drug delivery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageDialysis.
I added a reference for Lednicer and Mitscher's book that gives a summary of Eucaine and alpha-Eucaine synthesis both detailing the use of Diacetonamine. In addition to this I found an online copy of the textbook and found the practical synthesis of both mesitylene oxide as well as Diacetonamine listed within the book.
If the article is still not to your liking may I suggest that I get help from one of the other authors than simply considering it as though it is unsuitable for wikipedia? --2.101.56.53 (talk)06:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, you can always try to get help from others and we recommend doing this. There may be a good article waiting to be written, we just need the sourcing. If you resubmit I probably won't re-review it. I try not to do that unless there is evidence that someone is up to something shady.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)10:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am a Wikimedian at a university and I am working with two undergraduate students at the University of the Bahamas to develop a few Wikipedia articles.
I know thatDraft:Wildlife in The Bahamas is a bit rough. I have looked at a lot of other wildlife articles and tried to find a pattern, and I am still pondering.
Anyway, I wanted to give you personal reviewer feedback that whatever the problems with this article, none of it is AI written. I have gone through all of it piece by piece with the students. You can also see their piecewise edits in the edit history.
In weeks or months it will not be possible to tell the difference between AI and human, but for now, this is human content made piece by piece. Thanks for the review; in any case I will discuss this with them. Bluerasberry(talk)14:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: Thanks for commenting and filling me in. Please do rewrite according to my comments and resubmit, and we can reconsider. I do believe it's a notable topic that we should have an article for.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)10:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing my page I've been working on,Draft:Abby Palmer Cox. You left me a comment on how to finish off the page so it will be ready for final approval to the main space. I just need some clarifications on what you'd like me to do. Your comment: "My concern is that the citation is nonstandard. Please use the reflist format for citations, rather than footnotes." I do not know what you are meaning bynonstandard and what thereflist format for citations is. If you could briefly expand on what these are, I'll be happy to make those changes.
@TimeToFixThis: Actually what you have now looks great. I think when I originally reviewed the article it had references as short footnotes, followed by an alphabetical list of references. This is technically allowed but we're trying to move toward standard inline citations in a sequential list in the reference section. I think it's ready to resubmit. Please note I don't normally review the same article twice (I only do that if I think someone is trying to evade WP rules or is acting in bad faith), so whoever reviews it this time may not see things my way and may request more changes. But I think the article is good.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)11:19, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking time to review theBluevine page submission that myself and @Johnrppr put together. We went ahead and changed the citations to be in line with your feedback! Would you be able to let us know if you need anything else from us in order to approve it? We really appreciate all your help on the matter.
@RobBV: it looks pretty good to me at a glance. I normally don't review the same AfC twice (unless I think the submitter is trying to break some rule or edit disruptively, which you aren't doing) so I probably will not review it again, just in case another editor asks for more. But from my angle it looks fine.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)10:57, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. There's always a chance they'll reject it for something else, but your article is better than 95% of company articles that make it through, so I think you are safe.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)22:20, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WeirdNAnnoyed! Thanks for your AfC reviewing. I noticed that you've declined a number of articles about academics recently, and I just wanted to suggest that you make sure to consider whether the subjects of these drafts meet any of theWP:NPROF criteria. Your comments on many of these submissions suggest that you are evaluating them solely underWP:GNG/WP:NBIO, whereas NPROF operates under a different set of criteria and does not require independent secondary coverage. For instance,Draft:Martin Picard andDraft:Alexandre Zerbini quite clearly meet NPROF in my view (not to say that I would have accepted the former given all of its other issues). At the very least please try to use the "prof" rather than the "bio" decline in these cases so that article creators are pointed towards the eight academic-specific criteria and know what they would need to do to establish notability. Thanks!MCE89 (talk)08:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, thanks for the note. Most of the article I had declined had other issues as well, as you pointed out, but I'll make NPROF my first line.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)10:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WeirdNAnnoyed. I want to follow up on your recent comment decliningDraft: Martin Picard for publication.
Pertaining to the external links in the draft, I will go through and remove those now. Thank you for that suggestion.
Second, I am not sure I understand the issue with having non-independent sources, which MCE89 has also addressed above. As you can see from the first reviewer on this draft, it was initially declined due to a lack of sources. I was specifically told to add as many sources as I could, specifically to all that is in reference to scholarly and academically published work by Martin Picard. Therefore, the bulk of the sources are non-independent since his notability is in relation to the work he has published. All the other information I found about Martin Picard was found through independent sources and those were cited accordingly. Based on this and on the comment from MCE89, I hope we will be able to publish soon. I hope to hear from you soon, thanks!Isabelfrye151 (talk)15:42, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. For the record, unless someone isreally prolific and varied in their scholarly work, it is usually best to select a few representative papers and books rather than overload the article. I don't know enough about Picard to know if he falls into this description. But at a glance it looks like we have the 2 minimum secondary sources to satisfyWP:GNG and the named professorship probably meetsWP:NPROF (it's not an endowed chair, but sounds similar). I don't normally review the same article twice unless I suspect the author is engaging in hijinks, which I don't in this case. So I can't promise I will review the article again, but if I do see it in AFCR a few weeks from now without approval, I will give it another look.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)21:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. Like I said, if it's still in the list a couple of weeks from now I will review it again, but generally I don't like to do that to avoid preconceived opinion bias, and to not leave myself open to accusations of a vendetta, if I decide to reject twice. Honestly, though, I think the article has a good shot at making it through.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)21:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick feedback on my first try at creating a Wikipedia entry. I've spent some time now to learn about Wikipedia standards for "encyclopedic" knowledge - I hope that you will look at my second submission and hope that it makes the cut. It's an earnest effort, but I am still learning.
Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
