Specific Generalist

This is Specific Generalist's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: C4LD (January 21)

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by NewYorkActuary was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The draft does not demonstrate that the subject has received substantial coverage from non-local reliable sources. However, in lieu of having a stand-alone article, some of the material here might be useful for augmenting our article on Amalgamation of Toronto. With regard to copy editing, there are too many sections and their headings should use "sentence case" (i.e., only the first word is capitalised). Also, the numerous unattached footnotes should either be placed with the material it is supporting or be reformatted as general references or "further reading".

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 resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:C4LD and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Specific Generalist, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Your draft article, Draft:C4LD

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, Specific Generalist. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "C4LD".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, 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, simply edit 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 at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the notification of removal.

I view the C4LD article as a litmus test. C4LD is an article that should be included in Wikipedia.

My recollection is that besides some minor editing improvements (e.g. some of the citations should be dropped because they don't support the point being made), the real objection I heard from people was something else. Namely, notability was raised as a concern in different forms.

I disagree heartily with this claim and think the topic quite notable, and I provided enough references to demonstrate that claim.

Apparently there is a substantial systemic bias in Wikipedia that would shut out important political events such as C4LD but have full articles on trivialities like every little B-side track in an old Beatles album or every test cricket player from York.

I am persuaded by my experience with the C4LD article that Wikipedia has taken a bad turn. Although it continues to have useful articles on topics such as Mathematics, History, and Philosophy, I no longer view it as the balanced source of information it once was.

If I thought that tweaking a couple of citations would fix the problem, then I would go ahead and do so. As it stands, however, responses convince me that Wikipedia is fundamentally broken.

Specific Generalist (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic