Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 October 30

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< October 29 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 31 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


October 30

edit

00:09, 30 October 2024 review of submission by FranceRivet

edit

Hello,

On August 1st, SafariScribe declined the article proposed for Draft:Samuel Metcalfe, an Inuk from Nunatsiavut, Canada, on the basis that he considered the sources to be unreliable. I have written to him to get clarifications, but the reply I received was that he would not share his analysis with me. I am hoping that someone at your help desk can help me understand which references are deemed unreliable.

Of the 34 sources listed in the article,

• 13 are articles published in respected magazines such as Inuktitut Magazine (the official publication of Canada’s National Inuit organization which has been published for over 60 years), Etudes/Inuit/Studies (one of the most important scholar publications on everything Inuit published by Université Laval in Québec City), Atuaqnik (a newspaper published by the Inuit community of Northern Quebec, now called Nunavik), Circuit (the magazine published by the Order of translators, terminologists and interpreters of the province of Quebec), Kinatuinamut Ilingajuk (a Labrador periodical published in Nain by the Labrador Inuit Association), and Polar Record (A Journal of Arctic and Antarctic Research published in Copenhagen).

• 6 are articles published in newspapers such as The Ottawa Citizen (Canada’s Capital daily newspaper) and The Telegram (the daily newspaper of the city of St. John’s, the capital of the province of Newfoundland-and-Labrador).

• 1 is from a book published by the Université du Québec à Montréal.

• 1 is from a thesis from Memorial University in St. John’s, Newfoundland-and-Labrador.

• 1 is from a publication by the Nunatsiavut Government.

• 1 is from a census record

• 5 are from the Labrador Institute Archive Finding Aid.

• 6 are from letters, certificates and id cards issued by third parties and are held in Sam’s personal archives.


Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t understand how the sources referencing magazines, newspapers, books, theses, census records or governmental publications can be seen as unreliable.

Am I right that the issue is with the materials we have included that come from Sam’s personal archives? These letters, certificates and id cards were issued by external/independent organizations, but if I understand correctly, the fact that they do not correspond to material published in a publicly available source makes them unsuitable for Wikipedia. By any chance, if we were to upload photos of some of these certificates/id cards would the references now be accepted since the visual proof is provided?

For the references from the Labrador Institute Archive Finding Aid, 4 of the 5 references refer to TV or radio programs produced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Canada’s national radio and TV broadcaster) or the OkalaKatiget Society (a Nunatsiavut non-profit society dedicated to preserving and promoting the language and culture of the Inuit within Nunatsiavut through radio and television programming). These are therefore productions that were once publicly broadcast and copies of the programs are now held at the archives. Why wouldn’t they be suitable? Is it because we simply refer to them? Is it mandatory that I view and listen to the programs to report what Sam actually said?

The remaining reference taken from the Labrador Institute Archive Finding Aid is a statement that Sam translated a book from Inuttitut to English. The reference is not a published document, but the book that Sam translated is. If this reference is not suitable, I presume that we have to get a copy of the published book and see if Sam’s name is mentioned as being the translator. That would become the new reference. Is this correct?

SafariScribe also had an issue with the “notability” of Samuel Metcalfe. We can deal with this issue in a separate discussion, once we clarify the references.

Thank you in advance for your time and help. 

FranceRivet (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @FranceRivet! The two issues are in fact the same, from Wikipedia's point of view - you are trying to use sources (which must be reliable, etc) in order to establish notability. Let's see if we can sort this out by breaking it down a bit.
Firstly, you have to decide the grounds that you are arguing he is notable under. Since he's a person, you have the choice of WP:NPERSON (notable person) or WP:GNG (general notability). NPERSON has subcriteria, so it may be that you are saying he's notable via one of those. Those pages will also tell you what you need to provide in order to establish notability - for example, if you were saying he's a notable creative professional, you would be looking for evidence that he'd had a big exhibition, or started a new kind of art, or so on.
Once you've decided which that is - and please do mention it here, it'll help! - then you look at your sources to see if you have suitable sources. The thing that often trips people up is that any source you are using to establish notability must meet the triple criteria of WP:42, the 'golden rule', which says you are looking for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Part of the second criteria, reliable sources, requires the source to have editorial oversight (for example, not a blog) and come from a reputable publisher (some places will publish anything if they're paid, so they are not reliable).
I'm not going to go through all your sources, but I would be happy to look at five or so of them if you want to point to some in particular that you think would count. I can already tell you that letters, ID cards, and government records in general won't establish notability. If some of the sources include for example newspaper articles about Metcalfe, or a chapter in a book about him, that sort of thing is likely to establish notability. Ideally you won't be using the letters etc at all, but you can use sources that don't meet the triple criteria for uncontroversial information (things like when and where he was born, family names, and so on). Remember though that your first goal is notability, so you should focus on sources that do meet WP:42 first and foremost.
I hope that helps, and please feel free to comment back with more questions and/or with sources you'd like me to look at. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much @StartGrammarTime! Your answer does help. I'll remove all the letters, ID cards, etc. I guess I was trying to include too much. I'll go over the links you provided. I'll get back to you when a new and improved (hopefully ;-)) version is available. Thanks again! FranceRivet (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:12, 30 October 2024 review of submission by Dturell

edit

Hello, I was wondering if I can get further feedback and assistance on how the sources in this article can be improved. I have read through this resource: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability and am unsure. Thank you! Dturell (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many claims in this draft is completely unsourced, which goes against a very important policy. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:59, 30 October 2024 review of submission by Rosebabysu

edit

Hello, the content I submitted has been waiting for review for several weeks. Could you please expedite the review process? Rosebabysu (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're actually already kind of getting far with reviewing as much as possible. Last month people were forced to wait for 3 months! ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosebabysu: you just asked this yesterday. I've now reviewed your draft, and declined it. (This should not be interpreted as meaning that requests to expedite will result in immediate reviews. Consider this a one-off.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:03, 30 October 2024 review of submission by 12.117.180.190

edit

Build 12.117.180.190 (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify your question. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man Mandir Palace

edit

Hi, I created a page but it got declined. I wanted to know the reasons so that I can know what else was required. Donchocolate (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Donchocolate, the only drafts of yours I can see are about train lines and a blank sandbox. The blank sandbox page has been declined for being, well, a blank page. If you're asking about another draft, could you link it so we can see? StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:14, 30 October 2024 review of submission by RMPMLK

edit

I can Submit my article RMPMLK (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RMPMLK: you can not submit this draft anymore, since it has been rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RMPMLK: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We don't accept resumes or curricula vitae, and we don't cite LinkedIn (connexion to subject/no editorial oversight). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:42, 30 October 2024 review of submission by Marvelvsdcvscapcomvssega

edit

Please help me! Marvelvsdcvscapcomvssega (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marvelvsdcvscapcomvssega: can you be a bit more specific, please?
Your draft is completely unreferenced. You need to tell us where this information is coming from.
Also, see original research.
Finally, see WP:CRYSTALBALL. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:29, 30 October 2024 review of submission by Soenkesiebrands

edit

Question to the review of an Articles for creation: Sina-drums (October 30) Hello. My draft at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sina-drums has been declined with the following problem: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." Unfortunately I don't understand the reasoning because I have given over 30 sources that should be reliable. However, I have to say that this is my first page on English-language Wikipedia. I usually work on German sites. Since the German artist in this article has moved to London this year, I wanted to take a look at her English language entry after working on the German Wikipedia entry. But I couldn't find it, so I decided to write it myself. All external sources provided are the same as those rated as reliable by the German Wikipedia admin. The German article has been checked and approved by a German Wikipedia admin. Therefore, I am asking for help at this point so that someone can tell me which of the sources given are considered unreliable and, above all, why. I thank you in advance. Soenkesiebrands (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soenkesiebrands I fixed your post to properly link to your draft. Be aware that the German Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here; it is up to those translating an article to ensure that the topic meets the notability requirements and other policies of the Wikipedia for which they are translating.
Do admins on the German Wikipedia routinely approve content? Any editor may do so here, not just admins.
I would suggest that you ask the reviewer directly on their user talk page what the specific concerns are(they may also see your post here). 331dot (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Soenkesiebrands: user-generated sources (YouTube, Discogs, Facebook, etc.) are not considered reliable for most purposes. Your draft cites such sources 24 times by my count. Also, there is some unreferenced personal information, eg. which source gives this person's DOB? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I would like to thank you for the constructive comments. I understand the meaning behind these requirements. But there should be a huge difference between a nobody like me posting on YouTube or Facebook and a star like Ian Paice or Joe Lynn Turner doing the same? In the music business, a lot is presented exclusively through such channels. And if I want to prove that a YouTube star has over 1.6 million subscribers like in this case, then I can only do that with a link to the relevant channel, because that's the only place it says it.
I have a question about personal data. In German Wikipedia it is not desirable to use the website of the person described as a reference, otherwise people could simply create their own website and build corresponding documents there for themselves. How is this handled in the English Wikipedia version, for example as evidence of birthday or place of birth? Soenkesiebrands (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have mentioned that I didn't actually look at any of the YouTube links cited, so wasn't commenting on whether they specifically were any good or not; it was just a general comment about many of your citations being to user-generated sources. Our stance on YouTube is that if a media outlet which is usually regarded as reliable (say, DW or BBC) makes available their own content on their own official channel, this can be considered reliable even if it's on YouTube, but that's pretty much where it ends. Even if a famous 'star' posts content on their channel, this is still user-generated, and probably isn't subject to much fact-checking, editorial oversight, etc. which is what is needed for a media outlet to be considered reliable.
As for using close primary sources, these can be used to verify purely factual, non-contentious information, but they do not contribute anything toward notability. The issue with DOB is that many people (sensibly, IMO) are cautious about releasing such potentially sensitive information into the public domain, which is why we will only accept it if it can be shown that this information already is freely available. If someone posts their DOB on their website, we can probably assume that a) it is correct, and b) they won't object to us pointing to it. (Okay, I guess one could come up with all sorts of hypothetical scenarios whereby someone wants to fake their DOB for some reason, and does that by posting the fake date on their website, and then uses Wikipedia to amplify that lie... but this is rather fanciful, IMO.)
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of a few that aren't quite in the fanciful category. For one, actors have tried to "un-age" themselves in IMDB, so the motivation would be the same here, I imagine. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for these explainations. I think I will rebuild the article complete new from scratch, having the english specifications in mind. Let me ask you one more question: What sources are used in the english Wikipedia to proof that a musician has released an album, when sites like Discogs are not wanted? I can buy the albums via Amazon, but in the German Wikipedia an Amazon link would be classify as advertising. I also don't want to have advertising in an article. So what would be the proper way? Soenkesiebrands (talk) 11:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Soenkesiebrands: I'd say the mere existence of an album is pretty uncontroversial, so even Discogs might be okay, or perhaps the slightly-more-reliable AllMusic. You could also use a primary source such as the record label or other such publisher. And there are several trade and specialist publications such as the NME which are regarded as reliable, assuming of course any of them have taken notice of this musician's works.
And yes, I also would avoid retailers like Amazon, because they're neither reliable nor independent, and as you say citing a retailer inevitably smacks of spam. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that helps me a lot. One more question. I find it a pretty important information that she has a YouTube channel with over 1.6 million subscribers. But the only proof of the numbers of subscribers you find on the channel on YouTube itself. How would you deal with that? Soenkesiebrands (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Soenkesiebrands: you can cite YouTube for a factlet like that; I can't think of a more authoritative source than YT for YT metrics. (It doesn't help establish notability, but that's not what you were saying anyway.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Yes, it's not for establishing notability. Thank you for helping me so much. When I finished my work with the redoing of the article, may I ask you then to have a look at it, before I resubmit it? Soenkesiebrands (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Soenkesiebrands: if you just want a superficial glance for any obvious issues, sure, I'll take a look. But often such 'pre-reviews' involve as much work as, and therefore turn into, an actual review, and we generally don't do on-demand reviews. So you may also just resubmit the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: Thank you. I did the resubmit and it has been created! Thank you very much, I could not have made without your help! With all the input I received here it wasn't that hard to get it done. So again: Thank you very much! Soenkesiebrands (talk) 08:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Soenkesiebrands: happy to help, and thanks for letting me know; I'm pleased it was accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If you check out WP:RSP and search eg. for 'music', you'll see a number of sources rated for their reliability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:25, 30 October 2024 review of submission by Rgmkenna

edit

My draft was criticised as looking like an advertisement. I have taken out what I think was the offending element. Will the draft be reviewed again? Rgmkenna (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rgmkenna: it will be reviewed again (in due course) if you resubmit it; click that blue 'resubmit' button whenever you're ready. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:16, 30 October 2024 review of submission by Gascogne2127

edit

I am trying to create this new article about the Austrian Painter, Josef Pögl who was in his day, national arts prize winner and is included in major collections in Austria with specific relevance to documenting Imperial Palace interiors and scenes from the defunct Habsurg Empire. I have assembled references from independent sources and note the article as been twice rejected. What can I do concretely to improve this article and get it into the article space? Gascogne2127 (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gascogne2127: it's a bit difficult, especially for non-German-speakers, to decipher some of the sources, even just to understand what they actually are. This isn't helped by the fact that many of them are offline, which is perfectly acceptable, I'm not arguing that, just saying that establishing notability is a bit of a detective job with this one. (Speaking of offline, please make sure to include sufficient bibliographical detail, to enable the sources to be reliably identified for verification; see WP:OFFLINE for more on this.)
If it turns out that notability cannot be established via the usual WP:GNG guideline, you may consider whether this person is notable per any of the four criteria in WP:ARTIST.
Anyway, you have now resubmitted the draft, so you'll find out soon enough whether it has been accepted, and if not, why not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Yes, the following criteria is met: "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Not only has this artist been awarded a national prize in his lifetime, but was also during and after his lifetime included in one of the most important collections of Austrian art "the Austrian Gallery, Belvedere" which includes important works by more famous contemporaries such as Klimt, Schiele, Kokoschka etc AND main art museum collection in Innsbruck "the Tyrolean State Museum or Ferdinandium." The painter is also known for his portrayal of interiors of Imperial Palaces in Austria after the Fall of the Habsburg Empire and despite that some of those interiors were either damaged or completely destroyed during WWII and afterwards. I was able to find allusion to the references even if they are in German on English translated websites that cite them as well as reading the original sources. I have found now 10 pertinent references. I have also written to a curator who is an expert on the period at the Dorotheum to see if she can identify further references but have not heard back yet. Thanks again for your help. Gascogne2127 (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:56, 30 October 2024 review of submission by Combat marto

edit

How to publish pages for unnotable/upcoming artist Combat marto (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that you can't, people have to actually be notable before warranting an article and gaining "popularity on social media platforms" is NOT a relevant part of the criteria. Theroadislong (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the wrong place to write about unnotable and upcoming people. 331dot (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:28, 30 October 2024 review of submission by Evaaaaaleung

edit

Hi, I am wondering why the article was declined and which bit of the reference was not qualified? Thank! Evaaaaaleung (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evaaaaaleung I fixed your link for proper display(you need the "Draft:" portion). He does not seem to meet the definition of a notable musician. YouTube is not an acceptable source unless it is from a reputable news outlet on their verified channel. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:38, 30 October 2024 review of submission by Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja

edit

Hi there. I live in Argentina and last night on Libera I received the help from a bunch of folks as we tried to determine what are reliable sources for this article on the movie Underground Orange. jmcgnh thought that reviews would help to determine its reliability. Here in Argentina La Nacion and InfoBae are the biggest most mainstream newspapers and Indie Hoy is the most reliable source of reviews. Underground Orange has three Argentine stars in it and is currently in theaters nationwide so it's a notable project to us. I'm trying to determine if I should continue working on this article or throw it away since SafariScribe has rejected it. Thanks for your assistance. Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja: could you please respond to the conflict-of-interest query I posted on your talk page yesterday. If this is your film you're writing about, you need to disclose your COI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:51, 30 October 2024 review of submission by Pedian4169

edit

I dont understand what is wrong with the article i need some assistance here. The University is new so there isnt much to add. Thats why i created this as a stub article Pedian4169 (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pedian4169: stubs have to demonstrate notability just like any other article. Per WP:ORG, you need to cite multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject, and which have provided significant coverage of it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I put secondary sources and submitted it and it was declined. I thought all state universities are notable (it is like that in Turkish Wikipedia) Pedian4169 (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pedian4169: the first two citations are to the university's own website. The other two sources, BenimHedefim.com and Hangi Üniversite are not secondary sources, they're just directory listings or info capsules.
And as it says in WP:ORG, no organisation is automatically notable, they all have to demonstrate notability by satisfying that guideline. It's true that many universities do manage to do that, but that just means they have met the guideline, not that they were exempt from it simply for being universities. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No organization is inherently notable on this Wikipedia. At one point educational institutions were, but they are no longer. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for correcting. There are indeed 'legacy' articles on universities, which were given automatic free pass; not all satisfied ORG, as I was incorrectly suggesting. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a new university, it is doubtful that it has drawn the coverage in independent reliable sources needed to merit a Wikipedia article. You need to show that it meets the definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:27, 30 October 2024 review of submission by Rosebabysu

edit

I have added the authoritative source again and requested review, thank you Rosebabysu (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosebabysu: you have added two interviews, which do not contribute towards notability, and one deprecated source (Globaltimes.cn) which must not be cited at all. I'm afraid this draft will still be declined.
BTW, the paid-editing disclosure on your user page gives no details of who your client is or what subjects your paid-editing COI relates to (I'm guessing Dai Ying, but I shouldn't really need go guess). Could you please correct the template. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:46, 30 October 2024 review of submission by GoneDutch

edit

The last time the draft was rejected, there was a comment about there being one external reference in the text. I edited the recently restored draft today, checking all of the references, and could not find any external ones. Am I missing something? GoneDutch (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoneDutch, found it! Search for "whereby the author"; author is an external link. StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
THANK YOU!!! I was going nuts! The link has now been converted to a webpage citation... GoneDutch (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It took me ages too, I ended up looking through all the code for an http without a chunk of text in front (because references will have all the info about author and so on before a link, but external links won't). Happy I could help, and good luck with your draft! StartGrammarTime (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:57, 30 October 2024 review of submission by Ibrahimmusa4

edit

I created my first article but rejected. The purpose of my article is to clear a confusion and controversy in "a Mishawi and Kamil image". Many Quran Apps of Minshawi could be seen bearing an image of Shaykh Kamil AlBahtimi Ibrahimmusa4 (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ibrahimmusa4: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We are an encyclopaedia project, not a bulletin board for public-service announcements. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:30, 30 October 2024 review of submission by AngieTheMicro

edit

The draft was rejected on the basis that its references "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". However, I think some references may have been overlooked.

Exactly how many more references are needed, from what list of acceptable "published, reliable, secondary sources", in order for Azure Hermes' unique contributions to engaging indigenous communities in the study of their genomes to be considered Wikipedia-worthy? AngieTheMicro (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @AngieTheMicro. The first source above is mostly based on an interview, and so is not independent. (I haven't looked at the others).
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @AngieTheMicro! Following up on what ColinFine's mentioned, the second reference (podcast) is an interview with Hermes, and the third is (as you say) a panel discussion involving Hermes. While these sources might be useful for information about Hermes' work, they cannot contribute to establishing notability because they are not independent of Hermes.
In order to demonstrate that someone is notable, you need sources that meet WP:42, the 'golden rule', which says you are looking for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Part of the second criteria, reliable sources, requires the source to have editorial oversight (for example, not a blog) and come from a reputable publisher (some places will publish anything if they're paid, so they are not reliable). There is no list of acceptable sources, because we could never manage to encompass the huge variety of sources around the world, but you can try checking WP:RSPSS if you're unsure about whether a source is reliable. Keep in mind that even if they are reliable, they must meet all three criteria to count for notability - for example the City News source may be reliable, but it is not independent, and so it fails the test. I hope that's helped you, and wish you happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with the independence of the City News source? I can't find a good reason in WP:IS to call it non-independent. The person the article is about works in Canberra, and the facet of the news outlet publishing the source is focused on Canberra, but I don't see any evidence that this outlet is an "indiscriminate source" as described in WP:IS, and I can't figure out what else you're seeing about it that would disqualify it. GenomeFan92 (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's (mostly) not independent because it's (mostly) quoting Hermes. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of how to deal with articles and quotations was that quotes or assertions that so-and-so said such-and-such aren't fact-checked on the content of what was said. So if you have a New York Times article that says "Jimatha Thomas, CEO of BigCorp, says that their new WhizBang 5000 can style your hair automatically.", then that article is a reliable independent source for establishing that Jimantha Thomas is indeed CEO of BigCorp, and that they indeed have made this claim, but not usable as a citation for the actual capabilities of the WhizBang 5000.
The contents of the person's statements are not independent from the person themselves, but the editorial decision to write an article about this person and to report that they said particular things is an independent editorial decision, right? GenomeFan92 (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ColinFine and StartGrammarTime for the explanations. It's a really high bar to meet if an article about a living person cannot include an interview with that person -- isn't it the norm to interview a living person for an article about their work? And thank you GenomeFan92 for finding the two additional references (currently references 4 and 5). I hope the improved article will be accepted. 2601:204:F100:AAB0:E195:19E0:A07E:2EAC (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not forbidden to cite an interview; but the purpose of a citation is to verify something in the article, nothing else; and the range of things which may be verified by a non-indpendent source is quite limited (see WP:PRIMARY).
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course interviews with a living person are very normal, and indeed we even prefer them for some things - for example, if a person were to come out as trans, we would want that to be stated by them rather than any other source! But for anything that could be disputed, like whether they're an expert in their field, we need other people to agree with that statement. The Wikipedia notability system can be unintuitive when you're just starting out, but it's what has been agreed on over years of discussion and it works pretty well overall. It can be frustrating when the person you want to write about hasn't yet received much attention, but you can always wait and keep honing your draft until they start to be noticed - and thus, for Wikipedia, notable. StartGrammarTime (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_October_30&oldid=1255566264"