User talk:Expertwiki6250

This is Expertwiki6250's talk page, where you can send them 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: Braden Paes (April 22)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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:Braden Paes 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 to Draft:Braden Paes, 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 and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Expertwiki6250! 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 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! Sulfurboy (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Braden Paes (April 22)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The additional references that you added after the first time this was declined are not stronger or more notability-supporting ones. As I explained in response to your question at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Draft: Braden Paes, what we're looking for is not simple verification that he had acting roles -- we're looking for reliable source media coverage about him, in newspapers, magazines and/or books, to establish the significance of his acting roles.
But the only source here that comes from a real magazine is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person -- which is a kind of source you can use sparingly to support additional facts after you've already shown stronger sources, but not a kind of source that makes him notable all by itself if it's the best source you can find. The notability test hinges on external recognition of his importance, not just verification of his existence, so a source has to represent him being written about by other people in the third person, not talking about himself in the first, to count as support for notability.

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:Braden Paes 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 to Draft:Braden Paes, 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 and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're trying to argue that this should be accepted because of the state of some other article, it would help if you provided me a link to an article that actually exists instead of a red link...but also, please read WP:WAX and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's better, now I can explain what the difference is. The thing is, we actually have two different kinds of notability on here: some people have "inherent" notability claims, which means they've accomplished something Wikipedia considers to be so important that an article about them has to be allowed to exist and the quality and depth of sourcing present in it isn't as important as the fact of what they did, and other people have "non-inherent" notability claims, which means that their includability is much more dependent on the quality and depth of their sources.

"Inherent" notability claims would be important awards or distinctions, like getting elected to a national parliament or legislature as an MP or congressperson, winning a major national music or film/television or literary award, or competing at the Olympics, that make a person much more "special" than the norm. So if a person is properly verifiable as having achieved one of those "inherently" notable things, then their article gets to exist even if it has just one source in it. (It still needs more than that before it could be considered a good article by any stretch of the imagination, but it doesn't need more than that to be a keepable article.) And you're certainly free to believe that simply being present at the Olympics, but not actually winning a medal, shouldn't be considered "inherently" notable — you wouldn't even be alone in that, because people actually argue about it all the time around here — but unfortunately, whether you agree with it or not, there has not been a new consensus established yet to overturn the old one.

"Not inherent" notability claims, meanwhile, would be people whose notability claims don't include any significant national honours or distinctions, but instead the notability claim you're aiming for is just that they've done things. Musicians who haven't won any notable awards, so they're trying for "because their music is available for sale in music stores" as a notability claim; actors who haven't won any notable awards, so the notability claim you're shooting for is "because he's been in films and TV shows"; politicians who haven't served at the national level, and instead their notability claim is "she was mayor of a small town". People like that can certainly still get into Wikipedia if they have enough reliable source coverage in real media to support an article with, but they're not automatically entitled to have articles the way the "inherently" notable people are: if the notability claim is a "not inherent" one, then their sourcing has to be much more solid and on point than a person with an "inherent" notability claim would have to show.

So, basically, if you're trying to prove that an actor qualifies for a Wikipedia article, it's not a useful comparison to point out that an Olympic athlete's article only has one source in it. Whether they should be or not, Olympic athletes are accepted by Wikipedia as being "inherently" notable — but actors are considered to be not "inherently" notable, and instead their includability depends on the quality of the sourcing they can or can't show. Apples to apples: what you would need to look at for guidance about what you need to do is other articles about actors — and even if you can find another actor whose article isn't sourced any better than this, WP:WAX and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS would still apply: instead of finding an article which constitutes proof that this one needs to be kept, what you may really have found is another article that needs to be deleted.

As well, we also have a rule that notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not necessarily the current quality of the article — some people have articles that look really bad in their current states, but actually do have really good sources out there that we just haven't added to their articles yet. (If you come across any bad articles about Canadian MPs or US Congresspeople, for example, they're in this boat: the sources are there, because Canadian MPs and US Congresspeople always have media coverage — so the fact that we haven't been doing a very good job of using their media coverage to improve the article with doesn't make them less notable.) So that's another reason why you can't just compare your draft to the current state of some other article about a completely different topic — that other person might have much more solid coverage out there that we just haven't actually been using.

I hope that helps a bit. I get that a lot of our rules can look random and arbitrary if you're not familiar with the way the place actually works — but I assure you that there's actually a logically coherent basis for them even if it doesn't look like it. Bearcat (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Braden Paes moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Braden Paes, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. BEACHIDICAE🌊 17:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Braden Paes

Hello, Expertwiki6250. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Braden Paes, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]