User talk:TheTechie/Archives/2024/December

Draft:Brian Teeling

Hey TheTechie, the previous decline's justification is clearly false: the draft cites in-depth independent and reliable sources. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

How is it false? TheTechie made the ruling on her own analysis of the page and sources and not on my analysis and found my justification to be true. RangersRus (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

It's false because the article cites a lot of in-depth independent reliable sources to establish notability, while your rational claims that it fails to do so. TheTechie doesn't say she made her own analysis; she just says there had been no change since your denial. I'm asking her to take a second look at the article and sources and see if she agrees with you that it doesn't pass GNG—because I don't see how you reached that conclusion. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

TheTechie said in her comment in the topic above on same subject "Your sources are also mostly from three specific newspapers: Irish Independent, The Irish Times and Dublin Inquirer. Please add a bigger variety of sources if you can. Note that the reason I declined was less about notability, and more about immediate resubmission. I believe that RangersRus was well within their rights to decline for notability." Clear that she analyzed the page and sources. RangersRus (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see that above discussion, thanks. Note that she says herself that the decline is mostly about the resubmission (that is a procedural decline) than the article itself. @TheTechie, what is wrong with mainly citing those three newspapers? They're reputable. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Zanahary, I am a-okay if anyone accepts the article and I am not questioning the sources. I meant that ideally it would better for it to have a bigger variety of sources. The main reason I declined was the fact that the submitting IP was exhibiting potentially disruptive behavior, attempting to make their case better by removing AFC declination templates and immediately resubmitting. Hope you can understand. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Vallal Dr. Alagappar Museum

What do you think about redirecting this? Bearian (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Bearian, what do you think is a good target? TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe to Alagappa University? TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Alagappa University? Bearian (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude but I think redirect to Karaikudi#Landmarks will be better because page on Alagappa University is poor and I won't be surprised if it gets nominated for AFD for not meeting WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bearian @RangersRus It might be better to merge both, Just my 2 cents. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 21:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes taking your 2 cents :) RangersRus (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

All Saints' Church, Bloxwich

This at least is a listed building, which gives it a slight claim to notability! You might like to look at St Peter's Roman Catholic Church, Bloxwich and many other recently-created articles on churches of dubious notability from the same source. PamD 23:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@PamD Listed where? Dubious notability aside, I'm not really seeing a reason to keep the article. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Listed as in listed building, as it says in the article, but only grade II. PamD 06:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see. Sorry for the mishap. I won't PROD it, but you might want to expand it. Just my suggestion @PamD TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 21:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand me: I think the church is barely notable, though if it went to AfD it might just survive because of the listed status. Many of that editor's other contributions also seem non-notable. I would support a merge of the article into the article on the town, as there's really nothing much to say about it (or nothing the creating editor could find, or be bothered, to say). (And you've already PRODded it, so can't do so again - the creating editor removed the PROD, as they are allowed to do). PamD 22:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, well, sorry for misunderstanding. I think a merge is also a good idea. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Species notability

Hi there. Please don't prod validly described species, as you did at Dracontium gigas. As per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, which is currently in the process of being turned into a guideline, species are essentially always notable, always sourceable (given that a valid description exists), and currently not merged to higher taxonomic levels (e.g. genus) except for paleospecies. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a misunderstanding on my part. Only realized after I did it. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Your AfC review of Draft:Brian Teeling

Hello,

Thank you for reviewing Draft:Brian Teeling. Your review comments made no reference to the criteria for assessing a new article, other than it had not been changed since the previous review, therefore I must assume that you endorse the previous assessor's view that the article failed to establish the subject's notability against the revelant guideline.

Please provide your judgement as to why the following sources fail to meet the criteria of signficant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject: [1][2][3][4][5][6]

I hope you can affirm why these sources would definitely result in the article being deleted at AfD, so I do not have to submit the draft for a third review. Thank you, 51.37.79.136 (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The draft was declined as you had made zero changes since the last review. Please note that resubmitting right after declination does not usually result in acceptance. Your sources are also mostly from three specific newspapers: Irish Independent, The Irish Times and Dublin Inquirer. Please add a bigger variety of sources if you can. Note that the reason I declined was less about notability, and more about immediate resubmission. I believe that RangersRus was well within their rights to decline for notability. Reverting the declination template does not help your draft get accepted and looks more like disruptive editing. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 22:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

"Your sources are also mostly from three specific newspapers". Thank you for acknowledging that the subject passess the general notabilitiy guideline. Please amend your review accordingly and move the article to mainspace, as you have no reservations that it meets AfC criteria. 51.37.79.136 (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

51.37.79.136, it's perfectly alright to ask an AFC reviewer for more details on why they declined a submitted draft. But you can't make demands of them to approve your draft. Plus, if you continue to resubmit this draft, it is likely to be reviewed by a different AFC reviewer. Please take the comments of the reviewers into consideration when improving your draft. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

You need secondary independent sources. If you have an article with interview and claim made from the subject the page is on, it makes the sources not independent. To just pass WP:NBASIC, the subject should have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. RangersRus (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Articles featuring quotes and statements from the subject are not precluded from being considered independent. It's standard journalistic practice. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Not per the policies and guidelines on Wikipedia as I showed above. RangersRus (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

You showed that above? Where? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NS which identifies types of non-independent source. You'll note that "in-depth profile" is not listed, and there is no mention of interviewed material making a source unreliable. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

that is not a policy page. You should refer to policy and guideline page. See WP:NBASIC. RangersRus (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Please quote the relevant portion of WP:NBASIC. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

"the subject should have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." RangersRus (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

RangersRus, your view that an article that quotes its subject fails the independent criterion is a minority position. Misrepresenting this as sourcing policy or consensus is wrong and not going to work. Initiate a discussion at WP:RSN if you want to achieve consensus or clarify this. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

It is by no means a minority position and has been widely stated by many editors during many discussions and AFD reviews where such sources were clearly declared not independent. This is all coming from experience learning from experienced editors and understanding the guidelines. If you have time, please do begin a discussion on WP:RSN with Brian Teeling sources as example and whatever the consensus be, we can then guide other editors to it. RangersRus (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

pinging @Black Kite ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have explained to RangersRus why their interpretation of this notability guideline is wrong at the ANI discussion. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

You can also read the comment by administrator Aoidh at the end of this discussion about interviews. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_380#Interviews. RangersRus (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

This refers to pure interviews like this one, not to profiles featuring statements from the subject. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not just for pure interviews. RangersRus (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

It clearly is; the whole discussion refers to published interviews and not to articles that include quotations from their subjects. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe @Liz: can clarify as she submitted this discussion in RSN. Liz was this for articles with Pure interviews or also for articles with quotations from the subject? RangersRus (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's hear from @Aoidh too on what he thinks of this interpretation of his comment ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

RangersRus, sometimes you just have to admit you're wrong. Interviews can and do count towards notability, assuming enough independent transformative thoughts (WP:INTERVIEW) are provided to be considered a secondary source. Interview transcripts, where no secondary commentary is added, on the other hand, are unhelpful for notability because they are primary sources. But the mere act of interviewing someone, a standard journalistic practice, does not introduce a conflict of interest or suddenly make a source non-independent. This isn't the first time I've come across a questionable AfC review of yours. Please be more careful in the future. C F A 18:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I am ok to be found wrong and will help with AFC reviews on similar articles going forward but I think this is best to end with consensus from multiple experienced editors and I am not sure what other AFC review you found questionable but we can discuss that other time because I want to stick to this topic and not divert the subject. I am waiting to hear from Aoidh because his comment and other policies have been widely used when discussing articles nominated for AFC review or AFD reviews or discussions amongst editors. The discussion is also on ANI. Sorry TheTechie for taking over your talk page :) RangersRus (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

TheTechie, please don't procedurally decline drafts that were resubmitted without change. If you endorse the previous decline reason and would've otherwise also declined, decline it normally. Editors are allowed to resubmit drafts if they disagree with the previous reviewer. See the recent discussion at WT:AFC. C F A 18:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I sort of understand where you're coming from but fail to understand what the linked discussion contributes to your message. It references bots but I can't see anything about reviewers declining for this reason. Maybe I'm missing something? TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

My point was that there is clear consensus to not procedurally decline drafts (whether it's a human or a bot doing so) solely because they have been resubmitted unchanged. Editors are allowed to ask for a second opinion and reviewers sometimes make mistakes. C F A 02:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@CFA TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Finding book reviews

I contested the PROD you placed on Utopia (Tawfik novel). I know you placed it in good faith, and so please don't take anything I'm saying as a criticism! I just want to give you some advice on how to find book reviews, so you can add them to new, dubiously-sourced novel articles before releasing them to be indexed by search engines :) .

• Check Google Scholar. It picks up on lots of predatory journals and blogs, but it's a quick and easy way to figure out if an article is a candidate to be PRODDED or not.
• Check TWL! I don't know if you have access to this, but TWL tends to have lots of book reviews. I tend to look through the default EBSCO search, Oxford, Project MUSE, Brill, Cambridge University Press, and Gale for book and novel reviews.
• Check the author. In this particular case, the author, Ahmed Khaled Tawfik, happened to have an article. He's a pretty big name, especially in the Arabic world. Just because an author has an article doesn't mean all their books are notable, but in this particular instance it was a pretty strong indicator.

We're lucky, in a way- books tend to be very easy to prove notable on Wikipedia and they don't attract vandalism and BLP issues the same way other things do. And just because I reviewed this page doesn't mean you can't take it to AfD if you truly don't believe it to be notable! But I don't know what your search engines showed you when you did your WP:BEFORE, and I figured I'd try and help you work around it. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. By the way, the only reason I PROD'd it was mainly because of the lack of notability template and the two sources which didn't seem reliable. I think {{Sources exist}} is a better template, and I will add that. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 05:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, looks like sources have been added in the meantime. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 05:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I went ahead and added those! Sometimes I post links of potential reviews to the talkpage, but I reckon that they're more visible on the front of the article. Especially to readers - they can go and view those reviews themself, and maybe (if we're lucky) they'll get annoyed that our article doesn't incorporate enough information from them and expand it themselves! (I personally practice a "create new editors through forcing them to fix my excessive typos"-style recruitment. At least, that's my excuse when questioned lol).

But you're right. Sources exist would have been an okay tag to use, upon confirming those sources do exist. I personally choose to only use that tag when I've pasted the sources onto the talk page, but YMMV. Given the dubious sources, draftification would have been acceptable- but the goal of the New Page Patrol is to improve the encyclopaedia, and I think that, in this case, adding the sources and moving on is the best result. Sometimes people do drive-by template things, though, so you always have to watch out for that! I've have NPP-ers tag articles for "excessive use of primary sources" because they misread the book reviews I'd cited, and assumed I was...citing the book itself. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)