User talk:TysonClemmer

This is TysonClemmer'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: Ed Clemmer (August 8)

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

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ed Clemmer and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McMatter, I'm struggling to understand this article can not be published because it "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of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)."

I simply was creating this article to fill in a void that I uncovered when researching Earlham football where there were 2 other articles linking to "Ed Clemmer" that didn't exist: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Earlham_Quakers_football_coach_navbox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Carr_(American_football).

Here are just a few of the articles on other Earlham College football coaches that have far fewer references, if any at all:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Jerry_Huntsman

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Paul_Glod

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wynfred_E._Allen

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Edward_C._Robertson

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Horace_Whiteside

I'm struggling to understand how all of these other articles are valid and published yet it is being stated that this one in particular needs more sources. Can you help clarify? Thank you. TysonClemmer (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TysonClemmer! Having an article draft 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! McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, TysonClemmer. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Draft:Ed Clemmer, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Helpful Raccoon. Although I am a relative of Ed Clemmer, my attempt in creating this article is to help fill a void that I found in Earlham College football coach pages on Wikipedia. All information included in the article is factual and supported by multiple references. If there anything that doesn't seem factual, I'd be more than happy to remove it. Honestly it isn't a big deal for me, personally. I was just trying to help fill in a void in some other Wiki articles and references that I found through other research on Earlham College. Thanks. TysonClemmer (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for disclosing your conflict of interest. There's a few things you should keep in mind when writing an article. First, all articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which usually means there should be significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. You have significant coverage in one source, the Palladium-Item, but this is not enough for notability. Unfortunately, I was unable to find significant coverage in additional sources after a brief search. Second, every claim you make about the subject should be supported by a reliable source. There's a lot of information in the draft that is unsourced. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should provide just a bit of background. I was doing some research on Earlham College and came across a few missing links referencing Ed Clemmer to whom I am related. The missing links can be found at the following pages: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Earlham_Quakers_football_coach_navbox and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Carr_(American_football).

There are also a number of other Earlham football coaches that had Wiki articles, not limited to but including the following: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Johnson_(American_football) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk_Mee https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Glod .

Based on the above, I was under the impression there was a void within the Wiki information that I could help fill. I'm not a very heavy user of Wiki so you could help me understand. Is that an incorrect assumption?

Also, if it would be good and useful to fill out the information on Ed Clemmer for these missing links and other more notable information about him with more references (there is more available, I was just throwing this together quickly), I could ask someone with zero relation to him to help fill that out to avoid any COI concerns. Would that help?

Thanks again. TysonClemmer (talk) 12:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of other articles about Earlham coaches suggests that Ed Clemmer should possibly have an article, but this is not guaranteed. You should go ahead and add additional references to the draft. More reliable, independent sources would help demonstrate that Ed Clemmer is notable enough to belong on Wikipedia. Maybe you could ask someone in Wikipedia:WikiProject College football to help with the article (go to the project talk page and add a new topic), but it isn’t really necessary. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before I spend the time doing that, who makes the decision on "notable enough" and based on what criteria? There are several other football coaches from Earlham or other colleges within there division with far fewer references listed. Here are just a few:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Kirk_Mee

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Jerry_Huntsman

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Paul_Glod

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Horace_Whiteside

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Edward_C._Robertson

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wynfred_E._Allen

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Fred_Vail

The claim that more sources are needed to be consider notable does not seem at all consistent with what has been used for other Earlham coaches. Every one of the examples above have less references than what I had included.

Again, I really don't care if this gets published or not. I was simply trying to help fill a void that I saw within other Wiki articles. I'm simply asking for clarity on what is needed to help fill that void. If there is a question if a Earlham football coach is notable enough, I would think all of the other coaches published would make that rather obvious. The claim that more references are needed to meet some criteria for notable does not appear to be at all consistent with many other similar cases. If someone else needs to edit this article, that is completely OK as well. I'd be more than happy to have someone else edit the article.

If there is a specific concern that needs to be addressed for this article, please clarify that. Based on the information that I see on Wikipedia today, there does not seem to be a basis for the statement that an Earlham College football coach that has also won a NAIA coach of the year award needs more than 5 references to be considered notable. I'm struggling to understand the feedback when it doesn't appear consistent with several other examples shared.

Thanks again for the assistance. TysonClemmer (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines are stated at Wikipedia:Notability, and more specific guidelines are at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Some of these articles were published prematurely, and I guess nobody wanted to take the time to add additional sources. I understand that it seems like a double standard, but drafts are usually reviewed rigorously. Also, what award did Clemmer win specifically? He doesn’t show up in Wikipedia’s NAIA Football Coach of the Year Award. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to educate me. This is my 1st attempt to fill in some missing content on Wikipedia. Maybe never again... :)

Can you help me understand this: "I understand that it seems like a double standard, but drafts are usually reviewed rigorously." Is there a different process the other articles could have gone through? That's where I'm getting lost, as this does seem like a very different standard as there are far less details and references in many of the other articles I am seeing.

You can see the the NAIA Coach of the Year award in several of the sources. It appears as though that Wiki page is not complete. I don't know the specifics, as I did not know Ed well. TysonClemmer (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Autoconfirmed users, i.e. accounts with at least 10 edits that have existed for at least 4 days, can create articles or turn drafts into articles directly. These new articles are typically reviewed by members of the new pages patrol, who at their discretion can move articles to draftspace or nominate them for deletion. There are a lot of old articles that didn’t go through this review process and just stuck around. Additionally, users with the autopatrolled right do not have their pages reviewed. I found that some of the prematurely-created articles were created by a user with this right. This right is typically granted to users who have a history of creating appropriate articles. It looks like this user decided to create a bunch of low-quality articles after getting the right. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize: the articles with very few references are mostly a result of Wikipedia having had lower standards in the past, and a user who apparently abused a hard-earned right. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some reviewers might be more lenient then others when reviewing borderline articles. Some of the above articles do appear to satisfy the guidelines for notability, as they have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, this is far more involved than I realized! I appreciate the explanation!

I have added significantly more references (now up to 14) from more unique sources (up to 6 now). Hopefully this is now meeting the standard that we are looking for. TysonClemmer (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful Raccoon has already explained what criteria, so I'll just answer who makes the decision. Any of the Articles for Creation reviewers can accept a draft if they judge it to meet the requirements described in the reviewing instructions. After that, if anyone thinks an article's subject isn't notable, they can nominate it at Articles for Deletion. If that discussion results in a consensus that there is a good reason to delete it, the article will be deleted. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ed Clemmer (October 11)

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

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

^{[citation needed]}

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ed Clemmer and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]