User:Drewmutt/Why your BLP was declined

Why was my biography declined?
Wikipedia is confusing. There's policies, there's guidelines, then there's essays that tell you to ignore all the rules (kinda). So, it's not surprising that getting articles on Wikipedia is frustrating.

Yes, we have exhaustive notability guidelines we throw people to, but I think it makes sense to see it all from a reviewer's perspective.

In the end, we are trying to determine one thing: Is the subject notable?

It's no small task, and to add to the frustration, it's a bit mushy and subjective (although I'm sure some would disagree), which also explains our massive backlog. Put another way, "Do people care about this?" We're not out to make write a "up-and-coming" guide. No, we're much more boring than that. We need to document what has already been placed into the global psyche. How do we do this? Media coverage. It's not perfect, but it's a pretty good indicator of notability.

When a reviewer, like me, ignores something more important in life (sorry family), I look through the backlog and open up a submission, pretty much at random. Once open, pretty pictures, formatting, and even nearly-impossible to read content have nothing to do with the determination. As long as we can read it well enough to determine what it's about, we have what we need to start.

Now to see how notability is looking. We almost entirely base it on the references placed in the article. Generally, we pass by blogs, social media, youtube, since those don't help in establishing notability.

Okay, so when we look through the remaining references provided, here's what we look for..

The reliability and independence of the sources
Reliability is a criteria to identify sources that consistently demonstrate providing independent, accurate information with a proven history of significant editorial-oversight. Independence is intertwined with reliability as it the neutral point of view that has been demonstrated by the source, which should not place undue weight upon topics, cover topics fairly, and in a way that is supported by disclosed sources and information.

But they're blowin' up on YouTube!
I know how confounding this can be. It's a natural argument to say "Well, he has 200 million YouTube views! 200 billions subscribers! How is this not notability?" One reason why is the sad truth that online views and followers can be purchased. Go ahead and Google "buy youtube views", it's a sad world out there. Also, remember, we're building a global encyclopedia here, not a guide to "what's blowing up on the internet".

Great

 * The New York Times
 * The Huffington Post
 * The Guardian

Good

 * Local newspapers
 * Vice
 * Wired

Marginal

 * Vogue
 * Buzzfeed
 * Salon Magazine

Bad

 * A random person's blog
 * A very-niche online magazine (Boston area low rider's monthly)
 * The website of the source itself

The depth at which the subject is covered
For sources that may qualify as reliable and independent, the depth of which the subject has been discussed must also be considered. Simply having a solitary mention in an article or being mentioned in an article that is not discussing the subject directly, along with interviews are indicators that the depth of coverage is not sufficient.

Why not interviews?
Yes, it's a fair question. Although it may be intuitive to think "Well, Huffington Post wouldn't interview just anyone", it's not entirely true. Also, remember, we're looking for significant coverage about the subject. An interview's content is mostly from the subject, so it's not really from a neutral point of view.

Passing Mentions
This is when the subject is only discussed once or twice in the article incidentally..
 * "...once the fire was burning, Drewmutt was quoted in say 'Holy Horchata'.."
 * "...so it's going to be a fun event, even Drewmutt is bringing his pug circus.."
 * "...I have a lot of inspirations', said Katy Perry, 'Drewmutt helped me move once.."

Not really about the subject
This is one of the more common misconceptions. Great source, subject is mentioned, but the topic isn't really about the subject.

Example..

Some guy made the world's largest Hot Pocket! Yesterday, Drewmutt made a huge thing. Drewmutt is an editor on Wikipedia. Drewmutt is a fan of Kety Perry, he asks you don't judge him. So this hot pocket was 1000 pounds..

So, yes, I was mentioned more than just in passing, but the bulk of the content is likely to be about the actual topic at hand, the creation, not the creator. This also gets into a overly used, and probably underly understood comment on Wikipedia. "Notability is not inherited." What this means, is that if someone makes something notable, guess what? That thing is notable, not the creator. Just by being associated with something notable, doesn't automatically make another subject notable. Yep, and it can get nuts. Grover Cleveland, 'member him? One of his own kids (Francis) isn't even notable.