User talk:Chetsford/Archive 16

Dino Bardot notability
Hi Chetsford, I’m wondering what I can do to get Dino Bardot’s page approved. I noticed that you rejected the article on the grounds that it is not a notable biography. He’s the only member of Franz Ferdinand who doesn’t have a page. I’m wondering what makes the other members notable, but not him. Thanks, Bxnzedrine (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Bxnzedrine. The major problems with the article right now are twofold. First, some of the sources are not WP:RS, specifically: Wikipedia (Wikipedia articles can't be sourced to other Wikipedia articles). Second, other sources contain only an incidental mention of Dino Bardot, often no more than a sentence or two. For inclusion on WP, mere proof that someone is a real, living person is usually not sufficient. To pass the standards for inclusion of the WP:GNG, a WP:BLP needs significant coverage in multiple sources. A musician can also qualify under WP:MUSICBIO. Chetsford (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Chetsford, I removed the Wikipedia citations.Also, Bardot meets the criteria for a musician having a Wikipedia page, namely that he has released several albums under Rough Trade Records, an indie label that has been around since the 1970s that has supported many notable musicians such as Morrissey, Julian Casablancas, and Pete Doherty, all of whom have their own Wikipedia pages. Another criterion that Bardot meets is that he is part of an ensemble containing several independently notable members. Franz Ferdinand consists of Alex Kapranos, Paul Thomson, Bob Hardy, and Julian Corrie, all of whom are independently notable by Wikipedia’s standards and have their own pages.He has also been a reasonably prominent member of many independently notable ensembles, including the bands The 1990s and The Yummy Fur. He played lead guitar and provided vocals for all of these bands.The page on notable musicians states that a musician must meet one point in the list to qualify as a notable musician, and Bardot meets multiple. Thanks,Bxnzedrine (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Bxnzedrine if Dino Bardot has released "released several albums under Rough Trade Records" you are correct that this would qualify for criterion 5 of WP:MUSICBIO. You would just need to add a reliably sourced sentence or two as such in the article. As far as that goes, even a link to the Rough Trade website would probably work. As I read it, he would not qualify under criterion six as I'm not convinced any of the members of Franz Ferdinand are notable for anything other than their membership in Franz Ferdinand and are not, therefore, independently notable even if they are otherwise notable. If you can update the article as per the Rough Trade thing, however, and resubmit it I'll be happy to approve it. Chetsford (talk) 04:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Chetsford, i made the edits you suggested and resubmitted the article. Thanks, Bxnzedrine (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Bxnzedrine - unfortunately, Dino Bardot's name doesn't appear in the source link. Chetsford (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Chetsford, “The 1990s” is Dino’s band. Thanks, Bxnzedrine (talk) 06:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK - moved to mainspace. Chetsford (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have posted a PROD notice on the article, as the Rough Trade reference indicates that the 1990s were on the label's artist roster not that the label released any of the band's albums or that Bardot featured on any of those releases. As a result there is no evidence that Bardot complies with criteria # 5 of NMUSICIAN. All the other references are merely mentions in passing not significant coverage of Bardot's role/influence on any of the bands that he was a member of. In fact the last NME reference doesn't even mention him at all. Dan arndt (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Chetsford, I put citations for the fact that Dino was a member of 1990s, and sources for the fact that at least 2 of 1990s albums were made under Rough Trade Records. Thanks, Bxnzedrine (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Bxnzedrine - you'll need to address this to Dan arndt. There's really nothing more I can do here. Chetsford (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Mary Gage Peterson Elementary School
Hi. Please note that per consensus, OUTCOMES is an 'argument to avoid'. This goes for nominations as well as for voting. If you have WP:NPR group access, please take a moment to review WP:NPP, and WP:ATD-R (a policy). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Kudpung กุดผึ้ง - noted, and thank you for the reminder! Chetsford (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Solarwatt
Hi Chetsford,

thanks for your review and feedback on my article about Draft:Solarwatt. My first intention was to translate the article, using the sources on the German page. But I fully understand the need for English language, secondary sources. I edited the draft and added these sources. Could you be so kind to have a look on the draft before I resubmit it for review.

Also I encountered that some very reliable sourced can not be used because they are listed on the Wikipedia spam blacklist. In particular I'm talking about pv-magazine.com and photovoltaik.eu. Both are the online versions of well established German PV print magazines which have been around for 15+ years and are the number one source of information in Germany. These are real magazines with editorial teams and high journalistic standards. It dont think its helping Wikipedia to block such sources. I had to fall back to German language references, because the English language articles on the two named websites were not accepted. Is there anything I can do about that too?

Thirdly: How can I rate the relevance of other European solar companies for the English Wikipedia? I would like to add more articles, as these companies are active in Ireland, the UK, Australia, the US and Canada, but I'm getting mixed impressions on whether such information is wanted here or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PirateGeorge (talk • contribs) 19:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * PirateGeorge - references do not need to be in English. When I reviewed it, however, many of the references were either WP:ROUTINE or were not from WP:RS (e.g. press releases). It looks like you've improved it a lot, however, so I'd resubmit it if I were you. Chetsford (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Chetsford, I resubmited the article. --PirateGeorge (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Newimpartial (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And congratulations, by the way, on exceeding your precious maximum troll . I really didn't know you had it in you. Newimpartial (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this comment might be ill advised. Chetsford (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That depends on whether you are offended or flattered. If you are offended, then by all means remove it, or simply ask and I will do the deed. Newimpartial (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Washington, My Home
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Request on 11:41:19, 17 August 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Dannylenihan
Hi - thanks for reviewing the article. Wikipedia is still quite confusing with a lot of jargon, so I just want to clarify what you're declining the article for.

Is it that the references (also very confusing) are not numerous enough, or not to external sources? There are hundreds of interviews and articles available to reference, and links to movies and music available on netflix, amazon, itunes etc. So what constitutes a good reference?

Thanks,

D

Dannylenihan (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, the issue with references (at the time I reviewed it, this may have changed with subsequent edits) was that they were not from reliable sources. A reliable source is (generally) things like scholarly journals, mainstream or reputable specialty media outlets with established processes of gatekeeping, books by academic or reputable commercial publishers, or government and university websites. Chetsford (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Joseph Zinker
Hi Chetsford, Thanks for your review and feedback on my article about Draft:Joseph Zinker. I made the modifications and I'm now waiting for your opinion. I hope it's ok. If it's not, I'll try my best to make other modifications :) Thank you!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DelphineM. (talk • contribs) 12:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi DelphineM. - the only thing that would previously have allowed Zinker to pass the WP:NAUTHOR standards was his claimed status as a bestselling author. However, in your most recent modifications that's been removed. Chetsford (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi! I removed it because it was difficult to prove that a book is a best-seller (how to do that?). But J. Zinker is the co-founder of an important Gestalt institute (Cleveland Institute/ like Edwin C. Nevis who has a Wikipedia page) and he developed Gestalt theory (formulation of the contact cycle and also the awareness-excitement-contact cycle). His importance is proved in a lot of books (cf. the sources). I read the WP:NAUTHOR but it's not easy : J. Zinker (a eminent psychotherapist) is he really a "Creative professional"? For example, a eminent doctor can have a Wikipedia page but does he have to be an "Academic" or does he have be a "Creative professional"? Or do I have to search a proof that he's a best-selling author? Thank for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DelphineM. (talk • contribs) 18:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi DelphineM. - it was difficult to prove that a book is a best-seller (how to do that?); most media outlets that produce bestseller lists publish those lists. For instance, here is the New York Times bestseller list . Without any further knowledge as to which bestseller list Zinker appeared on, though, I can't provide further direction. Chetsford (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'll make an other search. His most famous book is "Creative Process in Gestalt Therapy" published in 1977 (or 78). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DelphineM. (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, good luck! Chetsford (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a last question (thank you for your patience): if I can't prove that J. Zinker is a best-selling author, it won't be possible to create a page ?
 * You could have to demonstrate through WP:RS he meets one of the three criteria of WP:ANYBIO, one of the four criteria of WP:NAUTHOR, or the WP:GNG. For instance, criteria 2 of NAUTHOR is that "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." You would therefore, need multiple sources stating that a concept they originated was significant. Chetsford (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Citations in Emanuel Moravec
G'day Chetsford, I see from the Milhist ACR that there has been quite a bit of to-ing and fro-ing about citations including page numbers. I know we don't mandate any particular system and that as long as your citations can be verified, whatever system you use is fine. But you might want to consider using harv sfn citations in future, as IMHO they are easier to do, the markup is simple and people can see straight away from the Footnotes whether you've cited a page or pages. They also eliminate the need to define a footnote, and also eliminate duplicates. When I started editing I used, but soon changed when I realised how simple sfn was. Anyway, just a suggestion. Take from it what you will. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Peacemaker67 I'm inclined to agree with you. For off Wiki writing I use parenthetical referencing but have preferred Ref on WP since it allows the reader a one step hover view of the entire source instead of having to scroll to a new section for reference details beyond author. But, like you, I also find the SFN system compositionally easier. Chetsford (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)