User talk:Rsjaffe/Archives/2022/July

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

About Draft: Chu Wanghua
Thanks for your comment on Draft:Chu Wanghua but I still wonder when I translate an article from other Wikipedia, do I have to move it to draft space before I translated the whole thing or can I just translate a part of it and continue to work on it later? Also, is scholar journals reliable? QiuLiming1 (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Pages are moved to draft for several different reasons. In this case, it was not about reliability, but about significance. In general, a subject needs to have at least two independent reliable secondary sources that have substantial coverage of the subject. Read WP:N to learn more. Reliability is needed to fill in facts; but significance is needed for the subject to be notable and eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. By moving the article to draft, it allows you to have time to find significant coverage to establish notability without worrying that the article might be deleted before you finish your work.
 * In general, I suggest starting an article in draft if you think there is still a lot of work to be done to establish notability or a lot of work to be done to make it into a decent article. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit conflicts
Sorry, looks like we're bumping into each other at 's talk page. I took the speedy off just because it's just easier to blank the spam on a talk page - you have to leave them a message there to tell them what they're doing wrong, anyway. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * No worries. I don’t have the rights conferred to edit others’ talk pages, so I just drop a warning, but your edits were appreciated. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Help getting Sean Wheeler article ready and approved for mainspace
Hello, thank you for your reviews, and suggestions. I have included in the article, all the sources I could find on each of the parts from the article, including printed sources (like Billboard and Indie Rocks Magazine), as well as online interviews with Sean Wheeler himself, and a lot of the other artists named in the article. I would really appreciate guidance as to how to get the article approved for mainspace soon. Sean Wheeler is clearly a relevant American music artist and has been so for 40+ years. The articles I added as references are all legitimate media, both printed and online. Thank you. Cachizalo (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Great. Look at the criteria in WP:SINGER to ensure you’ve documented at least one of them. #1 is the most common and all reviewers will know that one, but you may have to refer then to WP:SINGER if notability relies on one of the other criteria. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Michael Fredo
Hello, Rsjaffe,

You tagged this article with a BLPPROD 6 minutes after it was created! You are a very experienced editor and you know that we recommend not tagging articles for deletion so soon after they have been created. Ideally, editors work on an article draft in User or Draft space and move it over to main space when it meets Wikipedia standards but there are some editors, especially new editors like this page creator, who start working on articles right in main space and 6 minutes isn't long enough for them to track down references. There really shouldn't be any lag between appearing in main space and satisfying Wikipedia's criteria for verifiability and notability but not every editor works the same or is even familiar with all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

I appreciate you patrolling, checking out new articles and being so vigilant but unless the articles are copyright violations, violate BLP guidelines or are advertising, I think you need to give article creators a little more time to improve them before bringing down the deletion hammer. I don't believe there is a recommended time to wait, but I usually suggest at least an hour after the article has been started. Your mileage may vary! Thanks for all of your contributions to the project! Liz Read! Talk! 21:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I went back into the page history to see what you saw when you tagged this article for deletion and I see why you thought it was due for deletion. My point about allowing more time still stands but it was a dreadful mess before Storchy came by and fixed it into a decent stub. 21:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I normally wait, but it was a mess, and I've been tresting BLPPROD different from other deletion tags, as it only requires the editor to add a ref before deleting the deletion tag. i had seen other similar articles that are spit out like thar then abandoned. I do agree I was too hasty and will give editors more time. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Waiting on some reveiws
Hey! Since you just reviewed the article I wrote (Arnidovirineae), would you mind reviewing a few others that I have been waiting for? (Nanidovirineae and Microbacterium virus MuffinTheCat) Yirch (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm DoubleGrazing. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Kabiri Fubara, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Paul Enenche
Hello @Rsjaffe,

I noticed you deleted the article on Paul Enenche citing a previous deletion as reason.

I did not see the previous version, i would love to if you have a link.

Also, I am wondering if it is standard practice that an article previously judged not-notable remains permanently so and hence deleted in seconds without a contest? OtuNwachinemere (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * By now, the reviewing administrator agreed and deleted the page.
 * Here is a brief outline of what I saw that caused me to add the tag: the page had been deleted three times before . Most importantly, two of the three times were after an article for deletion discussion, which includes reviewing the evidence for notability. The last AfD discussion was about 4 months ago. Regrettably, I cannot review the deleted article: it is hidden from most non-administrators. I did look at DeletionPedia, but it only had the first and oldest of the three deleted articles. I then looked to see if anything notable about the subject occurred after the last deletion and could not find anything. In that case, the notability determination still stands. Therefore I nominated it for deletion.
 * Note that the main determinant in this type of analysis is whether things have changed for notability of the subject. And the more often the article is re-created and deleted, the more concerned we get that submitters are ignoring the notability requirements for that particular subject.
 * My advice: review WP:GNG. Note that establishing notability requires more than just reliable sources. Wait a while before writing this article again (e.g. 6 months at least). Don’t submit it for approval until notability is proven. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Rsjaffe for the response.
 * I did not know about all the previous creation attempts on the subject. However, i suspect that there will be more attempts given that many folks, including me, strongly believe that the subject is actually deserving of a BLP on Wikipedia although there may be insufficient sources to prove notability. Hence why i created a stub.
 * I won't attempt re-creating the article but i suggest a good move will be to re-open the discussion on the first deleted article and attempt to get a better consensus as the first only had two participants. I also believe the initial delete may have hurt the subject's chances at getting on mainspace.
 * Thanks for the link you provided.
 * Best! OtuNwachinemere (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * . One thing about notability: it isn’t about how deserving a person is. There are many wonderful people who don’t qualify for an article. Notability means that some reliable impartial sources have noticed and reported on the person. So Wikipedia lags the rest of the world in noticing a person. That’s by design.
 * From WP:NTEMP: Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Just as a lagging economic indicator indicates what the economy was doing in the past, a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it". — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)