User talk:VeganBlonde

Your submission at Articles for creation: Helen Kopnina (June 13)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Lapablo was:

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 when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Helen Kopnina and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Helen Kopnina, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Helen_Kopnina Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lapablo&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Helen_Kopnina reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Lapablo (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Helen Kopnina (June 30)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by HitroMilanese was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

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 when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Helen Kopnina and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Helen Kopnina, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Helen_Kopnina Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HitroMilanese&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Helen_Kopnina reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hitro talk 11:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

re. Your questions on notability
Hi! I noticed you were asking questions about notability with the article you're creating and I thought I could provide some guidance that may be helpful, or failing that at least some insight into why our guidelines are the way they are. First of all, we do have an alternate notability guideline that may be easier to meet by academics, WP:SCHOLAR, since we understand that many researchers do not receive much independent coverage about their lives — also note that offline and paywalled sources are acceptable by our policies (some Wiki editors have library access). The academic criteria include being elected or appointed to a highly prestigious position (e.g. member of the Royal Society, Fellow of the IEEE), distinguished professor appointment at a major institution or a highest-level administrative post. Alternatively, your article can be sourced to third party reliable sources such as book reviews or news reports, and a scholar may be considered notable if they are (relatively) highly cited in their subject of study. While these requirements may still be arduous compared to the requirements for some other fields, we are constrained by how Wikipedia operates, namely that our content, by policy, must largely reflect what is written by independent, trustworthy third parties. Unfortunately, the nature of Wikipedia is that we cannot rely upon the expertise of the editors who have subject specific knowledge, so we instead base our content on publications that do not have conflicts of interest and have a reputation for editorial integrity and reliability. This is more or less the only way we can inject some fact-checking into the process. The reason we do not generally accept first-party sources such as the employers of a biographical article or their body of work is that they often do not meet the standards of impartiality required by our neutral point of view policy: coworkers and bosses may be influenced by their relation with the subject, they might admire the subject or they might clash. The author's own work might similarly be enthusiastic or more reserved, so we rely on independent third parties to filter out the biases of those close to the subject. Unfortunately these requirements, and many others, make article creation one of the harder tasks we have on the wiki, even with the many guides and processes we've developed to help newcomers find their way. If you have any more questions, please do not hesitate to ask at the Teahouse, the Article Creation Help Desk or on my talk page. Good luck! Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Helen Kopnina
Hi VeganBlonde,

I saw your interaction earlier with one of the helpers on the live help chat (unfortunately only after you'd left), and I must apologise for the experience you've had there. It was far from the usual standard we try to reach on the help chat. I'll try and cover some of the things that should have been better explained to you here:

To keep with the principles of verifiablity, any claims that are made in an article should be cited to a reliable source - this means something published in a publication independently from the subject which has editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking - most non-tabloid newspapers are good examples of this. This allows our readers to verify for themselves the information in the article is correct. Accordingly, we cannot have articles about everyone, as reliable sources referring someone often don't exist. We're an encyclopedia - we summarise what other people have written about a subject. If nobody has written about a subject, we can't summarise anything. This is at the core of our general notability guideline - if someone's received significant coverage in other sources, then they're probably known enough to have an article.

Now, academics have a bonus here. We have another guideline which covers academics, which gives a number of other criteria, any one of which can be met to be presumed notable. We simply need to find a source which shows that Kopnina meets either one of the nine options in our academic notablity guidelines, or a couple of sources which show she meets the general notability guideline. I know you've mentioned that Kopnina has published a lot of papers and books, but have any of them been cited by other academic papers? I get the impression from the profile that Kopnina problably meets our notability guidelines somehow, it's just a matter of showing it.

I'll move on to the references you have in the article - you've got a total of two distinct citations. We try to avoid links to web pages whose primary purpose is to sell a product, so it would be much better if a different source for the listing of books could be found. The other source I'm unfamiliar with, but it looks to be a form of social network for academics, using user-generated content? If so, it wouldn't be classed as reliable due to the lack of independance from the subject, editorial oversight or fact-checking.

Additionally with the academia.edu source, it looks like you've copy-pasted the summary line from the source into your draft. Unfortunately, as there's no copyright release that I can see there, it's probably a copyright violation. It's fine to cite sources, but quotations from sources are very rarely used. I know you've put it in quotes, but there isn't really the need for a quotation to be the opening paragraph of an article - I'd strongly recommend rewriting that in your own words.

One final point - you asked if these rules are in effect because of Kopnina's gender - the answer to that is most definitely not. Everything I mentioned above applies equally to everyone. Unfortunately this does mean that any bias in publications is mirrored onto Wikipedia, but we do have a focus group called Women In Red who are trying to improve the gender balance of our biographies.

I hope this answers the questions you've raised in a more complete form - please don't hesitate to ask for further help if you need it! You can come back on to the live help chat if you want, or you can drop me a message on my talk page, or you can place on this page to attract other volunteers like myself to answer your questions. stwalkerster (sock &#124; talk) 13:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Helen Kopnina concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Helen Kopnina, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Helen Kopnina


Hello, VeganBlonde. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Helen Kopnina".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Bkissin (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)