User talk:Virginia G Nelson

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ellen Brown (May 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 S0091 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 after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ellen Brown 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:Ellen Brown, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" 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 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 [//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:Ellen_Brown Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:S0091&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Ellen_Brown reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

S0091 (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: George Abagnalo (June 21)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Asilvering 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 after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:George Abagnalo 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:George Abagnalo, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" 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 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 [//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:George_Abagnalo Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Asilvering&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:George_Abagnalo reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

asilvering (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Is there any way for me to delete the draft now that I know it doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines? Virginia G Nelson (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can nominate it for a G7 speedy deletion (see WP:G7). But you can also just leave it - drafts are deleted after six months if no one has made any edits to them in that time. -- asilvering (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:ES
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks! AldezD (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:George Abagnalo


A tag has been placed on Draft:George Abagnalo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

"already exists here George Abagnalo"

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Theroadislong (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

George Abagnalo
Okay, let's go through some of what stands out to me about the article and the points brought up in its AfD discussion. I'm going to try to be clear about what is my opinion/suggestions vs wikipedia policy/guidelines/norms, but please feel free to ask if you're confused.

This is the basic process I would follow as an Articles for Creation (AfC) reviewer: Some other thoughts:
 * 1) The most basic thing that we are looking for in any notability discussion is the general notability guideline, at WP:GNG. It's this: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If the subject clearly passes this, we don't need to look for anything else. The most obvious first question I ask when looking at lit/hist/biog articles for Articles for Creation is, "Are any of the sources literally entitled '[Title of Proposed Wikipedia Article]'?" If you have a reliable source that is entirely about the subject, that's almost always going to be very clear significant coverage, and I'll go have a look at that one first. Ok, we fail on that one here. The only thing that appears to at a glance be entirely about Abagnalo is the IMDB page; it's minimal, and IMDB is not a reliable source (see WP:RS for the kinds of things that are considered reliable sources).
 * 2) "Significant coverage" doesn't have to be that obvious, though. A really in-depth single paragraph that is actually about Abagnalo himself might count; several pages in a book almost certainly will. Where exactly the line is between "significant coverage" and "passing mention" often depends on the editor drawing the line and the general topic of the article. I will be happy if we have a footnote to a single paragraph that is clearly about Abagnalo. It doesn't look like we do. Bummer.
 * 3) Maybe you disagree? If you do, point to a specific source and page number, and let's have a look. Maybe we'll find something, or maybe I can explain why the source is insufficient. I checked footnotes 1 and 2 (Gopnik and Hervey), which looked the most promising. I get nothing searching for "Abagnalo" in Gopnik, which might be google's fault but sure doesn't suggest he's discussed at any length. Hervey mentions him a few times. One is a passing mention ("One, Abagnalo, was tearaway enough..."), so no good. The others are not actually about Abagnalo; they're about his review of Night of the Living Dead. If I were trying to argue for "keep" in an Articles for Deletion discussion, I might be tempted to use this as a piece of evidence - but I wouldn't use this as my main piece of evidence. So far, this is the most in-depth coverage we have, but it's not coverage that is likely to stand up to the scrutiny of other editors at AfD.
 * 4) At this point, I'm going to check quickly if I think the subject meets a subject-specific guideline (WP:SNG) and is just missing the sources to show it; if it looks like a simple fix, I'll just find and add the sources and accept the article. I don't see an obvious simple fix here, so as an AfC reviewer I'd decline the article, since I think it's reasonably likely that another editor would try to nominate it for deletion in its current state. Indeed, that is exactly what happened. So, if this article goes back to draft, you need to see what you can find in the way of significant coverage, and add those sources to the article.
 * 1) You mentioned that you think he meets WP:NCREATIVE #2 (The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique). I think you're going for "concept", the concept being something like "The Night of The Living Dead has artistic value"? I am not at all sure why you think this is a significant new concept, theory, or technique. It's just a critical opinion; having them is a movie reviewer's job. For "significant concept" here, think "concept so significant it has its own wikipedia article." Kimberlé Crenshaw (Intersectionality). Franco Moretti (Distant reading).
 * 2) You also tried to aim for WP:NCREATIVE #3 (The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.). You definitely don't have a clear route to satisfying this one. To get an article through AfC you have to have sources in the article that convince your reviewer that Abagnalo created a well-known work or body of work, and also to agree that Abagnalo should have his own article because of that work.
 * 3) First, people are usually looking for a collective body of work. If the creator only made one notable work, it usually makes more sense to have an article on that work, and put some light biographical information in there. We do have a separate article for Harper Lee and To Kill a Mockingbird. Abagnalo is no Harper Lee.
 * 4) Filmmaker: We don't need reviews of Bad to show us that the film is notable. It's an Andy Warhol movie. Is Abagnalo's portion of the work notable? Are there reliable sources that include significant coverage of the screenplay specifically? Do they mention Abagnalo? Do they say anything about him beyond just "Abagnalo wrote it"? This is made even harder by the fact that he isn't solo author on the screenplay either. Basically, you're trying to show that Abagnalo is notable because his contribution to this film is so historically significant. I don't think you are ever going to convince anyone that he meets WP:CREATIVE for film, no matter what you turn up here. But maybe this leads you to some coverage that can help in general.
 * 5) Author: this book might be notable. However, none of the footnotes currently in the article support this. The New Yorker one does not appear to link to the relevant content. The other review link is an advertisement. The award it has won is not a major book award. Given these issues, I am not optimistic about the sources you provided as reviews in the AfD. None of them appear to be from major, national publications (this isn't strictly required, but it helps). It would be helpful if you could give URLs for any of these. Also, you say it is the first American novel on privileged sexual abuse of patients within health care settings. Anything can be a "first" if we get that specific - is it important for being the first such novel? If so, someone will have written about it somewhere outside of a review for the book. Can you find something like that? True secondary coverage of this novel? That is a good sign of notability (for the book), if so.
 * 6) You could, in theory, try to jam these together into a nonspecific WP:CREATIVE pass. That kind of thing sometimes works at AfD. But since, unless the article is missing something important, his works are not notable as a group, and he does not have enough qualifying work in film, art, or writing alone, I don't think you are going to be able to make an argument that convinces anyone like this. You might be able to find a source or two here that you can try to use to show that he passes WP:GNG, but I don't think you will get anywhere with a subject-specific guideline.
 * 7) Efbrab said, George Abagnalo is a well known figure in the Warhol community. There isn't anything in the article right now that really supports this. Well-known for what, exactly? If he's well known, this implies that someone has written about him. Where? Efbrab didn't take up my offer to do a WP:THREE, and the one source that they posted with a URL is very clearly not significant coverage; if that's actually one of the best possible sources on Abagnalo, he's not notable. asilvering (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for taking the time to explain all of this to me.
 * I was wondering if the recent evidence presented by Efbrab on the deletion talk page would satisfy the definition of "significant coverage" that you presented to me, as they pointed out that there is a paragraph in the book about Abagnalo and his contribution to the film Bad. Here's an exact quote from page 831 of the book, which the comment references:
 * "'Andy said he didn't care what it was about--he just loved the title,' said George Abagnalo, the young staffer who first came up with the idea for Bad. Abagnalo had come on board at the Union Square studio not long after Warhol was shot, appearing out of the blue as an absurdly cinephilic sixteen-year-old ready to lend a hand on any and all things filmic. (But not willing to comply when Warhol made a pass, asking him to drop his pants.) For Bad, Abagnalo came up with a plot and synopsis and then Pat Hackett honed the dialogue."
 * Is this source sufficient? Virginia G Nelson (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call this significant coverage, no. Two main reasons: one, I simply don't think it's long enough; two, this is more about Bad than about Abagnalo. It's useful, because it helps clarify what Abagnalo's role in the film is, but I don't think it's "significant" (and while that's my opinion, I think you'd have a hard time finding an uninvolved editor who would come to a different conclusion). What's the source for this, though? As in, what is Gopnik's source for this information? In particular, "an absurdly cinephilic sixteen-year-old ready to lend a hand on any and all things filmic" sounds like it probably came from a source other than an interview with Abagnalo, so there might be something you can track down there. The "not willing to comply when Warhol made a pass" might just be a throwaway comment from an interview, but also suggests to me that someone might have been talking/writing about Abagnalo himself somewhere else. -- asilvering (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. Virginia G Nelson (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Ellen F. Brown
Hello, Virginia G Nelson. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ellen F. Brown, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Virginia G Nelson. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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 organizations 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 request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * 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 Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)