• 24.64.241.111 (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

24.64.241.111 (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what I am doing. But I tried to create a page

https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Draft:Freezer_Burn_(festival)

for some friends, and I used their website as a source. Should I also include the facebook page?

@24.64.241.111 and NotSure42: hi, IP user, the Draft:Freezer Burn (festival) original creator is NotSure42, for such I am not sure you are NotSure42. By the way, hav left notes for you on the draft article. Kindly have a look as well as the associate links. Just a note, if you cant find independent reliable of the subject, then the article stays. If not, it would not be published. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Flavia67 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Timo Dentler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The first draft of the article on Timo Dentler was unfortunately rejected. As far as I understood it, 2 reasons were decisive:

(1) The text was a copy & pasted from the German lemma about Timo Dentler, translated into English. That, as I understand it, is not appreciated. Now it is the case that the article in the German Lemma contains the essential and relevant facts with a multitude of references to Mr. Dentler's work. Would it be helpful to reformulate the text sections for the English Wikipedia, but keep the essential facts?

(2) It was criticised that there were too few references, as I understand it, too few footnotes and press articles proving the relevance. I have researched again and noted a list of English-language press articles, which I could now insert in a suitable place, for example and among others these:

• America and Britten patch it up In: Financial Times
• Handel Festival Göttingen: Siroe, Re di Persia In: British Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies
• Manipulation and money worship: Peter Konwitschny's Boris Godunov in Nuremberg In: Bachtrack
• 'Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk, Royal Opera House, Copenhagen – review' In: Financial Times

Would that be enough to prove relevance?

There is no doubt from my point of view that the plays and theatres on which the artist works as well as his work as a scenic designer is of importance in Europe. I would be very pleased if I could get a short realistic assessment from you and a help, which is the most important thing that I have to change and on which I should focus so that the article could be accepted.

Thank you very much!

Flavia67 (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flavia67 Each source is a short paragraph about Dentler's work, within a review of a particular production of an opera. They are more than passing mentions (more than a credit listing), but many reviewers will feel they fall short of significant coverage. This will make it difficult to meet the general notability guideline or specific guideline for creative professionals.

A more convincing argument for notability could be made if:

• one or more books had been written about Dentler (as have been for Mordecai Gorelik and Jo Mielziner, for example),
• another encyclopedia covered Dentler (as the World Encyclopedia of Contemporary Theater does Boris Aronson, for example),
• Dentler had received major awards (as have Rouben Ter-Arutunian, John Lee Beatty, Ming Cho Lee and Scott Pask, for example),
• Dentler had been elected to a hall of fame or similar body (as has Oliver Smith (designer), for example)

Such things are tangible evidence that these scenic designers are not merely successful, but have lasting significance - that they belong in an encyclopedia.

The articles mentioned above aren't very good. If you sincerely want to help Wikipedia, why not improve them? If you're here only to promote Dentler, you won't receive a great deal of assistance. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ecology 101 (talk · contribs)

Hi, I am new to submissions for Wikipedia. The reviewer said that the sources referenced did not seem to support the facts and were not seeming to be verifiable. I disagree with this. As a nonprofit that provided ecology at the state and federal level for this kind of work. I am confused with what more you would want to support documentation for their work? There was included a newspaper article done on their Director and many other references to support the facts stated. Please let me know what is meant by independent sources need to be referenced. Thank you. Much is appreciated.

Ecology 101 (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ecology 101. We're looking for independent sources to establish that the organization is notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). The organization website and things written by the organization, such as Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study, are not independent of the organization. The cited LA River and US Army Corps of Engineers pages don't mention the organization.

Different reviewers may evaluate the interview with the founder in The Philomath Express in different ways. Some may see it as independent and secondary because it isn't merely one long quote of the founder. Much of it is stated as if the reporter researched and fact-checked the information. Other reviewers will see a freelance writer for a small-town newspaper and believe that they uncritically repeated whatever they found on the organization's website. Even if The Philomath Express is independent and secondary, novice contributors are commonly advised to cite at least three such sources - one is not enough. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]