• Pequena Princesa (talk · contribs)

I am submitting this to you as it appears that you are the substitute for an appeal procedure against decline of articles for creation, as no appeal procedure seems appears to exist. https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/2019_2#Review_of_a_reviewer_Process, Decline Message Improvements, @Nosebagbear to @Smokey Joe (16 July 2019: 12.45).

My Draft:Marisa McKaye has been declined twice: on 9 March 2019 by Robert McClenon and on 23 May 2019 by Scope Creep. In both cases, the issue was notability of the subject.

I submit this appeal to you because the revised version of Draft:Marisa McKaye, declined on 23 May 2019, shows that the subject meets the requirements of notability as stated in wikipedia documentation, as shown below.

1. Criteria for Notability: https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) states:

“People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.”

Draft:Marisa McKaye sets out at least 9 sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject itself, as well as verifiable.

I shall so demonstrate here:

(1) 2 paragraphs.com is a reliable, intellectually independent source, independent of the subject, writing exclusively about the subject, proving that she published a 7-song album in February 2017.

(2) wheretraveler.com is a reliable, intellectually independent source, independent of the subject, writing exclusively about the subject, proving that she is on the cover of the Where Nashville 2018 Guest Book. In addition, the article includes an interview with the subject.

David notMD (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC) expressed his opinion that interviews “are not valid references.” However, this is nowhere stated in the wikipedia documentation and I submit that, while an interview alone may not be sufficient to establish notability, an interview among other reliable, intellectually-independent sources, independent of the subject, may contribute as one of the “multiple” published sources proving notability. If such a source bothers to interview a person, I submit that they consider the person “notable.” You or I could not get such an interview. Even the questions put in the interview, regardless of the answers, stating the many places in Nashville where the subject has performed, I submit, is evidence of the subject’s notability in the Nashville area. (see paragraph 2 below Additional Criteria: Notability Of A Musician)[reply]

(3) celebsdetails.com is a reliable, intellectually independent source, independent of the subject, writing exclusively about the subject, which has chosen to include the subject as a “celeb” in their (admittedly incomplete) report of her personal details and confirming other evidence about the venues in Nashville where she has performed.

(4) people.com is a reliable, intellectually independent source, independent of the subject, while not writing exclusively about the subject, which devotes half their article about Kevin Spacey’s visit to the Children’s Hospital in Atlanta to his “discovery” of the subject in Nashville a few days before and her performance of her original song at the hospital, next to Spacey: this is no mere “passing reference.”

(5) tennessean.com is a reliable, intellectually independent source, independent of the subject, while focusing on the American Girl doll debut in Nashville, and mentioning nine unnamed songwriters who would perform there, considered the subject notable enough to mention only her by name.

(6) collegian.psu.edu is a reliable, intellectually independent source, independent of the subject, writing exclusively about the subject and her performance at the THON concert there.

(7) Middle Tennessee State University Sidelines (mtsu.com) is a reliable, intellectually independent source, independent of the subject, writing exclusively about the subject, as a “local” performing on America’s Got Talent.

(8) rarecountry.com is a reliable, intellectually independent source, independent of the subject, writing exclusively about the subject’s performance on America’s Got Talent. Not every performer who is only montaged on that show gets an exclusive report of their performance: in fact, few do, unless their performance is sufficiently notable.

(9) toofab.com is a reliable, intellectually independent source, independent of the subject, while not writing exclusively about the subject, includes the subject in their review of each of the performers on America’s Got Talent that week: as each receives relatively equal reportage, this is not a mere “passing reference”.

https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) states that:

“If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.”

This I have done in paragraphs 1(1) to 1(9) above. The subject is thus notable.

2. Additional Criteria: Notability of A Musician

https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia:Notability_(music) states that:

“Musicians . . . may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. . . .

7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city;”

Sources 1(1), 1(2), 1(3) and 1 (5) are reliable, independent and verifiable sources which demonstrate that the subject has become the most prominent child star of the local scene of Nashville, having performed in many venues there, been selected to represent the city in a book about Nashville and as the only named performer in American Girl’s Nashville “Tenney” debut.

3. No Basis For The Decision To Decline

I submit that, faced with such evidence supporting the notability of the subject, any roving Editor cannot merely decline the submission without proving that the sources presented, individually, are not reliable or independent or verifiable. To mention one source as being inadmissible, or to make general comments about inadmissible sources which have no relevance to the sources cited, is neither sufficient, objective nor credible and is little more than vandalism.

4. Request For Action

As the declining editor did not address the support for notability in the article and merely jumped to a conclusion (see paragraph 3 above), I submit that there was no basis for the decline on 23 May 2019 and ask that it be given no effect, taken down and replaced by acceptance of the article. Pequena Princesa (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pequena Princesa: I'm afraid there's quite a lot of incorrect interpretation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. To sum up, none of the non-trivial sources (except the interview) are about the subject. They are news articles about an event where the subject appears. That's the key difference. Of the sources given, only collegian.psu.edu and mtsusidelines.com could arguably pass WP:GNG as being sufficiently in-depth, but of course they are about an event primarily. If it came to a deletion discussion, I am unsure which way it would lean. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Pequena Princesa: Hi there, and yes this is the right place to appeal a review. One note first, we didn't actually got your pings. They look like "@Nosebagbear" but you actually type {{ping|Nosebagbear}} (you also have to sign it, which you did)

So I've looked through every source other than 1 which was behind a paywall and 1 that only went to its site's landing page, rather than a specific article. They were both in the latter bit and not intended to provide notability, but specific facts, I believe.

I'm going to make one big answer for criterion 1 (general coverage quality) and then look at the aspects

There were two issues looped together that meant your sources didn't provide sufficient coverage. Failure to have significant coverage was a constant killer. Two paragraphs can do it, but they'd need to be big - there's no fixed line but most editors view about 10 lines as a good minimum. This was backed up by the "interview problem". The editor was right to say they're not useful for proving notability (if they're talking about themselves). They can be viewed to fail on reliability, independence or not being secondary sources (or a mixture of all), the most key one is that they can't be independent because they're talking about themselves. The same issue rules out either direct quotes or indirect quotes (Marisa also said X). This shrunk other sources down to a size that they failed Sig Cov.

So onto the rarer criteria - criterion 7 of WP:SINGER. This is an interesting one, and a possibility. Is child singing a particular style? Possible. @Scope creep and Primefac: for some thoughts on the issue

The person who tagged youtube wasn't one of your reviewers, but whereas some sources just don't aid notability, others are specifically unwanted. While the reviewers will have looked at every source (that wasn't from youtube etc), spelling the pros and cons of each out would be a monster task. The longest AfC draft I ever reviewed had 140 sources, and it still took a 3 day dispute with an Admin as to whether just 2 of the sources were good enough (so 138 unhelpful ones). In circumstances like that, the best thing to do is to pick the 3 best sources and ask your reviewer to reconsider them and give you more detail. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing ping Nosebagbear (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{ping|Nosebagbear}} I wish to clarify that I do not submit the interviews for the answers given by the subject, as if the subject is giving self-serving evidence of his/her own notability, but merely the fact of the interview as evidence that a reliable, independent and verifiable source considered this person notable enough to be interviewed: it is another kind of coverage, exclusively about the subject and substantial. Pequena Princesa (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, interviews can be used for article content sourcing. The sources needed to show notability have much stricter requirements. The sources used in the article for content only need to be reliable, but can be related to subject, not in-depth, and not secondary. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Dajana L (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Energetra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello!

I got the message that my article "Energetra" was declined. Can You please help me to improve it? Thank You!

All the best, Dajana L (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dajana L: You need to add multiple independent reliable in-depth sources. Three sources are directory entries, one is their own website. I am unsure what the contents of the book is. The article is a copy of sr:Енергетра, so if these sources existed, then they would have probably already been added there. It seems unlikely that this company is notably for English Wikipedia. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]