• Innocentuzoma (talk · contribs)
  • User:Innocentuzoma/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Innocentuzoma (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Nycnjc (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Lynn A. Cunningham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to better understand the rejection. I thought that academics, professors, were under a slightly different burden for "notability." That if their work has been cited that is sufficient and it doesn't have to be them personally who has been the subject of publication? Can you clarify? This person's work has thousands of citations on Google Scholar. His research formed the basis for understanding of how antidepressants impact sexual functioning. His work seems worthy of "notability."

Nycnjc (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nycnjc: The feedback given with the initial decline is that the article draft is sourced completely to Cunningham's works. You need to find coverage about him in independent third party sources to show that he's notable. The closest notability guideline for doctors that also publish research papers would be Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria. I'm not sure Cunningham meets this. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• MorrieMarr (talk · contribs)

Hello there. I would like to know how to submit my draft. I couldn't see the submit button above. I also couldn't add submit code on top of the source editor. MorrieMarr (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only contribution on Wikipedia so far? Where are you creating the draft? Theroadislong (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 117.216.133.118 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Pradipta Biswas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

the person's work is covered by multiple independent sources (references 27 to 36), which are NOT passing mentions, the person holds a highest-level appointed position at a specialized agency of United Nations (ITU, references 2 and 3), the person was a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor, University of Cambridge (reference 12), the person's academic work has made a significant impact on eye gaze tracking https://scholar.google.co.in/citations?view_op=search_authors&hl=en&mauthors=label:eye_gaze_tracking 117.216.133.118 (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at references 27 to 34 and they basically all appear to be the same article, with some changes here and there. That suggests to me that they are press releases, which would not be independent. But even if they are not press releases, it would be a stretch of the imagination to suggest that ten articles that all originated from the same place would qualify as "multiple". If someone were to go through that draft and start pulling out duplicate references, I wonder how much shorter the reference list would be... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bevelgearsinc (talk · contribs)
  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

I am writing to inquire about why my article has not been approved. Everything I have published comes from first-hand experience with the parties I am publishing about.

For example, I updated Robert Carlock's birthday and hometown on his page at the request of Carlock, whom I know personally. If you need proof of accuracy, I am happy to privately provide his driver's license for authentication.

The same is true of Meredith Scardino, whom I know personally and is a high-profile showrunner with a major TV series upcoming. She should have her own Wikipedia page as she is referenced in many other pages. All of the personal information I have published about her is also a first-hand account (from her) and can be privately verified with government documents, etc.

Please help me find a solution here. Robert, in particular, has been working on correcting his birth date on Wikipedia for years as his birthday is in September and he frequently receives birthday gifts in January because Wikipedia lists the wrong date.

Thank you.

Bevelgearsinc (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bevelgearsinc! So part of the problem is that we never "take somebody's word for it" when it comes to information (if you see it on here, it'll probably be deleted shortly after). We rely on verifiable information from reliable secondary sources. Since you know these subjects personally, (and your username suggests you might be a company focused on PR) I would suggest you look at our guidelines for conflict of interest editing and paid editing. It looks like you have already to a small extent, with the public declaration on your userpage. For Carlock, go to Talk:Robert Carlock and request that another uninvolved editor make the changes for you (if you can find a reliable source that backs up the information). Bkissin (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message. My concern is that, in one case, I have included a reliable secondary source and it has still been deleted. There are also no secondary sources citing Robert's birthday as that is kind of unusual. I don't need his birthday cited necessarily, but I don't want his birthday to be cited incorrectly. Right now, certain people have mentioned they see his birthday as "January 1, 1972" which is incorrect and seems to not be supported by a reliable source. If you can help me fix the incorrect birthday, that would be great. Let me know how I should proceed given that I included a reliable secondary source for other information that was rejected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:C501:5ED0:6D3B:D08A:FA97:29AC (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK Bevelgearsinc, here's what I did. I went back to your previous edit that had been reverted and re-added the award information (with sources from the Emmys, WGA awards, etc.) to show that Carlock actually won those awards. There's not much I can do on the birthday front, unfortunately. In looking through the history of the Wikipedia article, I'm not sure where people are getting January 1 as a firm date. The way the article is set up right now, it just has 1972 as year of birth, so that may be why people get confused and send him things on January 1, because when the new year comes around, the computer recognizes just 1972 as January 1 (if that makes any sense). But in our article, it has only ever been just the year 1972 (or 1972/1973). My only other thought would be if you could find a birth notice in a Boston newspaper that shows he was born September 21, 1972, then that we could work with. But Cyphoidbomb is right, our guidelines on that sort of stuff mean that we need a concrete source proving the correct information, otherwise we would run into the same misinformation Carlock is already facing. Bkissin (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]