Cabrils

Dear @Cabrils,

Thank you for your feedback and suggestion to communicate on your user talk page. I am reaching out to discuss my draft page, Draft:Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics. Following your request to specify which criteria I believe the page meets, I will provide a detailed explanation here. Your recommendations for improving the draft, if needed, would be greatly appreciated.

The Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics was established in 1864. The society is responsible for the Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, which is also about to celebrate its 160th anniversary. The majority of the external secondary and reliable sources I have found predominantly reference the journal and its open-access publications on the SpringerOpen platform. However, the society itself, which is the driving force behind the journal and appoints its editorial team, may not be as prominently featured in the media.

Therefore, I would like to argue that the page meets the WP criteria #3 due to the following reasons:

• It provides information about an association that unites all Swiss universities with Faculties of Economics.
• It highlights the society's role in publishing the renowned Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics.
• The journal's chief editor is Professor Marius Brülhart.

I would value your feedback on whether this meets the criteria for organizational notability.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Best regards,

KMerrigold KMerrigold (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi [@KMerrigold, thanks for the ping.

For clarity, I suggested you ping me here when you had implemented my suggestions. Discussion of the draft should best take place on the Talk page of the Draft itself so it is most easily visible to all editors and reviewers, so I'm copying this over to there, where I will reply in more detail. Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Cabrils,

I've made some changes for you to review. I've posted my WP:Three sources on the draft's talk page. Let me know if these changes suffice the notability requirement.

Thanks.

Best,

KMerrigold KMerrigold (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @KMerrigold, thanks for the ping. Please see my response on the Draft's Talk page. Cabrils (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've recently been working on BLP issues involving another fired Apple employee, Ashley Gjøvik, and found Parrish's article there. Saw the comments between IP and you and was wondering if this page should be taken to WP:COIN, WP:Afd, or a merge discussion should be opened. It looks like the majority of the content is already at AppleToo. Say ocean again (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the ping! I was amazed to see that the page had been accepted. Investigating. Cabrils (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've nominated this for deletion | here. Cabrils (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not sure if the page is on your radar, but one of the voters made pretty substantial changes to the article I just undid using a newsletter to boost Parrish's role in AppleToo. Probably best to keep an eye on any shenanigans to sway votes. Say ocean again (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Say ocean again. Looks like the deletion discussion will go the other way, but was certainly worth nominating. In my experience, Oaktree's votes are generally pretty sensible. Cabrils (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. I guess I'm a little more strict in my inclusion criteria. Say ocean again (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I know what you mean. I appreciated your ping anyway. Certainly feel free to ping me in the future, happy to help where I can. Cabrils (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello!

Thank you for so quickly reviewing the draft of this proposed Wiki article. I carefully read, researched, and revised the Draft to address your primary concern regarding 'Notable' and meeting the minimum threshold for several of the 8 academic criteria. To address the 'notable' and academic criteria, I had to be a bit more foward but tried to focus on an organized list of impact, results, and contributions rather than a laundry list of CV items. I hope I struck a balance - please advise if not.

The new draft has many more supporting details and authoratative secondary sources with notable academics, researchers, and thought leaders that Elkins has engaged with over recent years. Many of the details like upcoming papers and talks at Yale, Harvard, Reed College, and others did not have authoratative links so I left them out.

My main concern is being transparent about COI at this point. To avoid this, I initially engaged a service to navigate this issue. They turned out to be a scam, so I am trying to write the article myself. It's complex to communicate to a third party because there are so many details and subtle judgement calls. I flagged this article as a potential COI when submitting and tagged my user page with "

". I hope the merits of article speak to the authenticity.

There are very few women who are thought leaders in AI and tech in general, so I hope this will be a service to the research community and beyond to add more voices to discussions around AI. It's a bit of a catch-22 and as academics, we generally are not very good at having a voice beyond the narrow confines of academic echo chambers. With the rapid advance of AI in everything from lethal autonomous weapons to potential large-scale disemployment, there is a urgent need to bring more informed humanistic perspectives to the public discussions on AI.

Please advise on any next steps.

Gratefully,

J J2000ai (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi J2000ai, thanks for the ping. Discussion about the page is best posted on the Talk page of the draft, so it is most easily seen and accessible to all editors and reviewers, so I have copied your post over to there, and responded there. Cabrils (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cabrils,

Thanks! I'm new to this so apologies as I learn the ropes. - Jon J2000ai (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

No worries! Cabrils (talk) 07:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Say ocean again That's very kind, thanks very much!

• Dmgy000 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mahi R. Singh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for reviewing my article. Could you kindly tell me which part of the article doesn't meet the requirement of eight academic-specific criteria or cite independently?
Is the Fulbright US-Canada Research Chair award not enough for the academic contribution or the research content cited from the professor's website unreliable?
Thanks again for your time and patience.

Dmgy000 (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Some evidence of the Alexander von Humboldt fellowship and Fulbright award would be very helpful (as you note, the only evidence is that which is stated on the subject's own website).

Please also address the other issues I raise in my comment, including if you have any connection to the subject, including being paid, as you then would have a conflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page. Your contributions history certainly looks consistent with being a paid editor. Cabrils (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I added more evidence of the award and conflict of interest. Dmgy000 (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not seeing any post by you in relation to possible conflict of interest? In fact you still don't even have a user page?? Cabrils (talk) 02:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I add the conflict of interest in Talk Page, and I add into User Page noew Dmgy000 (talk) 05:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for doing that, looks good.

Please see my comments on the Draft's Talk page, where discussion of the draft is more appropriately held than here. Thanks Cabrils (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I had more edit based on your comment Dmgy000 (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the ping. Please see my response on the draft's talk page. Cabrils (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Dmgy000,

Thanks for the collaboration. Further to our discussions on the draft's Talk page, draft accepted. Cabrils (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cabrils,

I've looked over the feedback you've provided on my draft submission and made some changes for you to review. I've posted my WP:Three sources and some additional information on changes I've made on the draft's talk page. Let me know if these changes suffice the notability requirement.

Thanks. Grinkelton-wp (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Grinkelton-wp- well done, thanks. Good enough for me. Draft accepted. Cabrils (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dear Cabrils,

As suggested, I have added more references. Also I confirm that I am linked to the IAHE as I work on Hydrogen and part of the Board of Directors of IAHE. I also confirm that I do NOT get paid to do this and for the being part of the IAHE. I am volunteering to the IAHE.

Many thanks.

Kind regards,

Prof. Dr. Bruno G. Pollet

Sunday 21 July 2024. Bruno G Pollet (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the ping. Discussion about the page is best posted on the Talk page of the draft, so it is most easily seen and accessible to all editors and reviewers, so I have copied your post over to there, and responded there. Cabrils (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Seekingart (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Elihost.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, would you mind please explain which of the parameters was not meet on the elihost.com article?

Seekingart (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The draft needs to meet the relevant requirements including WP:GNG, WP:NCORP but presently it is not clear that it does.

As you may know, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. To properly create such a draft page, please see the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’.

None of the current references are from sources that are considered reliable for establishing notability (including the company's own website).

The draft does not appear to show that the subject has any notability beyond the average coverage in trade publications for similar corporations (see WP:ROTM).

Also, if you have any connection to the subject, including being paid, you have a conflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link).

Please familiarise yourself with these pages before amending the draft. If you feel you can meet these requirements, then please make the necessary amendments before resubmitting the page. It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject.

It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:NCORP criteria #3, because XXXXX").

Once you have implemented these suggestions, you may also wish to leave a note for me on my talk page and I would be happy to reassess. Cabrils (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your feedback and suggestions. I've removed references from blogs, and kept only the references from reliable sources. To answer your questions:

WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject: 

1) https://deadline.com/2024/07/star-trek-starfleet-academy-cast-karim-diane-amp-zoe-steiner-1236014459/

2) https://www.startrek.com/en-ca/news/starfleet-academy-cast-karim-diane-zoe-steiner

3) https://www.msn.com/en-ca/movies/news/star-trek-starfleet-academy-adds-karim-dian%C3%A9-zo%C3%AB-steiner-to-cast/ar-BB1qeh8j

I think the page now meets WP:NACTOR criteria #1 and #2 because the actor has significant roles in multiple notable television shows for the world's largest networks. But MOST notably, he has just been cast in a leading role for the newest Star Trek tv show for CBS on Paramount+. Star Trek is one of the most popular sci-fi franchises on the entire planet. Itsasecret123456 (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the ping. Please see my reply on the Draft's Talk page. Cabrils (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dear @Cabrils,

Thank you for your review and especially for the links and guidance you provided.

I checked the references, fixed some of them that were in the wrong place, removed the ones that did not follow the guidelines (not self published, not blacklisted, not press releases the ones containing interviews with the artist). In case that there are other references that you consider not following the guidelines, please point me to them and I will either clarify if there is some misunderstanding, or remove them.

None of the sources left should be from blogs, company websites or social media (Twitter, YouTube etc...). They are mainly from magazines and newspapers specialized in showbiz and music.

Regarding your comment regarding the conflict of interest, I don't charge anything by creating this page. I wanted to learn about creating and publishing a Wikipedia page (this is my first wiki page from scratch), and I can assure you that nobody would pay an amateur to do such thing without having proofs of previous contributions. I like her music, I realized that there is no info on her on Wikipedia, and I wanted to add publicly available information similarly as other artists of her relevance have today.

I did get in contact with her to obtain her permission for creating such page and in particular for using her photo. If you need a written proof that the photo can be used, let me know and I can request that.

Regarding the WP:MUSICBIO criteria, I would say that she fulfills the following criteria:

Criteria 1 - As can be seen in the references we kept. Her work was published in important magazines, that are normally independent from the musicians, and not self-published, as those normally have a publishing director / editor who approves author's work before publishing.

Criteria 2 - The song Bingo entered top 100 (place 80) according to Telif Metre (Turkish Copyright meter) data within the first week of it's release.

Criteria 11 - The song Hijo de la Noche was played during several months on Pal Station, Metro FM (and others) in Turkey. The song was also played during some time on Canal RCN in Colombia where it had a very good reception. Bingo on the other hand was played on several national radios stations in Turkey (Metro FM, Canal). I hope that now the page is more consistent and compliant with the Wikipedia rules. Otherwise let me know what else doesn´t fit.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlobalMusicFan (talk • contribs) 00:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the ping. Please see my reply on the Draft's Talk page. Cabrils (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dear Cabrils,

I addressed your last comments. Please take a look on Neshe's Talk page.

Cheers GlobalMusicFan (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the ping. Please see my reply on the Draft's Talk page. Cabrils (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cabrils. Please see my reply to your requests on the Neshe page Draft's Talk page. GlobalMusicFan (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @GlobalMusicFan, thanks for the ping. Please see my reply on the Draft's Talk page. Cabrils (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cabrils :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @Clovermoss! I will give it some thought. All the best. Cabrils (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Calbrils,

I just wanted to Thank you for your input (and so quickly).

Notability:

I find that a lot of the elements from my Grandfather's time are not digital, as thus I am having a hard time proving notability in the digital references sought by Wikipedia so I appreciate your notes and I will work to pursue the right links. My main source is a book that was published about the History of Gospel Music in which my Grandfather and his singers group were mentioned, I have attempted to cite that as a reference, but Is there any way to dig deeper into what was shared in the book without copyright infringement as it is a published book about the subject and the person?

Another Attempt to meet the notability would be using Discogs and his Discography. There is an artist page and an page for each of his albums showcasing their publish date, and availability and ownership in the record-space.

Format & Structure:

You noted that the structure reads like a CV - I welcome any suggestions or examples on an approach to resolve this?

References:

I will work to resolve the references structure.

COI:

I did add, but forgot to publish the page... User:Jtreadwell - It's visible now. Please provide feedback if this is correct.

Future Plans:

In an effort to preserve my family's legacy, I intend to publish a series of pages regarding the cultural significance of my Grandfather, Pastor Willie A. Treadwell. My Grand Mother, Frankie Marie Treadwell (His Co-founder) of the Treadwell Community Singers and their discography. Please share if you have any advice for helping to achieve this goal within the confines of Wikipedia's approach to validation.

Finally, With additional feedback/suggestions from you I will gladly persist in making this page fully appropriate. If you are available, I would love to find time to connect and have a conversation (audio or zoom) about this and best practices.

Jtreadwell (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Jtreadwell, thanks for the kind words and ping. I also appreciate your cogent post with headings! I'll respond below in kind:

Notability:

• Offline (non digital) references are absolutely fine, just so long as the reference meets the definition of a reliable source, which allows it to be verified. Please click on that link and read the page carefully, I think you'll find it very helpful.
• I start to get a little concerned with your remarks at this point, because it feels that you have not yet quite grasped how Wikipedia works. I would encourage you re-read my comments on the draft, and please go to all the links I included, and read those linked pages carefully. I will begin repeating myself but for clarity, Wikipedia is not a place to host a biography about a person (see WP:WWIN), and especially not CVs-- it is an encyclopedia that contains information that is (1) notable; and (2) reliably sourced. Please especially go to WP:MUSICBIO as it sets out clearly and specifically what is required to meet the criteria of musicians.
• Copyright: Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. You may manage this by paraphrasing, but again, we don't want to see an elaborate summary of a single biography. Please see WP:COPY for more information on copyright.

Format & Structure:

• For formatting, please see Wikipedia’s Manual of Style for help.
• Any content included must be reliably sourced.

References:

• Please see Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor and Wikipedia’s Manual of Style for help.

COI

• Thank you, that's perfect. You possibly have read the material about conflict of interest (if not, please do), but in summary there's no problem with having a COI (as long as it's declared) but it does mean any pages you create will necessarily undo greater scrutiny to ensure they meet the relevant criteria (notability, reliable sources, neutrality, etc). My feeling is that (an appropriate) entry into Wikipedia about your grandfather should probably be possible, but it will require finessing to meet the guidelines, which the current draft doesn't meet, in my view.

Future Plans:

• Those are understandable and well meaning plans, but I would echo what I've said above about the purpose of Wikipedia, and that no matter how special, influential, ground-breaking a person is, to justify an entry in Wikipedia requires the draft to meet WP:ANYBIO etc. You may feel your aims can better be achieved by, for example, creating a website which you manage and control, and so can include whatever content you want in whatever way you want.

Help:

• I appreciate your offer of contact, however that's not something I do. Fortunately, the WP:TEAHOUSE should be a good place to seek help with the page. From your draft and messages here, you certainly appear more than competent to be able to gain an understanding of the framework and and produce a draft that warrants publication.

My final suggestion would be to start smaller than bigger (literally a couple of sentences can be sufficient, when reliably sourced, to warrant publication). And please re-read my comments and familiarize yourself with all the material to which I referred you! Cabrils (talk) 06:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Cabrils,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged H401 for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want H401 to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Lordseriouspig 11:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Cabrils,

Regarding the Eric Gilbertson article, as per WP:ABOUTSELF, some degree of primary sources should be allowed so long as they are not the key source of info in the article, which I am aware is the main issue with how I wrote the article.

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. It does not involve claims about third parties;
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@KnowledgeIsPower9281, thanks for the ping. Please see my reply on the article's talk page. Cabrils (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dear @Cabrils,

Thank you for reviewing my article (Draft:Christopher Klausmeier). The requested changes to the references were made by another user, User:Keith D. Please let me know if there are any other changes I should make. Mohammna (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see the draft has now been accepted, well done. Cabrils (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dear @Cabrils

thank you for reviewing my article. i am a beginner editor on wikipedia. i have left some thoughts i had on the talk page of Draft:Douglas Fang, please let me know your thoughts on it, because I believe those sources fufill the comments u made. thank you. 陳小幅 (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dear @Cabrils

I am having some issues publishing my thoughts on my draft article's talk page. so I will instead upload my thoughts here.

"

Here are some notable sources I've identified:

https://wwd.com/feature/fang-appointed-ceo-at-pringle-552906-1981734/ --> CEO Appointment

https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/pringles-new-family-man --> CEO Appointment

https://wwd.com/feature/pringle-of-scotland-presses-pause-with-last-collection-set-for-fall-1203620441/ --> 2020 Interview

https://podcast.rthk.hk/podcast/item.php?pid=826&eid=213648&lang=zh-CN --> Podcast by local station on subject

https://www.wenweipo.com/a/202310/31/AP65400e04e4b0fdf828a4da08.html --> News article on speech by subject

"

thank you. 陳小幅 (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

nevermind. ive managed to leave my thoughts on the talk page of my draft article now. i apologise for the spam. 陳小幅 (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@陳小幅, thanks for the ping. Please see my reply on the Talk page. Cabrils (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your contributions to Cameron Stewart (journalist). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@GMH Melbourne, thanks for the ping. Cabrils (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

If fitting, could you take a fresh look at the page “Peter F. Barth”,  and see if its two “page issues” warrant removal at this time (due to COI, I understand that I should not remove them.) It received these, plus about 50 edits (undisputed), from one editor between January 17 and 23, and closure was brought to the final {cn}  tag only last week. I have not added to, or rewritten, page text since that time.

Your handling of this request would give me the highest confidence that the decisions (or edits) on this matter are indeed made in strict accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and the spirit of its mission.

I remain most appreciative of your early help with the page’s draft, which undoubtedly ensured its continuation/successful evolution since launch — and likewise for “Mind teachings of Tibet” (top 3% accepted submissions rating) and “Georg Limnaeus” (top 17%.) Thank you, once again.~~~~ Thapkhay (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Peter, thanks for the ping, and kind comments. Good to see you are still around, and doing a little editing too.

I've had a fresh look at the page, and see the substantive edits by Skyerise in particular. At this stage I am inclined not to remove the tags, because in my view they remain essentially true: at least many (if not the majority) of sources are very closely associated with you; and you remain the major contributor to the article.

While I, and evidently other editors and reviewers, remain satisfied that the page meets the notability criteria, I think the tags should remain so readers are aware of those issues. I realise this would be somewhat disappointing or frustrating for you, but I do think they are valid and within the guidelines at this time.

All the best. Cabrils (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Great to hear back from you! Thank you. As you could probably glean from the ping title (via its reference to “tag(s)”), I was unsure whether it would serve the readership best to remove both tags, or only one, at this stage.  Indeed, I now agree with your view on the second tag, “a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject” —  this was clearly true at the outset, and is still a reasonable caution to offer to the readers.

Regarding the first tag,  however, I would like to ask you to consider this analysis of sources now cited (quotes and categories A.-E. are per WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE):

“The most reliable sources” (published, independent , and third-party) which are now included in the article are:

A. “Mainstream newspapers”  (e.g., “Argus-Courier”, est. 1928, acquired by “The New York Times” in 2001; see Ref 1, cited three times)

B. “Magazines published by respected publishing houses” (e.g., “University of Vermont, est. 1791, publisher of UVM Magazine (incl. online feature articles ); see Ref 2, this article is written by a senior UVM staff writer, and serves as a Secondary Source — as per WP:SECONDARY SOURCE, based on the writer’s analysis of a multitude of primary sources, including UVM records, cited four times)

C. “Journals published by respected publishing houses” (e.g., “Library Journal”, est. 1876; see Refs 5 and 18, plus “Marin Small Publishers Association, publisher of “SPEX”,  est.. 1979, now BAIPA.org; see Ref 17)

D. “Peer-reviewed journals” (e.g. “Physica”, est. by Elsevier in 1921, as Physica; “Physica A” was created by them in 1975 to focus on “Statistical mechanics and its applications”, the subject’s field, per WP-SOURCETYPES “academic and peer-reviewed publications” are  “the most reliable sources on topics such as history, medicine, and science”; see Refs 9, 11, 12)

E. “Books published by respected publishing houses” (e.g. “Shambhala Publications”, includes “Snow Lion Publications”, est. in 1969; see Refs 4, 19 and 20, plus “Wisdom Publications”, est. 1983; see Refs 3, 13 and 15)

Dear Cabrils, may I ask you to consider this analysis for the core set of citations presented in the subject article, in combination with your earlier evaluation(s). I think one can now see clearly that it is based on “solid ground”, with an array of the highest-caliber reliable sources (per WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE ) and it is due to this,  I am recommending that “tag one” be removed at this time. The statement, “This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject,” is no longer true;  these are all independent or third-party sources, the more frequently cited sources are indeed Secondary Sources (although it is clear that the writer’s’ conclusions are not in themselves proofs.) Furthermore, clicking on the link provided with this tag leads the reader to a suggestive description of “self-published” and “questionable” sources, neither of which pertain to any of the above core examples of sources provided in the article. The tag is now a misrepresentation of the article.

Furthermore, by this one can see that the first part of the warning stating “potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral”, is no longer true. These sources are verifiable. The second part of the warning, and the risk to neutrality is also largely eliminated; I would still have agreed to it, had it not been for any scent of lack of neutrality being removed by Skyerise via 50+ edits. I appreciated that meticulous effort and how, indeed, the page was appropriately cut of any “peacocking” and with self-published works included as a basis for any statements presented.

Based on this page history and the above rationale, and your input , I am now considering requesting the removal of first tag via the talk page of the article, but the first tag only.

In any case, I continue to be completely appreciative of all your help and input on this (and welcome any more thoughts you may have on this matter.) Thank you, once again. Peter Thapkhay (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Peter, thank you for that detail.

On perusal, however, I'm not comfortable removing the tags.

On looking at the page afresh, in my view it is a long way from being a clearly notable entry. The mere fact it is written almost exclusively by you, the subject, requires it to meet a higher standard because of the inherent conflict of interest (see WP:AB, WP:PROUD).

For example, the University of Vermont piece written by Kevin Morganstein Fuerst, is effectively authored by you: it opens "Peter Barth G'81 sent us a class note in June 2024 that was so rich in detail and included such wonderful photos that we had to make it a "Class Notes Extended' feature.". You wrote and sent a biography to Class Notes Extended and Kevin published either literally what you wrote, or an edited extract of it, and so in my view this article does not contribute towards establishing notability as defined.

Please be mindful that the page needs to clearly meet the relevant criteria such as WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR etc.

Accordingly, I would be cautious about your current course of action.

Having said that, if you wish, yes, you could post your thoughts on the Talk page, or on WP:TEAHOUSE, where they are much more likely to be attended. Cabrils (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for both notes you have provided in response to my question(s). Even your “discouraging” and BOLD words, given in the framework and spirit of Wikipedia are very much appreciated.

Tag Two: Indeed, due to possibilities for “lack of neutrality”(as you and WP:PROUD, etc. note), the page continues to warrant the second page tag.

Tag One and UVM Article: Regarding the “UVM feature article, the full disclosure (up front) speaks to the integrity of their process and an aspect of their reliance upon my input as part of that process. It is a normal part of any information gathering for a feature article to obtain testimony from the the subject (if available), and others, and to collect materials (such as, photos, and suggested notes on verifiable “independent” sources” as evidence on the authenticity, or lack of authenticity, of testimony of the subject, or others. UVM also rather uniquely has had access to primary sources on the subject (e. g., including birth certificate — promoting removal of the first {cn} tag, and the physics department’s records — a justifiably reasonable basis for its inclusion as an introductory citation as Ref (2) ) Their research includes both “verifiable” (for a moment/context, this word needs to be understood in their framework, not Wikipedia’s, since institutions rely often on primary sources which they can, and must verify) primary (such as the range of related technical papers) and independent secondary sources (others such as peer groups via their evaluations for oral defense of thesis and certification of the published thesis and presentation at a major technical conference.) Like all mature educational organizations, UVM does not consider WP a reliable source for academic and publishing purposes; however, for excellent reasons, WP considers them to “generally” be the most reliable sources (indeed, with some exceptions, as you point out.)

The UVM affair began in late March, after I submitted to them one photo (shown of me with some family - they correctly removed the names of all living persons from the caption, including my wife, another example of their professionalism) along with two lines of updates (announcing a “special event “, 1) a celebration of my 68th birthday, and 2) my retirement status) into their online communication system (for alumni.) The UVM staff who reviewed this input soon realized this was my first contact with them since 1981 and thereby promptly initiated, (and took the reins), in championing a process that, five months later, elevated their work to a “published UVM feature article.” It took four to five months for them (“us” per Fuerst, referring to the UVM team) to complete their work. Fuerst (an executive at UVM’s Foundation) explicitly, and unequivocally, identifies himself as the writer, an act which gives UVM major legal responsibility (and potential jeopardy) for the content and must be approved at their highest levels. Details about the team’s (“us”) overall vetting process remain unknown (to me), but I cannot think of one reason to question them on this matter; I think you would agree that UVM would not compromise their standards for production and publication of this feature article. They will also have their own standards as to what is notable, but that provides no risk to (and is in fact praised by) Wikipedia, which has its own meaningful definition of notability.

That the UVM subject’s story (based on their view of notability) echoes aspects of the Wikipedia story (based on its own) on the one or two snippets of the subject’s life story, is curious (and, understandably, may raise suspicion.)It surprised me (and was more sugary than I expected.) On the other hand, it is totally not surprising, when one considers that they are both largely based on each of their own sets of verified facts (each in their own way), which included many common sources; this similarity may actually be construed to show that the stories’ views of notability are similar, and in this way provide a bit of validation to their efforts (only a bit; for example, UVM was totally disinterested in the personal life of the subject, as well as his extensive career; like Wikipedia they thought the briefest mention is enough. I now totally agree with that, as you have also.)

Perhaps really the crux of all this matter — and the very helpful editorial guidance which you provided — is that it, in spite of the UVM article being a WP preferred reliable source, you clearly have demonstrated to me how it can create serious uncertainty with respect to the reliability of the provided source; this, in itself, is enough to give me serious pause. That you see so clearly that tag one still is warranted is now enough for me.

Based on my experience with the soundness of your advice (on several occasions in the past!), and your excellent efforts and sincere commitment to Wikipedia and its readership (also, with some good results for readers, apparently, so far, in terms of inspiring my small efforts), I have no further intent to initiate a reconsideration of removing the “two page tags” at this time.

Thank you, once again, for helping me get to the heart of the matter. Thapkhay (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Peter. All the best. Cabrils (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your advice and help. I tried to implement your suggestions, can you please check if the article is good now? Majku17 (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Firstly, do NOT remove Comments and Draft info boxes from the Draft.

Secondly, before undertaking any further assessment, you must please address directly the issues raised in my comments, including WP:THREE and WP:COI. Cabrils (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply