User talk:Chetsford

Thanks

Thanks for the close. It's always great to read a thoughtful close of a tough discussion. Andre🚐 02:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, it's always nice when the first Talk page message after a close isn't a complaint - ha! Chetsford (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Let's hope it sticks. I won't jinx it. Andre🚐 02:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• Sorry to break from that! Firstly, I appreciate your effort in summarizing and concluding the RfC. There were a couple things I was hoping to get clarification on or possibly reconsideration.

While the RfC didn't reflect an overwhelming majority for discreated or neither, there seems to be a tangible inclination towards the term "discredited". This sentiment is drawn not only from those directly voting for "Discredited" but also from combining it with those favoring "Discredited and Controversial", as well as from some "Neither" votes that showed openness to the term if it's attributed. I would also like to say that the current wording received almost no support. With people initially supporting it mostly switching their vote to neither.

On the matter of source relevance, while 2022 sources remain valuable, it's crucial to highlight the potentially greater relevance of 2023 sources. Given the dynamic nature of many topics, these newer sources may present more current perspectives, which could shape the discussion in a more up-to-date manner. One of the overall issues with the article is it's reliance on pre-2020 sourcing, most of which coming out late 2017 to early 2018 when it was first being released. Now that more recent sources have had a chance to analysis the situation as a whole I those sources should be given more weight.

The importance of adhering to WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:DUE can't be overstated. The term "discredited", when supported robustly by reliable sources, aligns well with WP:DUE. Furthermore, attributing the term ensures that we're not contravening WP:WIKIVOICE.

Considering the feedback from the "Neither" camp, it's worth noting their lack of a clear, actionable alternative. This might necessitate a different weighing when assessing the overall consensus.

In sum, it seems there might be a stronger inclination towards the term "Discredited", particularly if attributed, than the closure suggests. But beyond that, even if not discredited, at least consensus against the current version. I do also want to close by reiterating that I appreciate you taking the time to close and give such a thorough explanation. PackMecEng (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

PackMecEng, that's no problem and no need to apologize.

First, I agree with you that the current wording received almost no support. However, per WP:NOCONSENSUS, in event of lack of support for a change in the status quo "the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal". Second, I'm cautiously inclined to agree that Discredited with Attribution (as opposed to Discredited in WV) probably represents the consensus. But it wasn't clear and obvious to me as many of the Neither !votes indicating their support for D-with-A were inscrutable and opaque, leaving enough ambiguity in my mind to tip it into No Consensus. My suggestion is to run a new RfC in which Discredited in WV and Discredited with Attribution are each presented as distinct options (in addition to Controversial and whatever else) with the understanding that editors should !vote for any or all options they would support.

Alternatively, I will certainly not object or be offended in any way if you request a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. This was so narrowly on the edge that additional insight might be beneficial. Chetsford (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I think I will take a little time to consider that before doing anything. Thanks for the input! PackMecEng (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Appeal for deleted page

Hello, my page has recently been deleted and I'd like to make an appeal for it. My page was rejected due to lack of notability, however I'd like to prove why it is indeed notable. On the talk page of my draft I provided the three most relevant references, but I've been advised to also contact you personally in order to make this appeal. The three sources I've listed are notorious music magazines, where my subject Paul Jones gets featured as a guitarist in the bands Elastica and Linoleum. Both bands have Wikipedia pages where Jones is also mentioned. Since the music magazines I cited are printed and published in the late nineties / early two-thousands, I would like to share with you this drive where I scanned the respective magazines for you to see. In them, Jones is featured at large as a key member in the bands, there are direct quotes from him as well as pictures of him. Although my main sources refer to Jones as a guitarist involved in the Britpop movement of the noughties, he is still active and largely successful in the British music industry as an A&R manager for Rough Trade Records. This is why I believe his extensive career in music since 1994 is worthy of being published on Wikipedia, and his achievements as both a guitarist and an A&R manager prove its notability and relevance in the music industry. I chose to focus my sources on Jones' career as a guitarist, as they are the most notable; however, if you wish to see proof of his notability also as an A&R manager I am happy to provide separate sources for that as well.

Hereby the three sources:

1) Molenda, Michael (December 2000). "'The Art of Noise'". Guitar Player Magazine. p. 67-70

2) Jennings, David (April 1996). "'Floored Genius'". Melody Maker.

3) Disorder Magazine (July 2000). "Elastica - Their @rse, Our Place". p. 25–27

As I mentioned, these magazines are scanned in the drive linked above. Please consider my appeal and consider publishing this page. If you need any more information or proof, please let me know and I will be happy to send it or adjust my draft accordingly.

Best, ingridach Ingridach (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ingridach - thank you for your comprehensive message as well as providing scans of the articles in question.

Two of the articles you cite are long-form interviews with the subject of the article itself. As such — while they may be useful in citing uncontroversial, biographical information or providing attributed sourcing — they generally don't offer enough editorially independent content to establish WP:N. Though not a policy, the essay WP:INTERVIEW explains this more fully. The third article appears to be a mere glancing mention of Jones within the context of an album review for Linoleum and doesn't, therefore, contribute to WP:SIGCOV of the subject.

"Both bands have Wikipedia pages where Jones is also mentioned." While this can often be an indicator someone is potentially notable, generally interpersonal or organizational relationships do not, themselves, confer notability.

Having said all that, I'm inclined to believe that Jones is notable and his notability meets our requirements for a WP article. However, the Articles for Creation reviewing standards require that "Articles that will probably not survive [a deletion discussion] should be declined." and precludes reviewers from approving articles based on a casual suspicion that the subject is probably notable in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. The sources, as they currently exist, aren't sufficient to suggest that the article (IMO) will be likely to survive a deletion discussion were it approved. The fact that, after multiple attempts, no such sources can be found, reinforces this fact for me in that !voters will be unlikely to redeem it on the basis of WP:BEFORE.

To clarify, your article draft has not been deleted so, if this situation changes, you can always resubmit it at any time. Chetsford (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol newsletter

Hello Chetsford,

New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)