M4V3R1CK32

UGRC rejection

Hello M4V3R1CK32, I'd like to debate your rejection reasons. The repeated declines are more indicative of my first time submission errors much more than sufficient notability. The new sources do increase notability and they mention the agency name, AGRC, which the article describes the name change in 2021.

I would appreciate if you would ignore the repeated rejections since they are from my misguided journey into wikipedia and take a fresh look at the submission knowing that AGRC was the original name which make the press releases much more relevant. Icsteveoh (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll do my best to respond to you with kindness, since I can appreciate the challenges of getting started on Wikipedia.

First of all, your edit history indicates your account has been made for a single purpose, to create an article about the UGRC. Please carefully review our rules for editors with a conflict of interest (a simplified version is also available). Long story short, whether you're personally involved with the UGRC and want to do this for the organization you work for or are being paid by the UGRC directly to try to get an article created, you must dislose your conflict of interest (COI). Please review that policy, and make any appropriate disclosures. If you do have a COI and do not disclose it, that is a violation of Wikipedia's Terms of Use.

Secondly, I'd suggest you take a look at the general notability guidelines and notability guidelines for organizations. It is plain that the drafts you have submitted do not demonstrate the UGRC meets the notability guidelines.

On to "debating" my reasons for rejection. There isn't really anything to debate. Repeated submissions have shown time and again that the UGRC/AGRC is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. You say it's more an issues of first-time submission errors, but it's actually an issue of not taking the time to understand and learn Wikipedia's rules for creating articles. The bar for an article to be created is demonstrated notability, and you show notability by showing third-party sources discuss the topic of interest in depth. Your drafts don't do that. The problem boils down to sourcing.

You have 19 sources in your draft. Of those 19, 14 are primary sources, either press releases (Deseret News article 1, and article 2) or are from the Utah government or ESRI. Independent sources are required to demonstrate notability, and as stated by the notability guidelines, "advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." Right off the bat, the sourcing doesn't demonstrate the subject is notable at first glance.

For the five remaining sources, you say they mention the AGRC and make the press releases more relevant. First, the relevancy of the press releases was never in question, it is the fact that they are press releases that is the problem. As stated in the preceding paragraph, press releases do not contribute to a subject's notability.

Regarding the mentions of the AGRC/UGRC, that is also not enough to demonstrate notability. Drafts must show significant coverage, that is, they must show that the subject has been the focus of a independent source, not just mentioned in passing. For the five sources not press releases:

• KSL Only passing mention of the words of the director of the AGRC: "said Bert Granberg, director of Utah's Automated Geographic Reference Center."
  • This article is not about the AGRC and does not demonstrate significant coverage or contribute to notability.
• Deseret News Only passing mention again: "Last week Whittaker received some help from a crew with the Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center. Whittaker teamed up with geographer Rick Kelson to map the old Bullion-Cottonwood Loop, a rugged mining and logging road that winds past popular Miner's Park to spacious vistas overlooking Marysvale."
  • I might be inclined to be generous and try to pull together a few disparate details in the article, but doing so runs into problems of the synthesis and original research, which is a policy violation.
• KSL Absolutely no mention anywhere of the UGRC or AGRC in the article body.
  • Image credits to the AGRC do not contribute in any way to notability.
• ABC 4 Passing mention: "The site was created in partnership with the Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center and the Unclaimed Property Division. Residents can use the tool to search unclaimed property data by census tract, county, senate district and house district."
  • This article is not about the AGRC and does not demonstrate significant coverage or contribute to notability.
• Deseret News Passing mention: "Partners in the program include GOED, Rocky Mountain Power, GIS Planning Inc. and the Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center."
  • This article is not about the AGRC and does not demonstrate significant coverage or contribute to notability.

So you've got maybe one independent source that kind of shows notability. The rest plainly don't. That is the issue here, and searches for the UGRC/AGRC don't turn up the kind of sources we need to show notability. Repeated submissions have not included sources that show the subject is notable, and in fact show the opposite, hence the rejection of this draft.

I know that's disappointing, but hopefully you find this response somewhat informative. Cheers. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in AfC November 2023 Backlog Drive

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar
		Thank you for your participation in the Articles for Creation's November 2023 Backlog Drive! You made a total of 149 reviews, for a total of 278 points. – robertsky (talk) 06:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

– robertsky (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

– robertsky (talk) 06:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Vikramadity Prakash

I see that you - if I get the links right - rejected the entry for Vikramaditya Prakash. (architectural historian teaching at Washington Univ. in Seattle). I have reworked his page to conform to the other similar scholars. It was rejected because of not being notable enough. This is wrong, if I may say so. He coauthored a textbook that is used throughout the US. has had projects featured at the recent Venice Biennale, is the host of an important podcast 'architecturetalk' that features important intellectuals in the community etc. Was named Distinguished Professor for his lifetime career achievements by the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSCA) in their 2020 Architectural Education Awards. There are many other architectural historians in the wiki page that have done little by comparison. So I would like to get a revisit on this, Many thanks for your time. Brosi (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Brosi,

I am the one who rejected your draft. I can understand feeling passionate about a topic and wanting to see it discussed in an article on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, that isn't always possible for a variety of reasons. Those reasons have to do with what the Wikipedia has deemed "notability" (a word with a different standard applied to it on this platform than the world at large) and are laid out in WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:NBIO. I would highly suugest that you read these closely.

Sourcing dictates if a topic is notable, and specifically third-party, independent sourcing. Wikipedia is a collection of what others write about a subject, not what the subject writes about themselves. There is one independent source in your draft (The American Scholar) and Prakash is not the subject of that story, the podcast is. Sources published by the subject of the article, the institution they work for, or any side research groups they are a part are considered primary sources. Primary sources are by their nature not third-party, nor are they independent, and as such they do not contribute to notability. In each draft you've submitted, Prakash's own writings have been the supermajority of sources used. This does not satisfy this requirement.

In looking at notability guidleines for academics, it's not clear that Prakash clears any of those specific guidelines. The demonstration of significance of Prakash's contributions to architecture needed to pass Criterion 1 (the criterion Prakash is most likely to pass) is not present in the draft or sources, because, again, demonstrating significance requires third-party (secondary) sourcing.

Regarding the changes you've made to the draft since the rejection, I think you've done a good job cleaning up the tone of it and making it read more like an encyclopedia article than a CV. But the sourcing remains a significant problem, and because of that my stance on rejecting the draft has not changed.

I also want to address some comments you made on Netherzone's Talk page. You mentioned articles about other academics in this field that already existed, and that Prakash is more notable than they are. The discussion of Prakash clearing the notability bar has nothing to do with other articles. If you feel so strongly that articles about other architecture historians do not meet the guidelines I've mentioned here, I'd encourage you to go to WP:AFD and learn more about how to get them deleted.

I'd also encourage you to re-read the conflict of interest guidelines. The conversation on Netherzone's page leads me to believe you are closer to Prakash than you've tried to make it appear. A conflict of interest can be personal as well financial, but the rules for editing about topics with which you have a conflict of interest remain the same.

I've said all I intend to say about this draft. If you wish to revisit it in the future, I would suggest going to the Teahouse for help. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time top respond and clarify. I am certainly not going to recommend deletion. Being someone who circulates in the field it seems is a negative instead of a positive. I have made several entries - many years ago - when Wikipedia just started and certainly know what objectivity means, and now want to return to those efforts since I have more time. I know of several scholars who are deserving of wiki sites, but now feel like the hill is just too steep to climb. Brosi (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

so for example Mary McLeod (academic) has written about 2 articles and has wiki site - no major grants, no awards and the like apart from a hand full of small interview. B ut the review board was convinced. I could not find out who did her entry or when though.... at any rate. So if she passes, there is hope for Prakash. Brosi (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Let me state again: neither the existence of other articles nor their perceived quality has any bearing on if your draft should be accepted. Each draft must be able to stand on its own merits.

I am not interested in further debate about this, but you piqued my curiosity. Here's why Mary McLeod qualifies: she is a a fellow in the Society of Architectural Historians. The deletion discussion for her article goes over that.

During the discussion, the community determined that being a fellow in that society meets Criterion #3 of the notability guidelines for academics.

I have no more to say about this. Good day. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks very much for all of your subsequent work on the article Ed Bradley, after my initial research project and expansion. A pleasant surprise, and much appreciated!!! Princessa Unicorn (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)