User talk:Science and such

This is Science and such's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Society for the Protection of Underground Networks has been accepted[edit]

Society for the Protection of Underground Networks, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Merlin Sheldrake (December 7)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Ldm1954 were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Unfortunately the approach taken since the first review has been to add unsourced material which is not notable. This does not help. For instance, being a research associate is certainly not notable.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Merlin Sheldrake and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ldm1954 (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Science and such! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Ldm1954 (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Merlin Sheldrake has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Merlin Sheldrake. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Theroadislong,

Thank you, I will take a look now. Science and such (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noted - you are referring to the links to Flora Fauna Funga (FFF) and the Kiers lab?

I will remove them.

I was hoping that you would be willing to comment on the issue of Notability that is currently being discussed. Science and such (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Merlin Sheldrake has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Merlin Sheldrake. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Merlin Sheldrake has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Merlin Sheldrake. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi Theroadislong,

Thank you.

I will take a look.

Does your handle refer to the road of getting an article in shape?

)

Science and such (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Science and such. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DoubleGrazing,

Thank you for your response.

I am familiar with the COI guidelines.

So, I assume that your question is: why do you care so much about this topic?

The answer is that I find it extremely surprising that this subject (person) has been rejected several times (I saw there is an earlier draft - which is why it occurred to me to contribute).

It feels to me like some sort of odd gate-keeping by the reviewer. Of course there is quite a bit of room for improvement in the article that I submitted, and of course I appreciate that people are willing to explain things to me. For example, I did not know about not linking to external sites in the text, and I failed to make a proper distinction between pieces written by the subject of the article, and pieces written about them.

When I say it feels odd to me, I am referring to the objection on notability grounds. For example, the reviewer wrote:

"He has one book, but that by itself is not enough." The reviewer links to their own wikipedia page, which does not list any books - "just" a series of articles. I do not see anything of "notability" on the reviewer's own wikipedia page, if that is what is under discussion, it is simply an inventory of their career and shows that they attended all the same institutions as the subject of the draft article and are from the same place.

In this case, the subject of the draft article also has a series of article publications in peer-reviewed journals. The subject of the draft article is also the subject of chapters in other books, by Robert McFarlane's Underland, for example, which I assume is notable(?)

Especially, I do not understand why the reviewer would object to there only being "one book" - when that book is an international bestseller - having sold hundreds of thousands (?) of copies and translated into multiple languages. The author could have written hundreds of books that nobody has read.

In this case, the person who is the subject of the draft article has literally put the subject under discussion on the map, and been written about in just about every major publication involved with popular culture or current science affairs. I simply fail to see why this is not notable. This person has become a type of spokesperson to the entire world on a subject which deeply interests me. I can hardly subscribe to a podcast or reading list on related subjects without their name coming up.

If you simply type their name into any search engine, you will see this for yourself.

I would be grateful if you can help me to understand this.

Kind regards, and thank you for your time, etc. Science and such (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleGrazing - I hope you are enjoying your Friday

PS _ I have delved into the Articles for Deletion piece:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Merlin_Sheldrake

and read the guidelines here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals

From my reading, this only reaffirms my opinion.

I am referring to:

Such a person is notable if:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or

The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

In particular, I find this criteria fulfilled:

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);

because this person has created a well-known work (a book)

and their work has been the subject of, for example, the new album by Björk and collection by Iris van Herpen.

and I understand that this person is cited by their peers here:

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Merlin+Sheldrake

again - please tell me what I am missing?

Thank you Science and such (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think notability, of any flavour, is borderline at best. I'm not saying the person isn't notable, but nor am I saying they definitely are. Our job as AfC reviewers is to assess whether the draft would have 50:50 or better chance surviving a hypothetical AfD discussion. I honestly can't tell, this one could turn into quite a heated debate. (And in that context, the earlier AfD counts against this somewhat, given that there were no particularly strong 'keep' arguments; it was mostly a toss between 'delete' and 'redirect'.)

Your first, strategic decision will be what sort of notability you wish to assert. The general WP:GNG notability is the easiest one to establish, if the sources are there, but in this case they are, again, borderline. If you can find more and better sources that undeniably satisfy the GNG standard, please do add them. If you can clearly demonstrate GNG compliance, nobody will argue with that.

The burden of proof for other types of notability (WP:AUTHOR / WP:CREATIVE, etc.) is somewhat higher, in my experience higher than most draft authors tend to assume, and the arguments tend to be more subjective and ambiguous. Case in point: I've read what you've said, above, but I'm not entirely convinced.

Having said all that, and given the borderline nature of this draft, I can of course err on the generous side and accept the draft, but in that case I would not patrol it myself, I would leave it to another reviewer from the New Page Patrol to run the ruler over it, and they may either send it back to drafts, or initiate deletion proceedings. You need to be aware that there is a risk with publishing articles that are found to be non-notable, in the sense that this will make it that much more difficult to get the article accepted the next time around. What I'm saying is, if I accept this now, that a) isn't the end of the matter, and b) may actually end up hurting, rather than aiding, the case. Let me know if that's a risk you're willing to take? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DoubleGrazing,

Thank you so much for your rapid response and generosity - in explaining - and providing me with documentation links - so that I may research. I need to familiarise myself with the acronyms and precedents.

Thank you also for giving me choices etc. Again you are generous in your workflow.

Based on what you have shared with me, I am going to roll up my sleeves and do some in-depth reading, in order to determine what I myself believe/ burden of proof. I see that you have been involved since 2006 (respect). Therefore I will take your advice, and confirm that there is demonstrable notability, before proceeding.

This also in light of the previous discussion.

Enjoy your weekend. If I may test your patience, I will be in touch again, once I have put the hours in.

I especially appreciate that you outline where I may put in the work:

If you can find more and better sources that undeniably satisfy the GNG standard, please do add them. If you can clearly demonstrate GNG compliance, nobody will argue with that.

It is always helpful to have guidelines and best practices (I work in software myself).

Enjoy your weekend

Kind regards, Science and such (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DoubleGrazing,

I hope you are enjoying your weekend.

It took longer than I thought, but I had some time to work on the article.

I have updated the article (draft) extensively, along the criteria that you linked me to, in terms of Notability, both for General and Author

I made two entries on the Talk page - one to address all the points made by the reviewer and one to demonstrate the case for Notability:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Merlin_Sheldrake

I have been reading numerous pieces about article development and see the advice to ask wikipedians for input.

Are you willing to take a look? In your last answer you stated that you were on the fence.

If you see the list of references that I added - do you see more validity in the case that this is a notable article subject?

Thank you Science and such (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS - there is a lot of material which has been added.

To clarify: I have focused my efforts on demonstrating the notability of the subject of the article (a person) separately from the subject of a book they wrote (where their current article redirects).

Based on your feedback, I have concentrated my effort in listing and referencing their Notability separately in terms of profiles, interviews, radio and podcast appearances, an IMAX film, etc. Science and such (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse![edit]

Hello! Science and such, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz,

Thank you very much - yes please.

Teahouse is an ongoing discussion /forum I take it? Science and such (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS - so, for example, to discuss questions around the rejection of an article, and request feedback? Science and such (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Merlin Sheldrake has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Merlin Sheldrake. Thanks! Tagishsimon (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tagishsimon

Appreciated - i am incorporating your comments

regarding the ref bomb - i should note - as I commented on TALK page - the idea is not to include those in an article - it is to demonstrate notability. The long list of references are intended as a placeholder - not for "publication"

Where is the best place to list references for this purpose? Science and such (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tagishsimon

Sorry - one more question.

You wrote: "None of 52-63 specify that his book is well known."

regarding Sheldrake, however these are the "most prestigious" book review markets that I know - NYT, TLS, Wall Street, etc; NYT Bestseller, etc. Translated into numerous languages - hundreds of thousands of copies (?) sold.

I think that I do not understand what you mean -

Can you please give an example of what does demonstrate that a book is well-known?

Thank you for your time. Science and such (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]