Anerdw
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
Your thread has been archived
edit
|
Hello Anerdw! The thread you created at the Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
See also the help page about the archival process.
The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing |
What does that even mean?
editHi. Sorry if this comes across a little rude, I'm going through a lot right now and having this submission declined so many times is really taking a toll.
I have over 20 sources, and at least half of them are about Shaw and are not written by her or her organization. Some are written by completely seperate writers and do not include interviews. I just don't understand how not a single one of those sources qualifies as "reliable and secondary".
I have seen many a Wikipedia Article with a single source which is a poorly written foreign interview with the person the Article is about. And yet it goes through and never gets improved.
I'm improving my article multiple times a day and yet, seemingly because of the controversial topic, it never goes through. There are hundreds of sources on Shaw all across and off the internet, and yet no reviewer will give me a clear answer about what I am looking for in terms of a source.
At very least tell me why in the world those articles with the one source get through and my article, which is much better written, very thorough, and has 20 sources including interviews, does not.
Once again, I apologize if this came off rude. Eagerly awaiting answers, Historybuff3504. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historybuff3504 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for reaching out. I wanted to start by saying thanks for your contributions. I’m sure it took a lot of effort to write the article, and I don’t want you to think the article was rejected out of spite or bias or anything like that. Which sources specifically do you think are reliable and secondary? I’m more than happy to explain my reasoning. Anerdw (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Well, specifically I was thinking about the interviews and some of the Live Action News articles. The interviews involve Shaw but as mentioned I have seen many accepted articles that have only one source, which is just an interview with the person the article is about. So, by comparison, just one interview should have been enough.
- Additionally, while one or two of the Live Action News articles are written by Shaw, most of them are written by others about Shaw and some of them were written not only before Shaw wrote for Live Action but before Shaw gained any sort of fame or notoriety. I just don't understand why none of these are considered secondary or reliable.
- It seems that between all of these, it should have gone through several times over. Either that, or these articles that I'm talking about with 1 obstensibly irreliable source should not have gone through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historybuff3504 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- You hit it on the head - articles with one bad source should not have gone through. Check out WP:DEL for potential courses of action if you see an article like that, including (but not limited to) deletion.
- In general, "other stuff exists" is an argument that should be applied with caution. Wikipedia is a very dynamic project, and bad things make it into the encyclopedia all the time. It's usually better to base decisions on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which are listed at WP:POLICYLIST, than to base them on the content of other articles. (In this case, those policies are mainly WP:Notability and WP:NPERSON.) See WP:OSE and WP:OTHERSTUFFGENERAL for certain editors' thoughts on this sort of argument.
- I'll go through the Live Action News sources on by one. If you haven't yet, give WP:Notability (particularly the general notability guidelines) and WP:NPERSON a once-over before you continue; it'll give you a better idea of the kind of analysis I'm doing. Some of these articles are very obviously not proof of Shaw's notability - I'm including those for completeness, not as an insult to your intelligence.
- "Tori was haunted..." seems to be entirely based on an interview in which Shaw discussed her life. That means it's primary and not independent.
- "New 'Lifemark' movie..." is by Shaw and about her life, so it's primary and not independent.
- "One chose abortion..." is about the same as "Tori was haunted..." - an interview with Shaw about her own life.
- https://www.liveaction.org isn't significant coverage since it doesn't mention Shaw.
- Tori Shaw's author page is an author page with no content, so it's not significant coverage.
- "Post-abortion ministry founder..." is by Shaw and about her life, so it's primary and not independent.
- I strongly encourage you to keep trying to improve the article, using the notability guidelines as a driving principle.
- P.S.: Make sure to sign your talk page comments with
~~~~. The bot's doing it for you, but it's better if you do it yourself. - Anerdw (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
- It seems that between all of these, it should have gone through several times over. Either that, or these articles that I'm talking about with 1 obstensibly irreliable source should not have gone through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historybuff3504 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Not Trouted
editSee the Karen Attiah article Talk section, for a reply to your earlier post. 98.223.85.159 (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Trouted
edit
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
You have been trouted for: Pie
Accidental (presumably) user talk page move
editYou moved User:Salmamohamed26 to Draft:Mister Window, which was fine. However, you also moved the corresponding talk page User talk:Salmamohamed26 to Draft talk:Mister Window, which was not fine. I've moved it back, but always make sure when making this kind of move to uncheck the "Move associated talk page" box. It's an easy mistake to make, and I have done the same myself, more than once. It would be better if the software left that box unchecked by default if the page being moved is a user page, but unfortunately it doesn't. JBW (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)