User talk:Nonsenseferret/Archive 3

article declined

Hi Nonsenseferret,

My article was declined. Message:

Comment: You must provide significant independent coverage about the gentleman from WP:RS of this is to go forward. We need to establish and prove his notability. Please read and understand Wikipedia:Notability (music) and work to create an article that complies with it. At present this is far from being an acceptable article. IT needs formatting and some meat in it rather than lists of 'stuiff'. Fiddle Faddle 13:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

My position: Since submitting the last time, I checked exactly that: All references are now backed up by http://www.imdb.com/find?q=martin+haene&s=all which in my opinion is a very reliable source.

I do not understand what you mean by further formatting and significant independent coverage.

Thanks for your help & greetings,

FrS FrS (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Sandro, firstly thanks for making an effort to contribute to wikipedia. I appreciate that there is a steep learning curve for new editors, but hopefully if you persevere you will find it fun and rewarding. Now a word or two on your draft article which was declined recently. I understand you have included references to imdb and the musicians website. Unfortunately all references which are included to verify the content added must be what wikipedia would consider to be a reliable and independent published source. Imdb does not meet those requirements because, like wikipedia, all the information is submitted by anyone and there is no editorial oversight. The website of the subject is also not independent, for example I could create a website which boldly asserted that I was the greatest ferret in the history of mankind, but without a degree of independent oversight, that would not be a credible claim. What you would need to find would be published sources such as well known music magazines or national newspapers or similar which provide articles or content about the subject of your article, and use that published information to construct your draft article. There are many interesting subjects which unfortunately no reliable source has yet published information about and thus it cannot be included in wikipedia. If there aren't a handful of significant (ie more than a passing mention) examples of coverage about the subject of your article in independent sources, then you may at this stage not be able to meet the necessary guidelines. Of course in the future if more coverage does become available there would be no problem in revisiting the subject and reworking your draft. I hope you will find these comments to give you a slightly better idea of what is required, of course come back to me if not. Best regards, --_nonsense ferret 14:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nonsenseferret,

Thank you very much for your help. Would providing the accepted official PRS-Sheets (Royalty-Statements with author's rights)enough - in case I would be able to get them? After all we're talking about a few major hollywood movies, so he can't be a nobody. I could try to get copies of those sheets and email them?

Thanks again and greetings,

FrS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandro.friedrich (talk • contribs)

What you are trying to establish is that the subject, a musician, is notable. Now 'notable' for wikipedia purposes means really whether people have widely taken note of a subject, as demonstrated by the extent of the coverage found in independent reliable sources. It is I'm afraid not enough to merely try to prove that someone had a performance in a movie, what is important is to show that the performance they gave was commented on widely in independent reliable sources. So if there were magazine articles talking about the work of the musician and in particular talking about how significant their work was to the success of the film, then that is something that you would probably expect to see in a wikipedia article about that person. To be clear, the mere fact of working on a particular film is not in itself any sort of qualification for an article here, only if their contribution to the film was widely commented upon. You can of course imagine that this would certainly be the case for lead actors upon whose acting performance the whole success of the film will stand or fall. Such performances are therefore widely commented upon, and the minutiae of the actors biographical details commented upon in multiple sources. It is this independent commentary about their life that qualifies them rather than the fact of being involved with any particular film. So in summary no, those sources you suggest would not be helpful in constructing the article. I hope this makes sense. --_nonsense ferret 14:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nonsenseferret,

Thank you for your previous explanation.

I think to some degree there is an explanation needed: This person works a lot in the field of licensed music, which is something that is unknown to the general public, simply because it's not of interest for the consumer. However, licensed music is an important field within the music and film industry, and for people involved in this industry it certainly has a meaning if a person indeed has music in major hollywood movies and well-known TV-series.

To give you evidence I scanned an article about this composer that has been published by cinema musica, a highly respected magazin for film music from germany (http://www.cinemamusica.de/)

http://Moonsnake.ch/PDF/cinema musica.pdf

Here are two wikipedia articles of people who in my opinion have a comparable background:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Christiansen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Wendler

Best,

Sandro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandro.friedrich (talk • contribs) 14:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Sandro, profuse apologies for the inordinate delay in replying to you. If there are multiple examples of publications about the composer showing there is widespread interest in the details of his biography and career, then that is the sort of thing that would support a claim to notability. If as you say, it is not of interest to the consumer or wider population then that is more or less pointing in the direction of non-notability. Since multiple sources are required, the single article provided above would not in itself support a claim to notability, but may well be helpful if you can point to a few more such examples. I cannot guarantee I will be around to answer any follow up queries promptly due to life circumstances, but you are of course welcome to post here. If you wish to guarantee a fast response however, I would encourage you to also consider the helpdesk at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk which is manned by a number of experienced editors. --_nonsense ferret 23:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal re June BED

There is a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/June_2014_Backlog_Elimination_Drive#We_need_a_conclusion that merits your consideration Fiddle Faddle 16:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Palam Kalyanasundaram

Thank you for keeping a copy of that talk page with all our research! You suspected it would come in handy, and it certainly did. Even the author of the new article accepted the evidence and now seems reconciled to deletion. Well done. I suspect that, like me, you kept the redlink on your watchlist, so that you knew as soon as someone recreated the article.

I wonder if you might want to add the talk page of the current article as an appendix to your record. The new discussion does supply a powerful new link, in which a major Indian publication tries and fails to confirm one of the reports about Kalyanasundaram, and openly wonders if it is true or not. I made a offline copy of that discussion, in case it disappears before you get there. --MelanieN (talk) 11:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

As you suggested, I copied the talk page of the deleted article to here: User talk:4letheia/Palam Kalyanasundaram-2. Thanks for having this available, and I'll count on you to drag it out the NEXT time someone creates an article about this guy. (I thought the author took it very well; I almost feel like someone telling a kid there is no Santa Claus, when I expose the lack of evidence for the hero worship of this man.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Angus Macleod (journalist)

added a link pointing to The Sunday Mail

Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class

added a link pointing to Owen Jones

Mary Featherstonhaugh Frampton

added a link pointing to Speaker of the House of Commons

The Establishment: And how they get away with it

added a link pointing to Owen Jones

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gordon Manzie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stenhouse. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Ron Randell

Hi...I dont have much time for WP at present but am perplexed by another editor on the Ron Randell page plus the "edit summary removed" comment. Notice you have been there - any perspectives? Cheers Nickm57 (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there was a discussion about it at #wikipedia-en-help. It was one of those BLP due weight things. There was a name removed by a user on behalf of a family affected, more info about that situation than they were comfortable was exposed in the edit summary they made, and that was removed by admin as courtesy. There is the open question of whether the removed name should or shouldn't be on that page, personally, I won't rush to put it back, as it was only mentioned in one minor byline and looks pretty peripheral to the subject of the article. Other people may differ, but I really can't see a terribly strong reason for pushing it. --_nonsense ferret 23:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

A difficulty though when the person's name is in the public record and online already. Anyway, I get it - ThanksNickm57 (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Eric Roberts

Thank you for your comments.

I am really just trying to get information with verified sources out into the public domain, for others to take forward.

You will see I have added dates for his son Maxwell. I do not know whether that is honouring Maxwell Knight or pure coincidence, but if is honouring Knight then it moves the date of their connection back from 1940 to 1936. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.202.26 (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)