Talk:KB Brookins

Why does this page keep getting declined

There are comparable wikipedia pages with less sources that are currently published on wikipedia, and the sources listed on this page are all independent from the author. I have spoken to someone on live chat who says that the sources don't establish notability, but I am quite confused as to what sources do since I've looked at other published wikipedia pages that have less sources that establish notability than this one.

It is quite frustrating to have nowhere to go; just declines on this page that multiple people have worked on. Please explain. Fuzzyrocket (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Fuzzyrocket first, do you have any affiliation with KB Brookins (read WP:COI) and do you know who you were speaking with at IRC? I reviewed this months ago and since then the draft has been updated. To help me, I need you point to the three (and only three) sources that meet all four criteria noted in the declines: reliable (has editorial oversight, substantial history of fact-checking, etc.), independent (not affiliated with Brookins and does not rely on what Brookins or anyone affiliated with Brookins says or has written, this includes interviews), secondary and provides in-depth coverage about Brookins. See also WP:42. You can just give the footnote numbers. S0091 (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

No, I am not affiliated. 3 sources that I feel meet the criteria: source 1, source 11, source 27. Brookins is also mentioned on the Stonewall Book Awards' wikipedia page here: Stonewall Book Award. Fuzzyrocket (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

1 and 11 are primary sources which are fine to use for verifiability but do not establish notability, and 27 is student media so weak for establishing notability. The last reviewer noted they could not tell the wheat from the chaff and I agree. In a few places there is CITATIONOVERKILL (read that) with many being poor sources, such as blogs. student newspapers and/or other websites that have no evidence of editorial oversight and journalistic standards. Also, you want to use sources that has a by-line with a named author and that author generally should be staff rather than a contributor (if the publication does not have listed staff, that is clue it is not a good source). The content within the source needs to contain the authors own research, analysis, opinion, etc. not only relying on what the subject says or has written. Also the best sources have a wide audience and are outside of the subject's local area. For the awards, you only want to list the most notable which generally means the award is covered in a Wikipedia article. S0091 (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

okay I am trying to work on it but someone else is editing at the same time as me/just wiped an hour worth of edits I did. Fuzzyrocket (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, why am I not allowed to delete submission declines? I want to eventually move this to article and can't do that with all these decline banners and comments. Fuzzyrocket (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I have now cleaned up citation overkill issues and revised both the works and awards sections to only be reflective of works/awards that are most notable. I've also deleted many of the sources that are too local, student media, or primary.

Can you please let me know what else this page needs to move past the continuous declines? Fuzzyrocket (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The overall style and layout is much better! I am still not sure they meet notability but you are welcome to move it to mainspace (Article space) and see what happens. Worst case scenario is someone (like an WP:NPP reviewer) nominates it for deletion. I think all the AfC stuff is automatically removed when a draft is moved leaving a different tag stating it is an AfC submission moved to mainspace but you can just remove that (or anything else leftover) after the move. S0091 (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

ok. thank you for your help! Fuzzyrocket (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)