User talk:82.29.125.156

May 2016[edit]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you. BethNaught (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your submission at Articles for creation: A Case for Murder: Brittany Murphy Files (August 11)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tokyogirl79 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The sources just aren't enough to establish notability here. Some of them only mention the book in passing, making them WP:TRIVIAL sources that cannot establish notability and some aren't in places that Wikipedia would consider reliable. Here's a rundown:

IMDb. This is not considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia because anyone can edit the site and it's actually not hard to get on IMDb. It can't give notability and it shouldn't even be used as a source at all on here.
Publisher page. This is a WP:PRIMARY source, so it cannot establish notability. Primary sources are anything that is released by the author or anyone affiliated with him. These types can be used to back up basic details, but should only be used sparingly.
Radar. Radar can be a RS, however the problem here is that this could be seen as a relatively brief article since it's more of a slideshow with some captions than an in-depth article. While the book is mentioned in the headline there really isn't that big of an emphasis on the book itself. Even if we consider this a source that could give notability, it's a fairly shaky one and not really the type that you want deciding notability because it's so easily challenged.
The Hollywood Gossip. This looks to be a blog-type "tell all" tabloid type of website, so it's questionable whether or not this would actually be a RS at all. It's also an interview, which tends to be depreciated by a lot of people who see it as a primary source. I don't necessarily agree with that, but this isn't the strongest source. The Mediavine site doesn't make it feel much stronger, given that their site gives off the strong impression that bloggers/sites in their network will write articles as part of a marketing package. I'll run it by WP:RS/N, but I'm inclined to see it as unreliable.
IB Times. This newspaper can be a RS, however this source isn't really about the book. It mentions it, but the main focus is on Murphy herself. What you need are sources that focus on the book and don't just mention it as an afterthought. Even if it looks like they're pulling on claims made in the book, the book still needs to be the main focus of the piece. Being a source for something doesn't automatically make something notable, especially if the work is being used as a source for things that could be considered "tabloid fodder" by the mainstream populace. Basically, the only times that being used as a source could potentially give notability is if the work is repetitively used as a source for serious academic work that's published through reputable scholarly journals and university type publishers.
Press Reader. This is good and this is exactly the type of source you want to find more of for the article. While yes, Murphy is of course a big focus of the news article, you'll notice that the article keeps referring back to the author and the book throughout the piece through things like "the author claims" and "in the book".
YouTube videos. These are considered to be self-published sources as they're videos by a random YouTuber. These are rarely considered to be reliable sources because most YT people have little to no editorial oversight and even fewer will be cited as an authority by reliable sources (ie, major newspapers and academic sources), which is what they'd need to be considered a RS. The rare exceptions to this are usually the YT channels of news programs and websites that are already considered RS in their written formats, as well as notable academics that have been so thoroughly vetted that they're usually notable people in and of themselves. GeekenDorx isn't one of those people who would be considered an exception to the SPS rule. This doesn't mean that he's not an entertaining person or that he might not be popular, just that the bar for SPS to be considered reliable is insanely high.

This leaves us with one good source and two questionable ones. I'm leaning towards the questionable ones being non-usable for notability giving purposes because they're so shaky. When accepting articles I always ask if the sources would be enough to save it from deletion if it was moved to the mainspace, but I don't see where the available coverage would be enough to establish notability per NBOOK here.

It also doesn't really help that you've written the media section in a way that actually comes across as a little promotional. We rarely have a publicity/media/reception section set up in this fashion for this very reason. Even if the sources were all usable for notability giving purposes, I don't see where the specific quotes are really that noteworthy to be included, given that these are pretty routine statements about any given tell all book - and many of the phrases here are the type that is typically given out in a press releases to promote the work. What you need, if you wanted to establish that the book is controversial, are things like reviews from RS that specifically discuss the book as a controversial work and articles that go into a lot of depth about the book and why it could be controversial. I don't see where the sourcing in the article really firmly establishes this to where it merits a long section of quotes like you have here.

Offhand I don't see where this book as a whole would be notable, which is honestly a bit par for the course for most true crime or tell all works. It's incredibly difficult for most books to pass NBOOK, to the point where even many mainstream works tend to fail notability guidelines. It's frustrating and I'm one of several people who have tried to work some common sense into the NBOOK policy (ie, if it's held in over 200-300 libraries, that should be seen as a sign of notability), but it's extremely slow going.

My recommendation would be to work on a page for the book series as a whole, rather than the individual works. It's almost always easier to do it this way, although I must note that this means that the series will still need to have enough coverage in RS to show notability. If all you have are a few weak sources then that won't really be enough in this situation, as typically most books need about 3-5 sources to firmly establish notability. Anything less than that will need to claim something extremely major (like winning a major prize or being considered especially landmark along the lines of Anne Rule) to establish notability.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:A Case for Murder: Brittany Murphy Files and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! 82.29.125.156, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016[edit]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Bryn Hammond. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Bryn Hammond. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. McGeddon (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.