I want to mention that the Animal Studies Journal works with, but is not a part of, the AASA. The citations from and about the journal are separate to the AASA. I can improve the article. The conference papers are from Google Scholar, indicating some notability. Starlighsky (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@StarlighskyAccording to the AASA, AASA has a long and close association with the Animal Studies Journal. That does not sound remotely like an independent source; I think we would need something far less affiliated. But please do continue improving it. I tagged it to flag for attention, but did not draftify due to your track record of article creation. I will check back later if another new page reviewer has not gotten to it first. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the article remain nominated for deletion?
The article Nande Mabala has been thoroughly revised to remove unreliable sources and now includes reliable, verifiable references that demonstrate compliance with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Given these improvements, why does the article remain nominated for deletion? Horizons2025 (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Horizons2025 Because I don't agree with the other editors, and the closer who relisted the discussion asked for additional feedback as to "whether or not sources provided supply SIGCOV." Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article, Nande Mabala ,aligns with the significant coverage guideline as outlined in Wikipedia's notability policies. The topic has received extensive, detailed, and independent coverage from reliable sources, which substantiate its significance. Horizons2025 (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Greater Clarity Requested for Reviewed Comment: George Leonard Chaney
@Dclemens1971 I was recently notified of comments on an article regarding George Leonard Chaney. You were identified in the email I received. I would be happy to improve the article, but the comments lack enough details to provide any fix. Can you assist with specifics? Please confirm if you are the correct person I should be contacting. The comments:
This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably.
This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience.
This article possibly contains original research.
Since the comments contain subjective terms such as "may be too long," "may contain," and "possibly contains," it is difficult, if not impossible, to implement improvements.
The article was reviewed by AI software, which rated it 98% for correctness, clarity, engagement, and delivery. It was structured to inform both a general reader and a scholar. Other available articles on Rev. Chaney lack important details and contain several often repeated errors. This article was designed to correct those deficiencies. I am particularly concerned about the observation regarding "original research." This article was well-researched using contemporary newspaper accounts and archival material and footnoted accordingly.
@UU Archivist: The page curation software delivers those notifications automatically, which is why the language is the way it is. I will say this:
Under WP:SIZERULE, a page of 9000+ words (which this one is) should generally be divided and trimmed. This page is very long considering the subject matter is a relatively obscure individual. The organization of the page is poor, with far too many headings.
This leads to the "intricate detail" argument, about which -- there is no reason to have so much obscure detail. For example: At the American Civil War's end, Chaney traveled to Europe in June 1866 for a three-month vacation. During his absence, the Hollis Street Church was closed for renovations. No information on his itinerary or traveling companions, if any, has been found. What is the relevance of this detail? Why is it included? What encyclopedic value does it provide? There is a vast array of content in this biography that is like this.
The original research is the biggest problem. Per WP:NOR, Wikipedia presents a summary of what secondary (and sometimes tertiary sources) say about subjects, and rely only in rare instances on WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs and contemporaneous news stories. You have used those documents extensively to write this article, with the result that this article reads more like an original research paper than an encyclopedic treatment. Lots of statements appear to represent your own view of Chaney, not a summary of what secondary sources say. Here is a sampling of original research claims in this article: What is clear is that Chaney believed in a loving God who resided within us. ... Consistent with his optimistic view of humankind, Chaney rejected the orthodox Christian dogma of original sin. Chaney observed that the concept of Adam's fall and its consequential generational sin rested upon the unquestioned acceptance of a few lines of scriptural texts. Chaney's biblical criticism was more demanding and eschewed the literal reading of Genesis scripture. ... Chaney cautioned that the truth in the Bible is offered like a precious ore. It must be worked to reveal its value.
The "Myths" sections is also a form of original research and a violation of WP:NPOV, in which you are responding to statements(?) by unsourced individuals. An encyclopedia treatment would instead weigh a variety of opinions on Chaney rather than classifying some of them as "myths." In a Wikipedia article, every contentious statement should be able to be backed up with a reliable, independent, secondary source unless a policy permits a different source.
I don't believe any of these problems are surmountable. I do think the subject passes the test of notability (WP:N), which is the main thing New Page Reviewers are asked to do when we review a page. What I've mentioned above are content problems. They are serious, and need to be addressed, so please don't remove the tags unless you or another editor can successfully address them. Hope this helps. I appreciate the work you are doing on Unitarian-Universalist history and biography. Please be sure to ask questions at the WP:TEAHOUSE, where volunteers are happy to help people understand how Wikipedia works! Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This award is given in recognition to Dclemens1971 for conducting 1,952 article reviews in 2024. Thank you so much for all your excellent work. Keep it up! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No Original Research: George Leonard Chaney
@Dclemens1971 Thanks for your speedy and well-crafted response. I am in intense knee surgery rehabilitation, so my attention to your observations may appear slow. I will do my best to address the issues noted.
Too long. I see from the parameters you noted WP:SIZERULE that it will take time to address editing or creating a new article.
Original Research WP:NOR is a more complex problem. You wrote that ‘’contemporaneous news stories” were extensively used “with the result that this article reads more like an original research paper than an encyclopedic treatment.’’
However, the Wikipedia page “No original research” declares, “To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented.”
The article on Rev. Chaney does cite reliable and published sources that directly relate to the topic.
The contemporaneous news accounts include newspapers such as The Atlanta Constitution, The Christian Register, Boston Herald, Boston Observer and Religious Intelligencer, and other newspapers are reliable sources. Other contemporaneous sources include the American Unitarian Association’s official publications, information from Boston and Atlanta Unitarian archives, and Rev. Chaney’s own paper, The Southern Unitarian.
Wikipedia guidelines state, “The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable in a reliable, published source.” The Reference section contains URLs to cited sources, allowing direct verification. When no online resource is available, information on the physical location of documents is provided.
Finally, In general, the most reliable sources are
Peer-reviewed journals (Harvard Square Library)
Books published by university presses (Unitarianism in the Antebellum South, published by the University of Alabama)
University-level textbooks (not used)
Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses (see list above on reliable sources)
Mainstream newspapers (see list above on reliable sources)
I suspect you’re a volunteer and doing your best. However, declaring the Chaney article is based on “original research” can be challenged.
If we can resolve this particular issue, I would also like to discuss the review of the article based on a Christianity template. Unitarians at this time declared they were Unitarian Christians and offered that Orthodox Christians were incorrect in their interpretations of scripture. So who's the Christian? UU Archivist (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NOR carefully. A few quotations from that page:
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.
Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. If you follow the link to WP:USEPRIMARY, you'll find further explanations: A reporter's notebook is an (unpublished) primary source, and the news story published by the reporter based on those notes is also a primary source. This is because the sole purpose of the notes in the notebook is to produce the news report. If a journalist later reads dozens of these primary-source news reports and uses those articles to write a book about a major event, then this resulting work is a secondary source.
A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source.
Translation: you can use contemporaneous news sources, but not to make analytic, evaluative, and interpretive claims, which you do. You have plenty of secondary sources, but you have far more primary sources than you do secondary. If you disagree with me about this article containing original research, you're free to do so, but I'd suggest you get an uninvolved third opinion, which you can request at WP:3O.
As for your request to discuss the review of the article based on a Christianity template, I'm don't understand what you mean. I didn't review it from any particular perspective. The Rater tool automatically classifies UU-related topics within the "Christianity" WikiProject (not necessarily a decision I'd make but that's how the project has been structured). You're free to remove that classification from the talk page if you like.
Hello. I wanted to thank you for withdrawing the AfD for this article, and also to let you know that I learned that this player was reported as Elguezabal in some Spanish-language media such as Mundo Deportivo. After modifying my search of its archives for that spelling, there were many additional hits, including some very useful ones like this so I'm quite confident SIGCOV can be demonstrated now. So, I really appreciate you bringing this article up for attention at AfD; hopefully it's in better shape now. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jogurney Thank you for fixing it and finding the sources! When I nominated, I figured there was a good possibility sources were going to exist but would be hard to find, and I'm glad you were able to do so. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for this, I have sorted the references out, by reading through books etc. If you don't mind, could you please look through this again? Apologies if it's not ready yet
I have reviewed thousands of AFDs after 4 1/2 years and I must compliment you on your deletion nominations which always report on the history of an article, a detailed run-down on many if not all sources with a clear indication that a thorough BEFORE has been done. Since I see quite a lot of AFDs that simply state "Fails GNG" or "Lacks notability" (and that's all they say), the AFDs you start help both inclusionists and deletionists have a place to begin to evaluate an article and its sourcing. Additionally, while many editors post an AFD and then never return, you come back to address questions and comments through the course of a week (or two) which is even less common, unfortunately. With articles you nominate, I know they have been given due process, no matter how the discussion closes. For all of this, you are awarded the Barnstar of Exceptional Diligence. LizRead!Talk!23:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971 Hi Dclemens1971! I recently wrote wrote an article and that was the longest and most sourced one I wrote. I saw that you reviewed it, so I was wondering if you could critique it for me? I saw the assessment gave it a C grade, the other few I've written were just stubs or unassessed - I'm just asking to see what I could do to improve the articles I work on. Thanks! Alexthegod5 (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good question @Alexthegod5. The Wikipedia:Content_assessment system is not exactly like a grading system of quality. "C" was the assessment automatically assigned by the Rater tool and I didn't manually change it. Take a look at the criteria there -- at a quick glance I don't think it's quite a B-level article yet; the idea there is that the article leaves the reader without any missing information to understand the subject. Lots of my own articles are at C-class or Start-class, and that's usually because while (a) the topic is sufficiently notable to be in Wikipedia, there are (b) not enough reliable sources to make the article B-class. So you shouldn't take an assessment of "C" as a defect at all! But give me some time and I will leave you some more detailed pointers if you're interested. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971 I didn't take it personally! I was actually reviewing some of the criteria for B and wasn't sure which points I might've been dinged on. I figured as much that it being a somewhat shorter article it wouldn't get that high, as finding sources about his life before he became a bishop is near non-existent. My writing style I tried taking examples from other pages, but wasn't sure if there's a specific tone or style that I could be better aiming at, also things like sources - what sources should I get, what is considered better or what to avoid, etc. Any tips would be great! Alexthegod5 (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dclemens1971! I saw that you draftified Clayton Nascimento. I previously contested a PROD of this page and added sources ideas to the talk page. Searching for sources again today, I see there is also a profile in Piauí, a Brazilian cultural magazine. I believe the subject meets WP:BASIC/WP:CREATIVE. Would you please consider reversing the draftification? Thank you. Jfire (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I've noticed that you moved my newly created pages to the current titles Zosimus (bishop of Várad) and Vincent (bishop of Várad). I can accept your move since the widespread usage of this variant in Wikipedia. However, in the past 10 years, I created several articles of Hungarian bishops and archbishops with the previous title form. You can check my article list. Altogether 87 articles. User:Borsoka [formerly followed the same method] too (when I created my first article about a Hungarian bishops who is known only by first name, I followed his version). Because of the standardization of titles of articles, could you move the names of these articles into parenthesis version (and, of course, together with redirect cleanups and wikilinks)? Beside the articles lists created by Borsoka and myself, you can discover these articles at Category:11th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Hungary and so on (until the 14th century, after that, the vast majority of bishops already had a surname). --Norden1990 (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Norden1990 Thanks for the comment! I don't have time to do all those moves now but will try to get around to it eventually if you aren't able to first. I only came across your pages while doing new page patrolling. And by the way, your contributions are great! Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Englert notability
Thanks for your comment on Englert. I added a citation on the Discount Tire founder, Bruce Halle, crediting Englert with expanding the company from 23 to 900 stores. PS. I have no affiliation or connection to anyone in the article. As I explained to another editor, I noticed Englert was mentioned in the Discount Tire article, so I created a page on him. Fairwin99 (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fairwin99 I read that on your talk page. BTW, I have no concerns about conflict of interest. I do have concerns about notability, and Bruce Halle is not an independent source on Englert since they worked together. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a mop reserved in your name
You are a remarkable editor in many ways. You would be a good administrator, in my opinion, and appear to be well qualified. You personify an administrator without tools and have gained my support already!
Very flattered by and appreciative of the kind messages... This is not something I had really been thinking of or aiming for, but I know how much work our admin corps do to keep this site running and if I can be useful in that role I'm not averse to it. It seems like SPI can always use more admins, and if I had the tools that's one area where I'd like to deepen my involvement. I know AfD and NPP well as a non-admin and that's obviously busy, but I'm not sure where an additional admin would be most needed and helpful. For those who've responded here, I'm genuinely curious:
Which areas of the project do you think need the most attention from admins, and do you think my contributions line up with that work?
What (if anything) about my record would you or others consider a drawback for adminship?
AfD and NPP are good training for a lot of related areas. I have the sense that you're the kind of person who can look at a backlog and decide "well ok, I guess this needs help, I'll learn how to do it", and that's an important kind of skill and personality to have. -- asilvering (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At least for me I added this because I was reviewing G5s nominated by you and thought "wouldn't it be easier if you could delete those yourself"? But honestly, I've done plenty of things as an admin that I never would have conceived of doing before my RfA, and I'm sure you will too. Almost every RfA tends to get some opposes for silly reasons, but from the quick look I did before posting this I didn't think of any obvious drawbacks. * Pppery *it has begun...00:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's as much work as you want it to be. I'm of the mindset that even 5 actions a week is a positive to the project and reduces the burden on other admins, so if we can get competent folks to take on even that little, all the better.
As for the areas, you find your home as you casually stroll around. I work in some niche areas I didn't expect, and I like it. I jump around to other areas I've dabbled in to not get bored and to learn more.
As for where you could be useful, I think anywhere. Folks who know their limits and can slowly wade in to things, recognizing their blind spots and being willing to accept criticism and improve on it are invaluable. That with the proper temperament, which you seem to display, are key aspects of what I personally look for in folks. It's like clay that can molded however it wants to be. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for the additional comments. Much to think about. My sense from some editors' comments during the administrator elections was that many voters want prospective admins to have a strong sense of what they would need the tools for, whereas my approach to volunteering is more "What needs doing? Happy to learn and pitch in." If this approach would be welcome in a candidate, I'll give it some thought. (That said, I regularly patrol articles by blocked users, and if I can ease the burden on others of G5s that might be enough of a reason.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "I could help wherever I'm needed" is more or less what I said when I went for RFA, and it worked for me. Like I said above, "happy to learn and pitch in" is a good quality for an admin to have. But you do have some pretty obvious uses for the tools - the G5s, sure, but in general admin tools are very helpful when doing NPP stuff, and if you're going to be doing more at SPI, that's pretty tool-heavy as well. You're not in danger of "no need for the tools" opposes. -- asilvering (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So it sounds like you want to work on deletion for a start, but that you're interested in exploring other opportunities where you can be contribute as well. That's fine, that's great. It also looks like you've enabled email, so I'll send a couple thoughts your way as well. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Besides all of the above, from some reading, I like how you interact with people. Nearly everywhere could always use more good admins. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you were the person who recently moved Botswana Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals to draftspace, citing the reason that more sources were needed. I have added more sources (in total there are now 7). Seeing as you were the person who moved it to draftspace, I just thought I should let you know that I'm re-publishing it. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
