Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Carpimaps was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Nearly all of the sources are written by the subject himself. Obviously, they are not independent. Please reduce its usage and find more sources that meets the guidance at WP:42.
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 after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bernhard Ruchti and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Dkoltorcan!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation 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! Carpimapstalk to me!14:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Paid editing
Hello Dkoltorcan. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Dkoltorcan. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Dkoltorcan|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Theroadislong (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, there is no conflict of interest here, I am not compensated by this musician, I just find that his story in interesting and should be published on Wikipedia. Dkoltorcan (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the follow-up, this issue has been resolved. I included a COI statement on the page, stating that I contacted the musician to get his approval for the use of his picture. Dkoltorcan (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted.
Having a COI is different from being paid. Without revealing any personal information, are you in any way affiliated with Ruchti?S0091 (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please I already went through that! I don't have any personal relationship with him. I just replied to the question that was asked to me. I already several times on this one about not being paid, not having personal relationship, and not having any conflict of interest. I am not paid by him neither. I just write about him, it's all. Dkoltorcan (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why this keeps coming back... Can I just write about this artist who is just someone popular in Switzerland that deserves a page on Wikipedia. As I said, I accept the feedback that was given to me about my last publication that was rejected, I am in the process of re-editing and will submit the next version soon. Dkoltorcan (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but then Wikimedia has detected that and contacted him to confirm that it was his work, so how can this be changed? I asked his authorization to use it, then he provided the paperwork to Wikimedia, but then I can not change the fact that I uploaded the picture first, can I? And if yes how can I do that? It keeps looping back to that... Dkoltorcan (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the follow-up, this issue has been resolved. I included a COI statement on the page, stating that I contacted the musician to get his approval for the use of his picture. Dkoltorcan (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by FeralOink was:
The submission still does not have three reliable sources appropriate for a musician. There is a good effort to improve sources, but the advice on the article talk page still needs to be followed. Specifically: There are still too many citations to the subject's own websites; References such as https://www.hetorgel.nl/en/2021/09/a-forgotten-performance-practice-in-romantic-music/ is only a one sentence mention; Upon checking the articles in Tagblatt (a small circulation--approximately 100,000--newspaper of eastern Switzerland) the focus is on the church and the organ more than the subject of the BLP, e.g. Ruchti is referred to as as the "house organist"; This reference https://www.ref-sgc.ch/ to the Evangelical Reformed Parish of St. Gallen isn't any different than this https://www.laurenzen.ch/baut In other words, references 2, 17, and 18 are identical.
I understand that Ruchti has pursued an innovative approach with his A Tempo project, theorizing that the original composer markings, often at a slower tempo, were how the works were intended to be performed by the composers, then performing them. This source, "Franz Liszt's Ad nos, ad salutarem as a gateway to the discovery of a practice of hidden interpretation from the 19th century" https://www.liszt-franz.com/musicologie appears to be a translation from German to English of an article written by Ruchti which is not acceptable as it is in effect, another self-citation. This source, "Early Metronome Markings and the "A Tempo Project"" https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/items/7bb65428-ba5e-42c2-9eb7-1d2a54187a89 was written by a musicology PhD student, Diane Kolin, but seems like a scholarly journal article, which is good.
A Google search returned only 58 results, almost all to albums or videos of Ruchti's performances. The same was true for Bing.
Thank you for including the COI information.
I declined rather than rejected the submission because it is possible that once the organ is built, additional sourced BLP coverage will become available.
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 after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bernhard Ruchti and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Dear @FeralOink, thank your for your valuable feedback. I never had an answer regarding the scanned articles. These are scanned and hosted on the musician's website because they are only available in paper versions, not digitally, like many other musicologist articles. Are these ones not considered as proper sources written about his work from other authors than himself? These are the ones I found on his website and that I referenced in the notes 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16. Also the Christo Lelie article, in Dutch, is entirely about his work. The pictures of the church are the ones hosting the organ on which he did one of his recordings. I was also recommended to remove the PDF and to use only the citation but then the original article cannot be read, and since it is available on his webiste, I would rather include it. What would be your recommendation? Thank you for the clarification. Dkoltorcan (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FeralOink In complement to the scanned articles that are all from external authors, written about the artist, not written by the artist and not interviews, I found the following extra articles, would they be good sources?
Also to answer to the following comment: "https://www.liszt-franz.com/musicologie appears to be a translation from German to English of an article written by Ruchti which is not acceptable as it is in effect, another self-citation", I know for sure that it is not the case since I know the person who published it as I work with the authors of Liszt-Franz a lot. This is not a self published or a translated article. How can I give this information when I re-submit the draft? Dkoltorcan (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bernhard Ruchti, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
