– robertsky ( talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

– robertsky ( talk) 06:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I see that you - if I get the links right - rejected the entry for Vikramaditya Prakash. (architectural historian teaching at Washington Univ. in Seattle). I have reworked his page to conform to the other similar scholars. It was rejected because of not being notable enough. This is wrong, if I may say so. He coauthored a textbook that is used throughout the US. has had projects featured at the recent Venice Biennale, is the host of an important podcast 'architecturetalk' that features important intellectuals in the community etc. Was named Distinguished Professor for his lifetime career achievements by the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSCA) in their 2020 Architectural Education Awards. There are many other architectural historians in the wiki page that have done little by comparison. So I would like to get a revisit on this, Many thanks for your time. Brosi ( talk) 15:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi Brosi,

I am the one who rejected your draft. I can understand feeling passionate about a topic and wanting to see it discussed in an article on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, that isn't always possible for a variety of reasons. Those reasons have to do with what the Wikipedia has deemed "notability" (a word with a different standard applied to it on this platform than the world at large) and are laid out in WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:NBIO. I would highly suugest that you read these closely.

Sourcing dictates if a topic is notable, and specifically third-party, independent sourcing. Wikipedia is a collection of what others write about a subject, not what the subject writes about themselves. There is one independent source in your draft (The American Scholar) and Prakash is not the subject of that story, the podcast is. Sources published by the subject of the article, the institution they work for, or any side research groups they are a part are considered primary sources. Primary sources are by their nature not third-party, nor are they independent, and as such they do not contribute to notability. In each draft you've submitted, Prakash's own writings have been the supermajority of sources used. This does not satisfy this requirement.

In looking at notability guidleines for academics, it's not clear that Prakash clears any of those specific guidelines. The demonstration of significance of Prakash's contributions to architecture needed to pass Criterion 1 (the criterion Prakash is most likely to pass) is not present in the draft or sources, because, again, demonstrating significance requires third-party (secondary) sourcing.

Regarding the changes you've made to the draft since the rejection, I think you've done a good job cleaning up the tone of it and making it read more like an encyclopedia article than a CV. But the sourcing remains a significant problem, and because of that my stance on rejecting the draft has not changed.

I also want to address some comments you made on Netherzone's Talk page. You mentioned articles about other academics in this field that already existed, and that Prakash is more notable than they are. The discussion of Prakash clearing the notability bar has nothing to do with other articles. If you feel so strongly that articles about other architecture historians do not meet the guidelines I've mentioned here, I'd encourage you to go to WP:AFD and learn more about how to get them deleted.

I'd also encourage you to re-read the conflict of interest guidelines. The conversation on Netherzone's page leads me to believe you are closer to Prakash than you've tried to make it appear. A conflict of interest can be personal as well financial, but the rules for editing about topics with which you have a conflict of interest remain the same.

I've said all I intend to say about this draft. If you wish to revisit it in the future, I would suggest going to the Teahouse for help. M4V3R1CK32 ( talk) 16:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for taking the time top respond and clarify. I am certainly not going to recommend deletion. Being someone who circulates in the field it seems is a negative instead of a positive. I have made several entries - many years ago - when Wikipedia just started and certainly know what objectivity means, and now want to return to those efforts since I have more time. I know of several scholars who are deserving of wiki sites, but now feel like the hill is just too steep to climb. Brosi ( talk) 17:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC) reply

so for example Mary McLeod (academic) has written about 2 articles and has wiki site - no major grants, no awards and the like apart from a hand full of small interview. B ut the review board was convinced. I could not find out who did her entry or when though.... at any rate. So if she passes, there is hope for Prakash. Brosi ( talk) 20:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Let me state again: neither the existence of other articles nor their perceived quality has any bearing on if your draft should be accepted. Each draft must be able to stand on its own merits.

I am not interested in further debate about this, but you piqued my curiosity. Here's why Mary McLeod qualifies: she is a a fellow in the Society of Architectural Historians. The deletion discussion for her article goes over that.

During the discussion, the community determined that being a fellow in that society meets Criterion #3 of the notability guidelines for academics.

I have no more to say about this. Good day. M4V3R1CK32 ( talk) 01:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

( t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks very much for all of your subsequent work on the article Ed Bradley, after my initial research project and expansion. A pleasant surprise, and much appreciated!!! Princessa Unicorn ( talk) 02:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

You did the hard part! I just got to wordsmith things a bit. A great example of teamwork! M4V3R1CK32 ( talk) 16:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC) reply

		The Featured Article Medal
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild ( talk) 18:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

This is awesome! Thanks so much! M4V3R1CK32 ( talk) 18:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Congratulations, M4V3R1CK32! The article you nominated, Ed Bradley, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild ( talk) via FACBot ( talk) 00:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC) reply