I would like to ask you if you could give me a more detailed feedback on how to address the issues on the new page I have tried to edit, named Iakovos Antonios Armaos.
I have tried to use reliable sources as well as to follow a formal and neutral tone. However, I am having difficulties understanding which points of the text exactly need to be corrected so that the page can be published.
Could you help me in showing me with more details the things wrong with this page as is now, which made you decide to send it back for review and resubmission?
I still do not believe the article demonstrates that the subject meets the inclusion criteria for academics. I recommend reading it, though I dislike it for its length. I agree that the tone is neutral, and the article cites reliable sources. However, the issue is that none of the sources are independent from the subject himself in that they are simply his written works or conferences he participated in. I see that he has written for couple of publications and gave speeches at conferences. However, I do not believe they are enough to satisfy any of the inclusion criteria. In any case, thanks for disclosing your conflict of interest. Catalk to me!13:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
thank you very much for your reply.
My intention was not to create a page demonstrating that the person is an academic. The person has three properties: business man first and most importantly, part-time writter in media plattforms, and thirdly with some academic interests and some minor notable references on this part. Basically, the person is not an academic through and through nor was my intention to present him as such.
Secondly, when you talk about length, you mean too short or too big? Because, there have been articles both way too big and way too short out there. Shouldn't be the information itself that matters?
Additionally, the sources which are only dependent from the person are his personal website and the website of the enterprise he is leading. All other references are
1)from the national archive of PHD theses in Greece -which includes a huge number of other theses-
2)papers and news plattforms which may have the person's resume and articles, but are independent entities on their own, responsible for what they publish and contain articles of mulitple other writters? How else could one demonstrate his second property and activity? And even if the writting is his own, which media plattform would publish any piece from anyone without having control of the publishment of such piece? Does this not make the plattform an independent source, since the final decision of the publications is entirely up to the plattform itself?
Finally, isn't the information and its safekeeping that matters, even if a person may not be that popular?
My intention is not to be offensive or pushy at all. To be entitely honest with you, I knew from the beginning that this specific item is kind of in the medium: with some sources out there which could be argued that are both dependent and independet and with a person that could and could not be included in wikipedia. I chose this specific task to see how wikipedia works so that I may be able to responsibly add content in the future in an encyclopedia scheme which I find carries a significant importance, if one thinks what is stands for in terms of the democracy of knowledge. So, please, do not take my message as someone who pushes but as someone who tries to learn and be responsible.
The only thing I find hard to understand is issues on length. If we are lazy enough to read half a page we are doomed as a species: This is an encyclopedia afrer all, not tik-tok.
Would you be so kind as to answer to my questions point by point so that I know how to go on adequately ans responsibly in the future? Thanosb94 (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thanosb94 Since he is more known for his career outside academica, you may want to look at the WP:General notability guideline. It could be argued that since his articles were reviewed by third-parties, they could be considered more independent. However, these articles are meant to give an expert perspective on a matter, only representing one person's viewpoint. The news sites he wrote for are not rigorous as properly peer-reviewed journals. It perfectly fine to cite his articles for basic claims such as "He wrote for New York Times", but such use would be considered as a use of a primary source.
Notability guidelines ensure that Wikipedia articles are sourced to many different viewpoints, not just people and publications affiliated with the subject. Catalk to me!14:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LunaEclipse has given you a bear! Bears promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Bears must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bear, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of bears by adding {{subst:Bear}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Fram (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I saw your contributions to Skibidi and Brainrot article, it was nice. I was wondering if the layout from Poop emoji is fine for you? planning to take this one to GA. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 19:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The layout seems to match other articles on emoji, and the current sections contain major facets of the topic. The general layout seems good for now. Catalk to me!20:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Just recently finished expanding and nominated the article to GA. Fell free to check if there are issues (probably has some grammar lapses). 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
