User talk:Vanilla Wizard

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Hi! Thanks for participating in the Articles for Creation June Backlog Drive! We've done amazing work so far, dropping the backlog by more than 2000 drafts already. We have around 100 drafts outstanding, and we need your help to get that down to zero in 5 days. We can do this, but we need all hands on deck to make this happen. A list of the pending drafts can be found at WP:AFCSORT, where you can select submissions in your area of interest. Thank you so much for your work so far, and happy reviewing! – DreamRimmer ■ 01:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are approaching the 1,000 word limit in Talk:Iran–Israel_war#Requested_move_20_June_2025. From point 3 of the header on the article: All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit. I got a count of about 899 words, though you may want to check my math. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 19:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Awesome Aasim:, thanks for the FYI. I've been keeping this limit in mind when commenting, I previously thought (erroneously) that I hit the per-discussion limit until I remembered that citations and quotations don't contribute to the count. I've been making sure to make my newer comments short and to the point.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I do note your reasons for rejecting Matthew Lani draft on the bases that without that one event he would be a low profile person. That is true. However, the main focus is about the one event he is known for, which made an impact in South Africa and internationally. The case still remains a life profile matter in South Africa. They are similar approved article known for only one even such as Thabo Bester. Yet it’s in mainspace. So I think the reason for rejection is abit harsh in this regard Ashleyashville (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ashleyashville:, WP:BLP1E is a Wikipedia policy that states the following:

We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:

1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.

2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.

3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.

The one event Matthew Lani being associated with seems to be a scandal in which the subject exaggerated his credentials by claiming to be a doctor when he was not one, so the event would not be sufficiently significant to make the individual qualify for a Wikipedia article. As I was not the individual who reviewed the Thabo Bester page, I don't have an informed opinion on whether it was correct to approve that page or not. I reviewed this article based on my understanding of the relevant policy, not based on whether or not other stuff exists. It's possible thtat Thabo Bester also fails WP:BLP1E or WP:BLPCRIME, I can't say for sure as that was not the page I reviewed.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Vanilla Wizard! Thanks for your review of the page. I just need some clarification, please. The previous reviewers, Gheus, indicated that the band's EP DID meet notability criteria, but argued that the band did not. I drew up a notability table, it is in the talk page. Could I ask why you are suggesting the band/the EP does not meet WP:CREATIVE? There are multiple, independent, in-depth, reliable sources. Thx! Viljowf (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Viljowf:, thank you for reaching out to me! I agree with the previous reviewer that the EP is notable enough for a page as there's least a couple sources reviewing it, but I also have to agree that WP:BAND is the most relevant notability policy here and it's not as obvious that the band as a whole meets the threshold.

I've reread WP:CREATIVE a few times since reviewing your draft and I honestly think I was mistaken to agree that it's applicable here. WP:CREATIVE seems to be a catchall for handling types of creative works that don't already have their own unique criteria ("authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals"), but music, musicians, and bands do have their own criteria: Wikipedia:Notability (music). CREATIVE is also very noticeably a criteria for biographical pages about individuals; it is not intended to be applied to organizations, groups, ensembles, companies, etc.

When I first looked at it and still thought CREATIVE was applicable but likely not yet met, I interpreted "a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series") as a higher bar than simply meaning anyone who's created at least one thing notable enough for an article, even if that article would be a short stub, is automatically notable enough for a biography page of their own.

But, to reiterate for emphasis, WP:AUTHOR/WP:CREATIVE is not actually applicable here, only WP:BAND is. I appreciate that you took the time to make a sources table and evaluate on your own which sources are useful for establishing notability, but I'm not so sure that BAND is met. There's 12 criteria that could be used to demonstrate that the band is notable, but it's not obvious that it passes any of them yet. Most of the handful of sources you marked as demonstrating notability are reviews of individual works, but I'm not seeing enough sources that focus on the band itself, so I don't think it passes at this time.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vanilla Wizard, thank you again for your thoughtful reply and for taking the time to engage so deeply with the notability discussion!

I appreciate your clarification on WP:CREATIVE, and I see your point that it is typically applied to individuals. That being said, I’d like to revisit a few areas that I believe are still relevant to the band's notability — and to explain why splitting the article into an EP page is not in line with policy in the longer term.

Firstly, while WP:BAND provides a subject-specific guideline for musicians, it’s important to note that it does not override the general notability guideline (GNG) or associated frameworks like WP:CREATIVE. According to WP:N:

“Subject-specific notability guidelines do not override the general notability guideline, and satisfying either the general or subject-specific guidelines is sufficient for notability.”

In that light, the band article as a whole may still be viable based on coverage that meets the GNG — especially given the multiple independent, in-depth, reliable sources cited in the notability table. Some of those sources do focus on the band as a cultural or musical phenomenon, not just on individual tracks.

Secondly — and crucially — WP:NALBUM (Notability for albums and EPs) clearly allows for forthcoming releases to count toward notability if they are already being covered by reliable sources:

“Albums that have not yet been released can still be notable if reliable sources have already written about them in detail.”

— WP:NALBUM

The band’s second EP is forthcoming, and has already begun receiving coverage. Once it is officially released (which should happen within the next few months), the band will unambiguously meet WP:BAND by the letter of the guideline. In this context, creating a standalone stub for the EP and then merging it later into a unified band article would create an unnecessary fork — especially given that:

The article as it stands includes reliably sourced, encyclopedic content

Wikipedia policy (e.g. WP:MINIMUM) advises against overly short or fragmented pages when content can be usefully combined

The band's notability trajectory is clear, and time will only further consolidate their eligibility

I’m happy to continue improving the article, but I do believe there’s a policy-compliant case for keeping the current draft unified — and, given all the evidence - of considering GNG (with the provisions of CREATIVE) met.

Thanks again for your engagement — I genuinely value your time and the opportunity to think through this more carefully. Viljowf (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely appreciation for your kind review, I almost gave up on Wikipedia as the review took too long I thought that it's because I am new here. However I followed your recommendations and I amended the article Draft:Bongos Ikwue to followed neutrality rules. Once again thanks so much, and I think that you are one of the best on Wikipedia because you took sometime to note out reasons and ways to improve the article . Aliu Salau (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]