User talk:BookNerdPBS

Welcome!

Hi BookNerdPBS! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:D869 (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: R. P. Anand (September 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing 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:

The sources cited don't come even close to establishing notability per WP:GNG, and it's not clear what other notability standard this might meet.

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:R. P. Anand 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.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources were added and the article was resubmitted. The original sources cited were leading experts in international law. The articles cited discussed R. P. Anand's contributions to the field. The only source cited written by the subject of the entry was from his lecture at the Hague Academy of International Law, which you might not be aware, is an honor in and of itself to be asked to give. So it's unclear to me why these would not "come even close to establishing notability."

Regardless, I've added additional sources and text. I also made sure that both places in the article that mention he was a founder of TWAIL have sources as the first citation was apparently not sufficient. The sources added include a link to a video of panel event maintained by the United Nations and an in memoriam section published in a well-respected journal following his death. If you are unable to access the sources cited and are unfamiliar with the authors of the sources, I recommend looking them up to confirm their "reliability." BookNerdPBS (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BookNerdPBS! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: R. P. Anand (September 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Cabrils 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:

Well done on creating the draft, and it may potentially meet the relevant requirements (including WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:PROF) but presently does not. As other reviewers have noted, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable . Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. To properly create such a draft page, please see referencing for beginners. Please note that articles by the subject do not evidence notability. Please familiarise yourself with these pages before amending the draft. If you feel you can meet these requirements then resubmit the page and ping me and I would be happy to reassess.

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:R. P. Anand 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.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Cabrils (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely confused as to what is considered "notable." I am citing judges from the International Court of Justice and renowned scholars of international law who are engaging with this person's work and calling it significant. The United Nations seems to think including an event discussing his influence on international law should be maintained in the United Nations Library. Scholars who are noting his influence are in the text of the articles and in the footnotes of the articles cited. Their articles are published in secondary sources, well respected journals in international law. Scholars engaging and citing to each others work and influenced by the other person does not mean they are not independent of the subject. If that was the case, you could never cite to another scholar who had ever met or worked with another scholar in the field.

This scholar is recognized in the field of international law as being a founder of the TWAIL movement. He was instrumental in founding significant associations of international law. There are several scholars that cite regularly to his work that are far less influential that have wikipedia pages.

Please list specifically the courses cited that you find are not sufficiently reliable or independent. BookNerdPBS (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia's standards, this article should be accepted. Under WP: PROF: Professor Anand has:

1. "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." I included several independent and reliable sources noting he was a founder of Third World Approaches to International Law.

2. "held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." There are two independent and reliable sources that confirm that he was the president of the Indian Society of International Law and a founder of the Asian Society of International Law.

According to Wikipedia, "Academics meeting any one " of the conditions above are notable.

Unless you can substantiate your claim that the sources are not reliable, the only conclusion I can reach is a discriminatory denial of the notability of a non-western scholar. BookNerdPBS (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: R. P. Anand (September 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mako001 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. 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:

Still not showing evidence of notability. Sources still aren't independent.

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:R. P. Anand 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.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 08:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:R. P. Anand has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:R. P. Anand. Thanks! DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I'm new to this, but it looks like this was accepted?

Just a quick follow-up note, the vast majority of sources cited are academic journal articles. They are pieces of scholarship, not the personal recounting of the author. These are secondary sources as commonly understood and as described by Wikipedia, quote below. So I don't really agree with your assessment that all but one of the sources are primary sources.

"A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research." BookNerdPBS (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I could explain why you're wrong (or at least not entirely right), could I ask that you just drop this line of inquiry now? I've accepted your draft, it's in the main article space. You spent a lot of time and effort drafting it; I spent a fair bit of time reviewing it. Can we call it a success, draw a line under it, and move on? :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article. Just trying to understand and attempting to give feedback to reduce future pain for you as a reviewer and other academics who are trying to contribute to this space. I found the process counter-intuitive and frustrating.

This is how I and other legal academics are viewing sources: The law is a primary source. Articles that analyze the law and legal scholarship about the law are secondary sources. That is what law review journals are. No need to reply. Just explaining what a legal academic's understanding of a secondary source is. So if this is not correct, in the future, perhaps an explanation to authors as to why wikipedia's understanding of a secondary source differs from this common understanding would be helpful. BookNerdPBS (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: R.P. Anand has been accepted

R.P. Anand, 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.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]