User talk:Bobby Cohn#Speedy deletion declined: Philosophy Gustav Klimt

{{section renamed|Hello Bobby|hatnote=y}}

Thank you for your input on my draft article Bruse Wane. It was declined even though I feel it should have been approved. I know out of professional courtesy editors don't like to step on each others toes but I think with your assistance and @Timtrent assistance we had got this one right. Edward Myer (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Edward Myer again, this really does feel like an edge case. I'm not entirely persuaded but this does feel different than the article which was deleted at the AfD discussion. If you really believe this subject is notable, your account does not have any editing restrictions on it, and you don't have a COI, then the article may be moved and a full discussion be had at a new AfD debate analysing the sources in a true consensus driven conversation. If you're looking for a true final (not that anything is ever final) decision in regards to these references given, then that's an option. Let me know, Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hello @Bobby Cohn I have re adjusted the draft and added some more sources. Please check it when you have the time.Draft:Bruse Wane Ultimately I would like to move the article, but how would I do that without all the decline notifications appearing at the top of the article when moved into the article namespace ? Edward Myer (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi @Edward Myer, I would continue with improving the draft as is and continue looking for sources. Short of finding three sources that satisfy everything for the GNG as outlined on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Edward_Myer#source_assess_table_good this table] and avoiding the pitfalls of the sources in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Edward_Myer#source_assess_table_not_so_good this table] I think if it were moved to the mainspace now, given the articles previous consensus deletion it should be procedurally renominated for deletion (at no offense to you or your writing) just to make a fair community decision as opposed to the opinions of a single editor (myself included). Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::But then it would have to be deleted by consensus like you said ? Did you go over the current draft with the added sources ? Edward Myer (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Edward Myer if I use [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3ABruse_Wane&diff=1286972096&oldid=1285996007 this diff link] then I see the following links have been added:

:::::*{{Cite web |last=Vibes |first=Solo |title=Bruse Wane Sends Condolenes To Sean P's Family & Confirms Sean Price Last Verses Will Be On His Next Project |url=https://www.solovibesmusic.com/2015/08/bruse-wane-sends-condolenes-confirms.html |access-date=2025-04-23}} {{Nayc}} Not reliable, no SIGCOV.

:::::*{{Cite web |last=Gonik. |first=Michael |title=Audio Premiere : Bruse Wane & Sean Price Unleash The "Beast Inside" - Okayplayer |url=https://www.okayplayer.com/news/bruse-wane-sean-price-beast-inside-mp3.html |access-date=2025-04-23 |website=www.okayplayer.com |language=en}} {{Nayc}} Routine coverage of song or album release, no SIGCOV or independent analysis of Wayne.

:::::*{{Cite web |title=2016 Playlists |url=https://rapisouttacontrol.com/playlists/2016-playlists/ |access-date=2025-04-23 |website=Rap Is Outta Control |language=en-US}} {{Nayc}} This is a playlist.

:::::*{{Cite web |last=Eustice |first=Kyle |date=2019-06-04 |title=#DXCLUSIVE: Papoose Hops On Bruse Wane's "Killa Soundboy" Single |url=https://hiphopdx.com/news/id.51654/title.dxclusive-papoose-hops-on-bruse-wanes-killa-soundboy-single |access-date=2025-04-23 |website=HipHopDX |language=en}} {{Nayc}} Promotional interview/routine coverage, no SIGCOV or independent analysis.

:::::*{{Cite web |last=SpitFireHipHop |date=2024-03-31 |title=Bruse Wane Celebrates The 10th Anniversary Of The Dark Knight Album |url=https://spitfirehiphop.com/news/2024/03/bruse-wane-celebrates-the-10th-anniversary-of-the-dark-knight-album/ |access-date=2025-04-23 |website=SpitFireHipHop |language=en-US}} {{Nayc}} Appears to be coverage of the album that features little more than listing credits, some analysis of its coverage at the time but importantly no significant coverage of Wayne.

:::::Again, I can't say I'm presently convinced that the subject is notable.

:::::What I'm also telling you is that there is a way to appeal such decisions. (I don't want to beat you with the bureaucracy hammer, we're both editors of equal standing—I simply also volunteer to review draft articles and assist new editors. I view that function as accepting drafts that are good enough and notable to the mainspace, and providing assistance to editors and draft who fall short of that threshold. You can see I am often giving out the same version of that advice.) That way is to seek community consensus which, for notability, is done at WP:AFD. You've created another article as well, this one can be moved in spite of it's AfC declination history and my belief is that because it's previously been determined to be non-notable (again, this was determined at the AfD) it should be brought up to AfD, that is because of it's history and the current sources myself and other editors have expressed the opinion that the topic is not notable. Like I said, we are all editors expressing an opinion (yourself included) which is superseded by consensus. That consensus would be determined at AfD.

:::::That is why my suggestion is to continue to collect better sources before doing that. We are all editors but some of us have experience doing this sort of thing so our advice tends to align with what the broader community thinks—again, not always, I get things wrong too.

:::::It is also possible that Wayne is not notable and there isn't much to be done. No amount of work will bring an article about for a subject whose referencing does not exist to make in notable. That isn't to say it won't happen in the future. Just not presently.

:::::I'm sorry that I don't see the references as an improvement. Please don't take that as a slight to your writing or editing, it's just a nature of the current sourcing that exists. Hope that helps, again, I'd be happy to answer any more questions. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Hello Bobby thanks for the feed back and advice I will heed it. I will familiarize myself more with wikipedia procedural process on certain things. Not to be a bother, but I will also reach out to you for more advice in the future. I don't believe the article I created and you linked in your reply was ever deleted Charlie Rock LD ? Edward Myer (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Hey @Edward Myer, not a bother, more than happy to answer any questions as always. Correct, Charlie Rock LD had not been previously deleted and you are an editor with the requisite account permissions and in good standing to make a new article. I've left a more detailed message on your talk page about future help I'm happy to provide. Best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

{{section renamed|Wikepedia article|hatnote=y}}

This article has been rejected by you-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mrityunjay243/sandbox. The argument is that there are not much of secondary resources. If you analyse the following links to his research, you will find multiple secondary sources in many different languages. Wikepedia tends to give a lot more importance to awards, which are highly subjective and are driven by individual perceptions. This profile needs a lot more attention as it deals with our perception of light. Following are the links:

Photons

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/business/unravelling-the-mystery-of-light-bridging-the-gap-between-einstein-and-maxwell/

https://www.theweek.in/wire-updates/business/2025/03/19/dcm22-mystery.html

https://theprint.in/ani-press-releases/unravelling-the-mystery-of-light-bridging-the-gap-between-einstein-and-maxwell/2553129/

https://www.inovacaotecnologica.com.br/noticias/noticia.php?artigo=maxwell-explica-teoria-fotons-einstein-desnecessaria&id=010115250411

https://digizap.com.br/teoria-dos-ftons-de-einstein-pode-ser-desnecessria.html

https://min.news/en/science/9fb14fc387988f161a556fac2ccf3c01.html

https://eladelantado.com/news/photons-sinha-maxwell-einstein/

https://www.meneame.net/m/Mnm/maxwell-adelanto-einstein-mas-40-anos-ecuacion-podria-revelar

https://www.muyinteresante.com/ciencia/maxwell-se-anticipo-a-einstein-la-ecuacion-oculta-sobre-los-fotones.html

https://tenemosnoticias.com/humor-y-curiosidades/clasificadas-tenemosnoticias-com/la-ecuacion-que-podria-revelar-el-verdadero-origen-de-los-fotones-y-cambiar-nuestra-comprension-de-la-luz/

https://www.editorialpencil.es/ecuacion-revolucionaria-sobre-el-origen-de-los-fotones-y-la-luz/

https://phys.org/news/2025-03-einstein-quanta-lens-maxwell-equations.html

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/einstein-s-light-quanta-through-the-lens-of-maxwell-s-equations/ar-AA1A9Wqw

https://techandsciencepost.com/news/physics/einsteins-light-quanta-through-the-lens-of-maxwells-equations/

https://issues.fr/la-lumiere-legere-deinstein-a-travers-lobjectif-des-equations-de-maxwell/

https://etv.az/maksvell-t%C9%99nlikl%C9%99rinin-obyektivind%C9%99n-eynsteynin-isiq-kvantlari/

https://www.shunlongwei.com/einsteins-light-quanta-through-the-lens-of-maxwells-equations/

https://2nhaber.com/einsteinin-foton-kuramina-yeni-bir-bakis/

https://www.nanobitteja.fi/uutiset.html?a100=243989

Electromagnetism

https://phys.org/news/2015-04-electromagnetism-enable-antennas-chip.html

https://spectrum.ieee.org/gigahertz-antenna-on-a-chip

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/new-understanding-of-electromagnetism-could-enable-antennas-on-a-chip

https://www.technology.org/2015/04/10/new-understanding-of-electromagnetism-could-enable-antennas-on-a-chip/

https://www.opli.net/opli_magazine/tech/2015/new-understanding-of-electromagnetism-could-enable-antennas-on-a-chip-apr-news/

https://www.rfglobalnet.com/doc/new-understanding-of-electromagnetism-could-enable-antennas-0001

https://www.zmescience.com/science/physics/electromagnetic-antenna-quantum-09042015/

https://marketbusinessnews.com/microscopic-microchip-antennas-possible-thanks-to-electromagnetism-breakthrough/56175/

https://siliconsemiconductor.net/article/96999/New_understanding_of_electromagnetism_could_enable_antennas_on_a_chip

https://www.engineering.com/engineers-unravel-an-electromagnetism-mystery/

https://www.engadget.com/2015-04-09-tiny-tiny-antennas.html

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.147701

https://www.inovacaotecnologica.com.br/noticias/noticia.php?artigo=descoberta-eletromagnetismo-antenas-dentro-chips&id=010110150420

Book

https://store.ioppublishing.org/page/detail/Explicit-Symmetry-Breaking-in-Electrodynamic-Systems-and-Electromagnetic-Radiation//?k=9781681743585

https://libero.ub.uni-konstanz.de/libero/WebopacOpenURL.cls?DATA=KON&ACTION=SEARCH&searchby1=TITLEK&TERM_1=Symmetry+Breaking

https://www.kinokuniya.co.jp/f/dsg-02-9780750351300

https://bibliothek.univie.ac.at/zb-physik-fb-chemie/e-book-neuerwerbungen_2016-06.html 182.75.25.162 (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi IP, the first two links I click on are very non-neutral non-independent republications of press releases by the subject that do not discuss the subject in depth. Without clicking on the next litany of unformatted nondescript links, am I going to find more of the same? Have you reviewed the issues with the drafts pointed out in their declinations prior to the rejections? Have you reviewed WP:NPROF or the WP:GNG? Editors @Ldm1954 and @Cabrils gave very thorough explanations of these issues. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks, you write, "Without clicking on the next litany of unformatted nondescript links, am I going to find more of the same?"

::The answer is a strong, "yes". There is a need to do a more detailed investigation and draw insights before making a decision. For example, the following news items-https://www.inovacaotecnologica.com.br/noticias/noticia.php?artigo=maxwell-explica-teoria-fotons-einstein-desnecessaria&id=010115250411

::https://digizap.com.br/teoria-dos-ftons-de-einstein-pode-ser-desnecessria.html

::https://min.news/en/science/9fb14fc387988f161a556fac2ccf3c01.html

::https://www.muyinteresante.com/ciencia/maxwell-se-anticipo-a-einstein-la-ecuacion-oculta-sobre-los-fotones.html

:: are secondary sources of information and they have appeared in media outlets across the world ranging from Spain to Brazil and the far East. Muy Interante has a readership of 0.2 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muy_Interesante) and is extremely popular in the Spanish speaking world. El adelantado de segovia is a historic neswpaper from Spain (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Adelantado_de_Segovia) and it has also covered the news-https://eladelantado.com/news/photons-sinha-maxwell-einstein/.

::In addition to these, you are neglecting IEEE Spectrum Article on him, which you can read here-https://spectrum.ieee.org/gigahertz-antenna-on-a-chip along with a BBC article, which relies on his work: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-46987319.

::Something which is more important than the links is the content which is backed by articles which have appeared in peer reviewed journals. This wikipedia article cites his main work, which appeared in Physical Review Letters and an IoP book-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explicit_symmetry_breaking. The wikipedia article on piezoelectricity also cites his work-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piezoelectricity

::Someone whose work is cited by BBC, Wikipedia articles along with leading science magazines, newspapers and journals certainly deserves a better treatment. 182.75.25.162 (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::If the answer is yes and the next link you provide is a work authored by the subject and then stated that these "{{xt|are secondary sources of information}}" you are failing to grasp what that means and what the concerns are and that makes it really difficult to have a productive conversation. What does jump out to me is your claim that there is an "{{xt|IEEE Spectrum Article on him}}"—emphasis mine because that is what we would care about for the WP:GNG—only to see that it isn't an article on him, rather an interview. The second article in that span, the BBC article, mentions him once and again to quote him. Again, please understand what we mean by secondary sources, independent analysis, and significant coverage. I'm not even doubting the reliability of Muy Interesante because we haven't even gotten to that stage in the source analysis yet. Consider the following table, and understand that when I say "the subject" we are referring to Dhiraj Sinha.

{{anchor|Dhiraj Sinha source assess table}}

{{ source assess table

|

{{ source assess

| source = {{cite web |last1=Sinha |first1=Dhiraj |title=Maxwell explica: Teoria dos fótons de Einstein pode ser desnecessária |url=https://www.inovacaotecnologica.com.br/noticias/noticia.php?artigo=maxwell-explica-teoria-fotons-einstein-desnecessaria&id=010115250411 |website=Site Inovação Tecnológica |language=pt |date=11 April 2025}}

| i = n | ij = Written by the subject.

| r = ? | rj = No reason do doubt. No analysis done yet.

| s = n | sj = Does not discuss the subject.

}}

{{ source assess

| source = {{cite journal |last1=Hellemans |first1=Alexander |title=New Theory Leads to Gigahertz Antenna on a Chip - IEEE Spectrum |journal=spectrum.ieee.org |date=April 20, 2015 |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/gigahertz-antenna-on-a-chip |language=en}}

| i = n | ij = Interview of the subject.

| r = ? | rj = No reason do doubt. No analysis done yet.

| s = n | sj = Does not conduct independent analysis of the subject.

}}

{{ source assess

| source = {{cite news |last1=Biswas |first1=Soutik |title=India election 2019: Are fears of a mass hack credible? |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-46987319 |work=BBC |date=25 January 2019}}

| i = ? | ij = Mentions him to quote him.

| r = y | rj =

| s = n | sj = Does not conduct independent analysis of the subject.

}}

}}

:::If you want to discuss his work then that's fine. As you said, his work has been cited in other Wikipedia articles. We can't take that as a cause for notability for a litany of reasons. If you want to argue his work is the reason for his notability, then please make an WP:NPROF argument. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Dear anonymous IP editor (presumably @Mrityunjay243 via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mrityunjay243/sandbox):

:::@Bobby Cohn has provided some very constructive and detailed assistance here. It is clear you are new to creating Wikipedia pages and do not understand the process and what is required to produce an appropriate page that meets the relevant guidelines.

:::Both Bobby, @Ldm1954 and myself have proved lengthy, detailed advice explaining how to do so, yet it is unfortunately apparent that you have not read (let alone perused) that advice. I would encourage you to do so.

:::Further, you have not addressed the glaring issue of conflict of interest, as explained and requested in my detailed comment on the draft.

:::The subject, Dhiraj Sinha, may well be able to meet the relevant criteria to justify a page, but you need to properly understand the process. Again, I urge you to read all the previously provided advice, not least of which included "To properly create such a draft page, please see the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’." Cabrils (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Bobby Cohn, I noticed you relisted the page Nia (charity) on the requested moves page. As the conversation has been open for some time and I'm wondering if there is now been enough conversation there to close the request? Many thanks Nayyn (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Nayyn, please consider WP:Closure requests. Best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I recently added a contentious topic tag to Leo J. Baranski. I remember that you tagged Holomovement, so I wanted to double check with you on whether you agree with the tagging, and/or anything else to be done on that page -- this is the first time I have used this tagging. (I have not decided yet how to NPP review Leo J. Baranski, beyond my slightly overkill (?) other tagging. It has new-editor mistakes problems beyond just the topic.) Ldm1954 (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hey @Ldm1954, after reading {{slink|Leo J. Baranski|Controversy and conspiracy theories|nopage=y}} I don't think there's anything wrong with applying the tag to that page. If you feel like the page is particularly egregious or that the editor who wrote the concerning text should be alerted, you might use {{tls|alert/first}} to warn them on their talk page. It might be worth it if the editor looks like their focus would solely be on pseudoscience topics. Just read through the documentation on that template first before using.

:In general, and this is my own personal editing view, I don't even view all WP:GS or WP:AC/CT topics equal. For example, my default is to tag and warn editors who edit in the area of cryptocurrencies (WP:GS/Crypto) especially in their edits promote the latest crypto memecoin, who are here to advocate their social caste (WP:GS/SASG) or who focus on gender-related articles (WP:CT/GG) but tend not to warn for someone who happens to reference genetically modified organisms in a new article (WP:CT/GMO). Pseudo science probably falls on the spectrum between those extreme examples, where I will use the tag if I see a potential dispute arising or if the sole focus of the article is strictly a pseudoscience.

:If you are a page mover or template editor you may also create the page notice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Leo J. Baranski. Again, for this I use discretion. This is where the extra information at the top comes from when you click "Edit" on a page, and can be accessed from the source page by clicking on the redlink "Page notice" at the top. Bobby Cohn (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello Bobby Cohn, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of :Philosophy Gustav Klimt, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Reverse co-pyvio - trhis text is an unattributed copy from Klimt University of Vienna Ceiling Paintings. You may wish to review the WP:CSD{{!}}Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hey @Whpq, thanks for your note here. The reverse unattributed copyvio didn't occur to me, apologies for not looking within the project, I'll explain. On this same note, can you double check the deletion of Jurisprudence Gustav Klimt. My recollection was that there was a citation there. I presumed the text was copied from the source material both here and on the pixelsmerch.com site, hence it popping up there as well on the copyvios report. I tagged both within a short period of time for the same reason so if one was erroneous, the other may be. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::No problems with not catching it was taken from Wikipedia. After dealing with copyright stuff for a while certain things raise up red flags for me. In this case, a site that sells art prints on bath towels isn't going to write original text about the art work so I figured it had been swiped from somewhere and it turns out it was swiped from Wikipedia. Yes, :Jurisprudence Gustav Klimt also used text from the same article. Depending on how one interprets WP:G12, deletion is okay in this case. There was no assertion of a free license beyond the implicit one in the terms of use, and the history of the article has nothing that isn't already in the article from which it is copied. {{ping|Pickersgill-Cunliffe}} may wish to amend his action on it, but per WP:NOTBURO, reversing the deletion just to add attribution and convert it to a redirect seems more like filling in paperwork than improving the encyclopedia. -- Whpq (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Agh, that's what I get for going through the CSD queue late at night. I won't touch this any further myself, but see no issue if anyone now or in the future comes along and redirects it. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks for the attention @Pickersgill-Cunliffe and @Whpq, like I said, my original thinking wasn't that both copied from a storefront, rather they copied from the book attributed in the other article and there was a version of license laundering going on. Appreciate your response here, I'll amend my ANI filling (which seems to be pretty stale) to be fair to the original editor; that may have been quick on my end but I have no problem admitting I hadn't grasped the full picture. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

{{section renamed|Regarding my rejection of my submission|hatnote=y}}

Hi Bobby Abhisht88 (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Can you please let me know what exactly I need to do to publish my work done on environment. Abhisht88 (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hi @Abhisht88: first, demonstrate WP:Notability of the subject. Your message here suggests you want an article on your work, but the autobiography in your sandbox at User:Abhisht88/sandbox suggests the focus of that article, i.e.: the subject, is yourself. Regardless, whatever the subject you choose, demonstrate notability. That is, find sources that are

{{anchor|advice}}

::# Independent of the subject. These sources cannot be written by the subject or be affiliated with the subject.

::# Published in reliable sources.

::# Conduct significant independent analysis of the subject. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

::When you have collected those sources, please let me know. In general, a good rule of thumb is three. Best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I made the page Pasco eSchool. Can you rate it using the content assessment?

Thank you. Floating Orb (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey Bobby,

I've been working through an article about the American Bar in Vienna that you went through and made some minor edits to last week. As an architectural historian, I believe that this work is extremely significant to the architectural cannon, and deserves wider recognition. I'm wondering what the next steps are to get this draft published? SullyWatts (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)