User talk:Jrg1000

Hello, Jrg1000, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 05:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard - a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

File:University of Iceland-Askja.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:University of Iceland-Askja.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Roger Bansemer (July 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chris troutman was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Roger Bansemer and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Roger Bansemer, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Chris Troutman (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jrg1000! Having an article 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! Chris Troutman (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Hi Chris. Thank you for reviewing. I agree with WP:NACTOR and there is no statement that he is an actor in the draft. In fact if you do a Google search the Google info box says "Actor" which he is not. In the TV series he is himself (i.e. not acting). This article was scant when I picked it up and was lacking secondary independent sources. Looking back to April 1 it had only two at the last declined submission. There are literally hundreds of secondary independent articles to choose from. I would have declined the article as well. Since picking it up, the ones I've added are not mere mentions, rather articles with Bansemer as the focus. So although this declined submission says it is lacking in secondary sources I think that's a template statement as the current 34 references exceeds the sum total for many wiki articles.

As for WP:BIO there is this qualification: "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."

Let me call out the "Spyglass So Long" article as a start (there are a number of articles related to this). In 1978 Bansemer had painted a 100 foot tall mural on the side of the Spyglass Hotel on Clearwater Beach, Florida. In a 1978 article it stated people traveling to the beach cross a causeway and literally thousands of people every day started seeing this mural on the drive. It stuck out in the landscape and it became an instant landmark as well as iconic of Clearwater Beach. This mural was seen by millions over the 30 years (significant monument with significant critical attention). In 2008 the building was demolished and an article written in retrospect which summarizes for us the "critical attention". It goes "So long to artist, familiar sight. Roger Bansemer and his landmark mural soon will be gone from Clearwater. Home-grown artist Roger Bansemer is leaving town, and so too, is one of his most-viewed paintings. But he's not taking it with him. It's going courtesy of a wrecking ball. Back on Nov. 14, 1978, Bansemer completed a 100-foot-tall murla of a hot-air balloon on the side of the old nine-story Spyglass Resort on Clearwater Beach. In the painting, a bearded captain sits in the balloon's basket, navigating with the help of a sextant. Seagulls hover above. An anchor swings below. Clearwater leaders now want developers of the Kiran Grand Resort & Spy to tear down the vacant hotel building to make way for their new project. The mural is Bansemer's biggest work ever and probably has been seen by more people - perhaps millions - than anything else he's done in a long and distinguished career."

Bansemer also qualifies under "been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." There are references I've provided for that as well. So I think your comment " this draft attempts to make Roger look notable by being around famous people or projects, which isn't how Wikipedia sees notability" is where the discussion is at. Absolutely, agree with you. You cannot make someone notable by who they know, they must stand on their own merit. I think the disconnect may be that I provided what I thought were entertaining images of the artist with others to paint an overall picture of Roger Bansemer. Would it be better if I include an image of his landmark mural? Would that help change the appearance? I was never trying to establish notability based on his connections with other notable people, though I can see where by the images I included that would become the impression.

Jrg1000 (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Please be advised that a wall of text is not the best way to argue with me. I performed a review of your draft and now consider the matter done. If you wish to resubmit your draft after improving it, another reviewer might get to it. We have a backlog drive on draft articles through July, so the sooner you re-submit the better chance you'll get a prompt re-examination. Beyond the promotional language and external links in the body, the article does not make plain the case for notability. If the subject has painted murals but not for museums, how can the subject fulfill the requirements of NARTIST? I took a second look through and saw nothing about permanent exhibitions in multiple notable institutions. If none of his works (except the TV show) are notable, how could he meet the requirements for NARTIST? I must emphasize that if millions of people saw a mural, maybe you'd write an article about the mural with supporting newspaper citations and then you could make a case for the artist, himself. You might rewrite to make your case perfectly clear. Perhaps you're too interested in your own prose? Please clear up your draft so we can understand what case you're making, because all I see is promotional dreck replete with name-dropping. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)