User talk:KylieTastic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


View this userbox's documentationIt is approximately 9:23 PM where this user lives (Cambridge, UK).Refresh the time

If you have a general question it may be quicker to ask at the Wikipedia:Teahouse or Click this to start a New Question here


AfC Drafts NOTE: To be fair to all submitters I do not review/re-review on request, I just pick new and old submissions at random...

Current Backlog: 2,438 pending submissions

 

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive[edit]

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
  • On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Arman Guman[edit]

Hi, thanks for restoring the 2020 AfC templates at that draft: they were oddly added to the recreated draft a minute after SPA account creation, but I don't see any evidence of sockpuppetry yet. But I should have mentioned their removal in my edit summary. Wikishovel (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Wikishovel, I'm usually one to give large amounts of WP:AGF in draft, but recreation of a rejected article with templates of a very un-notable subject shouts socking to me. It may just be that they lost the login details for The official Arman Guman but I can't see it being anyone but the subject trying to self promote again. As the dead source https://www.stichtingrechtsbescherming.nl/ says "back online no later than April 23, 2024" this is clearly linked to a change in activity. I would G11, but I think that would just be recreated again. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Soul of Anna Klane[edit]

Hello. Thank you for reviewing my submission for The Soul of Anna Klane. You noted that the book might not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. I would like to highlight that (a) there are two whole chapters (!) dedicated to this book in The Mind's I, an important philosophy book in its own right; and (b) there was a short film produced based on a chapter from this book. I believe these two facts mark the book as notable.

There were at least four different prints of this book, by at least two different publishers (in the US by Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, and imprint of G.P. Putnam's Sons; and in the UK by New English Library). See here: https://www.google.co.il/books/edition/The_Soul_of_Anna_Klane/cegLOQAACAAJ?hl=en

Prior to being dealt with in detail by Hofstadter and Dennett (in The Mind's I), the book was not highly known; so there are few reviews of the book available. It was however reviewed briefly, at the time of publication, by Kirkus Review (referenced in the article). Tal Cohen (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found out that it was also reviewed by the NY Times in 1977, and added that to the article. Tal Cohen (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Tal Cohen, please note that the decline is that the sources did not show it met Wikipedia's notability requirements not that it was not notable. The "New Media Film Festival" is a blog which are generally not considered reliable sources and it does not mention the subject or Miedaner anyway so does not verify the claim. I looked for another source but could not find any. Being mentioned in the NY Times is good, pity it's not a bit longer review. Unfortunately I don't have access to "The Mind's I" so I just have to take your word on that. However with the NY Times review it does show border-line notability. I think I can find another source... I'll post a comment on the draft if I do. If you can find another source for the film that would help as IMDB is bad enough, but a random review/comment on it is definitely not valid. Add any more you can find and then resubmit for review. I would certainly not decline in it's current state, but without a bit more I would leave for another as it's not my primary area of work. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it turns out that the film competed in the Cannes festival in 1995, so we have that as a source (although the page is not really detail-rich, and does not include writing credits beyond "screenplay"...). Added to the article. Tal Cohen (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]