User talk:VMCS83

Hello, VMCS83, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Abstract Division (July 26)

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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 music-related topics). 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:

Discogs is not a reliable source. Please find more news sources that review the band.

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:Abstract Division 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:Abstract Division, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" 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, 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.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, VMCS83! 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! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Abstract Division concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Abstract Division, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Abstract Division

Hello, VMCS83. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Abstract Division".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Abstract Division (August 1)

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

" Form and Function and Time and Perception.[31][32] [33][34][35][36][37]. " and other elements like it are a prime example of WP:CITEKILL. Instead we need one excellent reference per fact asserted. If you are sure it is beneficial, two, and at an absolute maximum, three. A fact you assert once verified in a reliable source, is verified. More is gilding the lily. Please choose the very best in each case of multiple referencing for a single point and either drop or repurpose the remainder. I have not reviewed this material further. There is no point until you attend to the referencing

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 User:VMCS83/Abstract Division 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 User:VMCS83/Abstract Division, 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, 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.

Fiddle Faddle 15:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create multiple versions and submit them

You want to keep reviwers on your side. So work on one version only. Please choose the one to work on and place {{Db-g7}} on the other, which will get rid of it for you. Multipke veri=sions just waste everyone's time. We are all volunteers here. Fiddle Faddle 15:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Abstract Division (copy)

Hello, VMCS83. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Abstract Division".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Abstract Division

Hello, VMCS83. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Abstract Division".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Abstract Division (February 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Devonian Wombat 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 music-related topics). 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.

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:Abstract Division 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.

Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subject: Request for reconsideration of Abstract Division's Wikipedia entry

I would like to respectfully request reconsideration of the decision regarding Abstract Division's Wikipedia entry. I believe their inclusion in the encyclopedia is justified, based on the following points, and I would appreciate a review in light of similar artists' entries.

Comparable Artist - Oscar Mulero:

Please review the page for Oscar Mulero (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Mulero), another artist of similar caliber. Despite a relatively limited number of third-party sources, such as a citation primarily from his personal website, he has been granted a Wikipedia article.

Abstract Division, on the other hand, has had more significant and third-party independent coverage, including official work such as contributing a soundtrack to the Netflix series Sense8.

Moreover, the fact that Abstract Division has been featured in reputable sources like VPRO — a Dutch public broadcaster that is a part of the public broadcasting system—further substantiates their notability. VPRO's coverage, particularly in two articles dedicated to them, should be seen as credible and substantial. Incorrectly, I marked them as interviews, but these are actually independent news articles. This I have corrected now.

VPRO as a Credible Source:

VPRO, as a public broadcaster, provides content with editorial standards that exceed those of some commercial outlets. As such, their coverage of Abstract Division should be given significant weight. It is not just a passing mention but an article that provides meaningful discussion about the artists and their work. This coverage holds more value and authority than some other sources such as Mixmag, which, though respected in the dance music industry, may not always reflect the full depth of an artist's career, especially in non-English media contexts, given that Mixmag is a London-based publisher.

Dutch Media Coverage:

Given that Abstract Division is a Dutch-origin duo, it is reasonable to expect that they would receive more media coverage in Dutch-language outlets, such as VPRO, rather than international publications like Mixmag. Artists (in my example, Sandwell Districts - Function & Regis) often gain more recognition in their home countries, where the media has a greater interest in local talent.

Function (musician) Comparison:

In comparison to Function (musician) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(musician)), who does not have a personal website linked for his label and whose PR agency’s website is currently inaccessible, Abstract Division’s presence in multiple reliable secondary sources such as VPRO and Netflix’s Sense8 soundtrack clearly demonstrates a higher level of notability and coverage in independent media.

I hope this comparison clarifies that Abstract Division has garnered substantial recognition from sources that should be considered authoritative and independent of the artists themselves. Given these points, I respectfully request that the article's deletion be reconsidered or that additional sources be weighed more fairly in the decision-making process.

At last, I have also contacted #wikipedia-en-help for additional advice on how to improve this article that I have followed up.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. VMCS83 (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Abstract Division (April 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 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 music-related topics). 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:

Interviews/what they say about themselves cannot be used to establish notability. TRIFEC is a blog/community forum so not a reliable source. Need more in-depth reviews of their work. See WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources for some sources that are considered reliable.

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:Abstract Division 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.

S0091 (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This feels like a very unfair and biased decision, very unlikely for Wikipedia. There are so many other artists (that I also named above) of same caliber who have their own Wikipedia page, and their submissions have been accepted with a lot less sources (see again my previous reply after the previous rejection, after new edits and re-submission).

Abstract Division appeared with their soundtrack in a Netflix series, so they are internationally a known producer duo, and there are multiple sources that are articles, written by journalists, in music-related magazines, like VICE, Selector News, Resident Advisor and Thump (NL) which have not been added yet the previous times, but most importantly, a national broadcast channel in the Netherlands, VPRO. I doubt that someone understands what VPRO stands for in Holland (but VPRO even has a Wikipedia page, unlike the other sources, e.g., music magazines, that were frequently used on already accepted Wikipedia articles), who doesn't consider those articles seriously for Wikipedia.

Trifec can be removed. There are enough other sources, written by music journalists, and the Netflix 'Sense8' soundtrack contribution alone should be considered a more serious contribution to the music world, than some VICE or Thump articles.

Moreover, I have contacted after the first rejection the "Articles for creation help desk", and I was told that interviews are okay as long as they are used as references, and not as External Links. Nevertheless, even if I delete all the interviews, there numerous articles that have been written about this duo in the past years, and again, a lot more independent articles than other Wikipedia pages.

Hereby one more time the independent articles enumerated:

Verweij, Mick (5 June 2015). "Abstract Division komt met een ode aan Detroit-techno, twee nieuwe labels én een eigen avond in Het Transportbedrijf" [Abstract Division comes with an ode to Detroit techno, two new labels, and a New Night at Transportbedrijf]. Vice Magazine

2. Cameron, John (15 November 2021). "Abstract Division Deliver Sublime Hypnotic Techno". Selector News. Retrieved 18 February 2025

3. de Vrieze, Atze (27 september 2022). Article about Abstract Division at 3voor12 of VPRO

4. de Vrieze, Atze (26 oktober 2021). Article about Abstract Division at 3voor12 of VPRO

5. THUMP Editorial Team (25 November 2015). "Crate Expectations: Abstract Division". Vice. Retrieved 18 February 2025.

6. Kolada, Brian. "Review of Abstract Division - Form & Function Part 3". Resident Advisor.

7. Kolada, Brian. "Review of Abstract Division - Time And Perception Pt. 1". Resident Advisor.

Again, if for other artists, less of these were enough in the past to get their own Wikipedia page... Please explain also why was that. VMCS83 (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that you can't use interviews, it's that they do not help establish notability (see #1 at WP:NMUSIC). Let's do this. Place a note on the draft's talk page with your arguments above (you can just copy them over), You can use Notability as the topic header on the talk page, then resubmit the draft.. I will respond on there with my thoughts on the sources and post a note on the draft for the next reviewer to look at the talk page as part of their review. S0091 (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]