User talk:Louder gums

This is Louder gums's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Split Ticket (October 19)

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 draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent
of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. 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:

Need in-depth coverage about Split Ticket, not what they have said or published.

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:Split Ticket 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) 21:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

added supporting references to the site as it's mentioned alongside other major election forecasters (Crystal Ball, Cook, FiveThirtyEight) Louder gums (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

Crystal Ball is tagged with needing reliable sources so not the best comparison. FiveThirtyEight has cites to NYT, Poynter, Time, etc. Cook Partisan Voting Index has a couple cites to CNN but may not be notable according to today's standards (created in 2004). Wikipedia's notability guidelines have become more stringent over time so articles created over a decade ago or more ago may not meet today's standards. S0091 (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Twitter is not a reliable source so remove that but Politico is good. One more to mainstream media that has coverage about Split Ticket (again, not what they say but what others say about them) and it may pass. S0091 (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

that's really helpful, thanks! what about transcription of the FiveThirtyEight podcast (this is what the tweet mentions), does that pass muster? I'll have to check how to cite a podcast, but timestamp 23:46 https://app.podscribe.ai/episode/83865985 Louder gums (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, the tweet from was from an unconfirmed account and either way, something that trivial is not helpful for notability. What is needed is in-depth coverage about Split Ticket. If the podcast is about them (not an interview with a person related to Split Ticket as that is not

independent coverage), that could be helpful. FiveThirtyEight is considered a reliable source. S0091 (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

got it! removed tweet citation and added the timestamped citation for both discussions of split ticket on both Pod Save America and FiveThirtyEight Louder gums (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted so another reviewer will take a look. I can't say how long it will take because we are all volunteers but most are reviewed within a couple months. S0091 (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks so much! Louder gums (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091: This article in the New Republic should address any need for "in-depth coverage about Split Ticket, not what they have said or published". Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenman: Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613 thanks for taking time to dig into this subject. I personally appreciate editors that consider/improve abandoned drafts. The source, though, is an interview with the partners thus not independent so cannot be used to establish notability. With that said, if you believe they are notable, you can move it mainspace yourself or resubmit it for another review. If I recall correctly, I thought it was borderline-ish when I reviewed it. S0091 (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

have added a profile in the New Republic that I think hits the mark for notability ! Louder gums (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Louder gums do you have any very recent strong sources that have cited Split Ticket (like in the last week)? Given the recent election, national sources cited them would be quite helpful. S0091 (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the New Republic was less than a week ago. if it's helpful, i can add this citation from axios? https://www.axios.com/2022/11/04/democrats-optimism-midterms Louder gums (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Several have started citing the upstart"? It would be great to cite the "several" directly. Not sure if they mean pollsters are citing them or media outlets. Either way, finding those I think is key. S0091 (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the help! this may be kind of a silly question, but i think the main citation refers to a reference on Joy Reid on MSNBC. i have the screenshot, but is there a way to reference this? Louder gums (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, need it from MSNBC directly and need more that just that one. If it was published but not longer available, might want to check Internet Archive. S0091 (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

does this work, re: msnbc? https://twitter.com/cbouzy/status/1587238214313689088

and then re: additional aggregator references https://www.newsweek.com/media-needs-take-long-hard-look-itself-opinion-1758781 Louder gums (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- - msnbc https://twitter.com/thereidout/status/1587251935597445120 Louder gums (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the Newsweek piece, need to say "according to political consultant Eric Schmeltzer blah blah", given it is an opinion. Twitter is a poor source in general, even given it is not really the source, but I listen to the clip and there was nothing about Split Ticket. S0091 (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And in general the draft need to summarize what the sources say about Split Ticket. Right now it is

WP:CITEBOMB. You can say Split Ticket was cited by such-and-such outlet but do not use interviews with those affiliated with Split Ticket. Those are useless (outside of very basic facts). S0091 (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Louder gums! 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! S0091 (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Split Ticket (October 20)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth
(not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent
of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. 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 seeing much significant coverage of the organisation.

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:Split Ticket 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.

Greenman (talk) 11:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Split Ticket
has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Split Ticket. Thanks! Greenman (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]