File copyright problem with File:Samphillips.jpg[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:Samphillips.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
File source problem with File:Samphillips.jpg[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:Samphillips.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that 19 and 20 (which led to Scholder's own page as this had the most information may not be appropriate and have provided alternate (though not as thorough) references. However, I don't understand why 1 and 2 are not appropriate. Please can you explain your thinking? Thank you. Kazrene (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MurielMary 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 people). 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:
Thanks for creating this draft. It's not clear whether the subject meets the notability criteria for a biography on Wikipedia. Has she received any awards directly (herself, rather than a film she worked on with others)?
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:Amy Scholder 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.
Hello, Kazrene!
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! MurielMary (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi “MurielMary”
I’m at a loss to understand why you have rejected Amy Scholder’s page on the grounds that she does not meet the notability standard.
I followed the guidelines on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) carefully and included a range of independent sources as references. Please also note that I have been editing Wiki pages since 2009 so I am familiar with the requirements.
I believe Scholder meets the basic Notability requirement (“presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.”) on this criterion alone. The basic Notability requirement is of course qualified by “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability” and I believe that is the case here.
Scholder falls under the secondary criteria for “Creatives” (Editor is specifically listed here). She certainly meets the first criterion (“regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors”) and this is demonstrated by the references:
E.g. “Scholder began her career in publishing in 1985, working part time at the City Lights bookstore in San Francisco. During subsequent stints at Serpent’s Tail, Verso, and the Feminist Press of City University of New York, she’s published work by a veritable roll call of cultural icons, from Pussy Riot to Joni Mitchell, Kathy Acker to Diamanda Galas, William S. Burroughs to Sapphire, David Wojnarowicz to Savannah Knoop. In 2016 she added ‘documentary producer’ to her resume with the multi-award winning Disclosure, and continues to work on film projects, as well as books. She’s clearly done so much more than subtly polish existing writing — she’s been a major influence on transgressive literature in the USA.” https://litreactor.com/interviews/standing-on-the-threshold-an-interview-with-editor-amy-scholder
E.g. “Host David Colosi sits down with Amy Scholder to discuss her three decade history in the field of publishing, her iconic series High Risk, as well as her most recent project, Icon, an anthology of essays on public figures written by some of the industry's most provocative writers, edited by Scholder and released by The Feminist Press. Amy Scholder has been editing and publishing progressive and literary books for over twenty-five years. She has published the work of Sapphire, Karen Finley, June Jordan, Kate Bornstein, Kathy Acker, David Wojnarowicz, Dorothy Allison, Mary Gaitskill, Joni Mitchell, Justin Vivian Bond, and Paul B. Preciado, and many other award-winning authors.”
e.g. “I entered the bustling office and asked after Elizabeth Koke and Amy Scholder, who created, compiled, and edited Pussy Riot! A Punk Prayer for Freedom, a collection of letters, songs, poems, courtroom statements, and tributes by Yoko Ono, Johanna Fateman, Karen Finley, Justin Vivian Bond, Eileen Myles, and JD Samson. A portion of the proceeds from this e-book will go towards the Pussy Riot legal defense team. Amy Scholder, who was appointed Editorial Director of the social justice-inclined publishing house in 2008, sought out a room with a door for us to sit down and talk.”
Moreover, if you enter the search term “Amy Scholder” into Wikipedia itself, you’ll see she is already referenced by 19 other pages: she is regarded as “an important figure” by all the individuals creating these entries about their respective subjects.
Scholder more than meets the third criterion (“The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);).
To illustrate this, and to make it easier for a non-specialist in American literature to understand, I have added a select bibliography to the article and also here.
Selected Bibliography as Editor
Shock Treatment by Karen Finley (1990, 2015) ISBN 9780872866911
The Terrible Girls by Rebecca Brown (1992) ISBN 9780872862666
Story of the Eye by George Bataille (1987) ISBN 9780872862097
In terms of “such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)”, please see the following:
Coverage for recent publications edited by Amy Scholder
You seem to dismiss Scholder’s role as producer as “a film she worked on with others”. I believe this demonstrates your fundamental misunderstanding of the role and importance of a documentary producer. Specifically referencing “Disclosure”, the end credit is "A film by Sam Feder and Amy Scholder," demonstrating a central, driving role in creating this award-winning work. I am hoping that a quick Google, which brings up articles such as those following, will enlighten you on the primacy of Scholder’s work as a producer:
When working on this article I also referenced other Wikipedia articles about editors who have had a similar career to Scholder. Again, I absolutely fail to understand how the following editors meet the standard for notability when Scholder does not:
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Asilvering 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 people). 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:
No change from previous, except to add the massive list of books edited (is that really "selected"?!). She's edited so many people who have won pretty major awards, surely there's something out there about her, specifically? The reviews/awards etc for Disclosure are great, is there anything else for anything else she's done...?
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:Amy Scholder 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.
Hi @Kazrene, could you resubmit this actually, and send me a note that you've done so? I'll accept it. I didn't look at the "Standing on the Threshold" article closely because it's subtitled "an interview" - but it's actually a feature. That's the "something about her, specifically" I was looking for. Sorry about this! -- asilvering (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, how do I resubmit specifically to you? Or do I just resubmit? Kazrene (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just resubmit and reply here so I get a ping about it, that's all. -- asilvering (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amy Scholder, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.