Clarice PhelpsEdit

Hello, and thank you for contributing to the Simple English Wikipedia! In it's current state, the article is not yet simplified, and the majority of the sources are either primary or promotional/unreliable. I'm also borderline on notability; the points brought up in the various English Wikipedia discusisons are valid. Do we have an article on every member of the team that discovered Tennessine? Does being a member of such a team constitute notability inherently, or is she notable because of her race and sex? ("Phelps is thought to be the first African-American woman to help discover an element.") These are questions that will determine her notability. Personally, I'm in favor of inclusion (as I am with most things), but it's not suitable in it's current state. I recommend userification, where we can work on the article without it being in mainspace. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey Vermont! I do believe that Clarice Phelps meets WP:ANYBIO: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the historical record in his or her specific field. This can be shown from #Scholarship and from this source[1] which was run in Stem Magazine wholesale.[2]
In bringing this article here, I mainly discounted the aforementioned discussions.[3][4][5][6][7] It's been discussed to death over there. A major reason for importing en:User:Levivich/Clarice Phelps over Draft:Clarice Phelps was to get away from those semi-circular discussions.
Then we have the case of Wikipedia controversy aspect of this story. The Undark article by Claire Jarvis[8] was picked up by Slate, [9] Fast Company,[10] and the Wire.[11] The Daily Dot also ran their own article on the story.[12] Then we also have that mention in the Washington Post opinion piece... Yeah that was.. yeah. [13]
We would not be the only WMF small wiki with coverage of this subject as well as also has an article on Clarice Phelps. However, if you feel there is any WP:BLP concerns for this article, I will happily accept userfication.
I hope all that explains why I think mainspace is a safe bet for now, though. –MJLTalk 16:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. As a note, the Simple English Wikipedia isn't a small wiki. It's a medium-large wiki with it's own crats, CU's, OS's, etc. Granted, compared to the 1200 enwiki admins, 17 is quite small, but compared to the other 750-ish projects, it isn't. In regard to ANYBIO, I'm not sure an article from the place she works at (which she likely had a hand in or even wrote herself) can qualify that notability criteria. In regard to the Scholarship section, are you implying any scientist who publishes research is notable? Or am I missing something about the importance of this research? If you have secondary, reliable, verifiable sources that state so, it would be beneficial to add. I don't think it needs to be draftified in it's current state, and I have no concerns regarding BLP policy on this article. The controversy about her English Wikipedia article might constitute notability. (Ironic, eh?) Vermont (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
@Vermont: Sorry for like the month-late reply. One of the folks we cite apparently has a book that includes coverage of her. I've asked them for the exact quote on Twitter so we can cite it. I might need to buy his book to comply with verifiability, though, now that I think about it. It's so pricey, though.. –MJLTalk 01:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Okay. Also, I'm not sure if it was you who added it, but the original version on simplewiki had infobox military person included in her infobox, and saying she served in the US Navy. There is no source I could find for either an enlistment or commission. Was she a civilian worker at a Navy installation, as I assume, or did sue actually serve in the Navy? The coverage on her tends to be either from her/her employers or smallbits of semireliable coverage in a few articles. Personally, I see it as borderline notable, but if its verifiable and reliable we might as well keep it imo. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
@Vermont: Wasn't me, but I agree it should be excluded. Pretty sure she was a civilian employee, but idk. –MJLTalk 00:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


  1. Simoneau, Sean (2018-12-17). "Clarice Phelps: Dedicated service to science and community". Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Archived from the original on 2019-02-05. Retrieved 2019-02-05.
  2. Simoneau, Sean. Carley, Wayne (ed.). "STEM Magazine". STEM Magazine. No. Feb 2019. STEM Magazine Inc. pp. 22–25. Retrieved 5 May 2019.
  3. en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarice Phelps
  4. en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarice Phelps (2nd nomination)
  5. en:Draft talk:Clarice Phelps
  6. en:Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 May 1#Clarice Phelps
  7. en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama
  8. Jarvis, Claire (25 April 2019). "What a Deleted Profile Tells Us About Wikipedia's Diversity Problem". Undark. Retrieved 5 May 2019.
  9. Jarvis, Claire L. (26 April 2019). "Wikipedia's Refusal to Profile a Black Female Scientist Shows Its Diversity Problem". Slate Magazine. Future Tense. Retrieved 5 May 2019.
  10. Jarvis, Claire (25 April 2019). "A deleted Wikipedia page speaks volumes about its biggest problem". Fast Company. Retrieved 5 May 2019.
  11. Jarvis, Claire (26 April 2019). "What a Deleted Profile Tells Us About Wikipedia's Diversity Problem". The Wire. Retrieved 5 May 2019.
  12. Sadeque, Samira (29 April 2019). "Wikipedia doesn't think this Black female scientist is notable enough for a page". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 5 May 2019.
  13. Zaringhalam, Maryam; Wade, Jess (2019-04-12). "It matters who we champion in science". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2019-04-16. Retrieved 2019-04-29.

Baseball uniformEdit

Hi MJ! I edited the main page :-D and though I think it's an uncontroversial correction for accuracy, I thought it'd be good to get a second set of eyes on the edit to make sure. Since you're the only other editor I know on this wiki, would you mind taking a minute to look over my shoulder and review this edit and edit/revert/report me to a noticeboard as you see fit? :-) (In short, there was a sentence in the blurb at Wikipedia:Very good articles/Baseball uniform that didn't match the article Baseball uniform, and I changed it to match the article.) Thanks! Levivich (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: Lol yeah you're good! Thank you for fixing that!! :D –MJLTalk 19:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Isra and MiragEdit


This is Mohammed. Regarding your statement in the Isra and Miraj page, stating that some people disagree about it. What crediability can you provide to ensure that what you wrote is correct? Saying " people", this includes Muslims, and this is not acceptable because it's stated clearly in the Quran and Hadith and almost every Muslim believe in this. So if you insist to keep your post, we will have no option but to report to wikipedia for a religious insult . As you are asking for a reference from the Quran, you can surf the web to find that what you wrote is a big deal to muslims. Perhaps I'll be sharing the page to known scholar and see what they say. Please delete your post to avoid any conflicts and keep the respect going — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mo mohanna (talkcontribs) 23:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mo mohanna: As the entire article is unsourced, I removed the disputed section as a sort of compromise. Does that work for you? –MJLTalk 00:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much. It should work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mo mohanna (talkcontribs) 03:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Awesome! :D –MJLTalk 03:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hartford, ConnecticutEdit

Considering you helped out on your review for the Lawrence, Kansas article, I decided I would actually help you on Hartford, Connecticut. I don't know about doing some kind of collaboration, but I went ahead and added 39,681 bytes of information. Basically, I created all of the major sections for the article, so it should act as a good skeleton. All it needs now is more information for each section. It's in your hands now. Good luck! ~Junedude433talk 22:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Jaime CasapEdit

An editor has requested deletion of Jaime Casap, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2021/Jaime Casap and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)