User talk:Wchasegore

Welcome!

Hello, Wchasegore, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

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. Again, welcome! CoroneC0rnix-64 (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Richard J. Arsenault (August 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Itzcuauhtli11 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:

Most reliable sources are not about the subject, with only mentions. Sources about the subject are not reliable ones.

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:Richard J. Arsenault 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.

— Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wchasegore! 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! — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the feedback. I will work on editing the article to address the concerns and re-submit for review again accordingly. I appreciate your time reviewing and providing a response to help guide me in this process. Wchasegore (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much again for the thoughtful AfC review. Per your concern that earlier sourcing did not show significant, independent coverage about the subject, we have reworked the draft to rely on mainstream, third-party reporting that specifically discusses Richard J. Arsenault’s role in the plaintiffs’ bar, beyond case mentions. In the lead, we added Bloomberg Businessweek (profiling him during the BP era and describing him as “a dean of the Louisiana tort bar”) and Reuters’ network analysis identifying him among the most central repeat leaders in MDL appointments. In Career/MDL leadership, we summarized independent meta-coverage from The Wall Street Journal (two Toyota MDL jockeying pieces discussing his organizing of a pre-hearing symposium) and KPBS (public-media report quoting him on coordinating efforts). In Recent appointment, we cited The Guardian and WWL-TV regarding his 2025 selection as the abuse-claims reviewer in the New Orleans Archdiocese case. We trimmed or moved firm/affiliated materials and directories to “Further reading,” and kept court orders only where they verify roles—not for notability. Citations are standardized to {{cite news}}: Empty citation (help)/ {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help) with consolidated reflist. We appreciate your earlier guidance and would welcome another look to confirm that the draft now meets WP:BIO/WP:N standards based on significant, independent coverage about the subject. I look forward to your review and I appreciate your attention greatly. Wchasegore (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Richard J. Arsenault (August 14)

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

Well done on creating the draft, and it may potentially meet the relevant requirements (including WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO) but presently it is not clear that it does.

As other reviewers have noted, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are 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. To properly create such a draft page, please see the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’. In short, "notability" requires reliable sources about the subject, rather than by the subject. Please note that many of the references would appear to be from sources that are NOT considered reliable for establishing notability and should be removed (including blogs, company websites, press releases, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Spotify etc). Please note that some of the references are not formatted correctly (see Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor and Wikipedia’s Manual of Style for help). Additionally, the draft tends to read too much like a promotional CV, which Wikipedia is not (also see WP:PEACOCK). The draft does not appear to show that the subject has any notability beyond the average coverage in trade publications for similar attorneys (see WP:ROTM). Also, if you have any connection to the subject, including being the subject (see WP:AUTOBIO) or being paid, you have a conflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link). Please familiarise yourself with these pages before amending the draft. If you feel you can meet these requirements, then please make the necessary amendments before resubmitting the page. It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject. It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:ANYBIO criteria #3, because XXXXX").

Once you have implemented these suggestions, you may also wish to leave a note for me on my talk page, including the name of the draft page, and I would be happy to reassess.

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:Richard J. Arsenault 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.

Cabrils (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the detailed feedback, this is extremely helpful. I will review this information in depth, including the helpful materials since this is my first draft attempt, and re-work the draft to ensure it meets the above qualifications. I will certainly take your suggestion and once implemented, leave a note on your talk page requesting a reassess. Thank you so much for your valuable time, it is greatly appreciated on my end. Wchasegore (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]