Jump to content

User talk:S0091/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Music Blocks Draft

Hi,

Thank you for reviewing my article.

I did my best to make recommended changes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Music_Blocks

Specifically:

  • I removed all YouTube links (although they were all 3rd-party--one hosted by the university, another by a well-known Japanese education company)
  • I removed the Amazon link to the book and replaced it with text reference. Stager and Pang are well-known "authorities" in constrictionism learning, and thus the reference should stay, I think, even though they published it through Amazon.
  • I removed extra GitHub links that were, perhaps, too specific. However, since the software code and its documentation is hosted on Github, I find it unavoidable to reference GitHub.

By the way, the template I started from was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap!_(programming_language) This article is about a very similar subject, and is about the same level of maturity (as opposed to Scratch, which has been around longer and thus has more references overall). It references Github and YouTube, which I found perfectly understandable given the subject matter.

Best, --Remakemusic (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Publication rejected

Greetings, you rejected my article Draft:Summertown Stars AFC due to a lack of notability. However, there are a wide variety of sources containing this team; and I -as I live in Oxford myself- know it as a much talked about subject- many minors in my district play for this team/ For that reason I personally believe my draft should be accepted. Albeit, this is just my personal opinion and if you say it's still not notable enough, then it is. Bye now, Peartree42 (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Peartree42:, actually, it is declined due to lack of sources. You have two, one which is a directory and one is a profile on an architecture firm's website. Neither confer notability. What is needed are multiple independent reliable sources that have written in-depth about them and it needs to be beyond locale coverage. Please see the notability guidelines for groups. Also, you may find this guide helpful for how to add citations. Currently, you just have the source listed as external links. S0091 (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

DRAFT: Heather C. Fischer

Hi, I see your comment about notability but nearly every White House Czar in the link you provided has their own Wiki page. The first US Government senior official for human trafficking in the White House (who issued the first whole of government National Action plan for Human Trafficking) is surely notable. Certainly Wiki thinks so for the first White House Homeland Security Advisor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_Security_Advisor) and the first National Security Action Plan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Strategy_(United_States). The new role was considered so prestigious that it was commemorated in January 2020 at a White House summit in the east room. Is this inconsistency in Wiki pages related to bias against the Trump Administration? I see that previous Wiki reviewers rebuffed and rejected the submission based on mentions of Trump, Barr, etc alone. Thanks for reconsidering. Potomic2021 (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Potomic2021: what I stated was Most of the contents are about her position as czar but those positions are generally not notable (see List of U.S. executive branch czars) and even when a position is notable, the person filling it may or may not be notable. In order for her to warrant an article, in-depth coverage about her from multiple independent reliable sources are needed. I suggest staying away from making political accusations as much of the editor base here are not Americans and even if they are do not make decisions about Wikipedia's content based on politics (there are admittedly exceptions and it disgusts me when I see it as it does with caste warriors and the like). The American media, thus the sources available may be a different story, but your question is insulting, honestly. I think what the other reviewer was getting at is that the content and sources were Trump, Barr, etc focused rather than about her. I suggest reading WP:THREE and if you can provide three sources that have written about her in-depth (generally two or three well-formed paragraphs each), then the article should be accepted. You are welcome to post those on the draft's talk page (just add a note with links to the sources) then resubmit it and another reviewer will review it. I will keep an eye the draft in next week or so and provide guidance, if needed. S0091 (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
What is notable to me is that the men ambassadors at the State Department that she outranked are deemed as notable and on Wikipedia without the WP:THREE citations but she is not. No need to be insulted, just pointing out the obvious political and gender bias here. Potomic2021 (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Raed Faisal Alhuwaizi

Hello, hope you are doing well, first of all, thank you for your efforts and I think you made mistake cause the problem with Iraqi sources is that they do not use websites all that much, even for official governmental sources (such as the Syndicate of Dentists or the Ministry of Health) are more active and write official releases on their social media accounts more often than they do on their websites if they even updated them. This doctor has been awarded on their website, he even has certificates from the Minister of Health himself, this is mentioned in the official university of Kufa website as you can find here The other problem is that half of the official accounts in Iraq don't go through the verification process so even though they are reliable sources, they don't have the verification badge. I hope that you understand how the situation is in Iraq, Can you please check this link here it's Urubah Foundation for Human Rights official NGO, Which is verified by the Organizations Registration Department of the Iraqi government, It has published about the death of the doctor and helped orphans in their grief over the loss of the doctor, as mentioned in the description of the post, but everyone publishes in the social media and they don't have a website As well as many official parties which they do not own websites. I am confident that he's well known and noticed in the Iraqi society, but as you may or may not know, Iraqi media in recent years was depending mostly on social media platforms even the official outlets, such as the syndicate of dentists which is an official governmental entity posted on him more than once on social media (here). Their official website is not frequently updated and more than 100 doctors posted about him on social media platforms, of these doctors some are very well known, who are sad to lose him and his professional and scientific input. As for rewards he got awarded with more than 20 awards you can find the source here. I haven't added this yet because I'm trying to collect more than one source and if I can get certificate images but sadly the Iraqi media websites have issues because Iraqis don't browse websites all that much, instead they use social media platforms. thank you in advance. --Pro95mustafa (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Pro95mustafa:, social media cannot be used to establish notability, furthermore, it should only be used to support very limited content. Please see WP:SOCIALMEDIA for guidance. What is needed is in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. If no such sources exist, then an article cannot be accepted no matter how well-known he is. S0091 (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Look Ahead America

Hey there. You left me a message requesting the removal of self-referential hyperlinks and links to certain other websites in my LAA Draft article. I was wondering if the changes made were what you had in mind, and - particularly - how I should go about citing things such as Organization mission statements or mottos, since those are noncontroversial statements released by organizations about their own stated goals and policies, etc. CSwift1992 (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @CSwift1992: Wikipedia does not care what an organization has to say about itself so mission statements, mottos, etc. do not belong here. An article should simply summarize what unaffiliated reliable sources have chosen to published about a subject without prompting or involvement of the subject. For example, a press release or announcement is prompted by a company so not usable. Please read WP:NCORP. Also, you still have some external links in the Activism section but that is big issue. The issue are the sourcing and the content. S0091 (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello again @S0091: Thank you for the help and clarification. I went ahead and purged all external links, even to government documents (such as the IRS letter), and cut out things like the group motto. CSwift1992 (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi there again @S0091:, just wanted to update you that the LAA Draft has been updated to your specifications regarding sources and reliability. Thanks again for the input; if you could, would it be possible to review the changes made and - if they're satisfactory - remove the notice? CSwift1992 (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@CSwift1992: it seems you accidentally removed the submission template so it is not currently submitted for review. I have added a template so you just need to click the blue button to resubmit it again. I generally do not do re-reviews for a few reasons, one them being I think it benefits the submitter and the draft to have another set of eyes take a look. S0091 (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@S0091: Oh okay, got it. Thank you for your help in this! CSwift1992 (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Ian Seabrook DRAFT improvement

Hello, S0091! Thank you for your response to the Ian Seabrook DRAFT article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ian_Seabrook I'm disappointed that you don't think that the references are strong enough. Would it help if I whittle the text down to the basics, with just one or two strong references that only spotlight Ian? Also, is IMDb not a recognized source by Wikipedia? Ian is a prominent cinematographer.

Thank you for any advice about how to improve this draft. Bethbcpr (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Bethbcpr: if I recall correctly, the issue was the sources largely were interviews which are not independent so cannot be used for notability and other sources were brief mentions (not in-depth). IMDB is user-generated which is why it should not be used (see WP:IMDB for more information). I see you have declared a COI for this and other article\drafts. Is it COI or should it be paid? Not a big deal and but there are different declarations. S0091 (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the notes @S0091: I'm not paid by Ian Seabrook. it is a COI since colleagues work with him. Bethbcpr (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC).

St. George's University Page

I've added a significant amount of information about the St. George's University with all Encycloedic information (i.e. population numbers, demographics, degrees offered, etc...) being cited by the schools own website. If you have a preferred source for that, please let me know so that it can be properly updated. The accreditation status of the school is also an encyclopedic fact backed up by the AVMA, RCVS, and the school itself. The WINDREF information is cited by the WINDREF institutes own page as well, and the student life information is obviously going to be non-encyclopedic, but none of it is presented as such therefore it's perfectly viable. Please don't revert pages to default simply because you don't know the information. The citations are provided for a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CODAFRGA (talk • contribs) 22:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @CODAFRGA: the school's website or any publication affiliated with them is not a reliable source because it is not independent so should not be used except for very basic facts (location, chancellor, etc.). Also, to state something is "prestigious", which is an exceptional claim, requires multiple independent reliable sources (see how many sources are used for the claim Harvard University is "prestigious"...I think six or so). The onus (read this) is on the person that adds the content to prove it is worthy of inclusion. If no secondary sources have written about something, it is likely not worthy of inclusion and even if they do, it may not be worthy of inclusion. Also, please familiarize with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The other thing I would caution you about is reverting long standing Wikipedia editors. I don't mind, especially since you came my talk page to state your reasoning, but many editors have a different point of view. The appropriate action to take is start a discussion on article's talk page so you can gain consensus (read this) for your changes. You are new so understandable. I will also leave you some additional information about editing Wikipedia on your talk page. Thanks again for the note. S0091 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused how information regarding school population and demographics can't be considered credible from the schools own page. That's by and far the best site to source that information from. Your claim about "prestigious" being a an "exceptional" claim is a bit far-fetched as it is completely relative. Being a leader of research in a geographical area and having the financial backing of the Grenadian government as well as the House of Lords of the United Kingdom, is certainly a good claim for prestige. It may not be the "prestige" of Harvard, but that's not the claim being made. It's a shame that Wikipedia editors are so resistant to articles being edited, as all of the information being provided is accurate and expands on the page greatly. If you wanted to remove the parts that you personally disagreed with that would be far more productive that eliminating everything including the updated enrollment numbers, school colors, campus size, details about the Veterinary School, and the details about the WINDREF organization and its beneficiaries. This is there are so few contributions to Wikipedia, because even good faith efforts to build pages are generally rejected for minor reasons generally amounting to little more than personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CODAFRGA (talk • contribs) 23:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I've gone as far as to remove the word prestigious and to add independent citations for the accreditation (from the AVMA and RCVS respectively). Everything on the site currently is factual and true. If you find a discrepancy and would like further citation, I would be glad to provide them, but removing all edits including factual information is not helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CODAFRGA (talk • contribs) 23:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI

This may interest you! Who knew? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Google_search_does_not_turn_up_article --2603:7000:2143:8500:9B8:B23B:7DDC:518E (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP! Yes, I did actually know that but many do find it surprising as the expectation is once an article is published to mainspace (i.e. "live") it is also picked up by the Google machine (hehe!). NPP is backlogged (just like AfC and many other things on Wikipedia....lots of stuff to do, not enough volunteers to do them). I can't say how long it will take but it may be a couple months although they are making some meaningful progress. Thanks for dropping by! S0091 (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Request on 00:10:31, 30 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Ccnxb


Dear S0091,

I see the message that you left on my page about submission's references not showing significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

Since references on the submission include articles from Radio Television of Serbia (Serbia's public broadcaster and member of the European Broadcasting Union), Film Center of Serbia (National Film Institute of Republic of Serbia), Dnevnik (Regional daily newspaper in Vojvodina, founded in 1942), and more, I believe those sources are both reliable and independent of the subject. What additional references can I include in the article for it to be published?

Thank you!



Ccnxb (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Ccnxb:, yes, you are correct that some of the sources you used are reliable but they are standard notices/press releases, simply stating the event is occurring with a little detail along with a statement or two from a festival representative (not independent). The draft states it is "one of the most promintent" film festivals. If it is prominent, then sources are needed that support that and they need to go in-depth as to why. Please do read WP:NEVENT which is a thorough guideline. Also, be mindful of WP:NOTGALLERY (although that was not the reason for the decline). Thank you the note and questions! S0091 (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Trying to better understand the criteria for reliable secondary sources.

Hi S0091,

I am a little confused about the rejection of the draft page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ultimate_Ninja_Athlete_Association. Your comment said it did "not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I've therefore added a few more links from independent secondary sources, not only mentions but also included a secondary source about its world finals in addition to the previous announcements (including a press release) from other sources. There are hundreds of "ninja gyms" all around the world, and many of them - though independently owned - are associated with the UNAA. If one does a search on the Ultimate Ninja Athlete Association, there will be many references to the league from these gyms' web sites and/or blog articles. Are these not "secondary sources"? If so, how many more of these do I need to cite? (There are probably a hundred, which seems far more than would be helpful, and I was concerned that just choosing a few would be considered bias as most of the gyms would consider themselves peers). If those involved with the sport can't validate the most significant league in the sport, what does? Several news sources highlighted stories of people who competed at the World Championships which is the pinnacle of the sport, much like the Super Bowl is to US Football, albeit on a smaller scale. When articles mention the Super Bowl, they don't spend a lot of time explaining what the NFL is. It would seem like football teams are even more closely associated with the NFL than the independent gyms are with this league and references to athletes who play in the league from independent news sources are similar. What am I missing as far as what is needed from secondary sources to validate the significance of the league?

I certainly do not claim that the sport of ninja is at the same scale as the NFL and do not mean to be antagonistic with this question. I am trying to understand what kind of outside sources are needed to validate it in Wikipedia's eyes as I am very knowledgeable about the significance of this fast growing sport and completely convinced the UNAA is a significant organization. I have put a lot of effort into the draft in order to provide accurate information to those who might be interested. If the issue is that the sport is just not "big enough yet" to be acknowledged, the rejection would make more sense to me, but the earlier precedent of existing wiki content is what led me to create the draft...

When searching for links to the UNAA for other purposes last year, I found the wiki disambiguation page UNAA in which someone had listed the Ultimate Ninja Athlete Association among other UNAAs but did not include a link. As an expert on the sport (and not employed or owning an interest in the major leagues associated with the sport), I found it interesting and wondered if the other major league in the sport had a page. I found the National Ninja League page in its earlier form which I felt was fairly inaccurate and clearly written by someone closely associated with and promoting that league. So, I figured that if that organization made it to Wikipedia, that the UNAA should be added as it was more significant internationally. So, I created the draft of the UNAA page, with similar sections, and I made extra effort to do so in a more objective way including more references than the original National Ninja League post. My draft was rejected citing the same reasons you presented.

So, a little confused, I went to work adding more citations. I also added edits to the National Ninja League page to make it more accurate because, although it is clearly a significant part of the sport, it certainly does not define the sport (as some of its original content indicated). I also added missing references to that page seeking to bolster its informational integrity. My edits were quickly approved on the National Ninja League page, and I waited for months for someone to review the Ultimate Ninja Athlete Association draft page.

I was quite surprised when this was rejected again. As Wikipedia stands today, the sport of Ninja is represented by the reality TV show American Ninja Warrior and the National Ninja League, which has less of a recognized presence and stands with less citations than the page I drafted for the Ultimate Ninja Athlete Association. I am not lobbying for the removal of the National Ninja League - as it is a significant league - but rather suggesting that Wikipedia should not leave such an imbalance, especially recognizing that the UNAA is much more significant internationally.

Thanks in advance for your help in understanding this process.

Kauerrolemodel (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Kauerrolemodel: press releases, interviews, their website or other publications by them or their affiliates are not reliable sources because they are not independent so they cannot be used to establish notability. Blogs are generally considered unreliable (see WP:BLOGS). I cannot speak to existing articles other than to say using an an existing article as a basis of what is acceptable is tricky because notability standards have changed overtime and with 6 million articles, non-notable (and sometimes quite frankly crap) do get by (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST). The general rule to meet notability are three independent reliable sources that have written about a subject in-depth (2-3 well-formed paragraphs). Reliable sources have a editorial oversight and a history of fact checking, so a gym would not be be a reliable source. Think more in the lines of newspapers, some other periodical (like Sports Illustrated, ESPN...there needs to be journalistic standards that are followed), a book published by a reputable publisher or a peer-reviewed journal, etc. Also, like you alluded above, it really could be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Either way, you have resubmitted the article so another reviewer will review it which will provide an opportunity for another opinion. I hope this helps and thanks for the message and questions. S0091 (talk) S0091 (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft:SJ (rapper)

I read WP:CRIME and Draft:SJ (rapper) was not just only known for that murder in fact he blew up as a rapper before he was even charged for that murder and with songs like "Youngest in Charge" and "Ambush" with both almost having 30 million views on YouTube. BurudaKidd (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @BurudaKidd: I see you have resubmitted it so another reviewer will review it. I can say the number of YouTube views matters not for notability but if they, as an individual musician, charted on a recognized UK chart, that is helpful (see both the notability guidelines for musicians and WP:CHARTS). If a group/band charted, then that goes towards the group's notability not any individual member. If SJ did chart, I suggest updating the prose with the appropriate sources to add that information rather than focusing on views or number of streams. S0091 (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

SJ alongside Bandokay and Double Lz were the main composers if I could use that word of the mixtape Frontstreet (album) which did chart 36 on the UK Albums Chart however they didn’t put any of their stage names on the charts just their group OFB but it’s their mixtape and also it has their stage names on the cover of the mixtape. BurudaKidd (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@BurudaKidd: you can try All Music as they generally list the credits for an artist, song, album, etc. That will help make it more clear. S0091 (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Couldn’t really find anything on All Music but I found this https://amp.www.complex.com/music/2019/10/ofb-frontstreet BurudaKidd (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@BurudaKidd: it doesn't hurt to add it but there are a lot of caveats stated in that article (i,e. his "situation"). In my mind if Sj is not specifically credited, then he had had nothing he to do with Frontstreet (from a verifiability perspective). Maybe another reviewer will see something else that to them, based on their experience with WP:AFD discussions, passes the article. S0091 (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Red Wine & Blue

Hi S0091,

Thank you for reviewing my draft of draft:Red Wine & Blue. Per your comments, I made changes to the citations used on the page and would love a second pair of eyes on them. Thanks!

Drewamstutz (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)DrewAmstutz

Hi @Drewamstutz: I see the draft was accepted. Great job and thank you for your contributions! They are an interesting group with a fantastic name. :) I hope you decide to stay around. You may be interested in WikiProject Women in Red which Its a very active and supportive project. S0091 (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Elizabeth Woodward

It looks like a submission you declined (Elizabeth Woodward) is now somehow in the mainspace. Is that where it's supposed to be? Regards. Filetime (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Filetime: it looks like they recreated it directly in mainspace. It now exists as Draft:Elizabeth Woodward, which I declined, and Elizabeth Woodward. S0091 (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Filetime: and @S0091:, I uploaded it to the mainspace because I believe notability is evidently clear. This person is mentioned as a producer of a film with a wikipedia page You Resemble Me and has been mentioned in various magazines, both printed and online, such as Forbes, Deadline, Airmail and Variety. There are multiple sources available online which are referenced in this article. This person was also mentioned in 2021 Forbes 30 Under 30, a printed magazine list which exists to point out people who are relevant in their field, thereby pointing to notability. ChairMex (ChairMex) 21:57, 5 February 2022 (CST)

hide with nave

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hide_with_Nave what would i need to remove? i could remove links and other stuff, if not let me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonzo Dimduly (talk • contribs) 22:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Bonzo Dimduly: A Wikipedia article does not simply tell people about things like other websites or social media. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources have written about something. Further, the notability guidelines requires in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. I do not think your game meets that standard. S0091 (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

hide with nave

thats fine, a wiki article would be great, but it doesn't need one. thanks for your feedback — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonzo Dimduly (talk • contribs) 22:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bonzo Dimduly: maybe one day? Either way, there's plenty of other stuff do around here than writing articles. If your interested, stick around. S0091 (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

thanks, i wrote a section in unity about render pipelines that it uses and how they are different but it was taken down, any clue what could have happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonzo Dimduly (talk • contribs) 22:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bonzo Dimduly: It was unsourced. Generally, content you add should always be cited to a reliable source (see WP:V and this guide for adding citations). The editor who reverted your edit did leave an edit summary with an explanation which you can see if you go to the View History tab of the article. S0091 (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

thats fine i think i fixed it, its still there so i think its okay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonzo Dimduly (talk • contribs) 16:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you please explain your comments?

Hello. In your rejection of Draft:Benzinga, you commented: "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 organizations and companies)."

I would appreciate if you could please explain how articles written specifically about the subject by such major media outlets as Bloomberg, the Globe & Mail and the Detroit Free Press represent "passing mentions" by insignificant sources? Based on your comments, I have to wonder if you read the article and its sourcing or if you just rubber stamped the earlier rejection. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @And Adoil Descended: sources that state "company announced" are press releases or standard notices (mergers/acquisitions, funding announcements, personal changes, etc.) which cannot be used to establish notability as they are based largely on what the company says about itself or considered trivial. That is regardless of the publication because it is not independent even if the source is considered a reliable source. The same is for interviews with a company representative such as the CEO. Essentially, anything that states "company/representative said/says", "company/rep believes", "according to company/rep", etc. is not usable. Have you read WP:NCORP? It actually goes quite in-depth about the sourcing requirements with examples (see WP:ORGCRIT section). And yes, I did read the sources, except for Crain's Detroit as I was unable to access it but the content attributed to it is about Benzinga hosting events, which does not establish notability.
You are welcome to submit the article again for another reviewer to review it. If you choose to do so, I suggest posting on note a the draft's talk page with three sources that are in-depth and meet WP:ORGCRIT (see WP:THREE for guidance). S0091 (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I am sorry, but you are reading the articles incorrectly. Media sources that state the "company announced" are reporting news, not rehashing press releases - if a company has a major announcement, that is news. That's Journalism 101 for the U.S. media. Also, I went out of my way to source the articles from prominent media including Bloomberg, the Globe & Mail and the Detroit Free Press - if I just lifted press releases from PRNewswire or BusinessWire, then obviously that would be improper sourcing. Also, Benzinga is a host of high-profile business events, which is why the Crains Detroit article was included to offer an independent reference of the company's activities. And, yes I have read WP:NCORP and I compared the article to similar articles about this company's competitors that are featured on Wikipedia. I am very surprised that a benign stub article about a media source that is widely quoted on Wikipedia for references in a multitude of other articles cannot get approved for coverage. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
@And Adoil Descended: there is a difference between verifiability and notability. Announcements published by a reputable source can be used to establish a fact in an article and is news so that is in line with WP:RS, thus you will see press releases/announcements used in articles. (The next standard is WP:DUE/WP:ONUS, i.e. should it be included). However, notability is a different standard and above that the sources used and the content within those sources to establish notability have a higher standard for companies. As far as using existing articles to as a guideline, be mindful of WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. There are a lot of crap articles on Wikipedia unfortunately. If you are going use an existing article as a guideline, I suggest finding one that is Good article status as it has been vetted. Oh and I found this that you might find interesting. Anyway, like I said before you are welcome to resubmit to get an assessment from another reviewer and/or perhaps post a note at the WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk (link also in decline notice at the bottom). S0091 (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:ApiNATOMY

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. With reference to your point that "Frontiers is considered unreliable so should not be used", is there a published list of journals that Wikipedia considers unreliable? The basis of determining the reliability or otherwise of a journal is unclear at this stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehousecarl (talk • contribs) 15:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Thehousecarl: There is no single place to go but a good one is WP:CITEWATCH (which I just found so glad you are asking). I have a tool that highlights sources to let me know for a particular source if the community has deemed them reliable (green), borderline (yellow) or unreliable (red). Frontiers was red so I went to the reliable sources noticeboard where sources are discussed which has search feature. While there have been several discussions about Frontiers over the years, I looked at this one so I could understand why. I hope this helps. S0091 (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

DRAFT- SUNIL PREM VYAS

Hello S0091 sir, I waited and researched for many days on the draft topic and found this man has a profound notability and immense authentic work proof. I request you to kindly recheck and approve my draft on Wikipedia. thanks. Sumieye (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Request on 12:33:20, 9 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Rachelwin21


Hello there, I am reading the decline reason and I'm having troubles understanding how can this be... saying Amazon isnt a reliable source or many of the sources dont mention Rabbi is simply isnt true. I am aware this draft was declined before but all was corrected and many sources, reliable ones, are added. We are over 1-3 reliable sources requested and I ask this draft will be reviewed fairly, although this is an Israeli company. Just to be on the safe side, below a few of the sources:

  1. ynet
  2. ice
  3. globes
  4. haaretz
  5. amazon / cloudzone
  6. maariv
  7. Mako

--Rachelwin21 (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Rachelwin21 (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The Union (Comics) Article

The Union (Marvel Team) is about the marvel team

Draft:The Union (comics) is about the comic book series.

The Union comics article only has comics related sections to avoid overlap, the Union team are explained in detail but only in the Union marvel team article.

ChefBear01 (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @ChefBear01: I recommend expanding the Comic publication history section. They both have very similar content so if they are quite different subjects then they both need to be rewritten with the draft only focusing on the comic book series and The Union (Marvel Team) only focusing on the team. If the same sources are being used for both, that is an indication they should be covered in the same article rather than split in two. S0091 (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I have removed the character section
below is a list of both set of citations, only two of the citations are used in both but I can will see if I can get alternate citations.
The Union (Comics)
  • "'The Union' Introduces New Superteam to Marvel's Comic Book Universe This May". The Hollywood Reporter. 19 February 2020. Retrieved 2020-06-08.
  • Hay, Katharine (February 20, 2020). "'This is a big mistake': Scots react as Marvel launch new UK superhero team called The Union". The Scotsman.
  • Mullicane, Evan (June 29, 2020). "EMPYRE: Marvel Massively Reduces Its Biggest Event of The Year". Screen Rant.
  • Lovett, Jamie (October 30, 2020). "Marvel's The Union: Paul Grist Talks Introducing New Superhero Team During King in Black". Comic Book.
  • Corley, Shaun (November 29, 2020). "Marvel's New UK Team Arrives in THE UNION #1 Preview". Screen Rant.
  • Corey, Shaun (May 2, 2021). "Marvel's Union Learns the Truth of Their Existence in New Preview". Screen Rant.
  • Cordas, Jacob (December 2, 2020). "REVIEW: The Union #1 does a solid job of launching as an event tie-in". Comics Bookcase.
  • Iciek, Alexandra (November 27, 2020). "The Union' #1 review". AITP Comics.
  • Entertainment, Marvel (July 7, 2021). The Union: The Britannia Project. Google Books. ISBN 9781302938680.
The Union (Marvel Team)
  • "'The Union' Introduces New Superteam to Marvel's Comic Book Universe This May". The Hollywood Reporter. 19 February 2020. Retrieved 2020-06-08.
(Both)
  • Lealos, Shawn. S (December 7, 2020). "King in Black: Knull's Attack Kills One of Marvel's Newest Heroes". Comic Book Resources.
(Team)
  • Lovett, Jamie (October 30, 2020). "Marvel's The Union: Paul Grist Talks Introducing New Superhero Team During King in Black". Comic Book.
(Both)
  • MacNamee, Olly (December 2, 2020). "Review: 'The Union' #1 Introduces Readers To A United Team For A Disunited Britain". Comicon.
(Marvel Team)
  • Dodge, John (September 30, 2021). "The Marvels Puts a Controversial King in Black Team Back in Action". Comic Book Resources.
(Marvel team)
  • Adams, Tim (February 14, 2020). "Marvel Introduces The Union, The UK's Brand-New Superhero Team". Comic Book Resources.
(Marvel team)
  • Markstein’s, Don (2 April 2020). "Union Jack". Toonpedia
(Marvel Team)
  • Jones, Branwen (February 24, 2020). "Marvel unveils its Welsh superhero - and some fans think it's 'humiliating". Daily Post.
(Marvel team)
  • Hay, Katherine (February 20, 2020). "This is a big mistake': Scots react as Marvel launch new UK superhero team called The Union". Edinburgh News.
(Marvel Team)
  • Isaak, Joshua (May 16, 2021). "Marvel Reveals a Horrifying to Alternative To Infinity Stones". Screen Rant.
(Marvel Team)
  • Corley, Shaun (May 14, 2021). "Marvel's British Wolverine Just Endured a Humiliating Fastball Special". Screen Rant.
(Marvel Team). ChefBear01 (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Request on 00:23:50, 13 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Bradley J Howard


Hi, I noticed that in the points that my page has been rejected, there is the comment that iMDB is not a reliable source. Yet my contemporaries are able to actually use iMDB as a reference. I do understand that there is some issues with iMDB, just as there is with Wikipedia, but overall, it is pretty hard to get your name credited to actual produced programmes on iMDB without proof. As it stands, there are programmes that I have worked on, and couldn't add to iMDB. Do you know how frustrating that is, when you did actually work on the show, but production companies close and there is no way of proving it.

That is the case here. I had noticed programmes within Wikipedia that I had worked on, and yet people who came along after me, are added as directors and I am not. iMDB and Wikipedia ARE the ways to prove you worked on something within the film and television industry.

But I will do what is required to ensure I can prove that I worked on such programmes, but if iMDB is not credible, what other avenues do I have to prove my working resume?

iMDB is deemed credible within the industry I work in.

So two other directors for Chasers War on Everything, Craig Melville and Trent O'Donnel, both use iMDB as a reference, and Craig Melville for directing the Chaser, is using the same references that I posted, yet his was accepted. So can I ask why it is accepted for them, but rejected for me?

If you can help me work this out, so I can be correctly credited for my work, I would greatly appreciate it.

Regards

Bradley J Howard

Bradley J Howard (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Bradley J Howard: I get the frustration. It is tricky to use an existing article as a base of what is acceptable because the notability criteria has changed overtime and overall has become more stringent (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST). I took a peek at Craig Melville and it was created back in 2006 when Wikipedia was "toddler". The issue with IMDB is that is user generated with little editorial oversight (see WP:IMDB). As you likely know, Wikipedia is not a reliable source because it is entirely user generated with no editorial oversight.
As a reviewer, we are tasked with making a decision based on our experience that an article is unlikely to be subsequently deleted. Deletion largely happens through discussion and votes by the community based on the notability guidelines. What I have seen happen is articles deleted because, while the subject may meet a portion of criteria (such as creative professionals where you fit), but not really meeting the overarching notability guideline, thus my decline and request for additional sources. I can accept the draft but it will be a "roll of dice" so to speak if it sticks or not. Once an article is deleted, it much more difficult later to get it accepted. So I will leave it up to you. I think its 50/50 and would not offer this option if I didn't think there was chance. S0091 (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


Hi,

Thank you for your feedback. Very valid points. As I said I will endeavour to meet the criteria. I am now scouring the internet for references. I have found two more. So I will add them in. Hopefully I can get it across the line. Thanks again,

Brad Bradley J Howard (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bradley J Howard: Sources do not need to online as long as you can provide enough information that someone could find it. Also, you can try archive.org which archives the internet so sometimes older publications can be found there. S0091 (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

Just wondering if any of the additional information added helps out in creating my page?

Regards

Brad --Bradley J Howard (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


Submission declined Draft:Sara Dögg Ásgeirsdóttir

Hello, I tried to create a Wikipedia page for an Icelandic actress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sara_D%C3%B6gg_%C3%81sgeirsd%C3%B3ttir and I saw that you rejected the article because according to you she is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. The main issue apparently lies with the fact that I used IMDB and a link to her talent agency. The thing is, I am new to Wikipedia and i thought that I simply had to reference everything I wrote. But apparently these are not good sources, perhaps they are too subjective... though I thought IMBD is an objective website?

Now my question is how do I fix this... do I simply delete the links to those sources, should I delete all info I got from those sources and only work with the info I got from the Icelandic websites which I also referenced... or would that leave me with entirely too little information for the page to qualify? I'm a bit at loss here because I am not Icelandic and it's hard for me to find sources in Icelandic and translate them, however she does play in a series that is hugely popular abroad and she already has a Wikipedia page in French (see here: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_D%C3%B6gg_%C3%81sgeirsd%C3%B3ttir), I simply whished to write an English one with more information.

I would be happy if you could help me out and provide a bit more guidance, but i also understand if you don't have time or patience to go over everything with a newbie, then I'll just get on with my life.

Edit: i just saw she also has a Swedish wikipedia page, which only uses IMDB as a source and that one did get published... now I am more confused, to be honest https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_D%C3%B6gg_%C3%81sgeirsd%C3%B3ttir

Greetings, Jaela

2001:1C01:3E06:8400:A8EE:652C:31AD:6BA7 (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jaela, yes you should remove IMDB as a source along with the content attributed to it, unless you can find another source. IMDB is user-generated with little to no editorial oversight or fact-checking (see WP:IMDB). Also, each Wikipedia language is their own project so have different policies and notability guidelines. The English Wikipedia is likely more stringent. For actors, the criteria is generally they have had significant roles in multiple notable films or TV shows, which usually means they already have a Wikipedia article and the person has received significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Note, her talent agency is not an independent source because they clearly have an invested interest so that should not used either. I added wikilinks for some of the listed works. If you have questions or need help, you can ask at the Teahouse. Thanks for the questions! S0091 (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi S0091, responding here in case Jaela looks back here. Thanks very much for your note on my talk page, and the implied compliment; and also for the "promising draft" template. I had no idea that existed and have seen so many drafts deleted as stale after a rejection.

I believe the Edda Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role makes her notable in itself: here is that year's official reference page, and a small press ref. She also appears to clear the bar on roles in notable works. I am surprised there has apparently never been an article on her in is.wikipedia; the Swedish article was started in 2005 but has remained a stub, with only the Swedish Film Database added to the poor sources in Wikidata, and the French article, started in 2018, while better in having a much longer list of work and including the Edda Award, has only the one source also used in the draft. However, that's a good source: it's an article about her in Morgunblaðið, a very solid Icelandic newspaper. I wrestled Google a bit; it shows me a lot of photos of her in Morgunblaðið but is reluctant to show me the articles, so I'm going to have to do some work to track down the news coverage that should exist for her various TV series. From a first dive into the Internet, this is an interview (and in a less respectable newspaper, Dagblaðið Vísir), but may be usable for biographical info; but this is a 2007 magazine cover story on her (story is on p. 8, use the forward arrow at bottom right, that's an invaluable National/University Library archive but uses a weird idiosyncratic pdf reader). In short, this is a good illustration of how the different-language Wikipedias are very much independent (and Wikidata doesn't help, in this case it's giving the impression IMDb is a reliable source) and how what gets covered depends on volunteers knowing about the topic and writing about it. I will rewrite the draft from what sources I can find, but it will take me a while, and I won't add the "Submit" button because Jaela should get the credit, not me. So I hope there's a way it can be reconsidered; I think this person does merit an article. But that obviously needs to be demonstrated first.

Jaela, if you do see this, and if you can read Icelandic, can you find us any more articles in the press about her that are not just short mentions? Maybe about her having been cast in a particular show, or a paragraph about how she's one of the reasons a show is popular, or even a bit more about her child(ren) (I see in 2 places this very brief bit of gossip about her having a baby). Yngvadottir (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Wow! Thanks for quick reply and information! Yeah, the Edda Award then as I got to looking more, I found we did have articles on some of her films but they just were not wikilinked. While that of course is not end-all-be-all of determining if a film is notable, it is quite helpful for a reviewer unfamiliar with a subject.
On another note, before becoming an AfC reviewer, I reviewed G13 eligible drafts so that's how I came across the {{promising draft}} template, which also places the draft in Category:Promising draft articles. However, over time, I also found not many folks (if any) patrol the category so sometimes I just made a dummy edit which will also roll it forward another six months (any edit will prevent a draft from being G13 deleted). I was also surprised at the volume of drafts that are simply never submitted. Although admittedly most are junk (submitted or not), I generally found that for every batch of 20 or so, there was one that had something that appeared redeemable either as a redirect, adding some sources or tagging it/editing it with the hope someone might come across it in the following six months. S0091 (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Yngvadottir: thank you for all your work on the draft! Unfortunately I have been quite busy lately and i've found neither the time nor the motivation to continue this article. I didnt know other people could edit an unpublished draft as well, but honestly, i don't care about the credit and it seems that you have done much more work than me, so if you wish, please do submit it as your own! I did find this article a few days ago, which caused me to check back here in the first place, it's an article in the New York Times talking about her role in Pressa https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/arts/television/tv-review-modus-missing-cover-story.html. Perhaps that could be useful? I haven't found any other sources so far, though I also didn't particularly look for them. I don't know if i could find more than you already have, though I guess I could try. But Wikipedia itself is so difficult for me, I even had to look up how to respond to this thread haha, so like I said, please do whatever if you like with the article, I'd only be happy if it got published after all, doesn't matter whose name is attached to it :)

2001:1C01:3E06:8400:6D16:96B7:C301:7991 (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP! Glad you found you found your way back. You will actually still get credit as the original creator of the article. Yngvadottir has simply (and kindly) added to what you created which is purpose of a collaborative project like Wikipedia. :) Please do look for additional sources. If you find any, you are welcome to put them on the draft's talk page here so you do not need to worry about formatting, etc. Either way, thanks for creating it and for leaving me a message as it prompted me to take a deeper look. S0091 (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Jaela! Good to talk to you again! Thank you so much for that source; I don't have a subscription to the NYT and since I rarely look at IMDb, I had no idea Pressa had been shown in the English-speaking market as Cover Story; I see that Thomas Blomberg added it to the DAB page as Cover Story (Icelandic TV Series), that should be added to the Edda Awards pages ... I'm very glad you like what I've been doing, but I'm afraid it's taking a while between other tasks. I still have to finish sourcing her other roles, such as Börn, including making sure I've caught any articles at translated titles, and coverage on is.wikipedia is patchy. But I am hoping it can be passed when I'm done, and definitely not as my creation but yours! Have you considered getting an account? It isn't required, but it means after a little while and a few edits, you can create articles without going through AfC if you wish, and it makes it easier to receive messages, such as an eventual "Your article has been created" message :-) You don't have to use your actual name or anything like it, and in fact I'd advise against it, but then I'm a bit of an old-school netizen. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@Yngvadottir: I have "trick" for being able to see NYT and there are three paragraphs about Pressa. Two are essentially a brief description of the show (which sounds similar to The Newsroom (American TV series)) but maybe more comedic and about a tabloid it seems). Not to run afoul of copyvio (not sure of the rules on talk pages), the paragraph pertaining to Sara states "Sara Dogg Asgeirsdottir plays Laura, a reporter who manages to get embroiled simultaneously with an oil executive who may be a rapist and murderer and a drug-dealing motorcycle gang. She comes with a high body count: In one six-episode season her work gets one family member beaten, another killed and a colleague put into a coma. Her doggedness stems partly from her journalistic ideals but largely from the need to pay an 800,000 krona fine in a defamation case." S0091 (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! I may have the same trick; using Wayback, which for some reason often gets around paywalls. But I hadn't searched on her name there or at WaPo because of the paywalls. Also I found such a trove of articles about her in the Icelandic press when I started searching the Timarit archive, I consider the draft almost finished now, just a few more filmography items to reference and to search on, and then I was going to search for coverage of those in non-Icelandic sources that I hadn't already found by looking at interwiki'd articles. (Someone should write up Cover Story / Pressa, it's obviously notable, but I no longer create articles in mainspace, just in my userspace and occasionally I guiltily make one out of a redirect, like the other day for a school that's been in the news for a bad reason and was redirecting to a totally unrelated school.) I'm afraid this task has been taking even longer than I expected; I work slowly and I want it all to be clear to an English-speaking reader, and since you were generous enough to give it up to a year, I don't have the pressure I usually do when rescuing articles and can make sure I lay it out clearly for the English-speaking reader, with all applicable links and interwiki links. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Time is on our side :) S0091 (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you both! If i find any sources in the coming days, I will leave them here then :). Also S0091 I should thank you for the initial feedback you gave me, it did motiviate me to continue, but then unfortunately life got in the way, as so often happens. On the topic of creating an account: I did do that before starting on the article, but somewhere in the process I was logged out, so when I submitted the draft it showed up like this. I'm a total scatterbrain so I've already forgotten my password and resetting it didn't work cause i never received the e-mail, so i just left it like this, since that works too :P. I am thinking of writing an article for Stella Blómkvist as well, since I don't believe there's an English page for that show either, so maybe by the time I get round to that, I should sort out the account situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C01:3E06:8400:6D16:96B7:C301:7991 (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
(waves). S0091, I think the draft is now as ready as I can make it, so please either reconsider or flip the submit thingie (I don't want to add the template myself because I don't want it credited to me). Jaela, if you had edits under your account name, to give you proper attribution for your work, I think we (that is, people with suitable advanced permissions) should try to get you your account back. If you feel comfortable linking your IP to it, I suggest you post at the Teahouse saying what you just said here. But if you had no edits saved under that name, then I think the easiest thing would be to re-register with another account name and then follow the process at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations to "take over" your former user name. Stella Blómkvist is likely notable, but Pressa strikes me as the really obvious redlink. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I see that edits are still being made, or so it seems. Should i press submit either way?

2001:1C01:3E06:8400:A8EE:652C:31AD:6BA7 (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Someone has been adding an inappropriate template and has now been reverted, that's all. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, my apologies for the delay in response, the war has taken my attention off many other things. Before i press submit, there is one thing which i would like to change, if possible. In the section "personal life" it now says that she has a daughter and a son, but she in fact has 2 teenage daughters and a son who is younger (we know he was born in 2013 ofc). The problem is, there is no written proof for the existence of daughter number 2, I only know it because of family photos which she occasionally posts on Instagram. What would be the policy here? On the one hand I know for a fact that she has 3 children, not 2, and anyone could see that by looking at her public Instagram account, on the other hand I understand that sources are very important on Wikipedia and I doubt Instagram can be cited as a source? I'm curious to hear your opinion on this matter. It's not a super big deal ofcourse, the other sections of the article are much more important than the personal life section imo, but for the sake of being correct I thought I should point it out anyway.

217.62.160.142 (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

(Just saw this when checking back, sorry.) Good question; I hadn't seen anything about a third child. I'm inclined to say leave it; if anything has been published in the papers, for example if I've conflated mentions of two different daughters, someone will come along and fix it, and no, I don't think we should use pictures she posts on social media. If she posted something in words about now having three children, that would give a date to search for press mentions, but I haven't even dug for who her partner is, because I didn't see press coverage. S0091, this is now very far up your talk page, do you have any thoughts on the matter? Yngvadottir (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, @Yngvadottir. I am admittedly getting lost on my own talk page. :) Jaela, Instagram posts can be used if they are from a verified account and as Yngvadottir stated above, explicitly identifies the child as her daughter in words. For example, a post that says "Here's my daughter kayaking" is vague but "Happy 16th birthday to my daughter so-and-so" is explicit. With that said, secondary sources are preferred so I recommend moving forward with the submission. It can be amended at any time, even while in pending review status. Also, no worries about delays. Life comes first and we have time. S0091 (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! I've pressed submit :D 2001:1C01:3E06:8400:A8EE:652C:31AD:6BA7 (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
And accepted! Another reviewer got it before I could which is great because it got another set of eyes. Sara Dögg Ásgeirsdóttir is a now a Wikipedia article. Great job Jaela and @Yngvadottir! S0091 (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Awesomesauce! Thank you. I wouldn't even have known about it if you hadn't asked me to take a look. Now I hope for more, including Pressa :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Jaela, that is a cue for you. We want Pressa! See that sad little red link in the article? I actually checked Netflix but its not available where I live. Also, to give some context around how @Yngvadottir got involved, we have never interacted and I just left a random request on her talk page because I had seen her around and thought she might be able help with an Icelandic subject. Aren't we lucky she didn't think me a weirdo. (If I misgendered, apologies). S0091 (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Draft:Jasilyn Charger

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jasilyn_Charger Thank you for removing the external links. What else can I do to get this article published? Thank you, Art to Tech (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Art to Tech: Would you consider an article about One Mind Youth Movement rather than her? Many of the sources are her comments/interviews which is not independent so cannot be used to establish notability. However, there is independent coverage about One Mind which is what the NYT article and others are really about. S0091 (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I could add a short article for One Mind Youth Movement, in addition to Charger's article. Her leadership is mentioned in NYT, Democracy Now, KQED, Indian Country today. She is mentioned in the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, which is where I plan to link the Charger article: "The International Indigenous Youth Council has also been active in protests against the pipeline and advocacy for Native American needs. The group was founded by Jasilyn Charger (Cheyenne River Sioux of Eagle Butte, South Dakota)." Her activism is important to understanding the pipeline protests, and she has participated in many protests.
Indigenous women are not over-represented in Wikipedia, and the article about Jasilea Charger will improve representation. Her page is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, and within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. Art to Tech (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
@Art to Tech: thanks for the reply. I am going to leave the draft for someone else to review because I do have have concerns about her meeting the notability criteria simply because so much is her own words but would like another eye. I still suggest creating an article about One Mind Youth Movement either way. Feel free to let me know if you do and I will be happy to review it. Also, thank you for efforts to expand Wikipedia's coverage of indigenous people, women and folks in our younger generations. I do agree she is quite impressive. S0091 (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
@S0091: Thank you, I'll be in touch, and I will review the JC article and edit based on your feedback. Art to Tech (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Absence Management‎

Hi. You ask that I disclose the client that I am representing. I thought I already did. I'm new here and fairly lost, to be honest. How do I disclose that? I obviously got it wrong the first time. Also, how can I find an experienced Wikipedia writer who might be willing to rewrite my article(s) to abide by the publishing criteria? Thanks Jeffb347 (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)jeffb347

Hi @JeffB347: I got the impression you work for a firm,The Market Element, that has clients so the actual client the firm is representing needs to disclosed. If that is misunderstanding, just let me know. As for someone rewriting the article, that is unlikely to happen as editors will be loathe to use their volunteer time to write something for someone that is being is paid. Largely the overall sentiment of Wikipedia editors is if someone is being paid, they should take to the time to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, thus submit well-written, ready to accept articles. A piece of that is managing their client's expectations because it is not free-for-all and what the client may want to the article to state is often entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. We do have successful paid editors but they are rare. S0091 (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I am a contractor for The Market Element. I do not know who the client is, though I can make an educated guess. Where would I find experienced, paid Wikipedia authors who might take over this project for me? I'm not looking for free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffb347 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jeffb347: Ahh...I see. You shouldn't make a guess and I understand they may not reveal that to you. Where to find one those unicorns...I don't know especially for the subject to are trying to write about. Using Absence Management as an example, you really need someone in academia who also understands how to write for Wikipedia (academics have hard time as well). S0091 (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and understanding. I'll more thoroughly read the policies and rewrite. If I understand, I can leave that Draft in place and make changes. Is there a way to save work without submitting it for review? My situation has changed since I accepted this assignment and it might take me a few weeks to get it rewritten. Thanks again.Jeffb347 (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)jeffb347

@Jeffb347: Oh yeah, the draft is there for you work on as you are able and submit when ready. Drafts are only deleted if there have no edits in six months. I suggest finding a similar type of article that has Good article status to use a base/reference for the type of sourcing and prose needed. You DO NOT need to actually try to reach that bar but it gives you an idea. I highly encourage reading WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:Writing better articles. S0091 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I have a question about a comment you made on the Absence Management page. You questioned 3 sources. The first I removed and replaced. The other 2 are surveys of hundreds of employers. One survey was conducted by a non-profit organization (DMEC) specializing in absence management. It isn't their marketing material. It is a market survey. The second also includes hundreds of employers and is published by a major life insurance company. If they are both legitimate market survey's are they really off-limits in terms of reference data? Nobody else would be doing these surveys. Jeffb347 (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC) jeffb347

@Jeffb347: This issue with both DMEC and anything by an insurance company is they are not independent. DMEC states on their website they exist to support the industry and are sponsored by the insurance industry. You must write an article that meets the neutral point of view policy, so the sources used (along with the article's content) largely also need meet that standard and there is no way the insurance industry is neutral on this topic. Please also see the reliable source guidelines. At the end of the day, what you are being paid to write is not suitable for a Wikipedia article while the overall topic likely is. S0091 (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

  • AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
  • The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Submission declined Draft:Draft:Assyrian Cultural & Social Youth Association Inc.

The following Wikipedia page was created and was pending approval for migration to the main space, yet it was declined under the grounds that the references cited in the article are "largely what they say about themselves (interviews or publications written by them), press releases or routine announcements". As you can see, eleven of the references noted in the page are derived from independent sources and not associated with the organisation in question. Apart from the IMDB source, there is only one reference linking back to the organisation website. URLs to news articles are not reporting "press releases", there is a difference between an "article" and a "press release". One reference linked back to the State Parliament of NSW, and the website was associated with a government domain-name. Could you please clarify... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karadad (talk • contribs) 08:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Gary Ashworth Review

Hi. I hope you're keeping well. You declined a page that I had created, Gary Ashworth, on 5th December, and shortly after I made the requested amendments. I then requested a new review of the page, and dropped a message on your talk page to bring this to your attention. However, I can no longer find this message so not sure what has happened there! Please could you take another look, as the page is still in review waiting? Many thanks, Ryan RyanJEdwards1 (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Submission declined Draft:ClimateAngels

Hi, I tried to create a Wikipedia company page for ClimateAngels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ClimateAngels and I saw that you rejected the Page because the page has no reliable source. I want to help you know that ClimateAngels is not any article-based website. It is India's top investment platform which is focused on pollution reduction and Climate Tech startups. Please have a look at our website which will definitely give you a light about our works that helps us to overcome the Global emission that causes the climate change. (https://climateangels.in/). Our organization was granted on SEBI (https://www.sebi.gov.in/sebiweb/other/OtherAction.do?doRecognisedFpi=yes&intmId=16&regno=IN/AIF1/21-22/0938). I am politely requesting you to reconsider our declination.

I would be happy if you could help me out and provide any further issues that we missed out on for the approval of ClimateAngels page~[1]Ananthu 7RG (talk).

@Ananthu 7RG: A draft having insufficient sources is not a minor issue. Reliable sources independent from the subject are required to establish notability. Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia. Also, there's a banner at the top of this page, requesting you to post at the bottom. Why not simply comply with that? Kleuske (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ClimateAngels

Jackie Russ Draft

Hello I read your message about the Jackie Russ draft. It’s not a paid work. I haven’t gotten a pay for the work and I will never get paid for it. I’ve created more profiles on Wikipedia. None has been paid for. My works are free works. For correction, I’m not getting paid for an edit. KlaWesley92 (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @KlaWesley92: How did you obtain the photo of them? S0091 (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Articles_for_creation:_Assam_Lokayukta

Hi S0091. Hope you are keeping fine. I thank you for your time and effort in reviewing this article. As per constitution of India each state should have its Lokayukta. Also the administration and terms and conditions for each state Lokayukta is different and cant be added to main article. Will resubmit and inform you again. Kindly approve it for the main space to be helpful for residents of that state. Thank you. Gardenkur (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Gardenkur: I see now. Sorry about that. Can you please resubmit it? S0091 (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi S0091. Resubmitted again. Here is the link. Kindly approve. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi S0091. Hope you are keeping well. The article Assam Lokayukta had been resubmitted again. Here is the link. Kindly approve in the interest of general public. Thanks. Gardenkur

Submission declined Draft:Alan_Revere

Hi there,

Thank you for taking the time to review my submission. You had declined my submission for two reasons; one said the piece read like a promotional article, and the other said the subject didn't meet notability criteria. I would like to ask a couple of questions to help me clarify how to improve the piece. Here is a link to the article, in case the one in my title didn't work: Draft:Alan_Revere

Before I submitted the article this second time, I reviewed the criteria for notability and the requirement of a minimum of three links to independent sources. I feel most of the sources should be adequate, as they are interviews with high-end industry periodicals that are published through industry associations. These weren't open-source pages nor individual blog posts; they were publications that had to go through an editorial process. I had listed those under External Links > Online mentions of Alan (or the subheading similar to that); were those first few links not adequate still?

I will definitely remove the links that simply list him on people's resumes or as mentions in articles that aren't focused on him.

Regarding the statement that the article sounded too promotional, I will review your link to the Wiki article that describes promotional material, and will adjust the article accordingly. There may be links to his books and videos that need to be removed as well.

You had commented the article had no salvageable content, which certainly came as a surprise; the description of a figure, from their early years, to their progress in their field, to their accomplishments, all sounds like standard profile content. Revere is indeed huge in the fine jewelry industry, and it's difficult to write about him without mentioning his accomplishments.

This article isn't meant as promotion, as he is currently retired and making no money on the things he's doing now. He and his associates in the jewelry industry felt his work deserved a page on Wikipedia.

Thank you again for taking the time to help with this. I'm new to Wikipedia and hope to improve with time. ARodgersEditor (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @ARodgersEditor: I think you may have a misunderstanding about Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not have "profiles"; it has encyclopedia articles which an important distinction. An article simply summarizes what independent reliable sources have written about a subject. Interviews or anything that is largely what a subject says about itself (or those affiliated with the subject) are not independent so they cannot be used to establish notability. Generally speaking, trade publications are at best weak sources because they exist to promote an industry and most do not meet the reliable source criteria (has editorial oversight, history of fact-checking, etc.). The best advice I can give you is to start over, collect three independent reliable sources that have written about him in-depth (2-3 well-formed paragraphs each), then summarize what they say. Also, please see this guide for how to add citations. For biographies of living people all claims must be cited to a reliable source. S0091 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Request on 23:30:19, 21 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Basgar Peverel

My draft bio -- Bruce Burdick, Designer, was rejected on multiple grounds. I would like to defend it, while allowing that it could be improved.
Dear S0091:

Your comments on the draft article “Bruce Burdick” are moderate and reasonable. I cannot be the ultimate judge of Burdick’s notability. It may be he deserves an article, but a shorter one. This one ballooned in length after my first reviewer asked for more references.

Within the field of industrial design there is no question that Burdick is notable. It is a specialized field, but design is very international (Burdick worked for clients in the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Korea, France, Japan and Spain). This article would have readers around the world. Design is also something everyone experiences every day. Anyone who goes shopping -- for anything -- jumps right into the middle of it.

Though I may have overdone it, my search for references turned up evidence that significantly raised my opinion of Burdick. For example, Frank Rich wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times about the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum headed “Go to Cleveland.” He was talking about the museum designed by the Burdick Group, and he was fully aware that this advice would sound odd coming from a New Yorker.

I think there is a significant misunderstanding between us about “sources that are about Burdick.” It is quite true that most do not mention him by name. They are without exception about projects of the Burdick Group, the firm Bruce Burdick led.

Exhibit design is by nature self-effacing, in contrast to architecture, where it is always said that a building is the work of one person and not the firm, often employing hundreds, that collectively designed a building. The best exhibits (like the ideal Wikipedia articles) do not magnify an author’s name, style or beliefs. But if they are exceptionally good, the person in charge deserves the credit.

I know from everything I’ve read and heard that Bruce Burdick actively managed Burdick Group projects. Therefore a review of a Burdick Group project is a review of Bruce Burdick. By contrast, the famous architect I.M. Pei once went to the opening of a museum he “designed” in Japan, and asked that prominent parts of it be torn down and rebuilt to conform to his own tastes and standards. He had never laid eyes on the plans.

My footnotes to Burdick’s own writings and the references to former employees who became prominent designers all suggest that Burdick was the mind behind his firm and that he cast a long shadow.

Can the article be “written in an encyclopedic manner?” I’m not sure how. Encyclopedia Brittanica articles, which are excellent, are written and signed by expert authors. In that case that “original research” and opinions are a plus. I completely understand that my own opinions are not welcome here, and I hope that no one, not even my wife, could guess who wrote the article.

I modeled this bio on the Wikipedia entry for Eliot Noyes, the “designer” of the IBM Selectric typewriter (even though mechanical engineers obviously deserve most of the credit). Here is a list of Wikipedia bios of some of Bruce Burdick’s peers. My effort closely parallels these. I do spare readers the numerous prizes awarded to Burdick by publications and professional associations, which are still listed on his archived corporate website.

One of these Wikipedia articles – Ralph Appelbaum Associates – is a straightforward ad for the Appelbaum firm. The Burdick Group, having dissolved 20 years ago, does not need an ad.

Another, for Bill Stumpf, is much shorter than the one I wrote, although Stumpf was a better and more influential furniture designer. I wish it were longer.

Charles and Ray Eames – the all-time master designers. Nevertheless, their article has about a dozen “references” to the Eames Office website.

Bill Stumpf

Eliot Noyes

Ralph Appelbaum Associates

Ron Arad

Ward Bennett

Ronan and Erwan Bourellec

Don Chadwick

Alexander Girard

Robert Propst


I think the Burdick article is pretty interesting. The hypertext layers are rich – almost all the sources are completely accessible via a link in the references. And the included illustrations let you form your own opinions about the quality of the design. Can you point to one of these as a better example? I would copy it in an instant.

Basgar Peverel (real name available if useful) Basgar Peverel (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Basgar Peverel: take a look at Hans Wegner. Not that the Bruce Burdick article needs to meet that bar but there does need to be in-depth coverage about him from independent reliable sources (see WP:THREE). A Wikipedia article should simply summarize what what has written about a subject, in this case Burdick. Illustrations and images are not sources and should only be used to complement what is written in the article. Also, the lead needs to be fleshed out as currently it is not even written in sentences (see WP:LEAD). S0091 (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Bruce Burdick, designer

S0091: Thanks for sending me to Hans Wegner. Prodigious! Exhaustive to a degree that verges on pedantic. It's finally sinking in to me that saying things I know to be true without ambiguity or doubt is NOT acceptable. I did put together the chronology of Burdick's life and his firm by asking his widow, his daughter and former employees. I see that in Wikipedia terms that amounts to original research, and that sourcing it to the person in question is not appropriate. Do you think there's hope for this article if I excise everything not confirmed by a reliable source? I had gathered from the Eliot Noyes article that a certain number of statements no one would question, though not from a secondary source, are allowed.

The list of his works comes from Burdick's archived corporate website. Although it's not technically a reliable source, it's correct, and it would be a shame to leave out work that was never reviewed. I'll do it if I have to.Basgar Peverel (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Basgar Peverel

Hi @Basgar Peverel: You absolutely must have three independent reliable sources with in-depth coverage for the article to be accepted and you certainly cannot use original research for any content. Self published sources can be used but sparingly for very basic facts (that's where his company's website would fall). I suggest checking Google Books. I just did a quick search using - "Bruce Burdick" designer - and got several hits. I did not investigate them but it seems to worth a try. See WP:GBOOKS for how cite the sources. Also, keep in mind it may be his company has more coverage than him as an individual designer (do a search for that as well). If that is the case, then an article about his company is more appropriate but that still could contain some information about him (i.e. follow where the sources take you and write about that...company, him, a specific design, etc.). I do believe there is hope and you should continue the hunt. There is no time limit as long as you edit the draft at least every six months, it will be around until you ready. Drafts with no edits in six months are deleted but even still you can get a WP:REFUND and pick up where you left off. Side note: the shopping carts are so far my favorite. S0091 (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Actually, the simple method for citing a book is to enter ISBN number using the Cite feature in Visual Editor (see WP:ERB for a guide if needed). Just be careful it actually cites the correct book. I have come across that one time but just kept entering the ISBN, then generate until it gave me the correct result. If Google does not have the ISBN, you can search https://www.worldcat.org. Please also include the page number(s). S0091 (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft: ClimateAngels Page rejection

Hello @Soo91,

I have updated the ClimateAngels Organization page with new reliable sources and made all the changes as you mentioned in the last review. Please review it again and notify me if its good to get publishedAnanthu 7RG (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ClimateAngels [1]

Ananthu 7RG (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[2] Thank you Soo91[3]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ClimateAngels
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ananthu_7RG
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:S0091

Thanks, I see a way forward

S0091: Thanks for going above and beyond -- seeking out examples and sources. I think "The Burdick Group" is a good way forward. I confess to being weighed down by huge inertia having been wordlessly socked in the face by the first reviewer, then having gone into a flurry of activity that is proving to have been somewhat superfluous. I'm encouraged by your comments. One of the citations coughed up by Google Books is a book I wrote on modern design. Unfortunately I didn't write about Burdick; I was trying to teach him something. Thanks again. I'll go back to work.

Basgar Peverel (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Basgar Peverel

@Basgar Peverel: Oh good! Also, just so you know, the first decline was appropriate and those are standard messages all reviewers use. Keep in mind we are volunteers. There are around 200 new submissions a day and currently have a backlog of around 3k. Writing more personalized notes is not always feasible and we all often do "quick declines" on brand new drafts with the hope the creator makes the appropriate amendments and resubmits it ("fail fast" approach). I also understand your perspective and losing potential editors is widely shared concern across Wikipedia so I am glad to hear you overcame your initial disappointment. There is one more thing that needs addressed which is your apparent conflict of interest (please read). It's really a matter of "paperwork" by making a COI declaration on your Userpage. Simply copy/paste {{UserboxCOI|1=Bruce Burdick}} to you Userpage and follow some some simple rules, which for you is to submit the draft through AfC as you are doing anyway. Easy enough. Now get back to work! :) S0091 (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Section

S0091: Thanks. I am pretty sure I will get to a decisive point before six months are up. I have found two thorough, 20-page retrospective articles, one from 1989 and one from 2006. But unless someone unknown to me is writing a book on Burdick, I'm not likely to find more. So I'm mentally composing a defense of my sources, the main point being that exhibit design, unlike, say, architecture or painting, is ephemeral. Charles and Ray Eames, the master exhibit designers, are famous for their furniture and their film, not their exhibits. No one beside Burdick himself could have seen all his exhibits, which all had an expiration date. Photos of the exhibit hardware don't give the slightest measure of a vast interactive exhibit, crowded with engaged visitors. And Burdick's name does not crop up in news coverage unless the report is about an opening, when Burdick was likely to be there. How many exhibit designers can the average museum visitor name? Two of his works -- the Burdick Group desk system and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Museum -- got spectacular coverage, for years even, but reporters reaching for the big picture have to rely on interviews with Burdick. Taking all of that into account, I think that a flock of brief items on particular exhibits is the only way to signal the magnitude of Burdick's accomplishments. Please reserve judgment until you see my new effort.

P.S. I put a conflict of interest box and brief explanation at the head of my talk page. I didn't see how to trigger a questionnaire.

Basgar Peverel (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Basgar P.

@Basgar Peverel oh, I did not intend my action to be construed as a judgement so please do not take it that way. I have not looked at the draft again from a review perspective. In the back of my mind, if you walked away from it for whatever reason (life happens) I wanted to it stay around for a longer period than normal. I would not do that unless I thought the subject had potential. S0091 (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Stromae's New Album 'Multitude'

You beat to me to it! I was planning to change the tense. Thanks anyways lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDoctorOfFire (talk • contribs) 03:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Request on 19:34:24, 5 March 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Junedude433

Strong disagreement with the rejection comment, in part because you did not specifically address what made the subject fail notability. While yes, it is true that there are sources cited that might not necessarily be the most reliable, the sources that are cited for what makes him notable (i.e. his film producing and acting credits, along with his medical credentials) do come from reliable sources. In addition, for much of the information that said unreliable sources were used for, they were used in conjunction with other, more reliable sources. I ask you this, if all the information that is only cited by problematic sources were removed, do you believe that the subject would still totally fail notability? The core of his notability is that he is a film producer and an actor that has created multiple feature films and has a strong medical background. I can simply delete everything that is cited by IMDb, Linkedin, and Vimeo and resubmit. ~Junedude433(talk) 19:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Junedude433 to clarify, the draft was declined, not rejected. Rejection means it will no longer be considered while decline is "not yet". The sources listed in the decline are not reliable so should not be used. Both WP:NACTOR and WP:NCREATIVE required "significant" or "major" roles acting in or creating multiple notable works. For the work to be notable it must also meet Wikipedia's notability criteria (see WP:NFILM) which generally means there is already a Wikipedia article about it. The Black String is the strongest from a notability perspective but is likely not enough. His scientific publications do not meet the citation criteria (see WP:NPROF). That leaves WP:BASIC which requires in-depth coverage about him from multiple independent reliable sources which currently do not exist in the draft. I suggest focusing less on his medical background and more on the his most significant work along with sources that have written about him/his role(s). For example, I would remove his publications, trim and combine his medical and military background, remove minor roles such as an intern, small acting roles, etc. so it is more clear. Regardless, you are welcome to resubmit and have another reviewer review it. S0091 (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Wouldn't his production involvement in both The Black String and Devil's Whisper count as multiple notable works? ~Junedude433(talk) 18:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@Junedude433 Associate Producers generally are not consider a "major role" like main or Executive Producers (too far down the totem pole) and multiple is often interpreted as more than two but that can also depend on the significance of the work. For example, an Oscar Award winning film is automatically meets the "critically acclaimed" bar. Outside of that type of acclaim, it is the significance of the overall body of work and the significance of the person's role in creating that body of work. S0091 (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Shepit, Chernivtsi Oblast

Dolishniy Shepit and Shepit are two different villages, they have different articles on the Ukrainian Wikipedia. I mean, it could be another reason why the draft is not suitable, and this is why I was hesitant accepting it myself, but I do not think this one is valid.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter thanks for letting me know. I have reverted my decline so the draft is back in submitted status and removed the decline from the user's talk page. S0091 (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Sure, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@Ymblanter for my education, is their a specific meaning associated with the words/terms "Shepit" and/or "Dolishniy"? S0091 (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I think Dolishniy is "lower" or "in a valley"; about Shepit I do not know.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@Ymblanter Thanks, that's helpful. So something like Shepit Valley versus Shepit, distinct places which are likely neighbors given they appear to be in the same district. S0091 (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, exactly.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Submission Declined: For We Are Many (Film)

Hi there,

I wanted to double check the meaning of your comment "Needs reviews". Do you mean that if fans of the movie left their reviews on, say, IMDb, that would be sufficient?

Many thanks

Jo Pawson JoJoPawson (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @JoJoPawson apologies for not being more clear. It needs reviews from nationally known critics, per WP:NFILM. IMDB is not a reliable source so should not be used (see WP:IMDB). Thanks for asking! S0091 (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi @S0091
Thanks for letting me know, it's much appreciated! Will get that sorted, then resubmit.
-Jo JoJoPawson (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Add photo to new Wiki page

Hi S0091 - thanks for all your help to get this new page published (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Phan). I can't figure out how to add a photo + the quick summary that I see on many wiki pages for Biography of Living Persons. For example, I'd like to add a photo + the details below in the square that's often on the right hand side of wiki pages for persons.

Born: July 30, 1962 (age 59) Da Lat, Vietnam Education: University of California, Berkeley Occupation: Chef and Restaurateur Spouse: Angkana Kurutach Children: 3 Website: https://slanteddoorgroup.com

Tried searching for the how to but couldn't find. Appreciate your guidance, thank you!

Hi @Aduong810: you are looking for what is called an infobox. I found one specific for a chef, {{infobox chef}}, which contain parameters (fields) for Cooking style, Restaurants, etc. You might want to play with it your in sandbox first which is your own practice area (top right of your screen you will see a Sandbox link, click on it to create a your sandbox). The easiest way to add an infobox is in the editing window using Source editor (pencil icon off to the right) select the puzzle piece icon (Insert a template). A search box will come up search for "infobox chef", select it, then the parameters will appear (Name, Date of birth, etc.). Images are tricky because of copyright laws. Generally, you need to be the person that took the photograph. See the Image use policy for more information. Also, the Teahouse is a great place to get help if run into issues as their are editors around 24/7 so likely to get quicker answers. Of course, you are always welcome here too. Don't forget to sign your messages with the four tildes (see sign). S0091 (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Submission Declined Draft; Priya Ahuja

I have given every possible article and details about Priya Ahuja career. Please check once again. And if possible please let me know how can I correct it so that it can moved to mainspace. Qpms (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

tech question, notes to article prepared for resubmission

Dear S0091:

Technical question: I managed to create a table of contents that works, but the wording then reappears unnecessarily nearby in the article. Could you tutor me here?

I am ready to resubmit Bruce Burdick Designer. Some of the defects you called attention to (listed below) are solved or partially solved. Some, despite my best efforts, can’t be. I may, of course, also have failed to understand some of your suggestions.

1. Find three reliable sources and make them your principal databank. I found two lengthy retrospective articles with many full-page photos – one in Graphis magazine (2005) and one in Print (1989). I cite each one multiple times. Unfortunately neither one is available online. I could send you pdfs if I knew how. There is no single exhaustive source, such as a biographical book, that I could selectively cite to document everything that needs to be said. I know this is a black mark on the notability score.

Why? Exhibits, even in museums, do not stay up forever. Burdick scattered exhibits across the globe in a period of 40+ years. No one except Burdick could have seen more than one or two. No scholar or curator could ever revive them, much less experience a visit. Both of the longest articles are basically interviews, illustrated by photos. I do think Burdick’s huge body of work deserves to be acknowledged in Wikipedia. But I can only document the exhibits and the attention they attracted via multiple mentions in many different (reliable) publications.

2. Find articles or other sources that cite Burdick by name. This is kind of impossible. None of these exhibits was signed in some splashy way by Burdick, only in the fine print somewhere. Every reference is about something designed by Bruce Burdick, whether he is named or not.

3. Make the article sound like an encyclopedia, not an essay. Here I am in the dark, I admit. I pruned out a little redundancy. I tried to make the article a little more pointed, emphasizing Burdick’s pioneering effort to use computers to make exhibits interactive.

Suggestions?

Basgar Peverel (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Basgar Peverel

Hi @Basgar Peverel Much better! I am not sure what you mean about the Table of contents. Its placement is the default placement (under the lead section). Sources do not need to be online and you have appropriately cited them with adequate information so someone can verify it so you are good there. Also, interviews are fine to provide context, fill in gaps, etc. I understand what you are saying about exhibits. I liken to work by Christo and Jeanne-Claude or Banksy (his is signed but temporary in nature, no doubt much has been undocumented and lost) but, of course, they get press. The issue is verifiability which is a core Wikipedia policy so you do have to prove he is credited for the exhibits, which it appears you were able to do for some but maybe not all. I know you know it to be true but anyone needs to be able to verify via published sources. Still, what can be verified may be enough and I will some do some digging myself using sources provided by the WP:Wikipedia Library such as Newspapers.com, JSTOR, Proquest, etc. If you have already searched through any of these, let me know so I don't duplicate your efforts. Also, don't worry the prose. It does need some copy editing but most of the articles that exist now could benefit from some copy editing and it doesn't have to be perfect. Wikipedia is inherently a work-in-progress. This is going to take me some time, perhaps weeks, so I ask for patience. In the interim, you are welcome to go ahead and submit it. There are benefits in doing so such as getting another reviewer's take (could get accepted, at worst a decline with some additional suggestions) and others editors may make improvements while it is pending review (the benefits of crowd sourcing). As it stands now it could take up to three months for it to be reviewed. S0091 (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, very hopeful. If I understand you, the notability question and the reliable source problem is more or less solved. I will go to work on the verifiability question. I see your point. I don’t think it will be too hard. But won’t it clutter up my references? Could I just send my documentation to you, without adding to the article? Probably not. It sounds as if you are willing to power through to the finish line with this, and I appreciate it. I’ll hold off resubmitting.
The exhibits are easy. I think all the furniture and retail I list have been written up too. If there are exceptions they can be omitted.
I appreciate your offer of research! Let me do it, it’s mostly there, I suspect.
The Table of Contents problem, plus photo placement tips, were solved by another editor! Basgar Peverel (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
@Basgar Peverel the one thing to understand is that none of this is about me so you can send me documentation but that is meaningless for the other thousands of editors and millions of readers, so the if sources are not accessible (library, order the book, etc.) then it doesn't matter. In this instance, I don't that is an issue. Largely, you have cited the sources appropriately so anyone that wanted to find them could. From a reviewing stand point, reviewers are tasked with assessing if an article is likely to be nominated for deletion by any editor at any time because it does not meet notability (see WP:AFD, several articles are nominated daily, some years old). With that said, I have found sources to help with verifiability so please see the changes I made and my edit summaries in the history. I have also started a discussion with you on the draft's talk page page so can continue our our discussion there. The benefit of the draft's talk page is it will remain for eternity with the article where anyone can see it (now or 10 years later) so if either of us have sources we are not sure about they can be put there so later someone may be able to utilize them along with the discussion as a whole. Here is it just you and me. Based on what you have added and what I have found, please do click that submit button. S0091 (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I did click resubmit.
Basgar Peverel (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Basgar Peverel

Resubmission of Draft:Eva B

Hi, You objected to Draft:Eva B for use of peacock terms, I have removed most of them and tried to reduce the impact of flash terms. Please review it again has been submitted. Also point out if there is some thing else wrong with the page. --Dr Shahzad Bhatti (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Dr Shahzad Bhatti, you have resubmitted the draft so another reviewer will take a look. S0091 (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain me what is wrong with my page?

Dear, could it be possible to explain me what is wrong with my page so I can fix it and make it work. -InformationIsEverything2021-InformationIsEverything2021 (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@InformationIsEverything2021 I have reviewed hundreds of drafts but I am sure I left a note if I declined yours so please read through all the material in the message. S0091 (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Help!!

I have tried my best to add the sources regarding Priya Ahuja ( known as Rita Reporter on the show Taraakh Mehta Ka Oolta Chashma) , please let me know what other sources are needed to be added so that it can be moved to mainspace. Please help so that it can be moved to main space. Qpms (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Qpms you need to show she meets the notability guidelines for actors meaning that she has had significant roles in multiple notable films or shows. I do not think she meets the criteria because most of her roles have been minor but you are welcome to resubmit the draft for another review. S0091 (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

bruce burdick refinements

S0091: These are excellent ideas. I’m traveling now until April 5, but I would have some time to work on this next week.

All the things enumerated in the article won prizes. All the prizes sound pretty much the same: Design Excellence, etc. They are listed on the www.burdickgroup.com site. I think the Time Magazine recognition and your discovery about the film Wall Street are much better signs of the desk’s reception. For what it’s worth, Google also revealed that the desk was used as futuristic furniture in an episode of Star Trek.

About photos of the exhibits: I could get any of the photos in the Graphis article from 2005, I hope, from Burdick’s widow. She was a little vague about whether they were work for hire or whether permission from the photographer would be required. Most of the exhibits are documented with photos in my AIGA archive footnotes. I omitted exhibit photos for the following reasons: These commissioned photos look like furniture showrooms. There are no people in them, and they look very busy visually, because the photographer tried to get everything in. Further, the designs tend to look a little dated in 2023. So to me they do not read as an invitation to come in. In fact, because of their interactive character and the intensive work that went in, the exhibits were, in my experience, very welcoming and interesting down through several layers of commitment. Burdick says in one of his interviews that he learned from Charles Eames to hunt up clients with lots of money so that the exhibit budgets would be big. He did, and the exhibits were broad and deep.

Try looking at the Graphis article again and see what you think. They certainly document the fact that the exhibitions existed. I might be persuaded to substitute an exhibit photo for the poster. I was impressed that the poster is by Seymour Chwast, and it was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by the Smithsonian Design Museum. Thanks and thanks again for your commitment to this.

Basgar Peverel (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Basgar Peverel

Despite my initial resistance, I am working on the changes you suggested. This requires getting hold of some pictures and getting them into the public domain. Basgar Peverel (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Basgar Peverel

@Basgar Peverel please do not feel obligated to act on my suggestions, unless I state something is violates Wikipedia policy or something like that. At this point, to me, notability is not an issue but I do want another reviewers opinion thus the reason I am not accepting it myself. (That and there are different rules for you once it becomes an article). Anyway, the images will not determine if the article is accepted or not. Also, there is no deadline so take your time. I am assuming you did not imagine this would be the time consuming endeavor it has become and you, like the rest of us, are a volunteer even if you have a personal connection with the subject. As far as the exhibits looking dated, that is part of the historical record and helps to provide context so I wouldn't worry about that. Take a look at Apple Computer for which in part is what he was designed the desk to accommodate. :) However, you may correct in that the images available of the exhibits may not really convey his design in a valuable way. While Proquest did have the Graphis article, it did not it provide all the images (just 3 pages) so I cannot view them but that's ok. I will happily rely on your opinion. The Star Trek use a great find! Isn't it interesting these little tid bits you find when you dig around? We can't use his website for the awards but did find a source for the desk. I just didn't want add another source if it was already in one you cited. And speaking of the desk, I think it could be its own article but one thing at a time. Happy travels! S0091 (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
thanks for your consideration. On balance I don’t think I’m being a very good historian if I’m editing Burdick’s work to suit my own taste. So I’m trying to get a couple of suitable photos uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Basgar Peverel (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

draft: Alfred Milner timeline

Hi, this is the second time I've submitted this draft. It is unusual in that a normal wikipedia list will not work (a wikipedia list would replace the line item numbers with a list that updates automatically with editing. However, the software is limited. It will erase both the table of contents and bullet points I added throughout the work). I hope I can avoid damaging the file contents by leaving it as is. In its present form, it is user friendly.

Next, I was told the file has too much intricate detail. With Alfred, I made the timeline as complete as possible. This will substantially aid future researchers, because at Doullens Town Hall, France, on March 26, 1918, Alfred Milner and Georges Clemenceau united the Western Front under the command of General Ferdinand Foch. This decision won the war, which would have otherwise been lost. It was Alfred's decision to select Foch; Clemenceau was against him, he preferred General Pétain, a defeatist general.

The previous editor thought I may have been biased in my writing. Although I use his namesake, I am not related to Lord Milner (I live in the United States). Also, each of the 883 line items in the timeline has at least one, but more often than not, more than one footnote. Also, I used over 50 sources, and most are used often, so the content is not confined to one, or even a few, books.

Last, I was told the information may appeal to only one, or a few people. With this, I can only say that Lord Milner was involved in a history changing moment, and his life and deeds should be recognized. Today, people forget that there was a First World War, an Edwardian Era, and even a British Empire. This file brings it all back, and allows those who are interested to relive the moments. Lord Milner made Empire Day an official holiday: Link

I hope I addressed all the issues. If not, I will add them below. Lord Milner (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the attempt at fixing the numbers. I have copies of the original file, so there won't be a problem reloading it. Again, the limitation here is with Wikipedia's rigid software. Lord Milner (talk) 06:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

  • Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

: Submission declined: Draft:Ruscism No sources.

Thanks for your recommendation. I have read all links that you recommend. I have add sources and some cites. Hope I am on right way and soon we would get new article maybe with neologism mark.13:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DmytroKov (talk • contribs)

Submission declined: Draft:Paul Lee (environmentalist)

I have made major edits to include only clauses that are heavily verifiable, and can included more sources corroborating if needed.... I have tracked down authority control links for Paul, on the Library of Congress, Worldcat and ISNI... Garrett.stephens (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Request on 05:04:55, 10 April 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Dopeious


Are you serious? For every information there are other reliable sources. In this article, twitter is not the only source given. The submission should be accepted immediately.

Dopeious (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dopeious the suggestion in the AFD was to wait until the season started but you are welcome to submit again to get another reviewer's assessment. S0091 (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarification. But I cannot understand then, that the article 2022 New York Jets season is cleared for submission with one generic source. Furthermore, the league officially started with mandatory activities. Dopeious (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
@Dopeious I cannot answer why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but I understand the frustration. Also, I could be wrong in my assessment of the AFD and the sources provided which is why I suggest resubmitting it. Although, I also suggest replacing Twitter with better sourced if possible. S0091 (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I followed your suggestion and removed the twitter sources completely. The process of adding sources and refining the article will go on. Thank you for your understanding and elaborating your point of view. Dopeious (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Makes sense @Dopeious. I also added a comment because I did not want it to come across as you being stubborn or disruptive with your resubmission. Good luck! S0091 (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Starting Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Mobile Article

Do you trust these sources: https://www.ign.com/articles/rainbow-six-mobile-announced, https://9to5google.com/2022/04/05/ubisoft-is-bringing-rainbow-six-mobile-to-android-and-ios-registration-open-now/, https://charlieintel.com/rainbox-six-mobile/169947/? Also i can not remove the submisson rejected messages from the space to the infobox at.

Thanks, Jay852

Hi @Jay852: IGN is generally reliable but 9t05 is simply regurgitating what Ubisoft says about the game (not independent). Charlie Intel is a marketing/promotional site is is not reliable (per their site: "From media to custom branded content, we collaborate with partners to engage fans with credibility, leveraging our platform insights to inform our creative executions."). This is why I pointed to you to WikiProject Video games (see also WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources). The draft was not rejected ("never") but just declined ("not yet"). Once better sources are available you are welcome to resubmit but do not remove the notice as that is against guidelines and will get in you trouble. You are welcome to seek advice there or at the Teahouse. S0091 (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Okay. Jay852 (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
S0091 What did i do wrong i never used that website at all? Jay852 (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
@Jay852 The content I removed from the draft was word-for-word what was in that blog. Wikipedia has a tool to find copyright violations and this one was a hit. It does not need to be a source used in the article. It was only a few sentences; however, we often find entire articles/drafts that are copied/pasted from some other source or website. In those instances, the entire page is deleted. For this one, only the revisions that contain the violation will be permanently deleted (referred to as WP:RevDel). Again, I don't think it was your intent to do anything wrong and overall the draft is structured and flows well so don't be discourage by the decline or the copyright issue. Of course, do not repeat the copyright violation again. S0091 (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
So what do i need to change? Jay852 (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
@Jay852 This is what I removed. An administrator will review my RevDel request and if they agree it will be deleted, after which only an admin will be able see the deleted content so take a quick look. If the content was not important, then no need to do anything but if it does need to covered you will want to rewrite it. S0091 (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
It looks good to me. Proceed. Jay852 (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
It was in the works as soon as I "tagged" the draft as copyright violation, @Jay852. Once an admin deleted, you will a large portion of the history (see History tab on the draft) will be "struck through" and no one except another admin will be able to access those revisions in the history. S0091 (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Okay. Jay852 (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Is Tom's Guide a good source? Link to article: https://www.tomsguide.com/news/rainbow-six-mobile-just-got-me-excited-for-smartphone-games-again Jay852 (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
@Jay852 I do not see it listed as an acceptable source at WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources but better to go to WT:WikiProject Video games as ask there. Just post a note like you did here stating you are trying to create a draft for Draft:Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Mobile (put double bracket around the the name like [[Draft:Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Mobile]] so it will link) and you are having trouble identifying good sources. S0091 (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Link to article: https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/ubisoft-has-announced-the-free-to-play-rainbow-six-mobile/ Jay852 (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
@Jay852 Mostly what Ubisoft says so not independent. What they have to say (or any person/entity affiliated with them) does not matter. And again, you should ask for help at WikiProject Video games. They know what sources to use and how to find them. Also, I will not be available for a few days (we are all volunteers) so best to post somewhere where there are multiple editors likely around to assist. S0091 (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Okay. Jay852 (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your help. Jay852 (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Mistake.

Hi S0091.

I made mistake press Publish Changes, while editing my article. I'm making corrections to my article for approval, also wanting to change title. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:B9D0:4D50:1504:6E18:3287:D559 (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The title can be changed when the draft is accepted so no worries about that or hitting Publish Changes by mistake (we have all done that). You can go into the History and click "Undo" which will undo the entire edit or simply update it. S0091 (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Thankfully Yours! 2600:1700:B9D0:4D50:1504:6E18:3287:D559 (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Ha! I am wrapping it up for the day and will not be back on for few days. It may take a couple days or so for someone respond at the WikiProject so be patient and good luck! S0091 (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Ugh

Sorry that UPE went after you when they were aiming for me. So much anger over a spam article. Star Mississippi 01:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi No need for you to apologize. I have been called worse and likely you have as well unfortunately. Normally I would not respond but feared them resubmitting the draft then going after yet another reviewer when declined so I wanted some kind of record on their talk page. At the end of the day it was handled thanks to the community. Appreciate the note and all that you do around here. S0091 (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
You're very welcome. Happy to cleanup as needed. Have a great day! Star Mississippi 16:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Archives

Just a thought, but finding archived discussions on your talk page is somewhat difficult due to the lack of link to said archives. It's by no means mandatory, but I thought I would mention it since I had to go through quite the journey to find this discussion. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac apologies for causing unnecessary extra effort. Clearly, it just never occurred to me. I have updated my header to the one you use, which I also had not noticed until I looked and one that is overall more helpful than what I had. Thanks for dropping by and bringing this to my attention. S0091 (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Declining the page Draft: Spick Media Network

I'm not paid by anyone and i do not care about this page. The only error i did is, i created an article by researching them through recent articles that were published in a news website. But you are saying me that I work for them. Anyhow, Good Bye 🙏 RajendranMCV (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@RajendranMCV you state in your edit summary here "I'm rajendran from Spick Media. We've done a survey with a huge team and you can get the detailed report with caste wise data in our website. We've also done many more surveys before and our last one was for Tamil Nadu & Kerala Assembly Election. Kindly go through our reports before undoing it. We are in the field for more than 7 years and predicted 10+ elections correctly.". I don't think there could be any clearer indication you have financial interest with Spick Media. Being paid does not prevent you from contributing to Wikipedia but it does change how you contribute to articles in which you have a financial interest and you are required by the Terms to declare your paid status. That is non-negotiable and failing to do so will lead to you being blocked. S0091 (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm ready to share my bank data here. If you can prove that I was paid, then you can delete the page. The reason why I said that is, i wanted some more data's to be included in this draft page. But it was rejected. It's your wish to reject or accept. I feel the rules of wiki doesn't apply when you simply reject even after quoting the data's that are required to the article in the page. Thanks 🙏RajendranMCV (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
@RajendranMCV please keep the discussion on your talk page. S0091 (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Rejection of Na'amod article

You have rejected the Na'amod article on th basis that there are not enough independent sources

and yet there are citations from Haaretz, the Jewish News, Dazed, and The Guardian over several years. The Organisation is quoted only when referring to its values

you appear to discount those citations because Na'amod members are quoted in those articles. That could equally be taken as a sign of the significance of the organisation. If an organisation has existed for several years and is regularly being quoted in significant British Jewish , Israeli or British Newspapers.

I'm puzzled as to how to get round this Catch 22. Neverseek (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Neverseek the Haaretz is an opinion piece so not usable for notability. It is fine to use to support content about that person's opinion, though (but it needs to be clear it is an opinion, not fact). I agree with your statement that being interviewed or quoted is a sign of significance but, per guidelines, not usable for notability because at the end of day Wikipedia does not care what a subject has to say about itself. For notability what matters is what reliable sources have to say about a subject. The trick is when reviewing a source is remove anything coming from the subject or their affiliates and see what is left. In reviewing the sources provided, there was not much left. Also, it is very important to understand the draft was not rejected, which means "no", but only declined, which means "maybe but not yet". Are there any additional sources available that have written in-depth about Na'amod? I suggest trying Google News (use quotes for the search, like "Na'amod") and the sources do not need to be in English. Choose the ones that have the most in-depth coverage (a guide is WP:THREE). Also, be mindful of the neutral point of view policy. If there has been criticism of the group that needs to be included as well (I noted there was mention of criticism in one of the sources provided). S0091 (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

New message from Osarius

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace Aura. Osarius 09:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Could you review Draft:Ülo_Varul

Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 01:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Hall_(English_playwright)

Hello, I've done as you suggested and added four mainstream newspaper articles about my subject or his work as a note on the Talk page. Best wishes. SkylarWoodward (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC).

Gregory Hein

Hello, thanks for reviewing the article draft. I followed these notability guidelines (Wikipedia:Notability (music)), of which I believe Gregory Hein meets:

  • Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.

Also, under recordings (regarding the notable composition requirement):

  • The recording has been certified gold or higher in at least one country.
  • The recording has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.

I believe the RIAA-certified Gold and Platinum status fulfils this requirement. Please let me know if you took these points into consideration when reviewing the article, and if I'm missing something with this.Jacobmcpherson (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Jacobmcpherson I did take the RIAA status and Grammy nomination into consideration but note the notability guidelines state "may meet" and further states Where possible, composers or lyricists with insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article should be merged into the article about their work. This is where I think Hein fell. There was no in-depth coverage about him to support what is generally expected of a biography and most likely would not survive WP:AFD. S0091 (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Can you please help me understand why the sources aren't verifiable? The sources link Hein to the notable works as a co-writer, and Grammy nomination. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
There is not enough material to warrant a stand-alone article about him. You are welcome to resubmit and get a another opinion though. S0091 (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your replies, this process is helpful. What would help warrant a stand-alone article in this case? Any specific feedback is appreciated Jacobmcpherson (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
In-depth coverage about him from multiple independent reliable sources, the standard for any article. Generally the WP:SNGs like WP:NMUSIC do not override WP:GNG but serve simply as guide providing indicators a subject likely meets WP:GNG. In this case, I could see accepting if there was enough to support some biographical content given he does meet some of the WP:NMUSIC criteria (a source that meets WP:SIGCOV and maybe couple others not quite enough to meet WP:SIGCOV but more than brief mentions). S0091 (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 May 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Oriol Vinyals Wikipedia page

Hi,

I edited the Oriol Vinyals wiki article by removing github and arXiv references, and adding references to Wikipedia pages instead. I believe WP:NPROF and WP:NBIO are already met with his appointment at UCL as a honorary professor and 150k citations; and the Financial Times article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepdistill (talk • contribs) 21:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Motu Kaikoura Trust

Thanks for your advice, S0091. I have deleted almost all references to the primary source and beefed up the references to secondary sources where there are descriptions of the role of the trust forming much of the introductions to the academic publications. LowlanderToo (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @LowlanderToo click the blue "Resubmit" button and another reviewer will review it. S0091 (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:"Katy K" Kattelman

Hi there! Can you please take a look at this submission again? I have added additional sources that she is the specific topic of. Please let me know any other feedback you have. Thanks! Wybaelia (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Wybaelia click the blue "Resubmit" button and another reviewer will review it. S0091 (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Crofick

Hello, in response to your comment on my talk page, I'm telling you that I know that Wikipedia is not a means of advertising, it is not a means by which people can pay you to create articles. THAT IS WHY MY ANSWER IS THAT I AM NOT AFFILIATED WITH THAT NOR WITH ANY OTHER COMPANY Could you help me identify which parts of the article could be advertising content, self-promotion, or little neutral writing that could be added to get accepted on Wikipedia or if the problem is due to references? I am waiting for your answer. My best wishes --OswaldoNicolas (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Responded on their talk page. S0091 (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Yassen Stanev

Hi S0091, thanks for the suggestions. I added more information about the importance of the scientific and educational work. Yassen Stanev has important impact in the theoretical physics and more specifically in the Conformal Field Theory. He has a Prize on his name and now also a Yassen Stanev Memorial Meeting. There are also other information about Meeting Chair and other honorary functions, which I collect and I will add later.Could you review your evaluation of the article? Thanks. Tyty4net (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Tyty4net

@Tyty4net you have resubmitted it so another reviewer will take a look. S0091 (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Submission Declined: Murder of Elizabeth Roberts

Hello, I have a question about part of the note you left on the decline of my article. You stated that an article from 1992 in the Seattle Times is not a valid source because it does not mention Roberts by name. I have cited this source to help prove duration of coverage of an event that occurred in 1977, but as the remains of Roberts were not identified until 2020, it is not possible for the article to mention Roberts’s name. I believe that the 1992 article provides sufficient details repeated in articles that do mention Roberts’s name that it can be reasonably assumed that the 1992 article is about her, however I do not know if this is actually enough to merit this as a valid citation. I am hoping you can provide a reconsideration of this note or some additional elaboration on how to fix this problem. Thank you for your consideration. Apelcini (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Apelcini Oh yes, you are correct that article's prior to the identification obviously will not mention Roberts by name. Sorry about that. Are there articles about her missing over time? I think that would be helpful but you are welcome to resubmit now or at anytime to get another review. I will note, Find a Grave is not a reliable source so should not be used. S0091 (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I’m glad we could clear that up. I don’t think there are any official articles about Roberts as a missing person prior to the identification, I mention in my submission that a significant impediment to Roberts’s identification was that her name was removed from the federal database upon her 18th birthday as she was no longer classified as an endangered dependent. Would the official website of her cemetery or obituary be considered a valid source? Apelcini (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Apelcini Ok, I wondered if there were any newspaper articles about her missing but the 70s, 80s, etc. were much different times. Where she is buried is not a "contentious" or "exceptional" claim so the obituary is likely fine although they are technically a primary source, unless written by journalist or something like that. Find a Grave is User-generated, like Wikipedia, which is why it is not considered a reliable source. The other piece of advice is trim out some some of the detail, like the exact time and location of when/where she was found for example. Such details may be beneficial for law enforcement but is not suitable for an encyclopedia article. Also, anything that cannot be attributed to a published reliable source should be removed. S0091 (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Submission declined: Draft:Andrea Botez

I've got a few question regarding the submission decline. In your comment, you told me to view "notability guidelines for chess players" and on there it says "A chess player is presumed to meet the general notability guideline if he or she meets at least one of the following criteria", but Andrea DOES meet one of the criteria from the list. The criteria she meets was mentioned in the article, so isn't she eligible? (The criteria she meets is no.3) You've also mentioned that Tiktok and youtube, etc are not reliable sources. In my article, I was talking about the numbers she managed to gather on those platforms and I referenced the channels where I got the numbers from. Shouldn't I reference the channels where I've gathered my information from? Thanks, Ilie Balan (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Ilie Balan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilie Balan (talk • contribs) 23:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Ilie Balan, also notice the criteria states that meeting one them does not mean they warrant inclusion. They should ultimately meet WP:GNG. The number of views or followers is meaningless from a notability perspective. See WP:WikiProject YouTube/Notability for examples about YouTubers to get a feel. What is needed is in-depth coverage about her from multiple reliable, independent sources. Most of the sources used are either unreliable or do not cover her in-depth. I suggest first removing all the unreliable sources along with the content attributed to them (ebiography, social media, Amazon, etc.) and posting a note at the WikiProject Chess talk page to get some guidance. Happy to defer to their expertise. S0091 (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Warning

Mr or Mrs S0091 This profile and detailed information complies with all Wikipedia guidelines. And we are talking about https://g.co/kgs/WzGqM2 a new artist "singer-songwriter " who told you that because he is new it is not relevant!? You are outdated with the new policies /22 ɔɪɔɪ→ In addition, the information from Google is still poor . That's why while creating a new Google Artist panel we also created a Wikipedia so that the identity of the artist is accompanied by a secure source. S0091 Due to Google's 2022 agreements with Wikipedia, we are working with Wikipedia to improve the user experience. That is why, in my opinion, as a 4-year-old user, you should be informed of the guidelines and conditions in collaboration with Google. It should be noted that this artist has a panel of claimed and verified knowledge, which must necessarily have his biography on Wikipedia . I'm a pop-up if you have questions I recommend you visit https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/9703665?hl=es-419#900 . Please note that non-compliance actions may lead to the deactivation of your account or editing block , regardless of the years and values ​​acquired as an editor. https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/9703665?hl=es-419#900 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luis makani (talk • contribs) 01:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Luis makani I am responding just in case you actually believe what you wrote above. There is no such agreement between Wikipedia and Google. Wikipedia is a separate entity from Google with its own purpose (a free encyclopedia), which is vastly different than Google's purpose, thus Wikipedia has its own policies and guidelines of which the notability guideline is one. Draft:Yuri Togkces does not currently meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Period. Giving false information and threatening users will be blocked will ultimately lead to you being blocked from Wikipedia so I strongly suggest you cease from making such statements. If you have questions or need help, you can ask at the Teahouse. S0091 (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

request to review draft on Estefania Soto

Hi! Thank you for your review. I'd like to kindly request for a new review of the draft to be accepted as an article. It is said that " No relevant improvement since previous deletion. She is not a notable actress or business person", however, comparing it with the previous draft submitted by a LudoKoenders, the new draft by HelloEstefania is well referenced and improved. It shows and correctly references a notable public figure. Would you suggest any steps to follow in order to request for a new review? Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelloEstefania (talk • contribs) 21:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Modern use of the shilling mark

Are stamps issued by state post offices reliable sources? All the countries I named use the shilling mark on their stamps: https://stamps.tz.post/collections/2020-collection/products/butterfly-of-tanzania, https://www.ugapost.co.ug/new/philately/ TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @TheCurrencyGuy, to be honest I am not sure but I also see what you changed is largely a hidden comment rather than the text displayed in the article. I will revert myself and apologies for the misunderstanding. S0091 (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
No worries, so long as we aren't misleading anybody. I just took the "obsolete" part out and added a hidden comment about how it isn't obsolete. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Submission declined: Draft: Tim Fielder

Hi there!


I'm hoping to help with the submission of the entry for graphic novelist and Afrofuturist, Tim Fielder. I'm a little confused as to why the submission was declined. I understand the Independent component as in the case of Fielder's blogs, but the articles from Bleeding Cool, Syfy, and others are direct interviews with and profiles of Fielder. They might be popular venues, but they do add credibility to the notes about Fielder. Some of the other references are from museums; NPR and PBS affiliates; galleries; and The Beat, which is a comics journalism site.


Should the language of the entry be attributed to the interviewers? Are the references from the museums, galleries, and The Beat considered to be quality references? Would the entry be more likely to be passed if less of certain references were cut, and if so, which ones?


I know these are lots of questions. I've only helped edit a few wikipedia entries, so I'm looking to learn from the experts and the reviewers. I'll also work on creating an entry for INFINITUM as was suggested.


Thank you! -- JW Justin.wigard (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Justin.wigard its been many months since I completed the review so I do not recall much of my review other than what wrote in my comments. Interviews are not independent so cannot be used to establish notability and should only be used sparingly to support content. The same for galleries exhibiting his work as they have interest in publicizing their exhibitions but are fine to use to support an exhibit occurred. What would be helpful are secondary sources that wrote in-depth about the exhibitions. General profiles are also unhelpful for notability. I agree The Beat is a reliable source but not enough to establish notability for Fields. I believe this is why I suggested writing an article about Infinitum rather than him. You might find WikiProject Comics along with sources guide helpful. S0091 (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi @S0091 -- thanks for the quick reply, even though the review was a long time ago. I've resubmitted edits based on your suggestion. I offered some new references and eliminated some of the ones you suggested. If further edits are needed, I'm happy to revise accordingly.
Thanks! -- JW Justin.wigard (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Submission declined: Draft:Results breakdown of the 2011 Portuguese legislative election

Good evening,

I'm sending this message to understand why this page in particular was rejected. The page has the same info as the 2015, 2019 and 2022 results breakdown pages, and compared with other countries results breakdown pages, like this one Results breakdown of the November 2019 Spanish general election (Congress), it has basically the same info. The links are from the official website of the Portuguese Interior Ministry that even has comparing results with the previous election, so I'm not sure what you mean by "not adequately supported by reliable sources". I await reply. Thank you. Tuesp1985 (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Tuesp1985 actually if you believe it is ready for mainspace you can move it yourself. You do not have to go through the AfC process. You are also welcome to resubmit it and another reviewer will take a look. S0091 (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Already made a few changes adding info and resubmitted for review. Once again, thank you.Tuesp1985 (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Timeline of Lord Alfred Milner (declined March 26, 2022)

Please delete this article, as I have revised and readmitted it as "The Life Timeline of Lord Alfred Milner". Thanks.

Submission declined: Draft:CANTERVICE

Hello S0091, my feedback for my 1st article being declined was "FiXT is not a reliable source so should not be used.". I was curious as to why the artist's record label was not an appropriate source for basic facts? If possible, can you provide general preferences for information when it comes to bands/music artists specifically (artist official pages, blogs, interviews etc.)? Thank you very much for your feedback! This is my first article on Wikipedia for a up and coming rock band and I really want to nail it. Velocxty98 (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Velocxty98, I had a feeling I would hear from you. :) As a new editor, a crucial concept to understand is Wikipedia does not care about what a subject or those affiliated with a subject has to say about it because that is not independent coverage. What is needed is in-depth coverage by quality reliable sources with no connection to the subject, in this case CANTERVICE. See the notability guidelines for music-related topics which the criteria articles are judged against from a notability perspective along with Your first article. Also, while not an exhaustive list, see WikiProject Albums/Sources as a guide for acceptable sources. If you have any affiliation with the band, you do need to declare your conflict of interest. I will leave some additional information on your talk page as well for reference. S0091 (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey

Howdy, I came to ask you about how to add links in edit summaries. Cheers and thanks Uricdivine (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:James Cuthbert

Hey there,

Can you please look on this draft?

It's still pending from many days ago Ghadamakhouls (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Ghadamakhouls, all of the sources are sponsored content or press releases so not reliable or independent. If these are the type of sources that exist, this person is not notable and no amount of editing can rectify it (i.e. nothing you can do or your client can do to overcome it). I added the draft template so you are welcome to submit it to get another reviewer's opinion but this is typical SEO/promotional stuff we see from paid/COI editors all the time. S0091 (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
But what about this draft "Draft:Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management". This is not any promotional article even this is the biggest B-School in Kolkata. All of these references came from Orgincally such as, TV news, Programs, Magazine publications. I already rewrite about the institute but again it's got declined. Also all those publications are notable in India, not internationally. So, I want to know that how many references needs to approve any article about an Institute. Even I tried my best to edit neutral point of view. Can you please explain me about this? Ghadamakhouls (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@Ghadamakhouls its not the number of sources but the quality and depth of coverage. Take a look at WP:NCORP as it does have a great source guide. For example, the subject could be covered in The Guardian, The Hindu or The New York Times but if it is largely an interview or just a brief mention, then does nothing for notability even if published by an otherwise reliable source. I have not looked at the draft though to be able to say what the issue is with the sources used nor will I. As a paid editor, the expectation is you have done your due diligence to understand Wikipedia's polices and guidelines. S0091 (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Could you Please look at this draft?
This Institute is the Biggest B-school in Kolkata, India. But ""RPSkokie"" merged this Institute with "Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University". But the reality is there is no affiliation with this University. Even My draft is not an University it's a Business school. Can you please look at it again and let me know. Ghadamakhouls (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management

Sorry for making this request second time but This Institute is the Biggest Business school in Kolkata, India. But you merged this Institute with "Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University". But the reality is there is no affiliation with this University. Even My draft is not an University it's a Business school. Can you please review it again and let me know.

"" RPSkokie" Merged this Institute with Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University"

Please rereview the article again

Regards Ghadamakhouls (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Articles for creation: Max and the Invaders (previously The Invaders)

Hello, based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles I believe my article fulfills points 1 and 7. There have been multiple articles cited based on the band's work and the band is the most prolific ska band in the Milwaukee area. Is there room for reconsideration? Thanks, Major Major Detail (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Major Detail, you are welcome to resubmit it and another reviewer will take a look. I suggest leaving a note a the draft's talk page outlining why you believe they meet the notability criteria along with the best three sources. You may find WP:THREE and WP:42 helpful as to the type of sources needed. S0091 (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I was able to unearth a front page newspaper article to enhance the band's notability in the region. Regards, Major Detail (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Yuri_Struchkov

Hello S0091, I made the changes in the page, I hope it now meets notability requirements. Please, have a look at your convenience. Thanks a lot. Ayan0907 (talk) 02:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Starting off on Wikipedia

Hi! I’m sure you must have noticed I’m a little inactive. Thing is, I’m not really sure where to start, what to do, or anything. I did attempt to write an article, but clearly it got turned down. Anyways, I’m curious if you could suggest something. I am a writer on wikiHow, and so switching here is a difficult transition. Thanks! KWHorseLover143 (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @KWHorseLover143, there is tons to do here! Check out the task center for some ideas. Also, I suggest going through the Wikipedia Adventure which is a guided tutorial to learn the basics of editing. If you have questions or need help, do not hesitate to ask at the Teahouse. I do hope you stick around and feel free to drop by here anytime. :) S0091 (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

NOWPayments draft

Hey S0091, thanks for your review of my draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:NOWPayments I get your point about notability, but could I ask for some advice? Seems other payment gateways have similar pages - can't get the difference that would help this page earn its living on Wiki :) Like, this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitPay. or this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShapeShift So, I am trying to understand what could I remove (or add?) Aiming to get information out there that alternative payments are a good, well, alternative, and that's one of the ways to accept them. Thanks! PorsianaF (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @PorsianaF both of the articles you reference above have had major mainstream publications write about them, such as The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Reuters, Fortune and so on. What you have provided are wholly unreliable sources and you have written the article as an advocate for NOWPayments, rather than in a neutral, encyclopedic manner. As I have now rejected it, there is nothing more you can do. NOWPayments is not notable so best to move on from the topic. Sorry to be harsh but its best advice I can give. S0091 (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply!
So if major mainstream publications write specifically about NOWPayments (not mentioning it in passing as the sources I cited did) or rather write about its contribution to the business space - in the future, it would make sense for me to try again?
Again, appreciate your time and effort! PorsianaF (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
@PorsianaF yes! To be clear, it has to be about them; not what they say about themselves so things like press releases, interviews or an article where most of the information is coming from them cannot be used to establish notability as they are not independent. For example, if The New York Times, which is generally a reliable source, write an article about NOWPayments but if is largely an interview with one the developers that cannot be used for notability because it is not independent. If you have not already, read the notability guidelines for companies thoroughly. S0091 (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management Kolkata

Hello S0091,

Could you please look at this draft again?

I've re-write the draft and submitted for review. Ghadamakhouls (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Andrew Straw (Disabled American Lawyer & Camp LeJeune Poisoning Advocate)

Just a heads up, it looks like you edit-conflicted while declining the draft. It was moved to Draft:Andrew Straw, so your comment was added to the redirect instead of the draft. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 00:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Ingenuity well, that's a first for me.:) Thanks for taking the time to let me know and good catch! S0091 (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The editor appears to have a bias against the draft infecting his view of the writing and the sources so much that he vandalized it and started making accusations, such as COI accusations that are unfounded and unsourced. I would ask that this editor not be allowed to participate in this draft anymore. His denials should reviewed, as should his edits. He is clearly hostile to the subject matter and lashed out against me on my talk. DisabledEditor (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!

The Articles for Creation Barnstar
Thank you for reviewing my article on Moran Rosenblatt! QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 19:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! And thank you for creating it! One way you can improve the article is to slim down on the sources. There really only needs to be one source to support a fact. In the Filmography section often multiple are used. I would just keep the best one; the one that is the most solid WP:RS and provides the most coverage. I did have to trim the Biography to remove unsourced information but hopefully sources can be found. I also changed the prose for her Career based on English sources I found that I thought made her notability more clear for an English speaking audience. Of course, you are more than welcome to amend anything I did. S0091 (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Adhi krishnan (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

New message from Uricdivine

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Stranger Things (season 3). UricdivineTalkToMe 00:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Rockset

August 15, 2022

Dear S0091,

Three sources (plus one) that meet WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH as you requested for Draft:Rockset. (I don't believe there is a Talk page for the draft.)

  1. (3) Clark, Lindsay (August 27, 2021). "Rockset hopes to lessen streaming analytics time-suck by having SQL transform live data". The Register. Retrieved March 25, 2022.
  2. (14) Baer, Tony (April 15, 2021). "Rockset takes a deeper dive into enterprise data pool". zdnet.com. ZDNet. Retrieved August 14, 2022.
  3. (15) Clark, Lindsay (July 28, 2020). "It must have been love, but it's over now: Rockset tries to break up storage and compute, meet transactional, data-warehouse systems in middle". The Register. The Register. Retrieved August 14, 2022.
  4. (16) Halladay, Kerry (March 14, 2022). "Get Your Infrastructure Ready for Real-Time Analytics". Built In. Retrieved August 14, 2022.

Thank you. Rodbauer (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Rodbauer the talk page is Draft talk:Rockset (it's the Talk tab). You can just copy your note over there. S0091 (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft

Could you please check my draft and see if it is good to be published? It is a topic I feel must be on Wikipedia, as it allows others to find information on their familial history much easier. Albaniankanunist (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Albaniankanunist you have resubmitted it so another reviewer will take a look. I do suggest making your sources inline citations so it is clear which sources are supporting which claims. You can reuse the same source multiple times. See the "Re-using a reference, again and again" sections at WP:ERB for instructions but if you have questions or need help, you can ask at the Teahouse. S0091 (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Draft:The Playground (2017 film)

Hi and thanks for your review. I understand the article was rejected but I want to make sure an important factor was not overlooked. I have asked around and besides being marked early as a promising draft with distribution by Indie Rights,[1] Richard Propes and Don Shanahan are both Tomatometer-approved critics at Rotten Tomatoes.[2] They have left full-length reviews on this film and this should qualify the draft being moved to article space as per WP:NFO attribute number 1 "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." If this attribute does not make a case for this draft becoming an article, please explain why so I know this was not overlooked. Thank you. Filmforme (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Filmforme those sources were already considered by two previous editors, both declined the draft (or commented it still would not likely survive a deletion discussion) and I agree with their assessment. At this point is would be a waste of other editor's time, not to mention yours, for it to be reviewed yet again. It is best to move on. S0091 (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Filmforme I have reverted your edit because the place to have that discussion with other editors is on the draft's talk page, rather than here. You are welcome to re-post your request there. S0091 (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. --Filmforme (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The Playground". Indie Rights.
  2. ^ "The Playground Reviews".

Draft:SkyShowtime

Draft:SkyShowtime I have mentioned this to someone else, but can this draft be somewhere in the Showtime article. After all, there is a mention about SkyShowtime in a section. RamsesTimeGame (talk) 04:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@RamsesTimeGame no, not the entire draft as that would be WP:UNDUE. It appears to be appropriately covered in the Showtime article. S0091 (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
There are some other parts of the draft that can go to the Showtime article, like for example, the template, right? RamsesTimeGame (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Question

I know this was quite a while back(3 July 2021), but did you run an SPI on BerkBerk68 concerning Ska-arsam-kazempour? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Kansas Bear wow...yeah, that was a while ago. No, it does not appear I filed an SPI or reported it to a CU but I did leave Berk a warning and it looks like I also suspected another account was them. Looking at their TP history, about week-ish later El C logged an AE warning due their general disruption. S0091 (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for your help. Actually, that discusson thread shows a statement by BerkBerk which reinforces the possibility of coordinated editing, "...our Kurdish teammate knows Kurdish as main langauge at speaking, he also knows how to write aswell in a level."!! That is very helpful!
Stay safe S0091! --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
@Kansas Bear good catch! Please feel free to stop by anytime even if it is to "fuss" to about something I did (or didn't do). You stay safe as well! S0091 (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Published my article

Hello, I would like help understanding why my sources are not reliable. These sources are news papers and the subject of my Wikipedia page is focus of all the articles used. Other sources used were direct links to his repertoire. Any advice and assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. IamNasirZaman (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Stop accusing others for "unconstructive edits" and "vandalism"

Steve Jobs is NOT a Pixar founder, and his name should not be there. 2A00:23C5:4187:6701:CAC:19B8:BA51:5E32 (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP, I have struck the warning I left with a note stating you have a point along with an apology. I see this has been brought up a couple times on the article's talk page as well. S0091 (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

rejected edits on pronoun correction

hey, ive taken my time to correct the pronouns on Summer Walker‘s entry. They publicly stated that they use they/them pronouns, so it‘s only respectful and necessary to change them. Maybe you just see the pronouns as too misguiding as in some context it may be misguiding if the topic is about two people or only Summer - but there needs to be a better solution than just misgendering them. If you can‘t accept my corrections, please be so kind and come up with clearer sentence structure than I do that also uses the correct pronouns. The other parts of the entry were also accepted by you with the correct pronouns, so if queer-phobia is not the issue on your side, it only makes sense. Aswell in matters of congruency. thanks for your contribution!! 2003:C5:8F41:1A00:98B3:AFB5:DD28:9D2C (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP, do you have a reliable source where they state their preference? In this instance a statement from one of their verified social media accounts would suffice but you do need to cite it and add the content to their Personal life section so it is clear in the article. Please also see WP:GENDERID for guidance. S0091 (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Okezue Bell

Hello, S0091,

This draft has been the focus of a sockmaster and their sockpuppets today but I thought I'd have a look at it. To be honest, when I read it, I thought it was a hoax article, it is just so over-the-top. Did you check out the references? I looked at a few and some seemed to be legitimate while others were a little sketchy. I was just surprised that it was completely rejected because if the biographical information is accurate, this is an accomplished teenager.

But I don't review drafts, you do, so I was hoping you could tell me what you saw in it that caused you to believe that there was nothing in this article that was worthwhile. Thank you! Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

You know, this draft seems very similar to Rishab Jain and Gitanjali Rao (scientist) which are in main space. I'll admit thought that I haven't thoroughly examined all of the references. Liz Read! Talk! 01:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Dominik Sedlar

Hi S0091,

Please could you be specific what part of the article is not good? I have been a member of wiki for a long time and I see many articles that should have been deleted. Dominik Sedlar is a Croatian director who has a large number of films behind him, as it can be seen from IMDB. I don't see a problem with English wiki of a foreign director? Please can you explain you rejection of article! Thank you Dalibor1975 (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Dalibor1975 I declined it; not rejected it. A reject means it will no longer be considered. A decline means "maybe but not yet". Of course an article about a "foreign" director is perfectly acceptable. However, in order for Dominik to meet the notability guidelines, multiple sources are needed that provide in-depth coverage about him or one must show his work is significant, meaning multiple films have received critical attention from multiple sources. I will also note the Hollywood Reporter article about What Does Anne Frank Mean Today? credits Jakov with just a brief mention about Dominik so not the most helpful source for Dominik's notability. Please also address your possible conflict of interest. S0091 (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Alex Beaton

Thanks for your feedback. I just extensively re-edited the draft, added multiple references, and resubmitted it for review. Thanks! Kyhiking (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Kyhiking I will let another reviewer assess it. In the interim, you could post a note on the draft's talk page stating how Beaton meets WP:NMUSIC along with the three sources that support the relevant criteria (you can use the footnote numbers rather than having re-cite them). S0091 (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Draft John Penley decline gets news coverage

https://thevillagesun.com/scooby-scoop-bleecker-charter-school-wiki-worries-spud-info-dud 24.120.111.152 (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, what a beacon of journalism. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Bebras Competition Draft

Dear S0091,

Thank you for your edit on Draft:Bebras Competition on August 13th!

I tried to improve the submission just now by removing the second link to the Yahoo News article and instead referencing the original newspaper article.

As I'm very new to Wikipedia, I was wondering if you could give me any constructive feedback as to whether the current state of the article should suffice in leading to a positive re-review! If not, what should I change / be on the lookout for?

Thank you! Editor1278 (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Editor1278 I added a couple more sources and will leave it to another reviewer but I think it meets the notability guidelines. It would be helpful for readers to have a brief overview of what the competition encompasses (i.e. students are given tasks, etc.). You can "re-use" the current sources as some do provide a summary (see WP:ERB for instructions). Also, if you are affiliated with Bebras you need to declare a conflict of interest. Having a COI does not preclude you from submitting the draft but there are some additional guidelines to follow. S0091 (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Dear @S0091!
Thank you for the feedback! I did some improvements and re-submitted, thanks for your help along the way!
I participated in the competition myself a few years back and enjoyed it thoroughly, but am not affiliated with the Bebras organization, so no COI on my end. Editor1278 (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@Editor1278 thanks for confirming you do not have a COI. I am actually surprised Wikipedia did not already have an article about the competition. It does sound fun! S0091 (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Bobbie Anne Flower-Cox

Thank you for getting back to me so quickly on this! I do agree that secondary sources are lacking on this, which is part of a larger issue: MSM ignored this completely, except for the New York Post. Am wondering if this might best be transformed into an article under the case name, rather than under Bobbie Anne's name, as she is better known under primary sources. Would greatly appreciate your candid thoughts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:780C:6F00:688C:711A:2809:BAEF (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP, my suggestion is to follow the sources so if the best sources are mainly about the case, then that should be the subject of the article. Also, I suggest reviewing WP:RSP to determine if a source is deemed reliable or not. For example, the NY Post is not a reliable source so should not be used. While this is certainly not an exhaustive list, it does contain many common mainstream sources. S0091 (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Submission declined: Draft: Theo Solnik

Hi there, Thank you for reviewing the article about film director and cinematographer Theo Solnik. I see that you consider that the references submitted do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Nevertheless, I see that all sources are independent of the subject of the article and established publications in BRazil, Germany and Russia. Reference number 1 comes from Brazil's biggest and most respected daily newspaper, Folha de São Paulo. Reference number 4 is a whole article dedicated to the subject of the article, published by the Russian art Magazine Look At Me, which is independent and established. It is not an interview, it is an article dedicated to the artist. Several other references are from German well established newspapers and magazines. The fact the awards won by the film maker were published in publications like Die Tageszeitung, Tip Berlin and Die Welt shows that there is a considerable degree of public interest in these awards and in the work of the artist. All those sources are published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Would you kindly elaborate on the criteria that were used to not consider those sources as valid?

If any issue may have arisen due to the fact that references are in multiple languages that not all reviewers might be able to assess directly, I would be thankful to know how this issue could be adressed. Bunnyspeedy (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Bunnyspeedy please be aware awards need to be notable awards (i.e. major awards from major notable film festivals and/major national or international awards) and I did not see awards met that criteria (see footnote #3 of WP:NFILM), nor did see that Solnik's films met WP:NFILM as those generally already have a Wikipedia article about them. Let's do this....please post on the draft's talk page how Solnick meets WP:NCREATIVE and/or WP:BASIC along with the best three sources you believe supports notability (see WP:THREE for guidance). You can just use the footnote numbers rather than having to re-cite them. Once you have done that, resubmit it for review. Granted, you more than welcome to resubmit regardless but having some guidance on the key reasons/sources will help reviewers. S0091 (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Submission declined: Draft: Park Jiyeon filmography

Hi!

You just declined this draft. I'm really curious why Park Jiyeon's filmography shouldn't have a separate page despite having a big enough career as an actress and it being a notable part of her career as an entertainer in general. I thought of making a separate page because I had a hard time editing her main page, the filmography section is getting too big and it's becoming uncomfortable reading her article with that long list. Besides, my list is more sourced, detailed, and accurate.

**Also, her TV shows table is still incomplete because I'm still compiling sources, I initially submitted the draft while still adding content, I didn't see it being declined.

Would love to hear your reply as soon as possible, thanks. RWikiED20 (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @RWikiED20 splitting an article is a content decision that ideally enjoys consensus. I am not disagreeing with your argument but simply requesting you seek consensus first. S0091 (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
First, thank you for replying.
I did see your comment about discussing the creation of the article, however, I didn't do it because I already tried to discuss other topics before but no one seems to be checking it and I never got a reply so what should I be doing now? RWikiED20 (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi @RWikiED20 just post a note the draft's talk page stating the above and resubmit it. I do see you tried to start a discussion back in July about the awards but no one commented. S0091 (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm so sorry to bother you with my questions but how can I post this note?, I've never seen it. RWikiED20 (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@RWikiED20 no bother! Just go to Draft talk:Park Jiyeon filmography and post a note just like you would on any other talk page. S0091 (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 04:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@MB Thanks for bugging me. I voted! :) S0091 (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Submission declined: Draft: Bartensleben Castle

Hi!

Thank you for your feedback. This property already has a published Wikipedia site in german, and I was hoping to get it available in English (it was noted in red in an article in favour of article creation). Perhaps u might have some advice on how to do it successfully? Because I cannot find resources in English, I can use only german references. I would love to have your feedback on this! Dinarom (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Dinarom each language is its own project with its own policies and guidelines with the English Wikipedia generally being more strict. You can use German sources but stay away from tourist sites as those are generally not reliable. Its better to stick with mainstream publications like newspapers or books by a reputable publisher. Also, I forgot to give you the specific notability guideline - see WP:NBUILD. S0091 (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback, that was helpful! Dinarom (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Have You Seen This Woman?

Premiere took place and reviews have appeared (tagged as TOOSOON earlier), does it qualify now? Thank you. Ckql10 (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Ckql10 you have resubmitted for review so another reviewer will take a look. S0091 (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Kumain Bahun

That decline was quite a bit of suppression. There's sufficient content about Kumain Bahuns. I can't see why was it declined?? Why don't you support Nepalese content?? How will our children learn if you suppress our Nepalese content?? Oof, I'm disheartened at the decline. 2400:1A00:B010:208B:643E:200F:AE9B:7EDC (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP, please assume good faith which is a Wikipedia pillar. This was purely a decision about the draft, not about the Nepalese and I did not decline the content, only that it is should be used to expand an existing article rather than having a stand-alone article. However, you are welcome to resubmit the draft and another reviewer will take a look. If you do resubmit the draft, I do highly recommend posting a note on the draft's talk page (here) the three best sources that have written in-depth about Kumain Bahun. S0091 (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

[Draft:Hossein Kamalabadi] to Article

Move [Draft:Hossein Kamalabadi] to Article Please Ostad10 (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Stop socking, Samansadeghy. S0091 (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Do not revert edits made without checking. You will be blocked from wiki

I am making one more thing clear to you. You seem to be removing more facts, while simultaneously adding in unproven rubbish as fact.

Social reformer, philanthropist, educationalist, are exactly the proven outputs he delivered into society. Schools, universities, healthcare, all come under the words above. Learn English.

And please don't ever confidently try telling people what they know is an opinion. People like you need a psychiatrist, considering your own opinion to be tangible fact is pretty ridiculous 

Read the facts mentioned and if you keep editing it to restore your opiniated narrative, I will take legal action against you. 2405:201:4004:4091:918A:DA18:4606:4624 (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
WP:NPA is relevant. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 20:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
@Magnatyrannus I have notified an admin. S0091 (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Please have a Pie. It has been made with Organic BrownBoy, and has been sprinkled with a pinch of Ben. Yum. BenBrownBoy (Aye?) 20:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
@BenBrownBoy compared to what I am getting above, I will gladly take it! :) S0091 (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. Looking at what some people have thrown your way, it would appear that they thrive off of trouble. DLTBGYD. BenBrownBoy (Aye?) 20:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Eh...they are just trying to project "their truth" onto Wikipedia which I am assuming is core to their identity so when someone rejects it, they take quite personally. S0091 (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
What does DLTBGYD mean, btw? S0091 (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
It stands for "Don't Let the Bastards Grind You Down". Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 21:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Lol! Thank you! S0091 (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
You beat me to it! BenBrownBoy (Aye?) 21:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Mariano de La Torre Rodriguez

Hello, I was just wondering what I can do to improve my chances of having my article approved? I saw it was rejected, thank you 2601:8C3:4101:5660:9DD5:BD4A:2791:3D40 (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP, as I noted in the decline, much of the content appears to rely on primary sources such as letters, government documents, genealogy, etc. rather than secondary sources. In order to meet notability, in-depth coverage about him is needed from multiple secondary, reliable sources. The content of the draft should simply summarize what those secondary sources state, without editorializing, synthesis or your own analysis or conclusions. S0091 (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Question about decline

Hello! Could you please provide more information why my article “CRISP - Crisis Simulation for Peace” was declined? 2A01:598:D03E:AA9D:29F6:6357:50C2:5517 (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP, a vast majority of the content is sourced to CRISP's website, which is not a reliable source nor are any publications by CRISP or its affiliates. In short, what CRISP says about itself is not useful. Please read through the notability and sourcing guidelines for organizations. S0091 (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Ways to improve Living Between Two Worlds

Hello, S0091,

Thank you for creating Living Between Two Worlds.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thanks for the article; I've marked it as reviewed! The coverage from the book refs is trivial with 1 or 2 hits, but the two newspaper pieces from Los Angeles Times and California Eagle meet notability, IMHO. However, the lead could be slightly expanded to cover the productions and release section as well as the reception one. Another tiny nitpick- the plot section at two sentences could also be expanded a bit.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|VickKiang}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

VickKiang (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Fabrice Guerrier

Hi S0091,

Thank you for your comment! This page for Fabrice guerrier was originally decline two months ago because many of the sources - blogs, Amazon and sites were used for the profile. I rearranged the entire page for greater simplicity including only information from primary independent and secondary sources for the profile. I resubmitted it. Many thanks again for your guidance in this. Sequoia112 (talk) 04:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Open-source intelligence

Hi, I reverted your deletion of the professional association section. Based on your comment saying that the WSJ article did not say what was quoted, I checked and you're right, it did not quote the association's mission statement -I updated the language to cover what was in the article. I also added another citation. Please let me know if there is something wrong with what I did rather than deleting it if possible. Thank you for your help - I'm new to this but would like to contribute on a topic I know well. Catbell99 (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Catbell99 apologies for the late reply. I looked at this then apparently moved on (oops!). Your change is fine. The article really needs a complete re-write but it is what it is for now. S0091 (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft not accepted

Hi, the message for refusing my article was a bit standard about reliable sources and I'd like to understand a bit more to know how can I improve. The article is about the formation of a band that I'm part of. I understand the concern about conflict of interest, but we are not famous yet so that journalists would write about us, so it has to be one of us writing about it. There are references all over the article, not to newspapers or magazines, but to the actual asset produced by musicians: songs. I'd like to know if the format of the references has to be different, or if other sources rather than ourselves should publish the article (I wonder who would know about our history better than us) or what exactly I need to do to be able to publish the article. Fwynyk (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Fwynyk, it seems you have a common misunderstanding about Wikipedia. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, an article simply summarizes what other reputable publications have written about a subject and is not the forum for profiles like social media or a means to promote something to make it famous. In order to meet the notability guidelines a subject already has to be "of note" so if no reputable publications have written about the band then a Wikipedia article is not possible. Best of luck though! S0091 (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Mera Naseeb

The topic is notable enough to meet the Wikipedia's notability standards. Independent and reliable sources from sites such as Express Tribune, DAWN Images and Times of India are provided in the article. Furthermore, the series has won the most most notable award in the country as per Wikipedia norms which is Lux Style Award. The article is also provided with in-depth coverage of the subject ranging from production details to reception reviews. Remove the "Long plot" tag as well, because now the plot has been reduced to less than 500 words. I don't think anything left behind to be mentioned. Please, consider it again for publishing. 39.34.174.241 (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP, you have resubmitted so another reviewer will take a look. S0091 (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Request on 01:37:18, 17 October 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Darcyisverycute


Hey, thanks for the (second) review of my submission. I figured the article would pass notability requirements because of it being an Australia-wide program with good independent news source coverage, although I have never actually seen the program or heard of anyone using it. I can't quite remember why I started working on the article but it's one of the first writing projects I tried and now I can still see a lot of mistakes, reminding myself after the first review for some reason I thought it was a good idea to tabulate the whole program structure >_<. I also didn't realise Our Watch had its own Wikipedia article, so thanks for pointing that out as well, you are probably right the info best belongs on the Our Watch article. I had another look through the references I put in and it looks like reference 1 has some criticism, is that what you were referring to? Anyway, since joining Wikipedia I've spread myself pretty thin as far as different tasks, and I'll probably work on my other drafts first, but when I get around to it hopefully I'll add some more info to the Our Watch article. Darcyisverycute (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Richard Kirshenbaum AfC

Hi S0091, thanks so much for the review and helpful comment on Draft:Richard Kirshenbaum. I appreciate what you suggested about K+B being notable and can look into creating that page. That said, I hoped that a page for Kirshenbaum would be reasonable, having seen that editors were comfortable with a page for his co-founder, Jon Bond. Though of course, it's not a direct comparison between the two. For Kirshenbaum, I'm curious if you see a path to acceptance if I was able to add a few other sources and adjust the content, maybe trimming some of the details? In addition to the coverage in Wall Street Journal (1) (2) and NYT, there are some pieces in The Street, AdAge and Ad Week. What do you think? Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi 16912 Rhiannon, I honestly do not see a path forward without an article about the agency so I strongly suggest creating that first. Otherwise his claim to notability (under Wikipedia's definition) is largely something that is yet to be deemed notable (meaning no Wikipedia article). For the above referenced articles, disregard anything he says, is attributed to him/his associates or about the agency then see what is left that is about him to determine what is actually useful. As for Bond, you are right, that is not the article being reviewed and other articles exist even when maybe they should not (Wikipedia has over six million articles with likely at least hundreds of thousands that should not exist). Wikipedia's standards have become largely more stringent over the years so an article acceptable a decade ago is no longer acceptable (the article about Bond was created in 2013 and perhaps the previous article about Kirshenbaum). I will be honest, because the article about Kirshenbaum just recently went through a deletion discussion where the consensus of the Wikipedia community was it should be deleted and because you are a paid editor, the scrutiny is more intense. S0091 (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks S0091, this is all really helpful and I am grateful for you taking the time to explain your thinking about the page in detail. If I end up putting forward a page about K+B, I may ping you to take a peek at it, if that's ok? Thanks so much again! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
@16912 Rhiannon yes, I can take a look. The sources you already have are enough to lay down a good foundation and there are likely enough sources for an article about his book Madboy, My Journey from Adboy to Adman (you already have the Fortune article, just need one more solid review). I do think he is likely notable but given the history of the article its best to ensure a strong argument against even a nomination for deletion, much less actual deletion. Just be sure to only summarize what reliable sources have stated not what he/affiliates have said, even if it is not to his benefit. Neutral point of view is a non-negotiable policy. S0091 (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi again, S0091, hope you're doing ok. I wanted to let you know that I won't be tapping you for help with a K+B page as Mr. Kirshenbaum prefers that I not pursue a new article for the firm. I did make a few edits to the draft for Kirshenbaum and add a couple more sources, bearing in mind your feedback above. If you still feel it would not be reasonable to resubmit, I'll understand and leave this alone for now. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi @16912 Rhiannon that's a shame, but yes, resubmitting is fine. I suggest posting a note on the draft's talk page with WP:THREE to help the next reviewer. If you do that, let me know and I will post an AfC comment letting to reviewer know to look at the talk page. As I stated before, the AfD does make this a bigger hurdle so I hope Mr.Kirshenbaum now understands he/his reps should follow the rules going forward which hopefully means he uses your firm for any future updates, assuming the article is accepted. S0091 (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks again for all the feedback here, S0091, it is really appreciated. Sorry it's taken me this long to get back to you, I had a run of illness (typical winter with elementary school age kids at home). I've left a note on the draft talk page and I'm about to hit resubmit. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
@16912 Rhiannon no need to apologize. I mean, you are the one being paid lol! Yeah, kids and their germs, they getcha every time. I added the comment and another reviewer will take a look. S0091 (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
thanks for understanding i'm new to the process and being so helpful & responsive Louder gums (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Integrated Weed Management

Dear Wiki editor S0091. Your note and reasons for declining the above submission seem very general to me. The topic is of high importance in agriculture and deserves a page on its own and not as part of another page as you suggested. The article is not original research, and every major statement carries a source and is well cited. You suggest that the article is written like an essay and not in Wikipedia style. I like you to have a look at similar pages such as Integrated Pest Management (IPM); as the style is quite comparable.

For the reasons above, I politely remain on the opinion that the article meets Wikipedia standards. I like to ask you to reconsider the decision.

If you are not convinced yet, please let me have some specific guide as to how to make the draft publishable. Thanks. Freshclover (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Freshclover the reason I suggested expanding the existing Weed control article is much of the information in the draft is already covered there so is redundant and Integrated Weed Control should be listed as one the control methods. Also, the draft is making an argument that IWM is the better solution but an encyclopedia article should be WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:BALANCED thus the essay reasoning as part of the decline which includes WP:NPOV (and is also the reason the previous reviewer declined it). One of this issues to comparing to an existing article, unless it gone through a thorough vetting process and deem a Good or Featured article, is there are hundreds of thousands of existing sub-par articles that are poorly written among other various issues. With that said, you might want to take a look at Birth control (Good article, many methods) versus Combined oral contraceptive pill (one method of many) and note that Combined oral contraceptive pill makes no comparison to other methods nor claims of it being better or worse than any other, nor does Comparison of birth control methods; just factual data laid out so the reader can come to their own conclusions. You are welcome to resubmit the draft to get another opinion but I highly suggest cleaning up the prose to focus only on what IWC is rather than issues with other methods. S0091 (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Khamoshiyan (drama)

I create a draft of the above mentioned subject. Please, review it and accept it for publishing.39.34.171.223 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Stop socking. S0091 (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

A re-review of Draft:JohNel NG

Hi S0091, I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm trying to write my first article, I read your userpage steps as a guide. I need your advice and guidance on the reasons for declining Draft:JohNel NG. I'm sure I provided 5 reliable sources on the draft according to Nigerian Sources. I also provided the fact that this person peaked top 5 on Anghami's African Chart and referenced it with a reliable source. But what I don't understand is that after I provided 5 reliable sources to support the draft, I still got feedbacks saying "sources are not independent", "Most of the sources are PR". It's really frustrating, please put me through. Thank you Lilsusanalex (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Stop socking. S0091 (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Homixide Gang

Hi S0091, I'm trying to make a page for the aforementioned artist as they have increasingly garnered noteriety as being a member of Playboi Carti's record label and also for facing possible RICO charges for their connection to gang violence in East Atlanta and was wondering what I could do to make my submission more credible since you rejected it on the basis of the sources I used. I feel that those sources were properly used but it's also hard to find news content exclusively discussing the group. Most information on the group is only available on social media boards like twitter and reddit, or being mentioned in connection to Playboi Carti on articles primarily discussing him. Retired Astronomer (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Retired Astronomer sources need to meet four criteria: must be reliable, have in-depth coverage about the subject, be secondary and independent. Parle is not a reliable source as they exist for marketing/promotional purposes (its mostly a blog) and XXL is largely an interview which is not independent. If multiple sources meeting the above criteria do not exist, then an encyclopedia article is not possible at this time. S0091 (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
what about the writer for the atlanta objective with george chidi cited in the parle article, could that be cited directly? Retired Astronomer (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I have only reviewed the sources provided so cannot comment about others, but again any source needs to meet the about criteria and the general rule is you need three (see WP:THREE and WP:42 for additional guidance). S0091 (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
if you look at pages for other artists that are directly connected to homixide gang, such as ken carson, destroy lonely, and playboi carti, that specific xxl article was allowed as a reference material source on their pages. given this, i humbly request that you reconsider your position since those pages have already established precedence that my sources should be acceptable Retired Astronomer (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I am not looking at other articles. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The draft must stand on its own regardless and it is clear you are not reading through any of the material I have linked, either in the decline or here. Don't waste volunteer's time with arguments. Either cite appropriate sources or wait until such sources exist. S0091 (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
you are ignoring what im saying and please dont accuse me of wasting your time or starting arguments. I have been respectful in my comments and have read what you linked it is you who is being argumentative on top of the fact that you are making assumptions about my actions. as a volunteer, you do this work of your own free will. Retired Astronomer (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Amber Live Draft

Hi, thank you for reviewing Draft:Amber Live! but I am a little confused.


How many articles about the subject does an article need to verify it?


References 1 and 13 are published newspaper articles FULLY about Amber Live! and its host Amber LeMay. Reference 4 is a radio interview with Amber that discusses Amber Live! in more than a passing reference during the interview. Reference 14 is a recent magazine article discussing the history of The House of LeMay, Amber LeMay, and how it all led to Amber Live!, including a full paragraph about the show. Reference 11 is a TV news spot that highlights recent changes to the House of LeMay and how that has led to the creation of Amber Live! Other references cover the history of Amber LeMay, and her drag troupe the House of LeMay, all of which is the back story that has led to the creation of Amber Live! And even more references show the awards they have won.


What more do we need?

Thanks for your help.


Tgtotu (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Tgtotu, it is not necessarily the number of sources. Its the quality and depth of coverage. Interviews or the comments by those affiliated a Amber Live! are not independent so cannot be used to establish notability and the coverage is largely local. House of LeMay is not the subject of the draft and already has an article where Amber Live! is covered. Although, to be honest, I am not sure House of LeMay as it stands now meets today's notability criteria (also note there are several citation needed tags). Either way, what could be done is a redirect for Amber Live! as a search term to point to House of LeMay. Also, I must ask, are you affiliated with Amber Live! and/or House of LeMay? S0091 (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Articles for creation: Richard Mortimer (musician) (November 12)

Hi, thanks for your review, under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles point 10 reads: "performance in a television show", the subject has played on (Australian) national TV, as well as having a single on an MTV released video cassette. Do these meet the criteria of notability for a music subject? Neophytte (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Neophytte, #10 explicitly states if that is the only claim, it should most likely be redirected to the show or compilation rather having a stand-alone article. The other issue you have is poor sourcing. For example, the sources used to support those claims is a PR site with a quote by Mortimer so fails both reliable and independent, and does not support the claims made. The other source makes no mention of Mortimer so also does not support the claims made. Given that, a redirect is not possible either. On another note, MusicBrainz is not a reliable source either because it is user-generated, It seem a lot of the content is original research, meaning what you (or someone) know versus what can substantially be supported by secondary independent reliable sources. I know its difficult given this all occurred largely pre-internet but reading through draft it appears he was largely a local musician and generally local musicians cannot meet the notability guidelines as at least some in-depth coverage needs be beyond the local area. These are the reasons Shades of Perth Volume 3 was deleted. S0091 (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Most of the sources are not independent

Hi! Thank you for reviewing my submission for the Temple Diamond Marching band. Your comment states that I lack independent sources however I am unsure what you mean by that. If you don't mind, please direct me and point me in the right direction for such recourses!

Thank you, modern ModernFeelGames (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I dont think any of my sources are terribly dependent, much like the PSU Blue Band page: Blue Band - Wikipedia. This is my first legitimate article so any and all help is greatly appreciated! Ty! ModernFeelGames (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi @ModernFeelGames, sources 1, 2 and 4 are by Temple so those are not independent. The Harrisburg Magazine is largely an interview with Payne so also not independent, although it does have some helpful background. The Philadelphia Inquirer is piece is ok but doesn't say that much and same with Philly Voice. Rolling Stone only has one sentence so that is a trivial mention. I just did a Google News search but didn't come with much but will check Newspapers.com so see if there is anything in archives (seems like there should be.).
As far as other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You have to be careful comparing to existing articles because Wikipedia's guidelines have largely become more stringent over time and still today things get by when they shouldn't. Also note Blue Band is tagged with issues and it was created way back in 2006 when Wikipedia was still the "wild west". I would try find one that is GA status. Also, in the interim I suggest adding a small section about the band in the Temple University article (a couple sentences or so). S0091 (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
@ModernFeelGames found stuff! First I found The Philadelphia Inquirer piece via Newspapers.com which referenced national attention from USA Today and Rolling Stone. These are older articles which are no longer available at their websites. However, I found Temple News articles via Google which covered all these stories and had the URLs to the original articles (ex. [1]). With the original URLs, I was able to find an archived version at Internet Archive (enter the URL in the search, then grabbed a snapshot). I added all the citations in the lead (cites 2-4) just to get them documented but now you can use them to expand the draft. S0091 (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Tysm! I appreciate your help and explanation. ModernFeelGames (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Anzor Alem REVIEWERS

Hello dear colleagues, I hope you are well. I came to you for you to recheck the article I was able to make some modifications and modify some sources Jojoaspel (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Jojoaspel resubmit it and another reviewer will take a look. S0091 (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism and Carolyn Bryant Donham

First of all, during the time period of the edit of John Smith, I was letting my friend use my account while I was gone on a trip, and he messed up a lot of things on my account, so he probably did the vandalism, I apologize on his behalf. Secondly, Carolyn Bryant Donham is an infamous woman who is known for her involvement in the murder of Emmett Till. Plus there is over 107,000+ results of her. Considering she is well known for an infamous reason in the case of Emmett Till, there should be a page about her. Gatorbearratica (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Elagabalus

Hello, sorry to bother, but is it ok for me to fix Elagabalus’s pronouns? In person, she said refer to me as a Lady, not a Lord and she went by she/her. I have seen lots of people misgendering her and reverting it back to he/him, but she went by she/her so someone should update this. More proof, she’s listed on the list of transgender people. She said she was a woman, and because of ancient society, people were not respectful. I don’t know if I will get reported for vandalism, but many websites show her being a transgender/gender nonconforming empress.

Sources supporting: https://outhistory.org/exhibits/show/tgi-bios/elagabalus https://bi.org/en/articles/famous-bis-elagabalus Gatorbearratica (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Little brother/"friend"

Thanks for your ping at User talk:Gatorbearratica. I confess I always find these little brother type events amusing. A case of digging when one is in a hole. I have blocked the account, but I shall be happy if the editor makes an honest unblock request and is unblocked. JBW (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@JBW yeah, the more they said the more unbelievable it became. I get the sense they are a younger editor so likely a maturity issue and perhaps can be a productive editor at some point. Thanks for handling. S0091 (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft:MiningMath

Dear Wiki editor S0091. Thanks for reviewing my draft. I would like a few more clarifications if possible in order to improve my submission. You have mentioned that the page 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.

All cited sources are reliable, secondary and strictly independent of the subject. These include recognized newspapers ('O Globo' and 'Hoje em Dia'), journals (Resources, Conservation and Recycling published by Elsevier), conferences (Minex Russia) and universities (UFMG). The exception for that is LinkedIn which was used to report information about the company that has been disclosed by them. This has been made clear when the citation was used "Currently, the company reports to have 21 employees and to provide its software license to clients such as Glencore in Peru, Antofagasta plc in Chile, Vale Canada and MMG Limited in Australia [7]"

In terms of in-depth sources, [1], [3], and [5] are dedicated articles to about the subject. I would like also to highlight that many similar companies have their page published in Wikipedia as it can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mining_companies

Could you provide some more directions on how to improve it? Thank you for your help.

LMRizzo (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@LMRizzo source 1 and 3 are essentially the same, an announcement about winning an award and given they are UFMG alumni, UFMG is not an independent source. Source 5 does not meet reliable source criteria (no evidence of editorial oversight, etc.). And again, LinkedIn is not a reliable source so should not be used. At then end of day, Wikipedia does not care what a subject says about itself. Minex is also not a reliable source as they exist to "promote innovative products and projects" so useless.
As for other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Overtime Wikipedia's criteria has become more strigent so articles article written in the past may not meet today's criteria and even today some get by when they shouldn't. S0091 (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks again @S0091. This will help me a lot in improving the page. LMRizzo (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Moonfare

Hi S0091, thank you for your notes and review on Draft:Moonfare - very helpful.

I have gone through the article and made the following changes;

- Updated the language with a more neutral tone.

- Updated the article with secondary, reliable, objective and independent sources.

- Removed primary sources.

- Removed sources from trade publications.

I have resubmitted the updated version and it would be great to have your opinion on the new draft. Much appreciated & thank you. Alpyaraman (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Alpyaraman, you have submitted it so another reviewer will take a look. S0091 (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Understood, thank you for the info @S0091. Alpyaraman (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Account Abstraction

Hi S0091,

So sorry I'm new to Wikipedia. I work with members of the ethereum foundation, and many companies utilizing account abstraction. It's a proposal to improve the web3 user experience, it doesn't cost anything (you mentioned advertising). I added a few additional sources. Sadly there isn't too much material on the subject aside from github repos and a few medium articles. I should have reached out to you before resubmitting the article, but I just stumbled upon this feature. Please let me know what else I can do to better position the article.

Thank you for taking the time to do this.

Link to subject Crypto Jesus (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Crypto Jesus, I commented on your resubmission. Folks get confused about the term "advertising" so maybe read WP:ADVOCACY. Since you are affiliated with the subject, you do need to declare your WP:COI (see WP:DISCLOSE). If there are no reliable sources that have written about Account Abstraction, then it cannot meet the notability criteria (see WP:OVERCOME) so may be a waste of your, and volunteer editors who review drafts, time. S0091 (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft:King Tweety

Hi S0091,

I have resubmitted the updated version and it would be great to have your opinion on the new draft. Much appreciated & thank you. Gellerman (talk) 10:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Gellerman, I find it best to have fresh eyes on a re-submission so another reviewer will take a look. S0091 (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Gaurav Amlani

Hi S0091, I came across your comment and have made some changes in the sources. I have removed sources which were strictly based on interviews and comments. I am resubmitting the draft please do let me know your views on it and help me improve the article for the submission to be accepted. Ubiquitous09 (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Ubiquitous09, I find it best to have fresh eyes on a re-submission so another reviewer will take a look. S0091 (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft:2022 Furuvik Zoo chimpanzee shootings

Hi S0091, your comment makes no sense to me. ("The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at 2022 Furuvik Zoo chimpanzee shootings.") No such existing article exists? Dongwuyuan (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Dongwuyuan, thank you for reaching out to me as I agree the message I left you was confusing so please accept my apology. What I meant was to expand Furuviksparken. The incident is already covered there, at least briefly. In order to meet the the notability guidelines for events an event should show it is lasting (see also WP:NOTNEWS) and I do not think it meets that bar right now. S0091 (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi again - I've got no problem with your assessment, just wanted clarification because it was a bit confusing! Thanks. Dongwuyuan (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
@Dongwuyuan I understand and clarification was warranted. Hope you have a fantastic New Year! S0091 (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Motion Impossible

Can you please provide some more guidance on how to provide better independent references even though a good 90% of the existing references are independent. Dairb (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Dairb please read through WP:NCORP and provide the best three sources, and only three, that meet all the criteria and you believe establish notability. S0091 (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Eme B

Greetings S0091, Thank you so much for your time in reviewing the article I wrote about Eme B. Could you please explain why you rejected my article further? What kind of articles about Eme B would be good to use instead of the ones I used, and was that the only thing wrong with the article? I just want to make sure I have everything down correctly so that the article can be approved. There was a website where she was nominated for some awards which was not PR as it was independent of her and that was the Eastern Music Awards in Ghana. Was that reference good? I would love your assistance thank you! Ndorleh17 (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Ndorleh17 the Eastern Music Award is the only usable source and fine to use to support Eme B won the award, but that does not convey notability. Please read WP:NMUSIC for the notability guidelines. S0091 (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Request on 16:34:11, 27 December 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Thorcouper



Thorcouper (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello s0091. Thank you for your prompt review of my article DIRTY SOUND MAGNET. I had wondered if it would fail on notability, but thought that winning the Swiss Live Talents award might be enough to get it over the line. It is very challenging finding national coverage of anything in Switzerland, as it is very decentralised and has 4 languages! Are you able to offer any suggestions on improving the article, or what would be needed to make the band be considered notable? Thanks again.

Hi @Thorcouper I'm stumped. I Googled but articles about Swiss Live Music do not exist, even in the German and French Wikipedias (mentioned in a couple or so) and it is only mentioned in one article here, Patrick Burgener. If it is a major award, you might try to create an article about it first. As for the band, I did find fr:What Lies Behind (album) but it has no sources so not helpful. The issue with the current sources is they do not say about them (not in-depth). Did they chart (see WP:CHARTS, which lists Hung Medien for Switzerland)? S0091 (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
@Thorcouper Do you have access to Le Temps? I found "Dirty Sound Magnet, riffs à vif", a review of III published in March 2022. S0091 (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions- I will look at editing, maybe, if I can get more sources. Are reviews okay? They feature quite a lot in a magazine called ‘daily rock’, which is a francophone Swiss music publication, but I didn’t want to over use them. I also like your suggestion to try and create a page on the Swiss Live Talents competition. I had found the French article ‘what lies behind’ - it was what inspired me to try and write a better one. Thanks for your help. All the best. Thorcouper (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Thorcouper oh yeah, reviews are generally what is used to establish notability for music. The problem is ensuring the reviews are from a reliable source, meaning the sources have editorial oversight, follow journalistic standards, no SEO/PR sites, etc. I found some reviews but none from reliable sources. I am actually not sure FrontView Magazine is a reliable source because there is no information about their editorial standards that I could find, although I see it is used in quite a few articles. S0091 (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello there, just to let you know I have resubmitted the article (I think) with hopefully better references to show notability - I found them on Blick, RTS.ch and Le Temps. Fingers crossed. Thorcouper (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Thorcouper click the blue Resubmit button at the bottom of the decline message on the draft and another reviewer will take look. S0091 (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Great. Thanks again for your help Thorcouper (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft:ClearBank Limited

Hi s0091,

Thanks for the prompt review of the ClearBank page! I've added ref sources to reliable sources as Bank of England, Tech Crunch after the first decline. I'm trying to update list of UK banks with up to date information about entities with licenses. ClearBank is one of the key structure in fintech UK since it facilitates creating accounts and implement faster payments and chaps scheme. How many reliable sources required and how to check their reliability before submitting article?

Thanks, Igor Igortomych (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Igortomych as I suggested in my decline, please thoroughly read WP:NCORP. It is the quality of the sources and the content of those sources that is key, not quantity. S0091 (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the link! I've went through and I understand that the source should have 4 criteria: Significant/Independent/Reliable/Secondary. In my view Financial Times, Tech Crunch, Companies House links are meeting all 4. Bank of England is not significant, since it just mentions ClearBank as one the members of CHAPS. Is there an issue with current refs or I just need more refs? Is going to help if I include links to ClearBank awards in fintech industry? Sorry about a lot of questions, I'm new to wiki editing process. Igortomych (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
@Igortomych FT is also routine coverage and just a mention about ClearBank, Techcrunch is a routine funding announcement (see also WP:TECHCRUNCH, weak source) and Companies House is a primary source and equates to a directory listing. I also must ask, are you affiliated with ClearBank Limited in any way? S0091 (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm not affiliated with ClearBank in any ways, I'm working in software development and want to make information about tech available from banks in UK more clear to everyone. I've took a look on Atom Bank as the example, i don't see the difference, it has link to companies house, ft.com and similar websites. One of the link in Atom refs [2] even includes ClearBank. Can it be used as required by Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)? Igortomych (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
As far as Atom Bank, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and that is not the article under review. It could very well be it does not meet the notability criteria either. As for the particular ref, top 50 type sources are not helpful, as is stated in WP:NCORP: Examples of trivial coverage....inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists. Based on this discussion, I do not believe ClearBank can meet the notability guidelines, however, perhaps it should be covered in an existing article. S0091 (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification with Atom, makes sense! :)
One last question, Ft.com [3] is an announcement of ClearBank launch by Nick Ogden. Why it's a mention/routine if the article about ClearBank itself and that it has been approved by Bank of England for full retail license in UK, how the routine from notable link is distinguished?
Thank you for the detailed explanations, I've learned today a lot! Igortomych (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Its a launch announcement, again those are considered trivial coverage per NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. At this point, I think I have engaged enough and either you get it or you don't so will not be responding further. However, you are welcome to ask questions at the Teahouse, however no editor is likely to go step-by-step through sources, except for maybe one I know but you do not want to go through that exercise as it is generally not pleasant. S0091 (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Request on 21:48:44, 27 December 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Bjengles3


Hi, I actually used the Philadelphia Municipal Court page as a template, where apparently ALL of the sources are primary. I struggle to think of non-primary sources that would, for example, list all of the judges on a court. Are there any in particular that are used by other municipal court pages? Thanks!

Bjengles3 (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Bjengles3 please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Philadelphia Municipal Court was created way back in 2007, well before some of the notability guidelines existed and generally the guidelines have become more stringent overtime. Primary sources are ok to use for verification of very basic facts but cannot be used to establish notability. S0091 (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Guo Yang

Hi, I just saw the comment you left about why the submission had been declined. I agree I should have added more source, however, the use of some source I added is to prove that Guo Yang (the actress) actually took part in the songs or TV show.

There's also another point I wanted to point out. Since Guo Yang isn't that famous of an actress there is barely any sources/articles about her. All of the articles says the same thing. If you need me to cite all of them I'll. Thank you for your time :) Eightain (talk) 05:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Eightain sources serve two purposes, verification and notability, so using a source even if it is just a brief mention to support a fact satisfies verification. There is no need for multiple sources to support the same fact, and actually is considered WP:REFBOMBING. For notability, sources with in-depth coverage about her is needed. If none exist, then it is unlikely she can meet the notability guidelines. I see you have resubmitted the draft so another reviewer will take look. Happy New Year! S0091 (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for replying and Happy New Year for you too Eightain (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Newfold Digital Draft

Hello there, @S0091! Thank you for reviewing Draft:Newfold Digital. I appreciate your feedback. I saw your comment about adding mention of the new company to Web.com, as it is already mentioned on Endurance International Group (EIG), but the problem is that neither Web.com Group nor Endurance International Group exist any longer. Web.com as a brand still exists, but only in a customer-facing capacity. The EIG article is badly outdated and inaccurate, and this new article was intended to correct that issue; Newfold Digital has been around for nearly two years now and EIG has not existed for the same amount of time, so I feel it would be in the interest of readers to provide updated information for anyone looking to read about this company. Do you have any advice or suggestions for improving the article so that it is more likely to be approved? I feel that even having a fairly basic article on Newfold Digital with accurate, up-to-date information is better than having an outdated and inaccurate article about EIG. Zach at Newfold (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Zach at Newfold hmmm....a predicament and I am honestly not sure the best way to handle. Part of me thinks EIG should be renamed to Newfold Digital, with the Web.com article remaining but updated to reflect it is a brand (but retaining its history as company, etc.). Ultimately I think other input is needed from the wider community. Try this....submit a move request (a move is the technical mechanism to rename an article) to move Endurance International Group to Newfold Digital (which now redirects to EIG), explaining the reasoning with a source. While I am not sure this is the "right" approach, it will at least get other editors eyes. S0091 (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion and for looking into it @S0091! I really appreciate your time and input. For some more background, that EIG article was actually previously moved to Newfold Digital (renamed, that is), but the problem was the content stayed largely the same and only reflected the history/details of one of the two corporate entities that comprised the new company. (Newfold Digital has also since acquired more companies, further complicating its "lineage.") I discussed this with an editor from the Teahouse, and he agreed that creating a new article would be the way to go, since renaming the old one was more a band-aid. He actually reverted the article to its original EIG name because of this very issue, so I am not sure if I want to submit a request to essentially reverse that editor's move, as it would take things back to square one. Though I agree it would be great to get more eyes on it. Zach at Newfold (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
As an update to this, I have left a new comment on the EIG talk page to hopefully explain some of the issues with the article to any editors who come across it in the future. (I left a comment linking back to this comment on the Newfold Digital draft as well.) Zach at Newfold (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
@Zach at Newfold that editor is now blocked and quite a few articles they created are now deleted so...... The problem is Newfold itself is not yet notable. That was my comment about it being too soon. It is a young company and not much has been written about it other than the merger (mergers and acquisitions are considered "routine coverage", see WP:ORGCRIT "Examples of trivial coverage" subsection). I see where the other editor was coming from but clearly they lacked understanding of the notability requirements. My thought is rename EIG, then update it accordingly while also maintaining EIG's history (which is now Newfold's history). Again, not sure that is the correct handling. I see you have posted on EIGs talk page which is also another method. Give it a couple weeks and if no responses, you can start a Request for comment. S0091 (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
@Zach at Newfold ha! I was also about to also post a note at WP:WikiProject Companies but see you covered that as well. Hopefully that will get some eyes. S0091 (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, @S0091! I did not know that about the editor. Appreciate the clarification on notability and trivial coverage. I am certainly not opposed to updating the EIG article, but I won't make direct edits to that article myself given my conflict of interest, and it also seems a little odd to me to arbitrarily choose one of the merger companies to represent the whole (Web.com Group was also rather large, and there are other fairly prominent brands in the mix that weren't affiliated with either entity, such as Yoast and MarkMonitor). I will do as you suggest and give it some time for a response. Thank you for going the extra mile to look into this! Zach at Newfold (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
@Zach at Newfold My logic about Web.com is that it still exists as a brand where EIG does not, if I understood you correctly. I have made some updates to both articles to hopefully make it more clear to readers. More needs to be done regardless how this all is gets handled but its a start. S0091 (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
@S0091 That makes sense. The Web.com article was always a bit odd considering it represented both the corporate group and the market-facing brand, but that's kind of how this corporate stuff is, a lot of the time (i.e., confusing to anyone looking in from the outside, and sometimes from the inside, too). Thank you for making those updates, like you said, it's a start! Zach at Newfold (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
@Zach at Newfold See WP:COMMONNAME, which is also a consideration in this situation. This really could end up with both articles remaining essentially as is until Newfold can meet the notability criteria which could take some time given it is a new company; two years old is a toddler :). S0091 (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Recent Article Submissions

I keep getting messages from you declining articles I am not submitting. Can you please explain what is going on here? Thank you. Randazzojj123 (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Arrggghhh! That IP that is creating these is doing some really strange and disruptive stuff. For some reason, your username was in the AfC submit template {{AfC submission|||ts=20220831222718|u=Randazzojj123|ns=118}} (u=Randazzojj123) which is why you got the notification. I just cleanedup some other messes they made but did not catch the user name issue. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Would you mind posting a note at WT:AFC saying you keep getting messages about drafts you have not submitted? It would help to get other eyes and I will follow up there with some my findings. S0091 (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Forgot to ping @Randazzojj123. S0091 (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for acknowledging my issue. Just to let you know, the only current article I have pending review is High School Musical: The Musical: The Series (season 2). The article for season 1 that I submitted was accepted in the last few days. Randazzojj123 (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Reya Sunshine

I really appreciate the helpful responses to my inquiries at the help desk!! If you'd like to check out my draft at Draft:Reya Sunshine and let me know how you think it stands at this point, I'd appreciate it too! Currently, my plan is to wait and see what kind of mainstream press occurs after the AVN Awards Show on January 7th, 2023 before re-submitting to AfC. Also, If you don't have time to do this review my draft, I also understand - your responses have been helpful enough!! Ajax0714 (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ajax0714 asking me to take a look is asking me to review it. I did "look " at it and saw AVN, her website and XBIZ used as sources. Her website is useless (as is interviews, promotional announcements, blogs, etc.), AVN is fine for pure verification, XBIZ is deemed questionable even for verification and verification is much lower bar than notability. You can roll the dice and move it. I mean, if it ends up being deleted that would likely happen even if an AfC reviewer accepted it, I suppose. AfC acceptance is not a guarantee against deletion and sometimes we accept drafts knowing they are borderline but that is what AfD rectifies one way or the other. S0091 (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate the look, and I can certainly delete the website reference if it's useless! Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography#Sources stated that an official website CAN be a reliable source, so the only reason I added it was to support the AVN and XBiz references. Given all the feedback I've received up to this point, it seems like the best move might be to see if the AVN Awards bring any mainstream sources, add them, and THEN roll the dice to move it! Then the only question is if it's better to leave the questionable sources on there, or if it's better to strip it down to sources regarded as "reliable" as see what happens. I suppose I could leave the AVN ones and strip off everything else that's questionable, and see what's what - and thanks again for your time, I sincerely appreciate it! Ajax0714 (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@Ajax0714 you can use her website for very basic and non-controversial facts and especially for things only she would know, such as her influences and things like that. It can also be useful for tracking down other sources. For example, her website says she was featured in such-and-such magazine, you can track down that source and use it. However, since it is a self-published source, it is useless for notability. S0091 (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@Ajax0714 I did do searches using library resources (Proquest, Gale and Newspapers.com). There are some articles about her in the Daily Star but that is a deprecated source (see WP:DAILYSTAR) so cannot be used. Other than that it was just a handful of promotional announcements about appearances, not helpful either. (There's apparently also a children's charity in Pennsylvania named Reya Sunshine). With that, I think you have all the sources likely available. The other option is to just let it sit in draft to see if over time additional sources become available. Untouched drafts are deleted after six months (deemed abandoned) but any edit by a human will keep it "alive" and even if deleted can be restored upon request. S0091 (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I sincerely appreciate you running that search, as well as your positive and constructive approach!! The more I look around, the more I see people that just re-post articles after they get deleted again and again, and that's gotta be annoying - I'd much rather do something that meets the standard in the first place!! I think the subject definitely meets the standard for notability in that she's reached the same level of recognizability as her peers without ever having worked for a large studio and essentially being self-produced, which should hit the innovation criteria. If what's really needed is a mainstream source that essentially makes that point, though, I get it. I'll keep an eye on things throughout January to see if anything else gets published (there's a good chance her hosting of the AVN Awards will result in something), and if it yields something that lets me make substantial changes to the draft, I'll let you know - thanks again!! Ajax0714 (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for pointing the source reliability listing at WP:DAILYSTAR, it led me to scrolling up and checking out the one for AVN magazine. I was kind of stunned to see it was listed as a reliable source, with the exception that it also publishes press releases, which are identifiable in a search. So I ran a search for every AVN article that was cited in the draft, and this was the result. All citations were articles, not press releases (I saw some of those identified in the search when I scrolled down), which by wikipedia standards seems to mean they're reliable for this particular subject. This made me kind of concerned that my draft wasn't evaluated fairly when it was sent to AfC, and I was wondering if I have any recourse in such a situation if it happens again. Rather than re-ligitate that action, though, I've made edits to Draft:Reya Sunshine that I think meet the notability threshold and are sufficient for it to be published as it is (which included deleting a mainstream source which I learned was less reliable than AVN per the reliability chart.) I'd be any grateful for any feedback at this point, but I'm also fine with waiting until the AVN Awards pass and updating it with any mainstream sources before re-submission. Again, I really appreciate the constructive assistance! Ajax0714 (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
@Ajax0714 Apologies if I did make it clear AVN is generally a reliable source but notability is a different standard. I have seen editors make the argument AVN is not useful for notability and others make the argument it is and why adult entertainers are kind of crap shoot if there isn't other strong coverage, especially from mainstream media. The other thing to be aware of for notability is the content within the AVN article. For example source #2 is mostly an interview so is considered primary and not independent, so cannot be used for notability, likewise for anything she says about herself (or is promo like you noted). Let's do this, on the draft's talk page, Draft talk:Reya Sunshine, start a section titled Notability and list your three best sources that meet all the criteria: significant coverage, secondary, independent, reliable. See WP:THREE for guidance. I will take a look at those and give you my opinion. The benefit of using the draft's talk page is it remains with the draft, or article if accepted, rather than here where no one but me, or the occasional passer-by, will ever see it. Another question, and apologies if this has already been asked elsewhere, but are you affiliated with Reya in anyway? S0091 (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
You've been pretty consistent in your characterizations of reliability and notability, and I appreciate that. The reason I brought it up was because the comments on why my submission was denied state "Most of the references are not reliable sources" and make no mention of notability. I've uploaded the three best source to Draft talk:Reya Sunshine under a notability section, and again, thanks for the constructive approach. I'm not affiliated with Reya in any way, nor do I work for the adult entertainment industry. Ajax0714 (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Hey, sorry for deleting the section on Draft talk:Reya Sunshine, we certainly can keep it up if it's still useful! The reason I did that was because last night I realized that I've been a little slow on the uptake regarding WP:BASIC, so I wanted to re-start the discussion with three other sources that I thought could meet the criteria of significant coverage, secondary, independent, reliable, which are now listed under the other Notability section. I'll just delete that one and move the content to the original discussion, and if you'd like to take a look, feel free! Ajax0714 (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
@Ajax0714 No problem! Discussions on talk pages usually remain for quite some time, often years unless it becomes too large, for the benefit of other editors and usually are archived rather than deleted (see WP:PREMATUREARCHIVE...there are rules for almost everything lol). I added a subsection to make it more clear it is a revised set of sources. As my standard practice, I do not do re-reviews (my rule) because I think its best to get a different set of eyes. S0091 (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the assist on the talk page and sending me the helpful link - it seems that knowledge of the source editor is pretty critical for talk page operations! And I understand your rule about not doing re-reviews - I did re-raise the issue of the academic article I originally quoted back on the draft's talk page, but I plan on seeing what other editors think about that one as well. So, no need to respond to that one! Ajax0714 (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Hey, just noticed you archived this, which is fine - I was able to locate it pretty easily, and there's still a lot of useful information in here!! I was also thinking of archiving the current contents of Draft talk:Reya Sunshine to make way for a revised list of sources under the notability section when I re-submit, so it would be easier for an AfC editor to zero in on. Do you see any issues with this, and do you know if there's a way to let an AfC editor know that I'm including that notability section on that talk page? Thanks again! Ajax0714 (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Just saw your comment on the draft - was there something in particular you wanted me to take note of on the WP:THREE talk page, or was it just for familiarization with the discussions surrounding the essay? Thanks! Ajax0714 (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
This is more of a technical question, but if I choose to move the article to the main space myself, should I remove the box at the top of my draft article that contains the information about how it was declined at AfC, as well as the reviewer comments? I've come far enough with this that I'm really fine with submitting it at AfC as well, and in either case I'm not planning on rolling the dice for another week or two - I just figure this information would be worth knowing in case something like this happens again in the future! Once again, thanks. Ajax0714 (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
(by talk reader) @Ajax0714: Do not attempt to move Draft:Reya Sunshine as it is still insufficient for the main namespace. If you do, expect it to see rapid deletion. You should re-submit to AfC, wait, get declined again, and realize the sources you need don't exist. Please wait until subject dies. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Got it - thanks, Chris! Ajax0714 (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@Ajax0714 to answer your question, yes, you remove the AfC stuff then move it. Outside of Chris's nasty bit, I agree with him that moving this draft to mainspace would be a a mistake as it stands now. In the future, you can create drafts without going through the AfC process (see WP:draft) or create a sandbox (see WP:User pages#Creating a subpage). I will leave you additional about editing on your talk page (noticed you never received a Welcome message). S0091 (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@S0091, I can tell it helps to have a thick skin around here when writing on this particular subject, and I won't be moving the page as it stands now, though that might change in the near future. I'm also glad I chose to put this through AfC first instead of moving it myself, since my interactions with you and other objective editors has definitely helped me improve this draft. I've also got some observations on where I think the review process is falling short on this subject, and I'd be happy to post that in whatever forum might be most relevant. I also appreciate you sending me the additional info on editing on my talk page, I didn't realize I was supposed to get a welcome message! Ajax0714 (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
For this particular draft, if moved it will mostly likely be nominated for deletion so AfD will be the forum. For other things, it depends on the "thing". Welcome messages, just like everything else are left by volunteer editors so not a guarantee but just noticed you didn't have one and it seems you are planning to be around at least for a bit. Oh, and the thick skin is not necessarily subject-dependent. There's a reason WP:BITE is a guideline and WP:CIVIL is a policy. While I don't think Chris violated either, the comment stepped over a line for me and editors do have a certain amount of control over their talk pages. To date, I have only banned one editor here although I have been called a dick, cunt, bitch, etc. and the reason I banned them is because they more than a couple times posted messages accusing another editor of being a racist. S0091 (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Got it - the observation I had was that for these porn bios, the prevailing wisdom seems to be that AVN and XBiz are not reliable sources (despite what wikipedia says about them), so if one stocks up a bio with as many mainstream sources as possible, at some point this will pass some intangible 'notability' threshold and the editors will let it pass. I observed this with the Lana Rhoades article you pointed out, but it wasn't a good article, it just seemed to be attempting to quote as many mainstream sources on disparate subjects to attempt to get it through. Now, on my draft, I can make a notability argument - Reya Sunshine pursued an innovative path of self-production and achieved a level of recognizability that all of her peers had to pursue a path of working for the large porn studios to get to. If my draft falls short of qualifying for publication, it's because I don't have enough reliable sources (be they AVN, XBiz, or mainstream) that state THAT, and I understand this - it's very clear. I actually think that a similar notability argument could be made for Lana Rhoades - she was a highly popular porn star that quit and then reinvented herself as a top-tier social media influencer (I'd have to do more research on this, but can't think of anyone else that's done the same.) The published article doesn't really convey that argument clearly, though - it just seems to be trying quote as many mainstream sources as possible, regardless of what they're about. If it's possible for an author to sum up a notability argument in a sentence or two (it doesn't have to be stated explicitly in the article, it could be incorporated into the review or AfD process), I think that would help article quality. Ajax0714 (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@S0091 If you think the optimal place to have that discussion is on AfD after I post the article, that's also fine! I can be sure to give you a heads-up whenever I do that, so action can be taken immediately. Ajax0714 (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
@Ajax0714 The New York Times is not a reliable source in all circumstances. As with any source, it depends and there is a stark difference between a source being reliable versus useful for notability but you have made your mind up either way. I am not sure what action you speak of but I will take no action. As I has said before, it will still go through WP:NPP review and that reviewer will take the appropriate action whether it be to move it back to draft, nominate for AfD, mark it as reviewed (meaning good enough), etc. Granted an AfD nomination can happen at any time, even for articles that are a decade old or more (happens regularly), it is more likely to happen as part of a review or shortly after. All I can say at this point is good luck! S0091 (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
@S0091 Thanks for pointing that out about WP:NPP (I must have missed it the first time), as I was originally thinking I might as well get it out of the way and have someone move it to AfD immediately! I have a much better understanding of the process now, as well as the standards it'll be measured against (such as how even a lousy article doesn't necessarily merit deletion if better sources EXIST, regardless of whether or not they're cited!) I've been very grateful for your willingness to engage and help out, and if I've made up my mind about anything, it's that my draft doesn't meet the notability guideline that I think it should right now, so there might be a few more sources that could warrant an additional paragraph. Also, Reya's going to be on the cover of the January 2023 issue of AVN magazine, so it would definitely be useful to wait to see what reporting that issue yields, as well as any other sources! After that, I'll see what's what, but it seems like whether I move it myself or submit it through AfC, it'll have its way with an editor either way. Thanks again! Ajax0714 (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
@Chris troutman that last sentence was uncalled for. I understand you are WP:BITEY and I do not mind terse, but come on, Chris. Do not take things that far, at least not on my talk page. Otherwise, you are welcome here. S0091 (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
S0091, mine was no ill-willed remark. I have said again and again that the few people who are ever notable usually do not pass our criteria until after they die. Not only is their sourcing in obituaries (Adrianne Wadewitz is a case in point), but also historical studies made in following decades and centuries. I will point out that the urgency of many a new editor is either from a CoI (their client is the subject) or fandom (their favorite whomever is currently in the spotlight). Both of these motivations should be condemned. I am not wishing evil on anyone. Rather, I encourage all to patently wait for the sourcing to be present. After all, if we were encyclopedists, we should want to write well-thought entries, not just post dreck to confirm our priors. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@Chris troutman I know you are not wishing evil or are expressing hatred or anything like that. Had I thought that, I would have banned you from my talk page, if not pursued more. As an editor who been here for a little while, I get where you are coming from but a new/newish editor isn't going to get that context so it comes across as mean, even if unintended. S0091 (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 January 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, S0091!

Happy New Year!

S0091,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, S0091!

Happy New Year!

S0091,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. See this for background context.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 17:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 17:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:S0091/Archive_4&oldid=1141006352"