User talk:WikiOriginal-9: Difference between revisions

Archives

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Raskowski Leo CroppsedHeadshot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. SecretName101 (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just saw that my draft article Draft:European Bureau of Library, Information and Documentation Associations was rejected by you. Thank you for your speedy review, and I am going to work on improving it.

I do have a question, though. You said that it requires more unbiased, in-depth references. However, the German Wikipedia page for the same subject has the same references and it is available (I'm assuming it was approved). I am new to Wikipedia so I do not fully understand the details of how it works. Could you explain to me why the German one is fine, but this one is not?

Thank you! Lieux de vivre (talk) 11:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

European Bureau of Library, Information and Documentation Associations, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

asilvering (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Roiyeho (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Calinski-Harabasz index (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not sure why the reviewer has stated that the list of references for the page is not enough. The page has a similar number of references as other Wikipedia pages on clustering evaluation criteria. For example, see the pages on the Davies-Bouldin index or the Dunn index. The Calinski-Harbasz index is a well-established clustering evaluation, and is already referenced by other Wikipedia pages, such as the template page on Machine learning evaluation metrics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Machine_learning_evaluation_metrics). Therefore, I would appreciate if the reviewer could provide more specific comments or suggestions on how to improve the page.

Roiyeho (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sebastião Mota de Melo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazonas. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Sirius Stella (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:OptTek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article was declined and I would like more in depth feedback please. The comment was "close, but not quite enough independent, significant coverage." Does this mean more sources are needed? Or that I just need a source that talks more about the subject of the article? And how much/many more to get from "close" to "accepted." Thank you!

Sirius Stella (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could use another source or two that talks about OptTek specifically. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Loosefacts (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jules Gimbrone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good morning thank you for your review of Draft:Jules_Gimbrone. In order to better understand why the listed references don't qualify as independent, significant coverage, I looked at the page of a contemporary of this artist, Mariana Valencia. Could I ask what type of independent, significant coverage the Mariana Valencia contains that is missing from the draft I have written?

Thank you so much in advance for your help & expertise!

Loosefacts (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Loosefacts: That article has New York Times coverage. New York Times isn't required but the Jules Gimbrone article could use more independent significant coverage from something like newspapers. Regardless, I re-submitted it for a second opinion. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help and the explanation! I appreciate it! I'll wait to see what happens with the resubmittal. Loosefacts (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, thank you--Looks like the page was declined, again, today.

I have one other question for now about placement—the very last item listed in "External Links" is published in Bomb Magazine, an independent publication with significant art-world clout, and it is about Jules Gimbrone.

Is this in the right place? Do you think moving this item to the "References" section would make any difference?

Thank you! Loosefacts (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Loosefacts: That is not required but it does help because some reviewers may skip over the external links section. However, I am afraid another reviewer may say that the Bomb source is not fully independent since it is an interview. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Ok, understood. Thank you so much for the information! Loosefacts (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You declined my draft for the Five Iron Frenzy Album until this shakes apart. And in you reason, you said "Not enough independent, significant coverage listed.^[1]", May I ask what you mean by that? To me, it seems vague. Do you mean you want more citations? If you can, please expand. Babysharkboss2 was here!! 16:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Jerry Shipkey.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Raskowski Leo CroppsedHeadshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the promotional language as you've requested. Can you do it now? And also Draft:Heikichi Yamamoto? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.134.32 (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

/* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Brian_E._Kinsella#Non-profit,_mental_healthcare_and_veteran_advocacy */

Dear WikiOriginal-9,

I want to express my gratitude for taking the time to review my article, even though the outcome was less favorable than I had hoped. You deemed that my subject did not qualify for a Wikipedia article due to a lack of notability, specifically citing the absence of independent, significant coverage.

I must admit that this decision has left me in a state of confusion and disappointment, hence taking extra time to write this somewhat long response.  

I have been making earnest efforts to improve and adhere to the required encyclopedic tone in my writing, carefully validating every move, both through reading up on guidelines, and using the IRC chat prolifically - promptly making the outlined changes suggested by reviewers. However, despite these efforts, I am somehow still falling short of the notability standard.

After a month of editing rigorously almost daily, I now no longer believe I have a chance to ever get my article published, no matter what I do. I feel that my chance of ever publishing hangs in the balance between getting a fair reviewer and luck, instead of expecting an unbiased evaluation. While working on this, I have received feedback that my article was perfect and absolutely notable from some reviewers, with plenty of reliable great sources, to then suddenly as of late, not notable at all, short of reliable sources, accused of it being UPE and being paid for writing it. This is not true and this unpredictability in guidance and advice has left me deeply perplexed.

I understand that reviewers have had experiences with fraudulent articles or individuals seeking fame, and I respect everybody’s vigilance in maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. However, as a newcomer, the way of communication makes it hard to feel welcome in the Wikipedia community due to the inconsistencies in the review process and the abrupt shifts in the evaluation of my contributions, and suspicious assumptions about of my intentions.

I would like to sincerely request that you kindly take another moment to review the links I have provided on the article talk page and see if they are not enough to justify adequate press coverage and reliable sources. I have aggregated over 90 link references. There are interviews, secondary sources, press releases, podcasts and other material. A lot from national publications. I genuinely believe that these sources and references should be considered in the evaluation process, and ask you to reconsider accepting my article based on this additional information.

According to below definition, I believe it should:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

Basic criteria

See also: Wikipedia:Notability § General notability guideline

Shortcuts

· WP:BASIC

· WP:NBASIC

People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

·       If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

·       Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

I started this journey with optimism and motivation, and the article was initially classed as a: “predicted Class-B rating” article. However, this suddenly changed when a reviewer covered my article with aggressive and unfair language regarding my reasons for writing. Since then, the tone in the IRC chat, changed, and I am not sure how to correct this assumption about me, given the channels I have to communicate through.

I implore you to reconsider the notability of my subject based on the additional links and sources I have provided. I believe that the work I have put into researching, gathering sources, and presenting the accomplishments of the individual in question is deserving of recognition. My subject is a recipient of the Meritorious Public Service Medal Award, at the age of 35.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritorious_Public_Service_Medal

He spent his entire adult life trying to improve mental health for thousands of people, through volunteer work, and founding a company aiming to ensure free mental healthcare for as many people as possible.

When I look at other people covered on Wikipedia (assuming they are considered notable), I do think that my subject deserves to be represented as well. They have much less citations, and the articles are generally much more brief. Please see examples below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Tighe_(CEO)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Marano

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Tighe_(CEO)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Spahn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milt_Kogan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margo_Jennings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doughboy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelo_J._Arculeo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobart_Baumann_Amstutz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Bryant_Jr.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Kidd

I genuinely want to continue contributing to Wikipedia and be part of this community. (I even considered going to the conference in Toronto this month). It is my hope that, with your understanding and guidance, we can find a way to address the concerns raised and ensure that my efforts to contribute align with the principles and values that Wikipedia upholds.

Thank you for your time and consideration and any help you might be able to provide.

Best, Mwikiforce (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mwikiforce: Well, I admit it's borderline so I went ahead and moved it to mainspace. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SO much WikiOriginal-9! I am not sure what that means (mainspace), but I never thought I'd get this right! I can't tell you how much I appreciate you hearing me! This means the world to me!

Best, Mwikiforce (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oucil (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Wolf Tracks @ Bondi Disc Golf Course (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The "Wolf Tracks" page that's been submitted is essentially the same as this page representing another disc golf course in British Columbia which was approved... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptors_Knoll_Disc_Golf_Course. Both include links to other wikipedia pages where they're referenced, they both use the exact same references from the PDGA and Disc Golf Scene, and they both have similar descriptions.

Why was this one declined, but the other approved?

Thanks.

Oucil (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that you accepted this draft too soon. It is confusingly and poorly written and poorly sourced. For example, the lede reads, in part, Sassi Da Kallara is Salt Range in a mountain range located in the Talagang District Punjab province of Pakistan. It is home to a number of ancient Hindu temples, including Sassi Da Kallara. The lede should probably read Sassi Da Kallara is a Hindu temple located in the Salt Range of Punjab, Pakistan. The article also relies on terrible sourcing, including an article at the How2havefun website, a Google maps link, and an article that barely mentions Sassi Da Kallara among its collection of Salt Range temples. I would like to move this article back to draft status for further development, if you don't object. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for your review of Draft:Davey Wreden. As it stands at this point, the sources included in the article demonstrate subject meets WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE. Please note that I substantially reworked the article since a previous editor submitted it to AfC earlier in the year, please consider some of the sources added since then. Here are some good ones to start with:

1. Daniel Bischoff's article Stanley Parable Creator Explains Struggle Between Creator And Audience After Game of the Year Award Wins has SIGCOV of the subject (note the quotes in this piece are not an interview, but secondary coverage including quotes from a primary source, an archived version which is linked in this article).
2. Frank G. Bosman, Archibald L.H.M. van Wieringen's book Video Games as Art has SIGCOV of the subject for BASIC (some of which is summarized in the article), as well as in-depth coverage of the subject's work for CREATIVE.
3. Braxton Soderman's book Against Flow: Video Games and the Flowing Subject has SIGCOV of the subject for BASIC (some of which is summarized in the article), as well as in-depth coverage of the subject's work for CREATIVE.
4. Alayna Cole, Dakoda Barker's book Games as Texts: A Practical Application of Textual Analysis to Games has SIGCOV of the subject for BASIC (some of which is summarized in the article), as well as in-depth coverage of the subject's work for CREATIVE.

—siroχo 18:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, are you currently reviewing the article through removing the banner and adding categories on Draft:Rachid Idrissi? B/r NAADAAN (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined your A7 for Draft:Josh Blanchard History. A7 only applies to article space, and does not extend to draft space. -- Whpq (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing AfC approvals and have a question about this one. It was already declined for referencing as it is cited to another Wiki. You then resubmitted and approved with no improvement. I am just wondering how she passes notability based on the ref in the draft. CNMall41 (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CNMall41, DNB is notable per WP:ANYBIO. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I clicked the link and it went to WikiSource. I failed to check the source there. My apologies. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Flux_Malaysia

Dear @WikiOriginal-9,

I want to express my gratitude for taking the time to review my article, even though the outcome was less favorable than I had hoped. I would really like to get some insights if you do not mind sharing as I am new in publishing articles and after 3 months of efforts it is kind of disappointing that I could not get the article approved still.

I did have learned and improved but now stuck at the reference where i am not sure what is wrong as i did check notable regulations and reference guide and i cannot locate why it has been declined still.

One point about the reference is that as this is a new type of business in Malaysia so finding completely independent article on Flux is difficult but i did see some competitor's post has been approved even with not too much independent references which i am giving example below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carsome

This even got approved with their CEO interview while mine got rejected.

It will be very helpful if you can help in guiding where exactly to change and get the article approve to publish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AfnanzafarBD (talk • contribs) 09:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Flux_Malaysia

Dear @WikiOriginal-9,

I want to express my gratitude for taking the time to review my article, even though the outcome was less favorable than I had hoped. I would really like to get some insights if you do not mind sharing as I am new in publishing articles and after 3 months of efforts it is kind of disappointing that I could not get the article approved still.

I did have learned and improved but now stuck at the reference where i am not sure what is wrong as i did check notable regulations and reference guide and i cannot locate why it has been declined still.

One point about the reference is that as this is a new type of business in Malaysia so finding completely independent article on Flux is difficult but i did see some competitor's post has been approved even with not too much independent references which i am giving example below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carsome

This even got approved with their CEO interview while mine got rejected.

It will be very helpful if you can help in guiding where exactly to change and get the article approve to publish. AfnanzafarBD (talk) 09:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AfnanzafarBD: Hi. Carsome is tagged for notability so it may or may not survive further scrutiny. However, the Carsome article has more significant coverage listed than the Flux article. Also, one of the Flux sources only talks about Flux for a few small paragraphs. So, I think the Flux article could use a little more significant coverage. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got your point.

I have done a significant search but probably as they are a new business it does not have such large contents at least i could not find. But i have carefully selected few articles which does not sound like advertising but talking about flux. Would you be kind enough to review if they are ok. Else what i can i do to get it through considering that not much articles it has like carsome. And appreciate your clear guidance again. AfnanzafarBD (talk) 05:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiOriginal-9

Sorry - FYI avbove AfnanzafarBD (talk) 05:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your research but I still do not think those sources are enough unfortunately. All five of them still sort of read like ads. The Maylaysian Reserve source is okay but it still comes off as a tad bit promotional. Also, I just took a look at all of the sources listed in the Carsome article and I do not believe it would survive a deletion discussion either. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 06:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest some considerations about the rejection of my draft about Temo Svirely, hoping that you may change your opinion.

The article is about a Ukrainian painter. It must be noted that Ukrainian artists usually do not receive much attention in Ukrainian press, compared to most other Western countries. This is partly due to many decades of oppression of the Ukrainian culture within the Soviet Union. The art environment simply has not yet developed to the necessary extent, not so many critics, art reviews etc. Therefore, I believe that the application of the criteria of notability should be adjusted in this case. Moreover, I looked up other modern painters in the Ukrainian Painters category on Wikipedia, and I must say that most of them have less source links, than my draft on Svirely. The same is true about Georgian artists. Each culture has its own peculiarity. In US lots of "spin-up", in post-soviet space a bit more quiet... Thus, it is unfair to compare a Ukrainian or Georgian painter to an American or European painter, in terms of media coverage or art reviews dedicated to them. I believe that an adjustment is needed, for fairness.

A brilliant piece of music by world-famous Victoria Poleva, dedicated to Temo, already warrants notability. An English-speaking readers of Wikipedia deserve to be able to read about the artist, to whom the piece was dedicated.

A big article about him in "Weekly Mirror" demonstrates notability. There is a discussion about "Weekly Mirror" as a reliable source, please comment: [[1]]

He had many exhibitions in US and Europe, including Pollock foundation grant.

Based on these considerations, would you reconsider your decision to decline the draft?

--AndreiMikhailov (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AndreiMikhailov: Do you have a link for the Weekly Mirror article? I'm not seeing that in the sources. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The very first one: художник с поющим именем . Its Ukrainian Weekly Mirror :) It has its own Wikipedia article: Dzerkalo Tyzhnia AndreiMikhailov (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiOriginal-9

I am a paid editor who has recently written four articles for Wiki. None have been accepted, for two main reasons - 'notability' and 'not enough significant, independent coverage'. While I (kind of) understand these reasons for three of the pages, I don't understand the second reason for the article on Draft:André Shearer.

My message to you on my Talk page is:

Dear WikiOriginal-9,

I am stumped as to why this submission has not been accepted.

Could you be more specific as to our reason - Not enough significant, independent coverage.

Thank you ÓCathail (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How much 'significant, independent coverage' is deemed enough?

Thank you. ÓCathail (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ÓCathail:, thanks for reaching out. Let's take a look at the sources listed to see if there is enough independent, significant coverage of Shearer:

1. Not independent. Written by his company.

2. Not independent. Written by his company.

3. This is sort of okay but not fully independent since it's partly an interview.

4. This is sort of okay but not fully independent since it's partly an interview.

5. This article is not about Shearer. He just has two passing quotes in it talking about something else.

6. Not significant coverage. Only one quote from Shearer.

7. Not significant coverage. Only one quote from Shearer.

8. This is sort of okay but not fully independent since it's partly an interview.

9. Youtube doesn't count and that video is partly an interview.

10. That's just the home page of a website.

11. This is sort of okay but not fully independent since it's partly an interview.

12. Only a passing mention of Shearer.

13. Interview. Not fully independent.

14. That's just the home page of a website.

15. Youtube doesn't count and the part of him in the video is an interview.

Thus, I do not believe we have enough independent, significant coverage listed in the sources to support a Wikipedia article. Regardless, I can resubmit for a second opinion if you'd like. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WikiOriginal-9,

Thank you for your detailed reply and time.

I understand what you have said and while I don't agree with all of your feedback, I'm not going to respond point by point. I am however, surprised about Wiki's response to interviews as interviews are referenced on many a Wiki page, and I feel, a valid source of information. Ref the YouTube content in 15, this is the news station's official YouTube channel, and the only way to verify the broadcaster's on air interview.

Be that as it may, after @tagishsimon's attack on my work, I will advise my client that I am not proceeding any further and will not accept remuneration for the work that I have already done. ÓCathail (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WikiOriginal-9,

May I please ask why interviews are interviews are not regarded as independent coverage.

Thank you. ÓCathail (talk) 10:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @WikiOriginal-9 I had drafted an article and submitted it which was on Badr Al Samaa Group of Hospitals. This was my 4th attempt. I had followed all that was told to me to edit before republishing, I added relevant, independant, secondary, reliable, multiple sources and significant coverage then what Am I lacking? Why is this article close but not comeplete and not enough to be published?

It would be great if you could tell me exactly what's needed to be done and what is the cause for this to be declined. Thankyou. MartinaB21 (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MartinaB21:, thanks for reaching out. Let's take a look at the sources listed to see if there is enough independent, significant coverage of the hospital:

Source 1. Not independent. Company website.

Source 3. Not independent. Company website.

Sources 2, 4 and 5. These three sources are not that bad honestly but they come off as sort of promotional and are partly interviews so I don't believe they are independent enough to support a Wikipedia article.

Regardless, I can resubmit for a second opinion if you'd like. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @WikiOriginal-9, I had a draft I cited and submitted rejected. I feel that it was well-sited; he's mentioned on many award sites, credited in the Government libraries (for his photos), etc.

I found a book he was mentioned in and added it. He's mentioned in various editions of Marquis Who's Who. For a stub, I don't feel this is bad. As more information becomes available, I will add it as it's a page I watch. I don't want to see all the contributor's work go to waste. JoeK2033 (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @WikiOriginal-9, You have many years of experience as a moderator in Wikipedia so I would like to state upfront that I am writing to seek your help. I am trying to understand what exactly you mean by “significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject.” when you declined this article. It has 13 citations from reputable sources that mention the subject while describing the major contributions of the subject. Secondly, the subject is an engineer and cannot get the sort of media coverage that politicians and other celebrities get. Please help with your valuable suggestions to overcome the objection. Thank you. TakeDealyo (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

South Seattle Emerald, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @WikiOriginal-9 thanks for taking a look at this draft. Clicking around on similar topics/articles in same genre, I'm stumped why this draft isn't passing muster. Out of curiosity I spent a few minutes looking at living composer wiki articles and have already turned up dozens that are more weakly sourced than this draft; only a handful had even a single source that satisfied the significant independent coverage (not merely passing mention) bar, and in many cases are entirely sourced from label promotional material, academic/institutional affiliates, artist websites, etc. I've been careful (at least I think I've been careful!) not to do that here so I'm left wondering, and beginning to feel that the significant coverage standards for this topic are either highly subjective or unevenly applied (or both). None of the sources in this draft can reasonably be considered "passing mention", all are independent and satisfy RS guidelines for music and BLP. The only thing I can figure is that sources are being interpreted as "promotional", but this would perplex me as well because they are independent RS (and a good vaulter's pole length over the bar of the type of sources mentioned above that are propping up entire articles on their own). AllMusic and PopMatters are greenlit listed RS, for that matter. Mind remains open and I appreciate you sharing your thinking on this! 24.44.45.156 (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 02:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @WikiOriginal-9 thank you very much for reading the draft article for Ruth Hessey. I do understand the points you made, however I would like to make a plea below if it is possible to reconsider her notability in a slightly different context and for this second rejection to be reconsidered. Firstly, I would argue that Hessey is notable for her extensive and (admittedly varied) work, not for her as a person. For example, Hessey was a national film critic on the Australian national radio and reviewer for several leading newspapers for almost two decades. If you search wikipedia for her name there are about 15 references sourcing Hessey's reviews of them in their articles. In other words, she spent many years as a critic interviewing others and writing about others' films, rather than being a celebrity or media personality herself. I would argue a similar perspective is possible with her second main career as an environmental educator and documentary filmmaker. This work tends to be, by definition, somewhat selfless, working to extend environmental education and raise awareness of the impact of environmental damage and protection rather than in seeking a notoriety/personality brand that say a drama film director requires. Although there isn't (I agree) extensive coverage of this by others, I would argue, that the fact that the film has been purchased by hundreds of schools, universities and local councils internationally and by companies such as Fujitsu and National Australia Bank as a staff engagement resource, confers a notability on her film as influential. Also the St Kilda Film Festival where she won an award for Best Documentary Film is a prestigious accolade as the St Kilda festival is an "Academy Award Qualifying Festival." https://filmfreeway.com/StKildaFilmFestival Furthermore, the film has been sold internationally and translated into Spanish, Turkish and Chinese which also attests to its international influence. The film led to a further web-based interactive educational resource and ongoing schools-based initiatives for which Hessey was Project Director. This was considered sufficiently significant to be funded by major donors - the Pratt Foundation and Myer Foundation and City of Sydney. Thanks again for your review of the draft. I have just now removed three paragraphs on some of Hessey's work which had less coverage. However, my main request is that the notability of Hessey's work might be viewed in a slightly different perspective due to the nature of the work itself. HapKee (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @WikiOriginal-9 alas the article on Ruth Hessey was declined again. I have re-instated the paragraphs you said I didn't need to remove but I don't think that is going to be effective at this stage. Thanks for reviewing anyway. HapKee (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I note in some of your replies here that you list sources and why they are unacceptable. That's great, but you may find {{Source_assess_table}} a lot easier :) - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 15:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:WikiOriginal-9,

You have begun dozens of AFD discussions all at once. This is very inconsiderate for editors who participate in AFD discussions who do not have the time or energy to thoroughly investigate all of this articles. I would like to encourage you to withdraw half of them and post them at a later date. What you did is really discouraged and frequently results in discussions being relisted over and over because of no participation and then cloased as No consensus. If you want thoughtful participation, please nominate articles one at a time instead of by the dozens. Thank you for considering this request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And whatever you do, please do not add any more AFD discussions to today's list. You've done enough for today, please pause. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was done recently by an editor who nominated about 60 Doctor Who articles over a couple of hours. They withdrew at least half and then renominated them another day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Holy cow, I got message from Liz. Not gonna lie, I feel honored to be getting a mesage from you after 10 years, lol. I've seen you around forever. On topic though, do you know how to withdraw an AFD quickly? Does Twinkle have a button for that? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if I don't get to them in time, you can withdraw as many as you like if you want to. It looks like it has to be done manually, which might take awhile. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 07:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Were there any in particular that you were looking to withdraw? Some of them already have participation, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Histology Group of Victoria Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: No, nothing in particular. I just need to withdraw a bunch. Though Category:Company articles with topics of unclear notability is littered with ads, violating the policy WP:NOTADVERT. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a lot of these articles are due an AfD. For any that are not, I use Wikipedia:XFDcloser as it only takes a few seconds to withdraw an AfD through that. It'll automatically clean up the article too. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: Thank you very much for the tip! That will be a lot faster than manually. (Hopefully this doesn't hurt my AFD stats, lol) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, that counts as a speedy keep when I withdraw it. This is wrecking my AFD stats, lol. I was in the 90s before. Oh well. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've had that issue before. I don't think there's any way around that, sadly. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: OK, I'm done now. I went from like 95% to 53%, lol. Oh well, it shouldn't take too long to get back up. Thanks for pointing out XFD closer to me! That was A LOT faster than what I was going to do. I vaguely remember seeing that before but I forgot about it. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikiOriginal-9,

First, my comment wasn't an argument that these articles shouldn't be deleted. They very well may deserve to be deleted. It's just a lot of AFDs all at once and we have fewer and fewer editors who spend their time assessing articles nominated for deletion so I don't want them to get burned out.

If you haven't done it, just state you are withdrawing the nomination right below your nomination statement and some editor or admin will close it. But keep a list of the articles you have nominated and withdrawn so that they can be renominated at another time. I'll say it again, it wasn't the substance of your nominations, just the volume of them. I know it's easier for the nominator to do a whole bunch at once but we really don't have enough editors to review them at the rate you were posting them. Many thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha Empire Jarange Patil Saheb (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes...? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please take more care when tagging pages. You tagged Flat Eye as an orphan, but it's obviously not. Also please read {{orphan}}, which says "Instead of using this template, please make an effort to de-orphan the article yourself." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NinjaRobotPirate:, thanks for the tip. It says it's an orphan in the new pages feed. Not sure why. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you over-tagged Approved Premise - 6 tags on a page that short is overkill. Please try to read up on the guidelines before doing more page curation. Even if your tags are technically correct, consider the spirit of the rules and the purposes of tagging. Cheers ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add all those. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but I have come across quite a few pages which you excessively overtagged. Please see WP:OVERTAG. It is an easy mistake to make, but it is unhelpful and in fact disruptive to tag pages on the surface level without looking deeper or actually improving the pages. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 19:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Examples? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings WikiOriginal-9, @[[NinjaRobotPirate and @El cid, el campeador, I concur with above discussion. The NPP flagging an article as "Orphan" is inaccurate. At each article, please check What links here (alt-shift-j) to verify. If the article has one or more incoming links (disambig. does not count), then the article is NOT an orphan. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JoeNMLC: Yes, I've been doing that. Thanks for the tip though. I'm not sure if the orphan error is a new bug or not? I don't think it used to to do that in the olden days? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today, I wrote up a NPP proposal here to change that tag from Orphan to Orphan? so that the Question mark indicates "if an orphan" so readers will be inclined to Check the article instead of Tag it. What do you think? JoeNMLC (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's reasonable. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you explain why you tagged Prototype pollution with the notability tag ? My understanding is that it satisfies WP:GNG based the on just the citations provided. Sohom (talk) 07:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw those but it's still borderline. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Putting this here to keep the re-review page cleaner: to un-re-review an article, you have to remove the bold text - that's what indicates to the bot that it's supposed to count a pass/fail/invalid. I don't think using strikethrough does anything. (Though I suppose you could leave them as they are and wait for the next bot run, for Science.) -- asilvering (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:WikiOriginal-9, you pointed out that article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Vengadesan is an orphan, as no other articles link to it.

Thank you. I have since introduced 7 links to this page from related articles. LunaLoveGoodSir (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WikiOriginal-9,

I have received your feedback on the article on Mr. Trevor Ombija. I would like to inquire which sources were not credible in the sources used as they were sourced from the biggest news pages in Kenya as well as very notable blogs. I am relatively new to Wikipedia page creation and I am still learning so kindly forgive me. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you very much

Regards,

Serrwinner Serrwinner (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Serrwinner: It's borderline but I'm not sure those sources are enough independent, significant coverage. I can re-submit for another opinion if you'd like. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. Could you kindly elaborate on why it's not significant coverage? Does this mean I haven't provided enough sources? Also I would like your advice as most of the notable and trustworthy blogs have "net worth" in their bibliography titles and I was advised that it is not wise to use such articles. How should I go about this? Once again I am sorry this is the first page I'm creating and I'm trying to learn. Thank you Serrwinner (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Serrwinner:, thanks for reaching out. Let's take a look at the version I reviewed and see if there's enough independent, significant coverage.

1. That's just a profile and not independent since it's the company he works for.

2. That's just a promotional profile. "The hunk was dumped by his girlfriend"

3. Just a profile thing.

4. Not too bad even though it's mostly an interview so not fully independent coverage.

5. Profile

6. Not sure that's independent. You can submit your own articles to that site. It looks promotional.

7. Profile

8. That reads as kinda promotional and it's partly an interview.

9. Not too bad even though it's mostly an interview.

10. Promotional profile thing.

Thus, I do not believe there is enough independent, significant coverage to support a Wikipedia article. However, I can re-submit for another opinion if you'd like. Usually, you need at least 3 articles of non-promotional, independent, in-depth coverage (or 2 if the articles are really big). WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I didn't see it before but from your perspective it makes so much sense. You're right. I'll try find another worthy person/business and try to create a new page and use it as another tryout. Once again thank you for your insight. Serrwinner (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello once more. Following your advice and researching from other well written Wikipedia pages, I decided to make one more attempt to edit Mr. Ombija's article. More specifically I added more independent citations not affiliated with him and checked their track records to ensure they have no major question to their credibility. In addition to this I also added more citations that show significant coverage as opposed to last time when it was just profile things. I did have to leave some of the profile citations as they are the only ones which talk about his birth and to some degree education. I look forward to hearing your feedback. Thank you. Serrwinner (talk) 06:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiOriginal-9, just a quick note - I seem to have run across a couple drafts at AfC recently where you accepted them and then reverted your accept. I'm not going to say that's wrong (although I suppose it's probably better to realize you don't want to accept it before accepting it), but just a quick note that in those cases you should tag the redirect from mainspace to draftspace for deletion (CSD R2 - I tagged what I saw), and also that you should also remove the acceptance notice from the submitting user's talk page. Cheers! LittlePuppers (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LittlePuppers: OK, thanks LittlePuppers. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where you removed the cited bit as "Wrong guy" I wasnt sure what you meant? It's late here but it looked to me from the source that the one was a son or grandson of the other? No? FloridaArmy (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy: The part I removed is where, on the Kentucky article, it said he served in the Missisippi Senate. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2023 (::I'm still confused. Didn't it say his grandson held that office? Isn't Stephen Thrasher his grandson? Or is it son? FloridaArmy (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy: Ok, nevermind then. I was looking for what years the Kentucky guy served and saw that line but missed the part where it said grandson. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'm just trying to get it right. I find the language in the source a bit hard to parse and can't tell for sure if it is the son or grandson. I will take another look after I grt some rest. Thabks afain for your help and aorry for the trouble. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Marco Ridenti (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Scintillation Prediction Observations Research Task Mission (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need a better explanation on why this page was not accepted.

I gave the most reliable source as possible for this satellite mission, giving the links for the official government sites (NASA, on the US side, and FAPESP, on the Brazilian side) that mention exclusively the SPORT mission. This are reliable, they are primary sources and most of them are indeed in-depth. I ask for another review from experienced editors. At least, please point me where exactly this article fails to give primary, in-depth and reliable sources. Does it need other references besides the oficial ones? If this is the case, there are plenty of conference papers about SPORT mission, that I would be pleased to include if this is the case.

Marco Ridenti (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Marco Ridenti:, thanks for reaching out. You can use the primary sources but it needs secondary sources. Feel free to resubmit once they are added. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I will give a new try. Marco Ridenti (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I did that, so why is this being declined when I followed instructions? 216.209.142.143 (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw your comment of Draft:HEKTAD. You can read NYT articles if you disable Javascript for that site in your browser (easy to do in Chrome not sure about others). Since NYT is a solid source it really helps with reviewing if you don't have a subscription. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @KylieTastic: Nice, that worked. Thank you! ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• S. Fainéant (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Catherine L. Manning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Noted. Thank you! Sorry about the mess-up. Was new to editing here and didn't realize an entry already existed. Will copy and paste what I wrote there.

Very Best,

S.F.

S. Fainéant (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional independent sources added, and now including new information about candidacy for Montana Secretary of State. The new sources and stories are from the Sidney Herald, Glendive Ranger-Review, Missoulian, Terry Tribune, and Montana Free Press. MontanaInfo (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take another look at this? I don't believe he would meet WP:NCOLLATH so he would need to meet WP:GNG. The only thing I see is some local press which is likely all there is since he doesn't seem to have made any impact as a college player. CNMall41 (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CNMall41: I found more sources on Google. I've been following football AFDs for years and I think it would pass honestly (whether it "should" or not is another question). You can AFD it if you'd like. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wasn't going to AfD. Came here for clarification as I have declined about a dozen of these over the last six months for the same reasoning. Must be my misunderstanding of how the guidelines are being enforced. In your passing, shoot me some of the AfD discussions (if you have a change and/or if you feel like it) my way so I can understand better for the future. If not, no biggie. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football/archive: The very first one, Carl Gioia, looks like a similar case. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I guess I will keep the application of the guideline in mind over the actual guideline for future reviews. Seems like opposite ends of the field (pun intended) but it is what it is. Thanks again.--CNMall41 (talk) 08:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear - re your comment here - had you realized that your library account gives you NYT access? DS (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DragonflySixtyseven: no I wasn't really aware of that. Thank you! I don't actually see NYT on the the list though. Are you referring to the Newspapers.com listing that mentions 50 years of NYT? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's in ProQuest. DS (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven: OK, thanks! ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikiOriginal-9,

Looking at pages like 2023–24 Calcutta Women's Football League, you'll get a faster response from patrolling administrators if you make the CSD request a G6 Move request rather than asking them to delete a main space redirect page because of a draft article that you want to move. Speaking for myself, I'm not going to delete a main space redirect for a draft that isn't even approved yet. But, if I can see that the draft has received AFC approval, and by approved it means that all of the AFC tags and comments are removed and it is main space ready, then I'll do a page move that will move the draft article to that main space title. I can't speak for all admins who patrol CSD categories but I've noticed there are other admins who will pass on these deletions as well. Just thought I'd pass that observation along. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz: thanks for the observation! I'm not sure I should remove the AFC tags though. If I do that, I can't use the AFC helper script, thus it won't actually get logged as an accept and the submitter won't get notified. Thank you for the thoughts though! ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you pls tell how to remove orphan tag from article - Mira-Bhayander Vasai-Virar Police?? Pratik.S2005 (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for reviewing this draft. You commented that there was not enough in depth references to support the article. What further do you feel needs adding? I note there are a few peer-reviewed academic articles cited, which cover the concept of Prolonged Casualty Care as well as links to the website prolongedfieldcar.org which covers the concept in detail. There are citations from multiple countries, demonstrating this is an internationally applied concept.

I guess I'm unsure what citation could be more in-depth than these? Can you give me some pointers please? Thanks. TMallinson (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear Wikipedian, if The Daily Rudrabangla been accept on Wikipedia, why not Draft:Kavya Kishor. Which also a notable Magazine from Bangladesh. Mohammad Husen (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mohammad Husen: thanks for reaching out. Newspapers seem to be more inherently notable than online literary magazines but I haven't looked in-depth at the other article. I suggest asking the editor who reviewed Kavya Kishor. 15:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC) ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have asked him already. But you are a reviewer, so I asked you for contribute here. Mohammad Husen (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Matti charlton 74.14.58.112 (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just want to know why you rejected the draft. As far as I can see, only one source came from the subject, the one from his website. The rest are from his employers or are links to the books.

I have added newspaper articles for the books and reviews but I can't understand what exactly is wrong here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just feel you did not even look at the references and just took the previous reviewer's word at face value. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Omnis Scientia: thanks for reaching out. References 8, 9, and 12 are the only independent references. Employee profiles and links to buy his books are not independent. Reviews of his books would be independent but I am not seeing enough significant coverage listed at the moment. 6 doesn't look like a real, full, in-depth review and it has a link to buy the book. 9 is not significant coverage, only passing mentions. 8 is the best one but that is the only real review listed. If you can find more, feel free to resubmit. I cannot see all of 12 but even if it did have significant coverage, that extra ref will not be enough to sway the decision. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I understand. Will do my best to fix it and find better sources. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia: And I don't know if you're aware, but since your account is at least 4 days old and has made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself directly (see WP:AUTOCONFIRM). You are not required to submit to Articles for Creation. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't know that. I usually try my best to improve existing articles. On ocassions I try to make articles and only when there is enough information to fill out an article. So I didn't know this at all. Thank you for bringing this to my attention! -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the Barnstar! -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

where do i get good film references Calmary Turkas(Forgotmypass) (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Calmary Turkas(Forgotmypass): Your draft is a modern film so most of them would be online I think. Perhaps ask Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film and see if they can help. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Calmary Turkas(Forgotmypass) (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind Calmary Turkas(Forgotmypass) (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i broke my ?internet? Calmary Turkas(Forgotmypass) (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiOriginal-9. I've edited the issues highlighted and greatly appreciate your further insights and review. Thank you. Wendyapplenian (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wendyapplenian: thanks for reaching out. Thanks for your work but I don't think it will get approved with the current references.

Wikipedia subjects need in-depth coverage (full-length articles, not just passing mentions) in usually at least 3 reliable sources that are not written by or affiliated with the subject.

Unfortunately, all of those sources except The Star are passing mentions and podcasts don't really count since they're not independent. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @WikiOriginal-9 for your prompt reply. Your feedback is very useful and much appreciated. I will look into the in-depth coverage and resubmit again. Wendyapplenian (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I don't understand half of what you do, but you do a lot of it! Bringingthewood (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bringingthewood: LOL, thanks BTW. I'll add it to my collection. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You said that this is copyvious but i have removed all the copied data and then resubmit it.So what is the reason for decline 223.123.5.154 (talk) 06:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @223.123.5.154: thanks for reaching out. I can't see Draft:Khumar (television series) anymore since it was deleted. Perhaps ask the admin who deleted it, Bradv, to take a look. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was a very minor copyedit, but still essentially a copyright violation. See WP:PARAPHRASE. – bradv 06:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you give me some examples to better understand the problem? Please tell me what (in the wikitext) is mainly wrong and how I could fix it and if it is possible to fix it. Can you give me some examples of the draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Max_Nardari ? Thank you so much Igreo (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Igreo: thanks for reaching out. Wikipedia subjects need in-depth coverage (full-length articles, not just passing mentions) in usually at least 3 reliable sources that are not written by or affiliated with the subject. Most of those sources aren't actually about him, and interviews aren't really independent. However, I can resubmit for another opinion if you'd like. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I tried to put everything I found online, selecting the material. If you consider that the work done is almost sufficient and you can help me with a new revision, I would be infinitely grateful. Thank you in advance for all your help. Thank you Igreo (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Igreo: thanks for reaching out again but it doesn't look like you changed anything? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that I didn't know what to change. I posted the links I found online. Could you be more specific about which links would be better to remove or change them with better ones (if they exist)? I think I've put everything I've found that could best cite the source, but I don't really understand how to improve it. Could you point me to the quotes that you think are not suitable? Thanks again so much Igreo (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need usually at three 3 sources that meet the following criteria: In-depth coverage (full-length articles, not just passing mentions) in reliable sources that are not written by or affiliated with the subject. If you think you have sources that meet this, you can list them so I or another reviewer can take a look. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, but to better understand what to look for, isn't a reference of this type authoritative enough? https://www.ilmessaggero.it/umbria/la_mia_famiglia_a_soqquadro_esce_al_cinema_il_film_tutto_girato_a_terni-2342916.html Thanks again. Igreo (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why my article was rejected. I looked at his brother's Wiki, and Shawn's has as much or more sourcing. Help! Thank you in advance! Willlev (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Willlev: thanks for reaching out. Wikipedia subjects need in-depth coverage (full-length articles, not just passing mentions) in usually at least 3 reliable sources that are not written by or affiliated with the subject. There is not enough in-depth sourcing listed for Duncan at the moment. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Willlev (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WikiOriginal-9. I´m sysop in the Spanish Wikipedia. I came to comment on the Draft:Arlyson Gomes Santos. He has been deleted 9 times on eswiki, also on ptwiki. With this name] and with this other. It was also created and recreated by several of these shockpuppets and others blocked on eswiki. Greetings Geom (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Geom: OK, thank you for the info Geom. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiOriginal-9 I got an notice from you that my article was declined :( but then I also got a smaller, less-professional-looking one from this guy called @Aviram7 and I wasn't sure if that was just a mistake or what. Yours looked more legit, so I figured to ask you instead. AriLovesTacos (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AriLovesTacos: thanks for reaching out. Looks like we were reviewing it at the same time. I'll go ahead and add my notice back since it was first. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AriLovesTacos: actually nevermind. It looks like Aviram7 tagged it for deletion. In regards to your draft, we already have an article on the Reliability of Wikipedia. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge the existence of my sister article: Reliability of Wikipedia. Even though I acknowledge her, I disagree with your decision, since my draft adds new information to the fight for credibility of Wikipedia. It contributes to Reliability of Wikipedia and backs it up with more information, and then Wikipedia users can find more information on the topic than simply one article. While Reliability of Wikipedia has a lot of information, my article can add a bit more, and it acknowledges the false misconception in schools, unlike Reliability of Wikipedia. AriLovesTacos (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WikiOriginal-9, Hello, Recently I accepted Elina Shammi,so, can you given me feedback for this acceptance of my work.Thnx :)~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 15:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aviram7: I can't really read the non-English sources in order to do a full evalaution, but at a glance, it looks plausible. Thanks for reaching out. . ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WikiOriginal-9, Thanks for given me feedback or reply but I'm talking about subject 's notability, I know this subject is meets to WP:NACTOR, so, she is notable, I like if you confirm about that. Thnx :)~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 15:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviram7: I'm not really an expert on NACTOR so I'm not 100% sure. From reading the Elina Shammi article, I can't clearly tell if there were multiple "significant roles" but based off the praise she received, it seems plausible. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WikiOriginal-9, Thanks for your reply. Thnx :) ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 15:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice you placed on my talk page on November 23 regarding creating an article using WP:Autoconfirm. In view of how the editors reacted to the article I created called Occupational Health Science (journal), I have rewritten it on my PC and plan to resubmit. I made sure to mainly cite secondary sources. I will perform some additional editing over the next month and will probably create the article again in January.

I created more than 30 WP articles but I think the requirements have changed since 2018. Do you have any advice for me regarding my creating anew Occupational Health Science (journal)? What pitfalls to watch out for? Thanks. Iss246 (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Iss246: thanks for reaching out. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). It's just an essay but has some advice. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't look good enough for inclusion yet tbh. zoglophie^•talk• 17:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Zoglophie: thanks for reaching out. You can take draftify or AFD if you'd like but she has a decent h-index (not that that necessarily means anything). ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		New Reviewer Award
		Awarded to WikiOriginal-9, for being the top reviewer for November 2023, among the new reviewers. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you are interested the annual awards that are given out for NPP, please take a look at WP:NPPA. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824: Holy cow! Nice! Thank you MPGuy2824! I actually did some NPP before the userright even existed as well, hee hee. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did some NPP before the userright even existed as well I did see that somewhere, but I think if you've gone for 5-6 years without doing a review, then you might as well be a fresh reviewer in terms of the things that would have changed in the meantime. Happy reviewing! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824: Yes, I agree. I've never actually had the new page reviewer right until recently. Thank you again! ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I think my draft has been rejected 3 times 😬 I don’t mind though

Everyone just quotes the wikipedia criteria for an article, though I actually might need some help on what to edit.

I’m still a newbie here so it my second try at creating a totally random article. It would help to get some more feedback on what to change, Thanks! Turtlepro22 (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Turtlepro22: thanks for reaching out. It's okay, Wikipedia guidelines are hard to understand sometimes. In regards to your draft, Wikipedia subjects need in-depth coverage (full-length articles, not just passing mentions) in usually at least 3 reliable sources that are not written by or affiliated with the subject. The references in that draft are 1) the school website, so not independent, 2) just a database profile thing, and 3) just the home page of a website. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, thanks for the feedback. Will try this Turtlepro22 (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hope you are doing well and really appreciate your work at AfC.

[[2]] - This could have been declined as a "joke" instead of "non-notable".

Thank you Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 07:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for approving my draft submission to List of Alabama political scandals. I also submitted List of Arkansas political scandals which was approved and List of California political scandals which was not. I wrote the editor addressing his complaints, but he hasn’t answered. Is there any way you can bring it back? Also, I looked on create a page, but all I could find to start with was Article Wizard. Could you lead me through step by step how to publish it myself? Johnsagent (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnsagent: The easiest way is to type it into the url like so (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_political_scandals) and then click create. However, since that draft already has history, it is better to move the draft to article space instead of just copy-and-pasting. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get to article space and what is it?Johnsagent (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also I noticed a google search comes up with 'Category:' 'List of California political scandals' rather than just 'List of California political scandals' Anyway to get this one to come up first? Should change the titles? Johnsagent (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johnsagent: I already accepted the article for you. Did you see the message on your talk page? Also, there's nothing we can do about what comes up on Google. Google should be indexing it soon I'd think. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WikiOriginal-9, Hello, can you accepted this submission at this time, I'm created this.if you feel comfortable? Thnx :) ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 01:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WikiOriginal-9, today I created one more article,Draft:Sitaram Aadivashi, can you accepted this submission. Thnx :) ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 07:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WikiOriginal-9,please accepted Draft:Kalubhai Rupabhai Dabhi. if possible. Thnx :)~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 00:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and Draft:Gurveer Singh and Draft:Ganeshraj Bansal those people are wins in 2023 and currently MLA of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly. Thnx :) ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 05:20 4 December 2023 (UTC)

and Draft:Ganeshraj Bansal also. Thnx :) ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 06:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wiki-Original-9,Thank you but I think I created least 7 article releated on Indian politicians, can you give me feedback about my those article, if you feel confortable. Thnx:) ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 06:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi αvírαm, what do you need feedback on? I think I approved them all. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wiki-Original-9,Thank you, I think my created all article are passes WP:NPOL but what do you think about that? Thnx :)~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 06:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it looked like they pass NPOL too. That's what I was approving them based off of. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WikiOriginal-9, Hello, please review Draft:Jhabar Singh Kharra. Thnx :)~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 13:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WikiOriginal-9, Hello, please review Draft:Sukharam Netdiya. 😊Thnx ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 15:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, I would like to know what could be done to make my article publishable. Kind rrgards 14 novembre (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @14 novembre: thanks for reaching out. It needs more sources showing why it's historic and not just a random game. The second source doesn't work. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiOriginal-9 Thanks, I will look for some of this sources. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a very humbling statistic. You realize how big the scope of the project is when you feel like you have done a lot of edits but barely have made a dent in what needs addressing. The tasks I fear will long outlast us unless AI and quantum computing takes over this site, which I fear it will one day. Adjusting references are a big mountain to climb and that is what I have had a big interest in the last few years because of the sheer scope of the number of opportunities there. The one millionth edit is something I hope to get one day because of how insane that number is. Those ahead of me on the list are so far ahead that I do not want to do cheesy edits to get up there (not implying what they have done is cheesy). I have slowed down so I think it will be a little while. Red Director (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Director: Lol, I'd be honored if you could make your millionth edit on my talk page. Just kidding. Seriously though, nice work. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiOriginal-9: Thank you for the barnstar! Red Director (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WikiOriginal-9, thank you very much for making the Chalet Hotels live. However, I have a query, at the time of making it live there were no changes OLD Link & when I checked it today the article structure changed drastically NEW Link. I believe that the information I have added is all from reliable and notable sources. I am not sticking to it, just want to know your views as well so that I can take care of it next time when there is a new draft created. This is the second time which happened to me, so little curious if am I missing something. Your guidance is appreciated. VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 06:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) - I was the one who made the changes and left edit summaries with explanation in case you have any questions. If you object to the changes, you are free to start a discussion on the talk page there in order to gain consensus for inclusion. Cheers! --CNMall41 (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to express my gratitude for your prompt review of new pages, despite the large backlog. please review Shailendra Pandya, Thank you. Sokoreq (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't look like it passes WP:NPOL or WP:GNG based off the sources in the article. Not seeing in-depth coverage of him specifically. Sources only have passing mentions. Also, I'm curious how you found me when this is the only article you've ever made. 13:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC) ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading about page reviewing process to understand why it's taking time and I found there is huge backlog!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers

And on this page

you were in the top Reviewer on list! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports/Top_new_article_reviewers

there I found you. ☺️

As i checked the article have reliable and independent sources as mentioned in

• WP:SIGCOV Section
• "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the

Sokoreq (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh OK, thank you! What sources do you think address the topic directly and in detail? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/36-children-rescued-in-udaipur-after-campaign-against-child-labour/article67080137.ece

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/commission-for-child-rights-to-draft-vision-document/articleshow/70424844.cms

https://www.bhaskar.com/rajasthan/banswara/news/rajasthan-news-banswara-rajasthan-child-rights-protection-commission-member-shailendra-pandya-081504-4958987.html

There are some more if we google the topic. Thanks Sokoreq (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it pass the your reviewing criteria then review it, and Thank you, I appreciate your thoughtful reply. :) Sokoreq (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those talk more about the campaign then him. He just has some passing quotes. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning friend thanks a lot for taking the time to review many of my recent fish articles (graylings and now chars)!

I have one doubt about another article I have created days ago, Food Security Doctrine (Russia), which seemed to be still unreviewed and hence cannot be found from the search engine. If I may check with you, what usually happens in such case? Thank you so much and please have a good day!!!!! HolyCrocsEmperor (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for your tireless contributions to the New page patrol. Your efforts are immensely valued. Thilsebatti (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thilsebatti: Wow! Thank you Thilsebatti! I'll add it to my collection. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the prompt review! I do have one question / comment that arose late during the writing process, and I think is worth bringing up now (and perhaps I should have mentioned, such as at the help desk, before submitting in the first place): it appears that the islet in question already has an article on no.wikipedia.org. Initially, I was wondering how the articles might get linked up as different-language versions of the same article, but now I'm also wondering what it means for the topic's notability.

Thanks again, Agreeable-absurdist (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Agreeable-absurdist: thanks for reaching out. The article's existence on another Wikipedia doesn't make it notable here. Also, see Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) for more info. I don't really mind non-promotional, informational articles like the one you made but I'm just following guidelines. It needs in-depth coverage. One of the sources listed is just a database thing. You can resubmit if you'd like. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, thanks.

I've found another source that goes into more detail, which I'll add before resubmitting. I don't know whether it, along with the other sources, will add up to notability, but I hope so. If not, I'll probably let it go, barring any new developments. Aside from a number of travel guides – which are not technically affiliated with the islet itself but which definitely have a vested interest in the topic – this is the only other source I've found that really goes in depth.

Agreeable-absurdist (talk) 06:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've noticed that you've been marking pages as reviewed when they have a CSD tag on them. We typically only mark pages sent to AfD or RfD as reviewed, not pages which are pending speedy deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: If you CSD or PROD something and it gets deleted, that probably doesn't count as a review, does it? Mayhaps it should? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does count towards review count. It's also misleading in the page logs if someone marks something as reviewed and then it's deleted 10 minutes later. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Paul Christman.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I know why you think there is not enough references into this article?

Pierre cb (talk) 06:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikiOriginal-9,

It wasn't until I came to leave you a message and looked over your User talk page that I saw what kind of pressure is put on an AFC reviewer from other editors, both newbies and editors that have beeen around a while. Please do not feel like you have to approve a draft from anyone or that you don't have time to do a thorough review, looking over all necessary aspects of a draft to make sure it is main-space worthy.

You are a volunteer after all, this is not your job, and while anyone can ask you for help, your only obligation is to be polite, you don't have to do what they are asking. Be a good and fair reviewer, not a rubber stamper. I should also say that I'm not posting this because I have concerns, I just thought I'd take a second and thank you for the job you are doing and also please resist any pressure that might be placed upon you to approve anyone's draft. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, I don't think I have been if you look at replies? Was there a specific one you were wondering about? Thanks for your thoughts! ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with @Liz: please don't feel obligated to take any action.

Regarding the draft Draft:Euripides Medea, I noticed that you initially declined it under the 'non-notable' criteria. However, the editor has since removed your tag and resubmitted it for review at AfC. Further research reveals that an article on this topic already exists under the name Medea (play). Could you guide me on how to report instances where an editor removes decline tags and resubmits a draft without making significant changes? Also, in cases where a topic is covered as a sub-topic within a main article, should the draft be declined for being a non-notable topic or for already existing?

Thank you for your assistance. @WikiOriginal-9:. Quantum^Realm (meow🦁 • pawtrack🐾) 09:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QuantumRealm: Hi QuantumRealm, thanks for reaching out. I don't know think there is anywhere to officially "report" that. I think you can just add the decline tag back if you'd like. For your second question, if the article can't be expanded anymore than it is already covered in the main article, then maybe it is better to just leave it in the main one. However, if it can be expanded more, then you could place Template:Main at the section it's listed at. See Abraham_Lincoln#Family_and_childhood for an example. Thank you! ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiOriginal-9: Thank you! <3 Quantum^Realm (meow🦁 • pawtrack🐾) 13:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @WikiOriginal-9 As you may recall I submitted the article about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bhargav_Sri_Prakash. I have been working on it on and off for several months. I am a first time author and am new to Wikipedia. Based on your review and comments for which I remain very grateful I added a number of citations to what I thought were reliable and independent sources that I found online. Your comment was that the sources that I had submitted were close but not enough to establish notability. So I spent a lot of time online and found several articles which I added to the article. I posted in the teahouse just a few days ago to request some feedback. I got feedback that there are too many citations. Also I think that I caused a major problem as the senior editors felt that because I am just a student and new to editing I should not be wasting my time contributing to wikipedia without my instructor going through the wikipedia education program and that I am wasting my time with an article about a bull shitter. I feel passionately about social impact and was drawn to Bhargav Sri Prakash's work after I saw his acceptance speech at the financial times IFC transformational award last year. I definitely do not want to mess up by creating a bad first article. May I hand over the draft to some one more experienced who can do a better job? If you will kindly guide me I am eager to learn how I can become a better wikipedia editor. I know it will take me time. Sorry if I caused any trouble. KrisJohanssen (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @KrisJohanssen: thanks for reaching out. Wikipedia subjects need in-depth coverage (full-length articles, not just passing mentions) in usually at least 3 reliable sources that are not written by or affiliated with the subject. Do you know which of those sources meet this criteria? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are at least 7 articles which are not written by the subject and from all my research and checking on the reputation of the publishers I sense they do not have any affiliation with Bhargav Sri Prakash. The dates of publication of these articles goes back to 2012. Basically over more than a decade he been the topic of coverage for various accomplishments. I have tried to draft by avoiding any quotes from Bhargav Sri Prakash and have only used the language as synthesised by the reporter or editor.

https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/business-tech/how-ai-aided-digital-vaccines-can-be-a-game-changer/article65389614.ece

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/startups/trend-tracking/indian-gets-worlds-first-digital-vaccine-patent/articleshow/92073578.cms

https://thenextweb.com/news/at-demo-entrepreneurs-used-game-dynamics-to-tackle-climate-change-and-obesity

https://indiaai.gov.in/article/can-ai-powered-digital-vaccines-open-the-door-for-innovation

https://www.thebetterindia.com/290448/patent-for-digital-vaccines-reduce-disease-diabetes-hypertension-hospitalisation-in-children/

https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/a-chennai-based-companys-game-app-is-teaching-kids-how-to-eat-healthy-and-stay-fit-3508553.html

https://ccp.jhu.edu/2021/03/01/game-helps-indian-children-choose-healthier-foods-2/

The Financial Times IFC Award speech is when I first discovered about him and digital vaccines. His team was judged the winner in a prestigious global competition and they received the Transformational innovation award for 2022 in a new category of deeptech innovations. I read on wikipedia that winning a global prize and playing a role in the creation of a field counts towards notability according to this WP:ANYBIO. Am I right?

https://transformationalbusiness.live.ft.com/page/2380759/2022-winners

https://pressroom.ifc.org/all/pages/PressDetail.aspx?ID=27250

You can see an his acceptance speech here which was live-streamed via FTLive

You can see the entire stream in the archive (his speech is at 42 min 15 sec)

https://transformationalbusiness.live.ft.com/page/2146059/register-for-on-demand

If you wish to see just the excerpt of his speech you can find it on the CMU digital vaccine website

https://clipchamp.com/watch/C3dbe9E6Xvz

https://www.cmu.edu/heinz/digital-vaccine-project/research/index.html

Finally his role in the creation of this field has resulted in publications about digital vaccines from reputable unaffiliated independent organizations/institutions that all seem to mention/acknowledge Bhargav Sri Prakash in the article or in the references

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/global-digital-vaccine-market-report-185000938.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20231009121825/https://digitalhealth.med.brown.edu/news/2020-12-04/digital-vaccines

https://idsa.in/idsacomments/Digital-Vaccines-300622

It is based on these links that I felt that there should be an article on Wikipedia about him. Btw I also discovered a wikipedia article in Tamil about him although it is very short and I tried to correct but couldn't work with google translate

https://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/பார்கவ்_சிறீ_பிரகாசு

Thank you. KrisJohanssen (talk) 06:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KrisJohanssen: In regards to ANYBIO, the award doesn't seem to be notable (meaning it doesn't have its own Wikipedia article) so it can't confer notability onto someone else. In regards to the 7 main sources you listed, they are not that bad. I'm not going to double-review it but you can resubmit to see what another reviewer thinks. If I had to guess, I don't think it will be enough though because interviews are not really considered fully independent unfortunately. Even though those sources aren't straight question-and-answer interviews and give some context as well. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @WikiOriginal-9! I will try to implement the suggestions from the other experienced editors from the Teahouse and also look for other sources that have no quotes from him. I will then try to resubmit.KrisJohanssen (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you've patrolled K. Annamalai (politician), and just wanted to check with you that you actually meant to do that, not that it got inadvertently marked as patrolled like sometimes happens when you make some other edit or action. Given the extensive UPE, socking, etc. around this subject, I was going to look into this article, but obviously not if you've already done so. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing: Hi DoubleGrazing, I'm not really sure why I patrolled that. Doesn't seem like a clear NPOL pass. Maybe I got him confused with K. Annamalai. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for your swift response. Would you mind if I unpatrol it and dig into a bit? It was created by a paid user, so they should never have published it directly in the first place, and if there's any reason to move it to drafts, I would like to do that. Don't want to go across your patrol, though. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing: Yes, that's fine. Looks like the theroadislong has already unpatrolled it before I could get to it. Thanks! ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikiOriginal-9. Thank you for your work on List of Connecticut political scandals. User:MicrobiologyMarcus, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Undoing marked as reviewed, in relation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation § "List of x state political scandals" drafts.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MicrobiologyMarcus}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WikiOriginal-9,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged List of Connecticut political scandals for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want List of Connecticut political scandals to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 18:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello it's me once again. Sorry to bother you but I was requesting if you could kindly review another article I submitted to Articles for creation on 8/12/2023 Draft:BasiGo. It has almost been a week and I am not sure what to do anymore. Thankyou very much for your time. Serrwinner (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Serrwinner: someone will get to it eventually. There are 364 articles pending review. Thank you. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to my notification of this file discussion. I have found this image on the front page of the Saturday 28 June 1969 edition of the Statesman Journal. (Couldn't find it via newspapers.com yesterday.) Even though I believe the other image of Brudos would serve lesser in the infobox I was going to say it should be orphaned and removed because a free version exists. Thx. Kieronoldham (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kieronoldham: Please don't forget to leave your thoughts at the discussion, if you'd like. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You couldn’t resist the userbox :)

Also - don’t worry, I don’t mind it at all (in fact, it’s brightened my day a bit ). I’ve set my userbox to randomly select itself from a list - and after all, I did include {{User don't vandalize me}} in that list...

Just kidding, see you at AIV /j

Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 13:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A smart kitten: LOL LOL, thanks for the trout smart kitten. I haven't gotten one of those in awhile. :) ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the article declined or I don't understand what you ask to do what is the problem to fix in The article to be accepted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.113.28.88 (talk) 07:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia subjects need in-depth coverage (full-length articles, not just passing mentions) in usually at least 3 reliable sources that are not written by or affiliated with the subject. Also, not clear how see passes WP:NACTOR either. Most of her films don't even have articles. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 07:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I understand but her movies 80% have article now I checked and correct. three reliable sources required??105.113.26.108 (talk) 08:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]