S0091

Please have a Pie. It has been made with Organic BrownBoy, and has been sprinkled with a pinch of Ben. Yum. BenBrownBoy (Aye?) 20:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@BenBrownBoy compared to what I am getting above, I will gladly take it! :) S0091 (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. Looking at what some people have thrown your way, it would appear that they thrive off of trouble. DLTBGYD. BenBrownBoy (Aye?) 20:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Eh...they are just trying to project "their truth" onto Wikipedia which I am assuming is core to their identity so when someone rejects it, they take quite personally. S0091 (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

What does DLTBGYD mean, btw? S0091 (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

It stands for "Don't Let the Bastards Grind You Down". Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 21:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Lol! Thank you! S0091 (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

You beat me to it! BenBrownBoy (Aye?) 21:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

Hello, S0091,

Thank you for creating Living Between Two Worlds.

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

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

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

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

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

Hi S0091,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Darcyisverycute (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Respectful Relationships education (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

Hi 16912 Rhiannon, I honestly do not see a path forward without an article about the agency so I strongly suggest creating that first. Otherwise his claim to notability (under Wikipedia's definition) is largely something that is yet to be deemed notable (meaning no Wikipedia article). For the above referenced articles, disregard anything he says, is attributed to him/his associates or about the agency then see what is left that is about him to determine what is actually useful. As for Bond, you are right, that is not the article being reviewed and other articles exist even when maybe they should not (Wikipedia has over six million articles with likely at least hundreds of thousands that should not exist). Wikipedia's standards have become largely more stringent over the years so an article acceptable a decade ago is no longer acceptable (the article about Bond was created in 2013 and perhaps the previous article about Kirshenbaum). I will be honest, because the article about Kirshenbaum just recently went through a deletion discussion where the consensus of the Wikipedia community was it should be deleted and because you are a paid editor, the scrutiny is more intense. S0091 (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks S0091, this is all really helpful and I am grateful for you taking the time to explain your thinking about the page in detail. If I end up putting forward a page about K+B, I may ping you to take a peek at it, if that's ok? Thanks so much again! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

@16912 Rhiannon yes, I can take a look. The sources you already have are enough to lay down a good foundation and there are likely enough sources for an article about his book Madboy, My Journey from Adboy to Adman (you already have the Fortune article, just need one more solid review). I do think he is likely notable but given the history of the article its best to ensure a strong argument against even a nomination for deletion, much less actual deletion. Just be sure to only summarize what reliable sources have stated not what he/affiliates have said, even if it is not to his benefit. Neutral point of view is a non-negotiable policy. S0091 (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi again, S0091, hope you're doing ok. I wanted to let you know that I won't be tapping you for help with a K+B page as Mr. Kirshenbaum prefers that I not pursue a new article for the firm. I did make a few edits to the draft for Kirshenbaum and add a couple more sources, bearing in mind your feedback above. If you still feel it would not be reasonable to resubmit, I'll understand and leave this alone for now. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi @16912 Rhiannon that's a shame, but yes, resubmitting is fine. I suggest posting a note on the draft's talk page with WP:THREE to help the next reviewer. If you do that, let me know and I will post an AfC comment letting to reviewer know to look at the talk page. As I stated before, the AfD does make this a bigger hurdle so I hope Mr.Kirshenbaum now understands he/his reps should follow the rules going forward which hopefully means he uses your firm for any future updates, assuming the article is accepted. S0091 (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again for all the feedback here, S0091, it is really appreciated. Sorry it's taken me this long to get back to you, I had a run of illness (typical winter with elementary school age kids at home). I've left a note on the draft talk page and I'm about to hit resubmit. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi @Retired Astronomer sources need to meet four criteria: must be reliable, have in-depth coverage about the subject, be secondary and independent. Parle is not a reliable source as they exist for marketing/promotional purposes (its mostly a blog) and XXL is largely an interview which is not independent. If multiple sources meeting the above criteria do not exist, then an encyclopedia article is not possible at this time. S0091 (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

what about the writer for the atlanta objective with george chidi cited in the parle article, could that be cited directly? Retired Astronomer (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have only reviewed the sources provided so cannot comment about others, but again any source needs to meet the about criteria and the general rule is you need three (see WP:THREE and WP:42 for additional guidance). S0091 (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

if you look at pages for other artists that are directly connected to homixide gang, such as ken carson, destroy lonely, and playboi carti, that specific xxl article was allowed as a reference material source on their pages. given this, i humbly request that you reconsider your position since those pages have already established precedence that my sources should be acceptable Retired Astronomer (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am not looking at other articles. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The draft must stand on its own regardless and it is clear you are not reading through any of the material I have linked, either in the decline or here. Don't waste volunteer's time with arguments. Either cite appropriate sources or wait until such sources exist. S0091 (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

you are ignoring what im saying and please dont accuse me of wasting your time or starting arguments. I have been respectful in my comments and have read what you linked it is you who is being argumentative on top of the fact that you are making assumptions about my actions. as a volunteer, you do this work of your own free will. Retired Astronomer (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

What more do we need?

Thanks for your help.

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

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

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

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